2016-04-21
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Cameron Carmichael. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Petroleum Act to facilitate the implementation of a contemporary regulatory framework for the management of environmental risks and impacts associated with onshore petroleum exploration and production.
In essence, the bill will change the act in such a way as to allow the Administrator to make regulations that give the minister the ability to exercise discretion and make decisions about matters relating to the protection of the environment. Passage of the bill would mean that the proposed Petroleum (Environment) Regulations could be made by the Administrator in June 2016.
In developing the draft regulations it has become clear that the act requires a broader power to make regulations than is currently specified in the act. The expansion of the regulation-making power would enable the Minister for Mines and Energy, or his delegate, to exercise discretion in the interests of protecting the environment.
The bill itself is a comparatively simple document. It will amend section 118 of the act, which contains the regulation-making powers, by adding the additional subsection:
In August 2015 the government released the Onshore Oil and Gas Guiding Principles as an interim measure to inform both industry and the wider community about how the onshore oil and gas industry must conduct itself while the government develops and implements a best-practice regulatory framework. As the government noted in the guiding principles, the next step in the road to reform is the introduction of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations.
The Department of Mines and Energy has been working hard to develop regulations that are best practice. DME has also closely looked at the way that environmental impacts and risks associated with petroleum activities are managed in best-practice jurisdictions such as South Australia and Western Australia. It has also taken into account the advice of independent experts, Dr Tina Hunter and Dr Allan Hawke AC. It is clear that the most effective and efficient way to manage the environmental risks and impacts associated with onshore gas petroleum activities is to make objective-based regulations under the Petroleum Act.
DME released a draft version of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations on its website for public comment on 5 March 2016. The opportunity to make comments closed on 4 April. DME also undertook a number of targeted stakeholder consultations about the regulations.
Key features of the proposed regulations are as follows:
(a) Interest holders must not conduct a petroleum activity unless there is an approved environment plan in place.
The regulatory framework to be established by the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations is the most clear and transparent way to ensure that environmental risks and impacts are reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practical and acceptable.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the operation of the National Electricity Law, National Electricity Rules and National Electricity Regulations in the Territory are consistent with other jurisdictions to the extent possible while providing for the Territory’s unique circumstances.
On 1 July 2015 the National Electricity (Northern Territory) (National Uniform Legislation) Act, also known as implementing legislation, came into force in the Territory. The purpose of the implementing legislation is to facilitate the transfer of economic regulation of the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks to the Australian Energy Regulator, referred to as the AER, through a three-phase approach, and thus transition to a greater alignment of the Territory’s regulatory arrangements with the national framework.
Since the commencement of the implementing legislation and through the development of modifications to the National Electricity Rules, a number of issues have been identified that require amendment to ensure the national electricity framework adopted meets the Territory’s requirements.
To ensure the Territory’s regulatory framework can be updated automatically when it is updated nationally, the draft bill amends the implementing legislation and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act to ensure the national electricity legislative framework has ambulatory function, meaning that when the National Electricity Law, Rules or Regulations are updated nationally the updates versions will automatically apply in the Territory. This approach is consistent with other jurisdictions that are subject to the national cooperative scheme and will allow the Territory to enjoy the benefits arising from updates to the national electricity legislation without incurring the administrative costs associated with preparing regular legislative amendments. The Territory will still retain its ability to make modifications to the national instruments to suit circumstances unique to the Northern Territory.
To ensure the Australian Energy Market Commission’s rule-making powers are relevant to the Territory: the Australian Energy Market Commission, known as the AEMC, is responsible for developing and maintaining a uniform set of National Electricity Rules in accordance with the requirements set out in the National Electricity Law. One such requirement is that the AEMC may only make a rule if it is satisfied that the rule complies with its rule-making criteria. However, as the National Electricity Law was established in the context of operating and maintaining the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system in the eastern and southern states, the AEMC’s capacity to have regard to the Territory’s local electricity systems is restricted.
It is unlikely that the Territory will ever be physically connected to the national electricity system. As such, the draft bill allows the AEMC to make ‘differential rules’ if it considers that such a rule will better contribute to the achievement of its rule-making criteria in respect to the Territory’s electricity systems. This approach will enable the AEMC to maintain a uniform set of national rules to the greatest extent possible, whilst also recognising the Territory’s differences.
To modify definitions to ensure appropriate Territory application: modified definitions will ensure that references to the National Electricity Law, the National Electricity Rules and the National Electricity Regulations are to either the Northern Territory’s modified instruments or the national instruments depending on the context.
Amendments to these definitions create an additional effect of requiring that the AEMC maintains on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the National Electricity Rules as in force in the Territory, which is expected to be well received by all Territory electricity entities, including potential entrants to the Territory’s electricity market.
To ensure consultation undertaken by the AER prior to 1 July this year satisfies consultation requirements under the National Electricity Rules: from time to time the AER will make, amend or replace schemes and guidelines, and will be required to follow consultation procedures as specified in the National Electricity Rules. Given some schemes or guidelines may be replaced or made prior to the commencement of the National Electricity Rules in the Territory on 1 July this year, it is necessary to ensure that consultation undertaken by the AER with the Power and Water Corporation satisfies consultation requirements under the National Electricity Rules.
Cost pass-through decisions: the draft bill amends the implementing legislation and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act to put in place transitional cost pass-through arrangements. Certain events may trigger a cost pass-through where the AER may decide that PWC should be allowed to recover or reduce efficient costs associated with an event outside of its reasonable control, such as where a cyclone destroys electricity infrastructure.
Amendments will ensure that costs associated with cost pass-through events that occur during the current 2014 to 2019 regulatory period can be recovered or reduced in the next regulatory period. Amendments will also ensure that cost pass-through decisions made under the Territory’s regulatory framework will remain subject to judicial review.
To recognise that Western Australia is expected to soon become a non-connected participating jurisdiction, given that Western Australia is seeking to apply the National Electricity Rules from as early as the end of 2016, minor amendments are required to certain provisions in the implementing legislation to recognise that Western Australia will be a participating jurisdiction but, like the Territory, does not have interconnected electricity systems.
The bill will ensure that the national electricity framework, which represents the best electricity practice in Australia, is applied in the Territory in a manner than aligns with regulatory arrangements in other jurisdictions to the greatest extent possible, while also being fit for purpose for the Northern Territory
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and tabled the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will ensure that the punishment for those who engage in commercial drug operations significantly outweighs any benefit. The bill will ensure that offences and penalties are proportionate to the relevant criminal conduct and reflect community denunciation.
The bill will also ensure that the Misuse of Drugs Act contains relevant, up-to-date terminology and definitions consistent with other Australian jurisdictions and current drafting practice, and that all offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations comply with the principles of criminal responsibility in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The Country Liberals government is deeply concerned at the impact drugs like ice are having on our community and is committed to reducing the accessibility of illicit drugs in the Northern Territory. All members of the Territory community deserve to feel safe at home, at school, in the workplace and while travelling. The proliferation of drugs in our community impacts the safety and wellbeing of Territorians. The CLP has no tolerance for individuals who manufacture or supply illicit drugs to vulnerable members of our community. The Justices Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will reduce the accessibility of illicit drugs and related paraphernalia in our community and will contribute to a safer community.
The Justices Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 arises from a number of concerns including:
1. The definition of ‘drug analogue’.
3. Possession of weapons.
4. The cost and benefit.
5. Supply or display of drug paraphernalia.
In order to address all of these concerns, the Justice Legislation (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 has been drafted:
(a) amending the Misuse of Drugs Act by:
(b) amending section 55 of the Sentencing Act to provide for a minimum percentage non-parole period to be fixed for sentences relating to prescribed drug offences.
The bill also makes a number of minor technical drafting amendments to ensure the modernity of and consistency within the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 also amends the penalties for a number of offences to address the disparity between penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act which has existed as a result of the uniform approach to conversion of monetary amounts into penalty units by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010, which applied a 15% increase to penalties across the board on the basis that a more considered approach would be taken in the future with respect to specific legislation.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 addresses this disparity and ensures all penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act reflect the operation of section 38DA(2) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a maximum fine is calculated by multiplying the maximum term of imprisonment by 100 penalty units. For example, if the maximum term of imprisonment is two years, the maximum fine is 200 penalty units. This amendment ensures that all penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act are proportionate and consistent with other offences in the act.
I now turn my mind to the specifics of the bill.
1. Definitions.
The definition of ‘manufacture’ is also amended so that it is consistent with Model Criminal Code and other Australian jurisdictions.
New section 4B amends the definition of ‘drug analogue’ so it complies with the definition agreed to at a national level by the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs. The definition does not narrow or broaden the current NT definition as the definition is already based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, from which the national definition is based. However, it makes the provision easier to interpret by reordering the definition, clarifying ambiguous references and removing duplicate references.
2. The cultivation of a prohibited plant in the presence of a child.
3. The manufacture of a dangerous drug in the presence of a child.
The provisions have been drafted so that the device remains technologically neutral. This means that the device could be used for administering any dangerous drug and is not restricted to methylamphetamine or cannabis, the drugs most commonly administered by way of pipes.
The provision also allows for additional means of administering a dangerous drug to be added by regulation, which means the offences will still be applicable even if the technology to administer dangerous drugs changes. Further, a person will not be able to avoid the operation of the legislation by selling components for pipes that require assembly due to reference in section 15 to a device, ‘whether in its original form or with adjustment or modification’. To clarify, new section 15 will not apply to a devise which is designed and used to administer licit substances (for example tobacco pipes) unless the device is modified to administer a dangerous drug.
5. Aggravated penalty for possession of a weapon.
The requirement for the person to be in ‘actual possession’ is necessary to ensure the aggravating circumstance does not apply to mere ownership or control, for example, if a person has a firearms licence and firearms at their residence. Actual possession will require the person to have physical custody or control of the firearm when committing the offence.
6. Aggravated penalty for procuring a child to commit an offence.
New section 38 operates in conjunction with sections 43BG and 43BH of the Criminal Code Act, which provide that a person who procures another to engage in a criminal offence is guilty of the offence as if they had committed the offence themselves. This applies whether or not the procured person has the capacity to be criminally responsible for the offence. For example, a child under the age of 10 is not criminally responsible for an offence and a child between the ages of 10 and 14 can only be criminally responsible if they know their conduct is wrong.
7. Other penalties.
The amendment of many of these penalties reflects the operation of section 38DA(2) of the Interpretation Act which provides that a maximum fine is calculated by multiplying the maximum term of imprisonment by 100 penalty units. For example, if the maximum term of imprisonment is two years the maximum fine is 200 penalty units.
The amendment to the maximum penalty for offences under sections 12(1) and 12(2), new section 12(4A), section 12(5), and sections 13 and 14 from 17 units to two years’ imprisonment to 50 penalty units and six months’ imprisonment reflects the criminality of the offences.
If the imprisonment component of the maximum penalty is not retained the court will be unable to place the offender on a community-based order. The amended penalty is proportionate to the offending conduct and is consistent with other offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act, including the new offences relating to drug paraphernalia, which will carry a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or two years’ imprisonment.
The increase in penalty for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 drug from seven to 14 years’ imprisonment addresses the disparity between the maximum penalties for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 1 substance (25 years’ imprisonment) and manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 substance (seven years’ imprisonment).
No penalty is currently provided for possessing a trafficable quantity of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug in a public place. Accordingly, a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment is provided. The penalty reflects the fact that the maximum penalty for possessing a trafficable quantity of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug is five years’ imprisonment, and the additional aggravation of possessing the drug in a public place necessarily increases the maximum penalty.
The maximum penalty for supplying a precursor for use in the manufacture of a dangerous drug is increased from seven to 10 years. This increase in penalty reflects the fact that the supply of precursors plays a pivotal role in assisting the drug manufacturing trade. Further, supplying a substance with the knowledge that it will be used to manufacture a dangerous drug is far more serious than the offence of possessing a precursor, for which the penalty is currently seven years’ imprisonment.
The maximum penalty for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 drug is also increased from seven to 14 years’ imprisonment. This increase in penalty addresses the disparity between the maximum penalties for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of Schedule 1 substance (25 years’ imprisonment) and manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 substance (seven years’ imprisonment).
Although some of the offences provide for a period of imprisonment and not an alternate monetary penalty, this is an intentional drafting decision. Due to the operation of section 38DA of the Interpretation Act, the court may impose a fine if warranted in the circumstances.
8. Correct referencing: Schedule 2.
9. Minimum non-parole.
Transitional provisions are included in the bill and will ensure that a person in not guilty of an offence under the new or amended offence provisions unless all conduct constituting the offence occurs after commencement of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Act of 2016. If any of the conduct constituting the offence occurred prior to the commencement, provisions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which operated prior to commencement of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Act of 2016 will apply.
To conclude, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will address a number of deficiencies in the Misuse of Drugs Act and will ensure the punishment for those who engage in commercial drug operations significantly outweighs any benefit. Commercial drug operations will be shut down and offenders will be sent to prison.
This government is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Territorians, particularly our children, and offending which takes advantage of the most vulnerable members of our society will not be tolerated.
The amendments in this bill will not unfairly target individual drug users who need treatment and support. Rather, it will impact those individuals who manufacture and supply dangerous drugs and related items for their financial gain.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I 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 Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2016 proposes to amend the Youth Justice Act to clarify the provision of mechanical devices for use by the Commissioner of Correction Services to restrict the movement of a detainee and further clarify when such devices can be used or authorised for use to escort a detainee both inside and external to a detention centre as an exception to the use of force in maintaining discipline or to protect the safety of a detainee and of other persons.
In recent years we have seen children in custody being more violent, dangerous and irresponsible than we have seen before.
Recent critical incidents in youth detention centres demonstrate the legislative impediments upon government to adequately provide for the safety of detainees, members of staff in detention centres and the public. Without urgent legislative change, there is grave concern that a detainee, member of staff in a detention centre or member of the public may be seriously injured. The bill provides that detainees, members of staff and the public will benefit from increased safety and security in circumstances where it is necessary to use mechanical devices to restrict the movement of a detainee.
The proposed amendments will achieve greater protection for the safety and security of detainees, members of staff at detention centres and the public by bridging current operational gaps in the Youth Justice Act. The Youth Justice Act currently provides, in section 155, that handcuffs or a similar device may be approved by the superintendent for the purposes of escorting a detainee outside of the detention centre. The superintendent may also use handcuffs or a similar device to restrain a detainee as an exception to the prohibition against using approved restraints for the purposes of maintaining discipline at a detention centre pursuant to section 153 of the Youth Justice Act.
This includes if the superintendent is of the opinion that an emergency situation exists and a detainee should be temporarily restrained to protect the detainee from self-harm or to protect the safety of another person, the superintendent may use handcuffs or a similar device to restrain the detainee until he or she is satisfied the emergency situation no longer exists. The phrase ‘handcuffs or a similar device’ is not defined.
The newly-inserted section 151AB contains a definition of ‘approved restraint’. An ‘approved restraint’ is a mechanical device the Commissioner of Correctional Services has approved for restricting the movement of detainees. This clause provides clarity as to the mechanical devices of restraint which may be approved for use when restricting the movement of a detainee’s arms, feet or body. In practice, it is proposed the term ‘approved restraint’ strictly refer to four categories of restraint instruments: handcuffs; ankle cuffs; waist restraining belts; and safety equipment.
The newly inserted definition of an ‘approved restraint’ also ensures that modern mechanical devices of restraint or advancements in technology will adequately be provided for in the Youth Justice Act. The bill thereby omits all references to ‘handcuffs or a similar device’ and replaces it with ‘approved restraint’.
Detainees have become physically aggressive with members of staff by kicking or throwing their arms, legs or body around. Members of staff have sustained injuries from detainees who have hit, punched, kicked, spat at or bitten them. The bill provides that a superintendent will be legislatively empowered to authorise staff members to use approved restraints to restrict the detainee’s arms, legs and body when necessary to engage the detainee or assist the detainee in safely de-escalating his or her behaviour.
The bill inserts a definition of ‘appropriate’ in relation to the use of an approved restraint in the newly-inserted section 151AA. The ‘appropriate’ use of an approved restraint means using the restraint in the least restrictive or invasive way reasonable in the circumstances, and using the restraint for the minimum amount of time reasonable in the circumstances.
Proposed section 151AA thereby contains a twofold safeguard regarding the manner in which an approved restraint is to be used when restricting the movement of detainees and the period of time that an approved restraint can be applied.
Subsequent clauses in the bill specify that the superintendent may use appropriately an approved restraint on a detainee, or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on a detainee, meaning approved restraints are to be used in a manner which accords with the newly-inserted definition of what ‘is appropriate’.
Section 151(3)(c) of the Youth Justice Act pertains to the superintendent’s overarching responsibility to ensure the safe custody and protection of all persons who are within the precincts of the detention centre, whether as detainees or otherwise. Section 152 qualifies the powers of the superintendent in discharging such a responsibility, as the superintendent has the powers that are necessary or convenient for the purposes of his or her functions.
The bill contains the newly-inserted section 152(1A), which specifies that to protect a detainee from self-harm, or to protect the safety of another person, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on a detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on a detainee. This regards the very real circumstances when restraints must be used for safety purposes, for instance, when a detainee is self-harming or poses a threat to himself or herself or others, including members of staff at a detention centre. In circumstances where a detainee is engaged in self-harm, members of staff must intervene.
With regard to safety, the use of a restraint in the Youth Justice Act is currently confined to maintaining discipline at a detention centre. This is an inadequacy in the legislation as the responsibility to maintain discipline should not be conflated with the need to provide for the safe custody of detainees.
The Youth Justice Act currently also limits what members of staff can do to safely intervene in potentially life-threatening incidents, to the use of physical force or ‘handcuffs or a similar device’. The application of physical force to a detainee’s arms, legs and body, when the detainee is self-harming or attempting to self-harm, can further compromise the detainee’s health. This includes the increased risk of positional asphyxia, whereby a detainee is positioned in such a way as to prevent him or her from breathing adequately.
I previously alerted this House to the ambiguity of the term ‘handcuffs or a similar device’. The bill provides members of staff with clarity as to the mechanical devices which can be used to restrict the movement of a detainee and the specific circumstances in which approved restraints may be used or are authorised for use. In clarifying the legislative definition of mechanical devices which are approved for use on detainees by the Commissioner of Correctional Services, the bill enables the commissioner to approve mechanical devices of restraint so that the superintendent or staff members will be able to select the approved restraints that are most suitable for the physique of the individual detainee and the behaviour he or she is displaying, or security risk he or she presents.
The bill contains an amendment to section 153(3)(d) of the Youth Justice Act to specify that the use of approved restraints to restrict normal movement is generally prohibited for the purpose of maintaining discipline. The Youth Justice Act provides that the superintendent may use force which is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Reasonably necessary force does not include use of approved restraints to restrict normal movement.
The bill then further amends section 153(4) to provide an exception to the ban on the use of approved restraints. If the superintendent is of the opinion that an emergency situation exists or that restraining a detainee would reduce the risk to the good order or security of the detention centre, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on the detainee.
This clause is intended to further enable members of staff to safely de-escalate incidents where detainees have compromised the good order or security of a detention centre by attempting to escape or committing acts of property damage including vandalism. Without legislative amendment, such incidents have escalated to an emergency situation. The immediacy of the emergency situation has then meant that members of staff were unable to engage with detainees so as not to risk their own safety or that of the detainee.
Additionally, property damage by detainees to detention facilities has placed a significant financial burden upon government and the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. Damage as a direct result of the destructive behaviours displayed by detainees has been so substantial as to render large areas of the facilities unsafe and inoperable. Incidents of this nature have highlighted the operational failing in the use of mechanical devices to restrain detainees when there is a risk to the good order and security of the detention centre.
Providing the authority to use appropriately, or authorise the appropriate use of, mechanical devices to reduce a risk to the good order or security of the detention centre would allow staff to safely de-escalate volatile events before they crescendo into dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations, thereby decreasing the likelihood of harm to detainees and members of staff. Section 153(4) therefore describes limited circumstances where the prohibition against using approved restraints for the purposes of maintaining discipline is lifted.
Amendments to section 155 will confirm that when a detainee is being escorted, whether inside or outside a detention centre, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint upon a detainee. In practice, the provision will have application to detainees escorted outside a detention centre and for the movement of detainees inside a detention centre. This clause is targeted at mitigating incidents in detention centres where detainees have used physical force, including hitting, punching, kicking, spitting and biting to evade escort during movement inside a detention centre.
I am aware of an incident involving a detainee being escorted to the accommodation room (within a detention centre), who assaulted escorting youth justice officers in an attempt to escape from the accommodation block. Clearly, incidents of this nature illustrate that there is an operational necessity to use mechanical devices when escorting a detainee inside a detention centre. The fact that the current legislation does not allow members of staff to take appropriate measures to ensure their own safety and the safety of others, including detainees, is alarming.
The proposed amendments empower the superintendent to authorise youth justice officers to use appropriately approved restraints to escort detainees within a detention centre. This will mitigate incidents of aggravated disruption to the security or good order of a detention centre and improve safety for detainees and members of staff in detention centres.
Section 155 will also provide for the use of approved restraints in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, including a cyclone, where the population of detainees may need to be restrained and moved within a detention centre to ensure their own safety or the security of a detention centre.
The proposed amendments render that the public will benefit from the reduced risk of escape of detainees from youth detention centres. The safety of the public has been compromised by some detainees who have used excessive force and violence to accost members of staff and breach the perimeter of the detention centre. This has resulted, in some instances, in serious injuries to both detainees and members of staff.
This government will not accept that the current legislation blatantly exposes members of staff and the public to unacceptable levels of risk, in that it does not allow for an adequate management regime for detainees who have a history of combative and violent behaviour. Where we know detainees present a high risk through previous escape attempts or abusive outbursts, we must be able to use appropriately or authorise the appropriate use of approved restraints to ensure that all detainees remain within the safe custody of the Commissioner of Correctional Services. Stricter security measures include the use of approved restraints for movement of detainees inside a detention centre or when there is a risk to the good order or security of a detention centre.
Additionally, escorting a detainee outside of a detention centre means the detainee can interact directly with the public, for instance, when the detainee is attending court or receiving medical attention. The bill is aimed at mitigating incidents regarding young people which may compromise the safety of the public and their confidence in the integrity of the youth detention system.
The bill amends sections 152(1A), 153(4) and 155 to clarify that, in the relevant circumstances, the superintendent may:
use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee, or
authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on the detainee.
Section 157 of the Youth Justice Act currently provides that the superintendent of a detention centre may delegate in writing any of his or her powers and functions to a member of staff of the detention centre. In practice, the superintendent’s delegation of any of his powers or functions is recorded in a written delegation instrument, signed by the superintendent.
An approved restraint will only be used by members of staff who have the relevant training, including training to authorise use of an approved restraint.
The bill inserts section 158A to impose an obligation on the superintendent of a detention centre to maintain a register of the particulars of the mechanical device and the circumstances in which it was used or authorised for use. This will ensure transparency and accountability in the use of approved restraints on detainees in detention centres. In particular, section 158A contains a requirement that the superintendent record specific details about the circumstances in which the approved restraint was used, and the person who authorised the use of the approved restraint. This complements the notion that approved restraints must only be used when it is reasonable in all the circumstances and when appropriate authority is given.
Additionally, the requirement on the superintendent to record the date and time in which the approved restraint was applied and removed reinforces that approved restraints are a temporary measure used to assist the detainee and members of staff in safely de-escalating the detainee’s behaviour.
The bill specifies that the register may be kept in any form and on any medium that the Commissioner of Correctional Services considers appropriate. This replicates the current requirement for the Commissioner for Correctional Services to keep a register of detainees in section 158 of the Youth Justice Act. It is anticipated that the register regarding the use of approved restraints be kept in writing. The register created in this clause is not intended to supplant any current legislative requirements but will instead complement the superintendent’s obligation to maintain details regarding detainees in the Integrated Offender Management System, commonly known as IOMS, pursuant to section 158 of the Youth Justice Act.
I acknowledge that the proposed amendments may incite commentary from legal and youth services professions as to the perception that mechanical devices will be used to excess or in such a way that is not proportionate to the risk posed by young people in detention. I make no excuses for the proposed amendments. They are crucial in providing detainees, members of staff at youth detention centres and the public with greater safety and security. They are consistent with this government’s priorities regarding young people in the justice system.
The proposed amendments are complemented by a commitment on behalf of government to review the Youth Justice Act, namely Part 8, ‘Youth detention centres’, Division 2, ‘Superintendent’, within 24 months of the bill coming into force. To achieve this I have approved the establishment of the youth detention provisions legislative review working group, from now on known as the working group. The working group consists of representatives drawn from Northern Territory government agencies, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and non-government stakeholders with specialist knowledge, experience or interest in relation to the youth justice system, young people in the system and youth detention centres. It is anticipated that the government will use the results of the review and consultation with working group members to inform possible amendments to the Youth Justice Act.
In undertaking the review, the working group will be tasked with: considering whether the existing provisions are reflective of contemporary detention practices and approaches to youth justice; determining if the relevant provisions continue to reflect the principles of the Youth Justice Act; and addressing identified deficits in the existing legislation.
We cannot allow violent, aggressive and dangerous conduct to go unattended to in our youth detention centres. We must make and keep these detention centres safe for the detainees and those people who detain.
Madam Speaker, 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 STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory is the premier jurisdiction in Australia for corporate sports bookmakers, with 13 operators currently holding licences issued by the NT Racing Commission under the Racing and Betting Act.
A sports bookmaker accepts bets directly from a client over the Internet and telephone on thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing, sporting events and other approved events such as betting on the winners of various reality TV shows such as The Voice and My Kitchen Rules.
In 2014-15 NT sports bookmakers paid almost $5m in direct taxes to the Northern Territory government. Betfair Australia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Resorts Ltd, currently operates Australia’s only betting exchange in Hobart, Tasmania. Crown Resorts Ltd is also the majority owner of the CrownBet Pty Ltd, a name most of you will be familiar with from its association with this government’s very successful tourism promotion, Million Dollar Fish. CrownBet also holds an NT sports bookmaker licence.
A betting exchange is an online platform where customers effectively bet against one another, including setting the odds and the size of the bet. It operates in a similar way to a normal bookmaker; however, the client is not betting against the betting exchange operator but another client or number of clients.
The operator makes money by deducting a commission from the winning bet. A betting exchange operator provides a range of races and events for their clients to bet on, similar to that of a sports bookmaker.
Betfair is looking to relocate from Hobart to Darwin. While the Northern Territory tax and fee regime is an attractive lure, Betfair recognises the benefits of the superior regulatory approach taken by the Territory which offers a quicker response to operational issues than the Tasmanian regulator. This does not mean the Northern Territory is a pushover when it comes to the approval process, but our smaller size allows us to move with greater speed. In a sector as competitive as the online gambling sector, any additional time taken to obtain the necessary approvals can result in lost revenue and customers.
The Racing and Betting Act does not currently provide for a specific betting exchange licence, and Betfair’s business operations cannot be conducted under the existing sports bookmaker licensing regime.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that 90 years ago, at 11.10 am Darwin time, Her Majesty the Queen was born in Mayfair, London. I invite honourable members to join me in congratulating Her Majesty on her birthday, noting her continued dedication to the Commonwealth and as our head of state.
We will send a formal note to Her Majesty.
Members: Hear, hear! Three cheers for the Queen. Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray!
Mr STYLES: I was so excited about that, I lost my place.
The Racing and Betting Act does not currently provide for a specific betting exchange licence, and Betfair’s business operations cannot be conducted under the existing sports bookmaker licensing regime.
The bill before the Assembly today proposes that a specific betting exchange licence be established in the Racing and Betting Act. This will allow entities such as Betfair to set up operations in the Northern Territory, and removes the legal uncertainty that is currently present. It is also anticipated that having a specific betting exchange licence will act as a catalyst to attract other international betting exchange operators to the Northern Territory.
The betting exchange licence will be regulated in the same way as the current sports bookmaker licence. Applications will be made to the Northern Territory Racing Commission which will undertake assessments on:
the suitability of the persons involved in the business
whether there is sufficient financial support in place to ensure the business remains viable
whether the business’ operating systems meet the appropriate technical standards; and while not legislated; and
that the business has responsible gambling policies and practices in place.
The tax regime for a betting exchange licence will mirror that of the sports bookmaker licence, currently being 10% of gross monthly profits to a maximum of 500 000 revenue units per annum.
In acknowledging the more complex regulatory work required in association with the systems and any disputes that may arise, the application fee and annual licence fee for a betting exchange licence have been set at 200 000 revenue units. The issuing of a licence to Betfair Australia will provide an increase in direct government revenue of approximately $805 000 per year.
Apart from direct taxes and fees, the presence of a betting exchange operator will have wider benefits to the Northern Territory economy. It is understood that Betfair will, in its stages of operations, have around a dozen staff based, more than likely, in Darwin. This is expected to increase over time if the business meets expected growth targets.
This bill I present to the Assembly today will also act to formalise an existing informal arrangement between the Territory’s racing controlling bodies, Thoroughbred Racing NT and the Darwin Greyhound Association, and interstate wagering operators by establishing the power for Northern Territory racing and sporting control bodies to change a product fee. A product fee is levied by a horse, trotting or greyhound club, or a sporting body, on a wagering operator for accepting bets on their product. The product fee is charged for the information provided by the respective bodies, which is then used by the bookmaker to frame its betting markets. In racing the information is known as a ‘race field’, and includes the names of horses or greyhounds, their positions, weights, form and other racing data.
In 2006 New South Wales introduced legislation that provided the power for race clubs to charge bookmakers for the use of their ‘race field’ information. This was in response to the explosion of corporate bookmakers and the money being made by the online wagering sector. Given it was its product, the racing sector felt it was appropriate that it received a cut of the action.
Despite a number of legal challenges, all jurisdictions, aside from the Northern Territory, now have legislated the power for racing control bodies to levy a product fee. The payment of a product fee is now seen as a necessary expense in conducting wagering operations.
In March 2013, Thoroughbred Racing NT managed to secure an informal agreement with all of Australia’s licensed wagering operators to make an ex-gratia payment, similar to that of a product fee. The Darwin Greyhound Association secured a similar deal in October 2014. In March 2015 the NT Racing Commission made it a condition of all NT licensed sports bookmakers that they were required to make a payment to the NT racing control bodies for use of their racing information. However, this did not apply to interstate operators, who still continue to make the payment under the informal agreement in place since March 2013.
While there appears to be no imminent danger of the interstate operators reneging on the agreement in place, at least one makes their payment under protest.
For the period of March 2013 to 30 June 2015, Thoroughbred Racing NT has received just over $2.6m through payments of this fee, with over 70% coming from interstate operators. Without the legislative amendments proposed in this bill, this money could potentially be lost, with government the likely source of replacement funding. The amendments proposed in the bill will protect this revenue.
It is not anticipated that introduction of this legislation will come as a surprise to Australia’s wagering operators, as the product fee is seen as a necessary cost of doing business.
While the proposed legislation also provides the power for an NT sporting body to levy the fee, the reality is that the majority of these bodies are already covered by national agreements in place between the peak body, such as the AFL, NRL and Cricket Australia, and the wagering operators. Unfortunately this legislation will not impact on those bets accepted by offshore operators accepting bets illegally on Northern Territory racing and sporting events.
The new legislation will provide an appeal process for a person aggrieved by a decision of a Northern Territory controlling body in relation to the product fee. The first step will be a review carried out by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant department, and will focus on whether the controlling body has made the decision in line with its powers and any prescribed regulations relating to conditions of the approval.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I interrupt again so I can welcome some students.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Penthea Carmichael. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: A special welcome to all my students from Wulagi. It is great to see you here.
While we have recently moved away from having the Chief Executive Officer of departments review such decisions, in this instance it was considered inappropriate for a minister to review the decision due to the commercial nature of the bodies involved in the process. Further, one of the ‘owners’ of the information is, on behalf of the greyhound sector, the Northern Territory Racing Commission, whose members are appointed by the minister.
If the person remains dissatisfied following the Chief Executive Officer’s review, the decision can be referred to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Given the product fee only applies to a specific sector where all the existing operators are already paying this fee, albeit under a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, it is envisaged that the need for reviews will be minimal.
I ask the Assembly to note that offences created as a result of the bill have not, despite government’s general approach to do so, been made compliant with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. This is because there is insufficient time to consider the wider policy implications of such revisions on the offences given the urgent need to introduce and debate this bill.
Drafting only the new offences to be compliant may have resulted in an imbalance in penalties against a betting exchange licensee when compared to a sports bookmaker. Instead, all offences in the Racing and Betting Act will be reviewed at a later stage and updated to ensure they are compliant with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The unapproved use of racing or sporting information by a wagering operator is serious as it robs the NT of the associated revenue and, as such, has been made an offence with a commensurate penalty. The penalty of 100 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment for an individual is in line with other Australian jurisdictions.
I ask the Assembly to note that the existing penalties in the Racing and Betting Act are very old and out of step with more recent Northern Territory legislation, and will be updated at the time the offences are made compliant with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. In this case, the penalty does fit the crime.
The bill before the Assembly will reinforce the Northern Territory as the premier online wagering jurisdiction in Australia by providing a specific betting exchange licence that will result in at least one international company relocating its operations to Darwin. This will provide direct and indirect benefits to the Northern Territory economy, and it is hoped it will also attract other international operators.
The bill also protects revenue for the racing sector by formalising an existing informal arrangement to provide Northern Territory racing and sporting control bodies to levy a product fee.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and I table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HIGGINS (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace the Bushfires Act. The Bushfires Act commenced in 1980 and provides the legislative framework for fire management outside the major urban centres of the Northern Territory. The act applies to all land apart from emergency response areas (ERAs) as defined under the Fire and Emergency Act. ERAs are small areas covering urban and urban-fringe development in and around the major population centres.
Land subject to the provisions of the act accounts for over 99% of the Northern Territory and comprises pastoral land, parks and reserves, vacant Crown land, land held by Aboriginal land trusts, land used for other agricultural purposes and, importantly, significant areas of industrial and rural residential development on the outskirts of the major centres.
The act establishes the Bushfires Council and a series of regional committees to advise the minister on measures to be taken to prevent and control bushfires. It is underpinned by the principle that fire management is the responsibility of the landowner and that the role for government in bushfire response only exists when a landowner is unable to control a fire that poses a threat to that property or neighbouring properties.
The Territory is threated by many hundreds of wildfires every year. It is by far the most fire-prone environment in Australia. The continuing spread of high fire danger fuels such as gamba grass, especially when it occurs in areas of intensive rural residential development, is creating much greater bushfire risk to life and property. Managing this heightened risk in recent years has highlighted the existence of gaps and shortcomings in the existing legislation. A series of devastating fires in Central Australia in 2011 also drew attention to limitations in the legislative framework for effectively managing periods of unusually high fire danger.
In January 2014 the Department of Land Resource Management commenced a review of the Bushfires Act which continued over the following 24 months. The review was built on a foundation of extensive consultation with stakeholders, particularly targeting those Territorians living and working in rural and remote areas, and included 28 meetings and public forums. Additionally, a discussion paper, and later a recommendations paper, was published online, and hard copies of both documents were sent directly to over 250 stakeholders. Thirty-one written submissions were received from this process and provided extensive, informative and astute input into the development of the bill.
Since becoming Minister for Land Resource Management I have also taken the opportunity to further this consultation. As the member for Daly I have a particular interest in bushfire management and proudly support the 13 volunteer bushfire brigades that operate within my electorate. In my capacity as local member I met with senior representatives from these brigades to hear their views about local fire management priorities and the development of this bill.
Following this meeting I released the draft Bushfires Management Bill for a three-week public comment period. As part of this process I also arranged for an independent fire management expert to attend a further 10 public meetings about the bill and provide me with an assessment of the consultation comments received. The comments from these meetings led to several minor amendments to the bill and was the final stage of a very thorough two-year community engagement process.
Broadly, the feedback from the consultation called for some key principles in the legislation to be retained and for some areas to be modified and strengthened, particularly with regard to the roles of Bushfires NT and other stakeholders. There were also strong calls for additional matters to be addressed, particularly around planning and mitigation. Every effort has been made to accommodate the views of rural and remote communities in this bill.
Key parts of the current act have stood the test of time and served the Territory well. There is no proposal to change the advisory structure or the key principle of a landowner being responsible for fire on that land.
This bill modernises and builds on the strengths of the existing legislation. It also draws on contemporary trends and approaches to fire management in other jurisdictions, and combines these with the successful bushfire management arrangements that have evolved in the Territory in recent years. It provides a custom framework designed to address the unique challenges of bushfire management in the Territory, while also addressing the gaps that have been identified in the existing act.
Fire is an ever-present component of the Territory landscape. Most landscapes are well adapted to fire; indeed, many require regular fire events for renewal and rejuvenation of native vegetation and to prevent the accumulation of dangerous fuel loads. Historically fire has been considered by most Territorians to be normal and unremarkable, and has rarely been seen as a threat to community safety or commerce.
The new legislation recognises the importance of fire in the environment, and its use in both traditional and current approaches to land management. A point of difference between this legislation and bushfire-related legislation in many other jurisdictions is its focus on planning and fire management rather than just fire exclusion.
The period since the act was introduced has seen significant changes in fire management challenges in some areas. Expansion of rural living and other development in peri-urban areas, along with the spread of high-risk fuels such as gamba grass, have greatly increased the risk posed by bushfires in these areas. This has, in line with community expectations, required the development of a sophisticated wildfire response capacity.
Larger and more complex response and suppression operations, a growing emphasis on centralised command structures, increased use of water-bombing aircraft and more extensive incident and fire ground management have become the norm in high-risk areas. The new legislation continues to provide the powers necessary for government employees and others to participate in responses, and for government employees to determine the appropriate nature and scale of responses to significant fires.
The increasing threat posed by bushfires has led to greater emphasis on planning and mitigation, and the benefits of coordinated actions and regional planning have come into greater focus. In recent years government has implemented a range of programs designed to improved preparedness and mitigation, but most of these have been one-off initiatives that are not encompassed by the existing legislative framework.
The new legislation establishes a planning and mitigation framework across all of the Territory. It focuses on engagement with landowners and is designed to unlock the potential benefits of coordinated and strategic regional planning. It introduces a formal role for regional committees in regional planning and requires that all of the Territory will be supported by a series of regional bushfire management plans. These regional plans are guiding rather than prescriptive, and so do not create burdensome responsibilities for land managers
There is capacity, in circumstances where a significant risk of life or property has been identified, to prescribe mitigation actions in an area or on an individual property. This will only be possible following a detailed risk assessment process involving consultation with affected landowners and other stakeholders. In circumstances where a landowner, through failure to comply with a prescribed plan, continues to present a significant risk to others, it will ultimately be possible to enforce compliance with a prescribed property fire management plan.
The current act provides for the establishment of volunteer bushfire brigades, and the 22 existing brigades provide the bulk of the mitigation and firefighting workforce, especially in the high-risk areas of rural residential development. There are currently over 1000 registered volunteers, including over 250 qualified and highly-skilled active volunteer firefighters.
The new legislation allows volunteers to be appointed as authorised bushfire volunteers. This will create a formal role for volunteer firefighters in the incident management structure and allow volunteers, by participation in the chain of command, to exercise the powers necessary to take part in a bushfire response.
I am particularly proud that the creation of authorised bushfire volunteers will also confirm the specific protection from civil and criminal liability while undertaking firefighting duties. This is an important step in improving support for our volunteers and ensuring they are adequately protected and not exposed to unacceptable levels of personal liability risk while contributing to this important community service.
The new legislation also provides authorised bushfire volunteers protection against dismissal or loss of employment benefits as a result of absence from work when requested by the Executive Director of Bushfires NT to attend large-scale high-risk wildfires. This is another important addition to the legislation that will ensure our volunteers do not suffer professional or employment loss as a result of their volunteering contribution during critical events.
As part of the rollout of the Bushfires Management Act, I will continue to further support our volunteers through the creation of a volunteers consultative committee. I have asked for this committee to have a ministerial advisory role to ensure volunteers have a direct link to the government and that I, as minister, can provide them with appropriate support. The committee will provide advice to Bushfires NT on a variety of volunteer issues, including training, recruitment and retention, volunteer health and safety, vehicle and equipment design and allocation, and appropriate standard operating procedures and policies.
In summary, the Bushfires Management Act will continue the best aspects of its preceding legislation, strengthen support for volunteers and other stakeholders, and provide a comprehensive planning and mitigation framework uniquely suited to the land and bushfire management requirements of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill (Serial 147) before the House. My speech is not particularly long, but I know there are consideration in detail stage amendments so I am not sure if we will get through this before lunch.
It is an important bill which seeks to provide a much greater level of protection for vulnerable victims who are at risk of harm or have been subject to harm. As such, members of the opposition welcome this bill.
The bill was introduced in the December 2015 sittings and has sat on the Notice Paper pending consultation. There was an issues paper that was circulated at that time by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. To be honest, I am not sure why the issues paper was released when the bill was. The bill was purely technical in nature with a lifting of the personal violence restraining order into a stand-alone act out of the Justices Act, with no policy reform and no endeavour to implement some of the many reforms needed and lobbied for by legal stakeholders.
Whilst puzzling, the most important thing today is that the consideration in detail stage amendments have now been implemented, or will be with the passage of this bill. The amendments today will deliver much better legislation in safeguarding those persons who are seeking protection.
I thank that Attorney-General’s office for facilitating briefings for me. The first was in January, which was very brief. The briefing I had on Monday was a little longer as we stepped through the consideration in detail stage amendments. I appreciate that those amendments were sent to me along with the Attorney-General’s speech notes. I was grateful to have received them in advance.
The amendments before the House will make personal violence restraining orders in the Territory more closely aligned with the provisions for victims seeking protection under domestic violence orders. This is as it should be. This is what legal stakeholders have been advocating for. It was not enough to simply pluck out the existing provisions around personal violence restraining orders from the Justices Act and place them in a stand-alone act; there clearly needed to be policy changes. I am pleased that today’s amendments cover most of those changes called for.
I was pleased, when I asked on Monday in the briefing about the cost of lodging an application for a personal violence restraining order, to learn the cost has been removed by regulation. It was raised in the issues paper, and was being lobbied for by legal stakeholders. Well done; that is as it should be. In the Territory there is no cost in lodging an application for a domestic violence order, nor should there be for a personal violence restraining order. At $103 in the Northern Territory, it is second only to South Australia, where it costs a whopping $256. Access to justice and protection for vulnerable people – victims of personal violence or threats of personal violence – should not have a dollar value attached to it. That is the case in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. I am pleased to see the Northern Territory falls into line with the majority of jurisdictions on that matter.
Members of the opposition are supportive of amendments, which do a number of things – I will not mention all of them. It provides for a more comprehensive definition of a personal violence offence. In turn, it better defines ‘intimidation’, ‘stalking’ and ‘economic abuse’. I note that the definitions are explicit in including intimidation and stalking via electronic media. It is a sad reality that for all the benefits that come with technology it can also be a powerful and destructive tool used to intimidate, menace, threaten and frighten.
Importantly there is provision in clause 3A(b)(vi),which includes attempting, or threatening to commit conduct mentioned, intimidation, stalking, economic abuse. As the minister notes in his amendment, this is sufficient to cause considerable distress to the person concerned.
Clause 3A also includes, under the definition of ‘personal violence offence’, ‘damaging property, including the injury to or death of an animal’.
We welcome the inclusion of an interim personal violence restraining order, because victims have been in a very vulnerable position while waiting for their applications to reach a final hearing in the court. As stakeholders have said, expecting a victim to wait until the situation escalates to the point of police intervention is inadequate. The provision to request an interim personal violence restraining order would go some way to providing more immediate protection for a person who is living in fear and placed at risk. Interim personal violence restraining orders are in place in all other jurisdictions except Queensland, so the amendment, which closes this gap, is welcome.
Since my briefing on Monday, there has been one further amendment circulated to close that gap, to clause 14, to ensure that ‘interim personal violence restraining order’ is included in the legislation.
The amendment to mediation provisions is also welcome. I attribute that change – I think I am correct – to the Top End Women’s Legal Service, which raised, in its submission, the ambiguity around application of the provision. This is to do with the court’s referral of the person seeking protection to attend mediation with the defendant before the application is heard before the court. It is not appropriate for that to occur where there has been a history of violence and/or where mediation has previously failed.
The amendment to clause 10(2), under the heading ‘Referral to mediation’ will now read, ‘However, the court must not make a referral and must proceed to hear the application if it is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances’.
It is a good amendment. It makes it very black and white and removes any ambiguity. Previously that clause read ‘if it is in the interests of justice to do so’. It has changed to now read that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances, which is good. There is no point in sending the person seeking the protection back to mediation with the defendant if there has been a history of violence, and mediation has previously been attempted but was unsuccessful. This closes that gap. I understand there was some room for interpretation with magistrates. This makes it very clear, which is good.
Amendments contained in clause 14C are important in making provisions to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the defendant. In the event of a domestic violence order, the defendant is known to the victim and applicant. But that is not necessarily the case with a personal violence restraining order. The applicant may not know the identity or the address of the person from whom they are applying to the court to seek protection. It is obviously very difficult to take out a personal violence restraining order without knowing the identity, address or whereabouts of the defendant. It is a very sensible, necessary amendment which also allows the court to call on other persons who may know that defendant in order to obtain an identity and address.
It is good to see that the bill contains consequential amendments which serve to strengthen the level of protection for victims through cross-border provisions in the bill, as well as provisions in the Firearms Act. Again, in line and consistent with domestic violence orders, under these consequential amendments there would be an automatic suspension of a firearms licence for the defendant on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order.
I acknowledge the advocacy of the Territory’s community legal services in relation to this bill, particularly that of Top End Women’s Legal Services, which I know has lobbied for a few years to have a stand-alone act for personal violence restraining orders, to have in place provisions which provide a greater level of protection for the victim and the applicant, and for those provisions to be commensurate with the domestic violence orders.
I had a telephone briefing with Top End Women’s Legal Service in January after I had the initial briefing on the bill that had been tabled in December. At that time, it was happy to provide me with its submission to the issues paper. I can see, looking at its submission, the issues paper and what has transpired today in this bill, that its advocacy – and I am sure that of others – has resulted in some important changes which strengthen that level of protection, and in so doing reduce the risk of harm to people who are subject to personal violence.
There are still a couple of things I want to comment on. The first which might be addressed – with both federal and Territory budgets to be handed down next month – is the inadequacy of funding for community legal services. I heard on radio earlier this week Suzan Cox from the NT Legal Aid Commission acknowledging the funding the Territory government has provided to boost its service, but that one-off funding was not adequate; there needs to be a longer-term commitment to sustain these services. That includes Top End Women’s Legal Service.
The NT Working Women’s Centre may be a community legal service which has received advice that continuation of its funding beyond 30 June will not occur. There is a lot of lobbing going on through to Senator Michaelia Cash in Canberra to reconsider that position. It leaves women in the Northern Territory who are in need of this important service that operates out of Darwin and Alice Springs and through offices and outreach services unsupported.
There are nine people employed in that service. I met with them this morning. It is an incredibly stressful time for them. First and foremost, their concern is about seeing the service continue to support the women it has supported for over 20 years. A secondary consideration people may think less about is that their jobs are on the line as well.
I hope there is strong support from the Northern Territory going to Canberra. I have written to members of the federal government, including our two representatives from the Northern Territory, Natasha Griggs and Senator Nigel Scullion, to stand up for Top End women, not only through the NT Working Women’s Centre but community legal services which need more funding.
The reality is that because of a lack of funding there are unrepresented litigants before the court. They are often, by way of cultural barriers and socioeconomic disadvantage, at a distinct disadvantage of trying to self-represent during cases of personal violence restraining orders.
I raise the issue of the timing and length of personal violence restraining orders, enabling the option for longer-term orders in exceptional circumstances. This was raised in the issues paper. It is my understanding, on the advice of legal stakeholders, that legislation is silent on the length of the term of a personal violence restraining order. It seems to be normal practice that an order is made for a period of 12 months. I am advised that it is not uncommon for domestic violence orders to be made for a longer period of time, especially where the degree of violence and threat of harm is high. If that is the circumstance with domestic violence orders – we are looking at the level of threat of harm for the victim – why would it be different under a personal violence restraining order?
I go to the Top End Women’s Legal Service submission, which I know the Attorney-General is familiar with. In regard to long-term personal violence restraining orders it says that many persons seeking protection are self-represented litigants. These persons are unfamiliar with the legislation and court processes, and would be unlikely to make submissions in relation to the length of order sought, leaving the court to most likely an order in line with standard practice, 12 months.
Instead of amending the legislation to provide for a set time period for which a PVRO must last, a better approach may be to amend the application form for a PVRO to include a tick-a-box option in relation to the duration of the PVRO sought by the person seeking protection. For example, the application form in Victoria for a personal safety intervention order asks the question, ‘How long do you want the intervention order to last?’, with the options being less than 12 months, 12 months, or more than 12 months. There is also space in the application form to explain why the order is sought for this length of time.
Amending the PVRO form would provide some much-needed guidance to the applicant, and perhaps prompt questioning from the magistrate as to the need for a longer-term PVRO, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Our police officers do an incredible job in protecting Territorians. The domestic violence units within police, both in Darwin and Alice Springs, do really good work in an integrated service approach with victims of domestic violence and other service providers to reduce the level of harm. I was reminded of that when I was in Alice Springs over the weekend, talking with not only the retired former CEO of Alice Springs Women’s Shelter but her replacement, and how it is that the integrated approach to services really works.
Police would benefit from professional development to understand the potentially serious consequences of issues between non-related parties as opposed to those in a domestic situation, and their powers to obtain a personal violence restraining order on a victim’s behalf.
We know that our police do a fantastic job in very challenging times to keep people safe. They are challenging for various reasons. They spend entire shifts, lengthy hours, on what were called temporary beat locations. Police resources could be freed up. We see how the TBLs are effective but in regard to the resource available they could be just as effective if police were on TBLs during peak times. Bring back the Banned Drinker Register, which was a very effective and cost-efficient point of sale intervention which allowed police to be doing the things that technology cannot do, which is spending time with people, including the victims of personal violence, to best support their needs and their course of action in taking out one of these orders.
I have one other question following on from that, which is whether or not an advocate can make an application on behalf of a victim. I do not think current legislation allows for that. It comes down to a self-represented litigant. If I am incorrect I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me.
Madam Speaker, the Labor opposition supports this bill and the amendments, which are sensible. I am not sure that I will have questions when we go through the consideration in detail stage amendments. A couple might crop up as we go through.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and thank the minister for allowing a briefing on this bill, and for some notes sent to me regarding some of the questions I asked during that briefing.
I note that the purpose of the bill is to allow for the enactment of a stand-alone act dealing with personal violence restraining orders. It does not at any stage give a reason.
It may not be that important, but I have yet to work out why this bill had to be cut from the act. Surely you can look up that chapter if it is included. I do not understand why it had to be taken out of the Justices Act to stand alone. Be that as it may, it is important to have an updated version of the bill because it has been amended.
A personal violence restraining order allows a person who experiences violence but does not live with the perpetrator – that is, not in a domestic relationship – to seek civil remedy called a personal violence restraining order. Although there has been much discussion in relation to women, there is also the situation of families against women. Men also need this restraint for situations of men against men. There is a need for this legislation to be supported.
There have been issues in my family which we will look at a personal violence restraining order in relation to. It is important to have strong bills like this to ensure people are protected.
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy as she gave – as she always does on these matters – a well-researched response to this bill. She raised some interesting points on how things could be improved, which shows the effort she goes to when she takes on issues like this, which are not always easy to research.
The bill says:
Can the minister give me a definition of ‘relationship’ from a legal point of view? We obviously know what a family relationship is, but what does it mean using the word on its own? I did not raise it at the briefing, but when I was reading through this again, I thought it would be nice to get a clear indication of exactly what that means.
The other issue that has come before us is the amendments, which are in relation to interim personal violence restraining orders and dealing with definitions for ‘personal violence offence’, ‘intimidation’, ‘stalking’ and ‘economic abuse’. Whilst I was reading that, it occurred to me that amendments were presented yesterday for one of the bills we have before us at the moment, the Medical Services Amendment Bill, which deals with harassment and other issues. My concern is we have to be very careful when we introduce legislation that it does not duplicate issues already covered by other legislation.
The amendments to this bill deal with intimidation:
At the briefing I asked if the police thought they should have power similar to those for domestic violence orders. The response was that they did not need to have those powers for this bill.
In closing, I take what the member for Nhulunbuy said. This is an area that required legal services. If people cannot access these legal services because of financial constraints, then we have to ensure those legal services are properly funded, otherwise the people most in need will not be served by the intent of this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the bill to the House, and for presenting the amendments to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the Latin maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant – the specific trumps the general. That is, if you have legislation specifically targeted at a particular thing and there appears, but not necessarily exists, a contradictory item in relation to a general piece of legislation, the courts – I cannot cite the cases off the top of my head – will give weight to the specific legislation rather than the general. In answer to your questions about the potential inconsistency between two legislative instruments, that is how the courts will interpret the parliament’s intent. I hope that answers that question.
I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter. A number of issues have been raised, but also answered, in many respects, by members themselves. I note that there is general support for this legislation, which I welcome and embrace.
I pick up on the comments of the member for Nhulunbuy, the shadow Attorney-General, about funding for legal aid services. I am critically aware of the issues raised by Sue Cox from Northern Territory Legal Aid, and I am sympathetic to her cause. Whilst we have not quite put the budget to bed yet, I hope there will be some reasonably positive announcements regarding that. I do not want to see in our courts Dietrich applications, which will invariably flow from unrepresented clients, particularly unrepresented clients charged with serious and indictable offences.
I note that NAALAS has used the money recovered by me, working with Senator Scullion. Through Senator George Brandis and I, they received some cuts under the federal government’s ERC. We retrieved that money after some lobbying – and I thank Senator Brandis for his flexibility in this area – only to find myself almost immediately in the High Court dealing with a paperless arrest matter, which is where NAALAS chose to spend that money. It was frustrating in the extreme. The only reason I can mention it now is the matter has finally been put to bed.
I get more than a little irritated when you go into bat for an organisation whose primary function is to provide legal assistance to those who find themselves in the court system, and then it engages in what was clearly an unlikely cause in the high court. My argument with NAALAS is if it wants support for its primary functions, then it should use that support to pursue its primary function.
Ultimately it makes those determinations, but I find it frustrating. If they knock on my door asking for more money going forward or asking me to lobby the federal Attorney-General on this issue, they will not receive the same warm reception they did last time.
Having made that observation, this bill is supported by members on both sides of the House. There are a number of amendments, as a result of the consultation process with a number of organisations, not least of which was the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service; the Witness Assistance Service; the Department of Children and Families; the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit; the Department of Local Government and Community Services; the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service; Chief Magistrate Dr Lowndes – I place on the record my thanks to him especially – the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jack Karczewski; the Top End Women’s Legal Service; the Darwin Community Legal Service. They all had input into the bill that was before the House. As a result of that consultation process we adopted many of the suggestions – not all – that were made by those organisations to fine tune this bill.
This bill is a substantially different animal to what the old section 99, ‘Personal restraining order’ was in the Justices Act many years ago when I had to work with it. I would have liked to attend to the Justices Act, as a whole, as Attorney-General, but there were resource implications with pursuing that. That is a matter for a future Attorney-General to attend to, should they choose to do so.
Another comment in relation to this is about steps across the boundary of both domestic violence and personal violence legislation such as this. I had a conversation with the Chief Magistrate – soon to be Chief Judge – in relation to the thresholds and standards of proof required. One of my concerns with domestic violence legislation has been that where there is an application heard in the consent environment, there has appeared to be a willingness from the bench to issue domestic violence orders. I did, of course, point out to His Honour, who acknowledged the truth, that even if the parties are consenting to the issuing of the order before the court, the legislation must still be adhered to regarding the threshold that is required, which is that on the balance of probabilities some form of violence has occurred.
I make that point because that is how the legislation reads. When a person walks into a court and either through ignorance or for the sake of convenience they accept a consent order, then the court still has to satisfy itself to the balance of probabilities that the violence has occurred or possibly will occur.
I have insisted that be recognised in this legislative instrument as well because every time I see a person come out of the courtroom waving around or holding up a domestic violence order, either against them or on their behalf – and in the consent determination that occurs both ways – then I assume that violence has occurred or is likely to occur at the hands of that person. That assumption is based on a belief formed on the balance of probabilities.
That is, for most people, not an issue one way or another. However, for people in public life, such as the judiciary or other positions of responsibility, the existence of such an order would immediately raise a flag for other people around that person because of the requirements of the legislation. It is something I am particularly sensitive to and cautious about because whilst administrative or judicial convenience may be served by an easy process of stepping through these types of applications, I nevertheless remain concerned that a threshold still has to be established.
If two people who have not been, or are unlikely to be, violent towards each other stand in a courtroom seeking to find a mutual or consent order and a court issues it, then it is essentially meaningless and diminishes the legislation. If two people provide evidence where a court can form that opinion, they should be told to leave; no order should be granted. It is equally so with this legislation.
That is a precautionary tale; I cannot point to a specific incident of it occurring. Actually, I could but I do not want to because I do not seek to embarrass anyone or cause distress or concern. It is a threshold issue the courts need to be mindful of.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their care and attention to the bill before the House. It is clearly in the minds of people. I look forward to the passage of this bill with the subsequent amendments, which will improve the strength of the instrument I brought before the House some time ago.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail:
Clause 1, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.1, that clause 2 be defeated in order that a new commencement clause can be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.2 to insert new clause 2, being a new commencement clause. The new clause provides that a new Division 4A of Part 4, which provides for the amendments to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016 is to commence on the day on which the Administrator’s assent to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act is declared.
The remaining provisions of the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act will commence immediately after the commencement of the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.3 that the clause 3 definition of a personal violence offence be omitted. This is in order that a new, more comprehensive definition be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.4 to include new definitions.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
New clauses 3A to 3D:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I had this ugly feeling that something had slipped through the traps.
I move amendment 52.5 that new clauses 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D be inserted to provide in the new clause 3A for the new comprehensive definition of ‘a personal violent offence’ and to define in new clauses 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D the new conduct of intimidation, stalking and economic abuse.
Clause 3 of the bill currently provides that the conduct amounts to a personal violence offence by reference to particular provisions of the Criminal Code Act. It is considered that there are matters that do not fit within that definition, but are nevertheless matters which would be appropriate to provide some restraint of the defendant’s conduct.
Generally in these cases a person is engaging in some form of intimidation or abusive or harassing behaviour not sufficient to amount to a threat of assault, but sufficient to cause considerable distress to the person concerned.
The definition of ‘a personal violence offence’ has been amended to provide for a more comprehensive definition similar to the definition of ‘domestic violence’ as outlined in section 6 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Such conduct includes economic abuse, intimidation, harassment, stalking and damage to property.
The new definition of ‘a personal violence offence’ also still refers to the currently specified offences under the Criminal Code Act, being Part V, Division 2; Part IV, Divisions 3 to 6A; and sections 211 or 212, and another provision prescribed by regulation. These include offences against children and persons with a disability, homicide, recklessness or negligence endangering life, serious harm offences against the person, and assaults, including sexual assault.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 3A to 3D agreed to.
Clause 4 and 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.6 that clause 6, concerning making an application for an order, be amended to omit the words ‘under this Part’ to allow for a new interim personal violence restraining order to be made under Part 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.7 that clause 10(2) concerning mediation be amended to enable the court to hear an application without the need for mediation if the court is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances. Currently the court must refer a matter to compulsory mediation before the court is required to determine an application for a personal violence restraining order, unless the matter is of such a nature that the court is obliged to hear the matter immediately.
Clause 10(2) currently provides that a magistrate must hear an application where:
Clause 10(2) has been amended to enable the court to hear an application without the need for mediation if the court is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances, thus leaving it to the discretion of a court to determine in what circumstances it would be appropriate to do so.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.8 to amend clause 14 of the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill 2015 dealing with a notice of orders, that the words ‘or an interim personal violence restraining order’ be inserted to ensure that on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order, the court must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the interim order to the protected person, the defendant and the Commissioner for Police.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
New clauses 14A to 14C
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.9, that new clause 14A dealing with interim person violence restraining orders; new clause 14B dealing with the issuing of an order prohibiting the publication of details of the victims and witnesses; and new clause 14C dealing with the issue of orders for a defendant’s identity and whereabouts be inserted. Currently there is a provision in the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill 2015 permitting the granting of an interim personal violence restraining order.
New clause 14A allows:
New clause 14B provides that personal violence restraining orders and interim personal violence restraining orders may include an order prohibiting the publication of personal details of a protected person or witness if the court is satisfied the publication would expose the person to the risk of harm.
New clause 14C is inserted to assist applicants to obtain information pertinent to an application, such as the identity and address of the defendant, for the purposes of making an application for a personal violence restraining order. It enables the court to make an order where the person seeking the protection has made reasonable inquiries but is unable to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the defendant, or another person may have information or a document or thing that will assist in ascertaining the identity or whereabouts of the defendant.
The court may order the other person to attend the court to be examined as to the identity or whereabouts of the defendant or to disclose the information or document or thing that relates to the identity or whereabouts of the defendant to the protected person.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 14A to 14C agreed to.
Clause 15, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.10 so the heading to clause 16 dealing with contravention of orders be amended to include an interim personal violence restraining order by inserting the words ‘personal violence restraining order or interim personal violence restraining’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.11 relating to clause 16(1)(a) dealing with contravention of orders, to insert the words ‘or an interim personal violence restraining order’ to provide that a person commits an offence if a personal violence restraining order or an interim personal restraining order is in place and the person engages in conduct that results in a contravention of the order.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.12, that clause 16(2)(b) dealing with the contravention of orders and circumstances in which a person does not commit an offence of contravening an order be amended to insert the words ‘a personal violence restraining’ to make it clear that with respect to personal violence restraining orders that have been varied, a person does not commit an offence unless the person has been given a copy of the order as varied, or the conduct is also in contravention of the order last given to the defendant.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 16A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.13 that new clause 16A dealing with the creation of an offence for the publication of a person’s personal details be inserted. This new clause 16A provides that a person commits a strict liability offence if the personal violence restraining order or interim personal violence restraining order prohibits the publication of a person’s personal details, and the person engages in conduct that results in a contravention of the order. The maximum penalty for such a breach is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for one year.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 16A agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.14 to invite defeat of the current clause 23 concerning the amendment to the definition of ‘personal violence restraining order’ in the Firearms Act in order for new amendments to be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause defeated.
New clauses 23 and 23A:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 52.15, that new clauses 23 and 23A be inserted to amend the Firearms Act. New clause 23 amends the definition in section 3 of the Firearms Act to first insert a new definition of ‘interim personal violence restraining order’ by reference to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act and, second, amend the definition of ‘personal violence restraining order’ to omit reference to Part IVA, Division 2 of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act and replace it with the reference to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act.
The new clause 23A is inserted to amend section 39(1) of the Firearms Act dealing with the automatic suspension of licences to include a reference to interim personal violence restraining orders. This is to ensure that the automatic suspension of the firearm’s licence, permit or certificate of registration on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order, which is consistent with the approach taken with interim domestic violence restraining orders.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 23 and 23A agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 26A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.16 to create new clause 26A after clause 26. The amendment is to insert a new clause 26A to amend section 141 of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act to amend a typographical error and omit the words ‘the Court proper’ and replace them with ‘the Court thinks proper’.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 26A agreed to.
Clause 27, by leave, agreed to.
New Division 4A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.17 creating a new Division 4A after clause 27. The intent of the amendment is that a new Division 4A be inserted to amend the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016.
New clause 27B amends the heading in Part 2, Division 7 of the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 to omit the reference to the Justice Act and replace it with the new name of the act, the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act.
The new clause 27C similarly amends section 27 of the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 by omitting references to the Justice Act and replacing them with the correct reference to the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. These amendments take into consideration the amendment of a short title of the Justice Act to the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act.
New clause 27D amends drafting errors and corrects numbering errors. The amendment is to omit from heading to section 29 ‘Part IX, Division 5’ and replace it with ‘Part VIII, Division 6’, to refer to the correct Division of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. Section 29 is also amended to omit the words ‘At the end of the Act’ and replace it with ‘After section 213’.
It also amends section 29 by omitting ‘Division 5, Transitional matters for Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016, section 207, Appeal already commenced’, and replacing it with the correct Division reference, ‘Division 6, Transitional matters for Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016, section 214, Appeal already commenced’.
These amendments correct the numbering issues that occur as a result of two sets of provisions being inserted to the same act at the same time by two different acts, being the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 and the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New Division 4A agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on record my thanks to the departmental staff for the excellent work they have done in relation to this, particularly through the consultation process.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Building a First-Class Education System
Continued from 20 April 2016.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Education’s motion on education. On this side of the Chamber we hear a lot of screaming from the other side about how we have depleted the education system, made cuts, and all the terrible things – we have burnt the house down. Fortunately that is not the reality, and I commend the Minister for Education on the work he has done over the last four years. It has been a long and difficult road but he has navigated it well, and pushed through some excellent reforms. As a result, the education system is benefiting and has turned a major corner.
Our government has raised the education system to a high level. We fully fund all our preschools, have the highest expenditure per student in the country and our teacher to student ratio is the lowest in the country. We have the highest percentage of students in the government school system, which shows that Territorians have faith in the service the CLP government is providing to our education system.
It is important that we talk about this today. I will highlight some of the important things we have done with the education system that relate to the Palmerston region.
The only issue in education that Labor members ever came up with was that we are not spending enough money. That is fine; they can say that. It has been their core mantra in the way they have done business. It is the only assumption they made about the education system. All they ever did was think everything was fine and if they kept trickling in a little more money every budget, things would hop along well.
When we came to government we took a different approach. We examined what was happening in our public education system, the education sector, the middle years, Indigenous education, primary schools, resourcing and the bureaucracy, and analysed everything. We had to make some tough decisions, and redirect our resources so at the end of the day we had students with better outcomes. We can all agree that an outcome-driven education system is far better than one that receives trickles of additional taxpayers’ money every budget.
Under our government’s reforms students in the NT are now achieving the best results ever. Under our government the achievements of students enrolled in NT schools has superseded those of governments in the past. Labor keeps turning the debate to what matters to them, which is money, whereas we focus on what matters to us, which is results. Our students’ results speak for themselves.
In 2015 we made history with a record 1338 NT Year 12 students graduating with an NTCET, which was 21 more than the previous year in 2014. Not only do we have more students completing their NTCET, we have more students achieving A+ merits, with a total of 44 A+ merits gained by 35 students in 2015, compared with 30 A+ merits gained by 21 students in 2014. Our numbers and achievement levels are up, which means our results are up, which means our reforms have worked. We will continue to drive and strive for excellence in the government schooling sector.
The number of Indigenous students completing the NTCET in 2015 increased to 187, compared to 173 in the previous year. Compare that 187 in 2015 to 99 in 2010 under the previous Labor government; we must be doing something right. You cannot dispute those figures and that we have an increase and there has been positive change. Indigenous Year 12 achievement keeps building and providing real career options and pathways for young Indigenous Territorians, of which we are very proud.
As part of our reforms we have seen a very positive impact on NAPLAN data and testing. From 2011 to 2015, the Northern Territory’s students’ NAPLAN achievement gains have been higher than the national gain in three of the five domains – reading, grammar and punctuation and spelling – for the Years 3 to 7 cohort, and the four of the five domains – reading, numeracy, grammar and punctuation, and spelling – in the Years 5 to 9 student cohort.
This government is also committed to preparing students for a future in trade. In 2015 there were 1894 students who received their Statement of Attainment for one or more units of competency, and 985 students – almost 1000 – completed a full VET qualification. Of course, with our push to drive a diversified economy, we are making sure that by gaining those qualifications our kids will get jobs to stay in the Territory and plant their roots so they can be long-term Territorians to raise their families and build our beautiful Northern Territory.
Those educational outcomes cannot be disputed. We have been investing in other areas in education, not just the reforms which have driven student outcomes, which is what we want. We have also been investing significantly in infrastructure, which drives up morale in a school, gives the business community important work and gives the school a sense of community and something to be proud of, particularly in our older schools. When you have work done in and around school infrastructure investment, it means a lot to the school people and the community around that school.
We have seen the introduction of IPS, which is a fantastic initiative of our government. I am proud that Palmerston Senior College and Durack Primary School, both in the Drysdale electorate, are independent public schools. It is changing the face of education across the Territory, but certainly in Palmerston. Our school community is working collaboratively and innovatively together on how to best use this opportunity of autonomy to drive performance and create a point of difference in their school.
Our school councils and boards are seeing schools decide to have skills-based boards as well as the key parental input into the direction the school is taking. We are seeing many new offerings, opportunities and fresh ideas forging a way forward in Palmerston.
I commend both the principals of Palmerston Senior College and Durack Primary School, their chairs and newly-formed boards for showing tremendous leadership in this space. They have not buckled under the pressure of pulling this together. It may not have been an easy, ideal or smooth process, but they have risen to the challenge and made the most of it. They have transformed their schools, their school communities and the Palmerston community as a result of it. I am tremendously proud of them.
We have driven other initiatives in the school community such as the Sport Vouchers and Back to School Vouchers. They are two reasonably small initiatives that make an enormous impact on the ground. Parents and students are very grateful for those initiatives.
We have also been funding massive infrastructure projects over the last four years. I was at Palmerston Christian School chatting to the principal, who said, ‘It is fantastic; we will have to have you down for the opening. The Northern Territory just paid for 40% of our new classrooms. We are thrilled to see our school growing and developing. We already have students in the classrooms.’ He could not speak more highly of the program. It is a direct result of a partnership with that school to deliver that project.
Construction is under way for the new $21.35m special school in Bellamack. That is well and truly on track to be completed in Semester 2 of this year. It is amazing. It feels like just yesterday we were talking about making that announcement. Now we are looking at having, in Semester 2, which is not very far away, a completed specialised special school in Bellamack. It will provide an extra 84 places for preschool and primary-aged students. It is a much-needed facility for Palmerston and the rural area. It will support students with special needs to engage in a high-quality teaching and learning program in their local community. That is complemented by the new Henbury School as well. Palmerston has been needing a state-of-the-art facility like this and the families of special needs’ students in the Palmerston and rural deserve this.
Minister, a credit to you – education is a passion of yours. Labor can say many things about you, but they cannot say you are not passionate and dedicated to education. Delivering high-quality special education is right up there and it is a credit to you.
We have also doubled the capacity of Rosebery Preschool, which is fantastic. We have poured $1.2m into an extension at the school. It has a further 44 students, doubling its capacity. Palmerston is a growing community with many young families. We have plenty of young ones coming along and we need the schools and facilities to support those kids so they can have an excellent public school education experience and go on to do great things.
I am holding the media release about the Palmerston child and family centre. The Minister for Education, our federal member, Natasha Griggs, and I stood on a vacant bush block and announced there would be a Palmerston child and family centre opening. It is now well and truly operational. I am proud that Gray Primary School put in a successful bid to manage that facility in partnership with Child Australia. It is a wonderful thing for Gray Primary School to rise to that challenge. It will benefit from that diversification.
The Palmerston child and family centre offers 50 long day-care places to vulnerable and disadvantaged Palmerston families through its early learning centre. The childcare centre is a beautiful facility. It is wonderful that government and non-government organisations can work together to ensure that families are holistically supported to raise happy, healthy and strong children who are ready for school and learning.
Durack Preschool has had a large extension. We put $1m into increasing the capacity of Durack. That is an additional 44 little ones going to the preschool. It has been a wonderful addition to the Durack community and the school.
We have additional classrooms at Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre, which have been welcomed. SEC does a wonderful job and I love going to assemblies there. The teachers are fabulous and passionate, and they deserve fabulous facilities. We have delivered new classrooms, which has helped tremendously.
Gray Primary School has been repainted for the first time in 30 long years. I went to Gray Primary School from 1988 for about five years. It has been a long time between paint jobs and I am pleased we were able to repaint the school and breathe some freshness into that wonderful school community.
We also extended the staff car park at Gray Primary School, which again can seem like a small infrastructure project, but the reality of the project is massive on the ground. That is part of what our government is about. You do not need to pour endless amounts of money in to make something sound good; often it is the small things that make the greatest impact on a community. Something like extending a staff car park impacts teachers and support staff every day. Those are just some of the projects that have occurred in Palmerston.
Recently our government announced the $100m Boosting our Economy package, of which $68.5m is to improve education facilities across the Territory. That is well and truly more than half the Boosting our Economy package going into schools. Just about every school in the Territory has some works allocated to it. In Palmerston we have received a healthy chunk of that money.
I am pleased to say millions of dollars in investment is going into Palmerston schools for practical projects the schools want done. This is not something that popped into the minister’s head one day; the schools desperately wanted these projects. We have fast-tracked it to get the money out the door, give this injection into the business community and get our schools’ projects delivered.
Moulden Primary School has received various upgrades, including landscaping and new paths after the removal of some mounds. We have upgraded the fire and potable water pipes, including adjustments to the irrigation in the school so it is compliant.
Rosebery Middle School is receiving a basketball court shelter and tiered seating as well as a new multipurpose learning centre.
Bakewell Primary School has had money allocated to replace old air conditioning units with a chilled water system; expand and refurbish the administration and student services building; remove existing pavers and replace with large multipurpose playground equipment, including a soft fall and sand play area; changes to the Kiss and Go area; and transportable classrooms.
Gray Primary School will have significant water upgrades. Palmerston Senior College will have significant mechanical upgrades as well as water upgrades. In Ludmilla we are relocating and replacing the basketball court, and installing a chiller and chill-fanned core units to replace the ducted system, which is beyond economical repair.
Non-government schools have not missed out either, which is fantastic because they are an important part of our education system. McKillop College will have a second car park constructed, which is excellent because currently teachers, parents and students have to park on the dirt paddock at the front of the school. This will be turned into a bituminised car park, and a covered walkway will be constructed. Sacred Heart Primary School – the Catholics are doing well out of the package – will create a sensory room, construct a storage facility and install an adventure playground. Good Shepherd Lutheran College will construct two new classrooms at its junior campus, upgrade its basketball courts in Palmerston and do a couple of more minor works projects.
Marrara Christian College will build girls’ and boys’ ablution blocks for the primary school students, and will resurface the quadrangle, update the irrigation system and paint the school internally and externally. Palmerston Christian School will revitalise its toilets, resurface its basketball court and volleyball court, repaint the school, upgrade the caretaker cottage and provide fencing around the school. Kormilda will get an air conditioning refurbishment in its cultural centre, an irrigation upgrade in the boarding house, a shade sail in the primary school and repairs to an old roof. Milkwood Steiner School is also receiving money for a shed and some other minor works.
They are just a few of the schools receiving works packages out of the Boosting our Economy package. I reiterate, for the benefit of those opposite and Territorians, that our results have been fantastic. We are a results-driven government. The reforms to the education system have been about the best interest of the students. No, we did not spend the most money to get the best results. We have made some tough decisions but they have been good for students. We are seeing the best NAPLAN scores, the best Year 12 students’ scores, the highest level of participation of students, fantastic increases in the number of Indigenous students completing NTCET, and we are on our way to ensuring young Territorians have the best and highest-quality education we can possibly give. They rightfully deserve that.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his work in this regard and the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be that long, just a little long. We could probably debate what long and little long means.
Thank you, minister, for bringing forward this statement. It is hard to have statements that turn up instantly ...
Mr Chandler: It is a motion.
Mr WOOD: It is a statement disguised as a motion. Regardless, it gives me a chance to say a few things.
You may have received the letter regarding the school bus service to and from Girraween Primary School. Girraween Primary School is the biggest primary school in the rural area, with 475 students, and it is bursting. I thank the government for giving it extra classrooms. It is a very popular school because it has great teachers, a great principal, a great school council and a farm. Many people in the rural area are attracted to schools that have farms because they can relate to it when they go home ...
Mr Chandler: Like great local members.
Mr WOOD: I was being modest there, thank you – the great local members. In this debate about planning, Girraween Primary School represents what we are about in the rural area. It is a rural school with rural values.
Mr Chandler: They make good coffee.
Mr WOOD: They have a good fridge out there too.
Parents have raised their concerns with me. I recommended they write to the minister and they asked me to write a letter of support. What better chance now the minister has made this very broad statement disguised as a motion for me to raise this. Hopefully the minister will have some answers. I will read the letter; that will explain the difficulty the children have. One of the concerns of parents at Girraween Primary School is that children who live in the Girraween area, for example on Goy Road, are collected at 7.10 am and do not finish their route to the school until 8.20 am. This bus threads its way through the area collecting Taminmin students and goes via the Humpty Doo exchange before children are delivered to Girraween School.
Girraween primary currently has 465 students, many of whom would happily use the bus service if it was specifically designed for our students. The school council would appreciate a comprehensive review of the current bus system, including consultation with the community.
I believe we have pretty good school bus services in the Northern Territory. I am unsure how they compare to other places, but you could go to any school in the rural area by bus. Sometimes it is a bit difficult as you may have to change buses somewhere, but considering that students might even come from Adelaide River and Batchelor now to Taminmin ...
Mr Chandler: Yes.
Mr WOOD: They also come from Darwin River way. I see Taminmin students boarding the bus at Howard Springs travelling to Taminmin; so we have a pretty good bus service.
I will not just pat the government on the back because the bus service existed before this government and probably has for a long time.
I have occasionally seen the maps that the bus companies issue to show the bus routes and, boy, they can be complicated. If a bus has to pass several schools, it needs to try to drop the students off at a time when the school is open. If they are dropped there too early there is no one to look after and take responsibility for the kids. If they are dropped off too late then complaints will be made that the kids are late coming to school. A school bus may be delivering kids to three or four schools, so the timetable needs to be adjusted accordingly so the bus can reach all the schools on time.
One of the problems with this bus route is that although it may begin 10 minutes away from the school, it leaves at 7.10 am and arrives at the school at 8.20 am. It would be a maximum of 10 minutes away from the school.
This bus route did not exist a few years ago. Through lobbying by people in that area the government extended the bus route. It picks up children going to St Francis of Assisi, students going to Taminmin, maybe students going to Humpty Doo Primary School, and when it is finished it comes back to Girraween. That is a fairly long bus route.
I understand parents’ concerns about their children travelling on a bus that far with mixed students. As this school is now nearly bursting at the seams, it would be good to see if there are any other options available. Small buses are no cheaper to run than big buses. Is there any possibility of that bus route being reviewed? They are asking for a total review of the system. The most appropriate time for that to occur is at the beginning of the school year. We are a fair way into the school year now, but there would be no harm in the government reviewing this bus route.
I hope the minister has some answers, or can give some comfort to the parents that the Department of Education, along with the bus service, is able to consider the concerns of the parents from Girraween Primary School and give an answer, if it is possible, today during the debate. The department might have some answers for the parents.
I heard the member for Drysdale speaking about the wonderful schools in Palmerston. I will not say anything untoward about those schools, but we also have some fantastic schools in the rural area. I was looking at some of the attendance rates at the primary schools. They have all gone up since 2014 – I only had the 2015 attendance rates – by 1% or 2%.
I raise that issue because I know how hard the teachers and principals work to get kids to school. If they do not get kids to school they might not have as many teachers; that is how the system works today. But it is not the only reason they want kids at school; they do not want kids falling behind. They want to make sure they are there every day.
Bees Creek, Girraween, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo all have over 90% attendance rates. They are trying their best to improve. I sometimes see the attendance rate in the newsletters. They will remind parents they have a responsibility to send their kids to school. It is that constant reminder that is important because we need to ensure our kids go to school. Of course, it is the prime responsibility of parents to send their kids to school. We do not want kids getting behind in their education.
In my area there is one non-government school, the Good Shepherd Lutheran College, which is growing. It will have a new basketball court built near the Good Shepherd Primary School, which has been developed over the last couple of years. It is a school that is booming.
The other schools in the area are doing extremely well too. Howard Springs is the oldest primary school in the rural area, bar the Middle Point School. It was built before the cyclone when the first people went to live in the rural area. To some extent it is showing its age a bit. But if you accept what the member for Karama said about the Chan Building, it possibly should be a heritage building. But I digress.
It is an older style building. Originally it was also a cyclone shelter and I was the manager of the shelter. It was inspected and the government realised it might not be a good place to keep people, so it is no longer a cyclone shelter.
It is an excellent school with excellent programs. All our primary schools work hard. Humpty Doo has a great vegetable garden, chooks, herbs and native plants. There are so many things in our rural schools we should be proud of.
People who visit the schools in the rural area remark on how polite many of the kids are. Much of that comes from living in the rural area. It is a great place to grow up and do things. Other kids in more urban areas do not have the opportunity and that is reflected in the way kids attend school and behave. It is not to say you do not get kids who are a little tricky at times, but we certainly have some good schools.
I also thank the teachers. I said some umpteen years ago that I thought teachers had a pretty easy life. I said that they have eight weeks’ holidays and they knock off at 3.30 pm and go home, but the truth is far from that. Many teachers work very hard. I was talking to a teacher the other day who spends most of her weekend getting classes prepared for the next week; she does not go out much. I know of the extra curricula work and the reports. I get dazzled.
I have been to Taminmin College school council meetings and they start to put up graphs and statistics that are a bit beyond me. I would not mind them being in plain English. I must admit they issue a report which the average parent cannot understand. One parent has continually brought me the one about his son. I am not sure what the name of that report is. It is a standard report. It is good for teachers but I do not think all parents can understand it. It gives you an indication of where your child is at present, but it is written in a language – it is a pity I did not bring it with me. He has brought it in to me twice and has asked me to explain it and I cannot. It is written for people who know the education lingo. Sometimes we have to be careful we do not speak to ourselves but speak to the people who need that information.
Taminmin is a great school but I know there are kids who give teachers a hard time. When the debate about the Education Act was on I wanted to make sure there was something in the act which protects teachers. The partner of a teacher told me what his wife had gone through that day in a class. Sometimes the abuse can be so much that there does not seem to be any way of controlling it. You end up losing great teachers who simply find the pressure too great. The swearing and language used against them is something they should not have to put up with. They do their work well.
We have great VET courses at Taminmin. What other college has, basically, a racing VET course where people can learn to be strappers. One course has Brahman bulls that are taken to the Katherine Show and the Freds Pass Show, which is coming up soon. In an election year I am sure there will be more posters than you can poke a stick at. Freds Pass will have politicians coming out of its ears and it will be the same with the Darwin show.
Taminmin always shows its cattle at the Darwin show and, generally speaking, takes all the prizes because the only other school it needs to beat is the Katherine Rural College. That indicates why it is such a great school.
While we are discussing agriculture I will ask if the minister has looked at the future of Mataranka School. This may not be in your area, but Mataranka School was a university training area and my understanding is that it has handed it back to the government. I believe it should stay as a teaching station. I have told people before that my daughter studied and learnt to be a ringer there. She then headed out to Wavell, Cattle Creek and a couple of other cattle stations.
With the cattle industry booming at the moment, it would be a backwards step to sell that cattle station. It still should be an education facility. Many things have been moved to Katherine Rural College. Everyone remembers the issues with Mataranka some years ago. After the money that has been spent by the university on upgrading Mataranka it would be a shame if the cattle station was sold. I believe it is important.
I remember the member for Port Darwin and I speaking in parliament about the use of that station for training Aboriginal people, as well as prisoners. I do not know what happened to that idea. It is a great example of where you could train Aboriginal prisoners in stock work.
Some years ago there was a small cattle station at the Berrimah prison, called Mango Downs because they put a fence around a few mango trees, and that became their cattle station. Prisoners learnt to ride there.
I raise this, minister, as I hope the government does not make a quick decision if it has been handed back by the university to sell it. It should still be part of the educational facilities in the Northern Territory.
Back to the local schools, I should not forget St Francis of Assisi. They ask me to visit and there is always plenty of singing. It has a concert every two years, which I am lucky to be asked to help with. It is always a great concert and it is a great school.
We have a great mix of government and non-government schools. At times there is argy-bargy about one lot of schools getting more money than the other schools, but we need to work together. Choice in education is important, giving people alternatives. Everyone should learn the same basic curriculum, but we do not live in a world of black and white. We live in a world where people have different ideas and philosophies. By having a choice in education we allow those things to grow, which is important.
One thing I believe might help bring the schools together is the Beat Festival. It is a great concert every year, but there are no non-government schools participating. Why is it not just a school concert? Bring all those kids in; they can sing just as well as the others. It seems to be a bit of ‘them’ and ‘us’ when that happens. This is an opportunity to bring them all together. The kids probably all know one another in the suburbs where they come from. Over the years I have wondered whether there were any kids from St Francis. ‘Oh, no, this is only for government schools’. I may be wrong and it might have changed, but that is how I understand it to be.
Madam Speaker, my long short talk is coming to a conclusion, but if the minister is to wrap up today – I assume he will as you do not want to leave motions much longer because we have nearly finished this Assembly. If you can find out something about the Girraween Primary School issue and report when you are summing up it would be good. They have written to you; it is a good letter. Their concern is that if a kid has to leave home at 7.10 am and arrives at school at 8.20 am, and only lives 10 minutes down the road, perhaps there needs to be an extra bus service or an adjustment. I would appreciate if you have an idea of a solution for that.
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I agree with him about the buses as there are issues in Adelaide River and Batchelor, and for all the kids at Taminmin College.
I thank the minister for his motion before the House. I am not too sure if anyone has said this in the debate, but we have the highest expenditure per student in the country. Tied with that, our student to teacher ratio is the lowest in the country and we have the highest percentage of students in government schools.
Talking about student numbers, I remember when my wife started teaching in the Northern Territory. She had classes in excess of 36 children, and that was a struggle. I am very happy with the ratios we have now.
We have seen an increase of 700 enrolments in government schools and gains in the NAPLAN and Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results. Something that continually annoys me is the talking down of our education system, particularly our schools. It is something that needs talking up.
In my electorate of Daly alone, so much positive has happened or is happening in the schools. For example, the Berry Springs Primary School, which has 200 students enrolled, is a fantastic school with a fair NAPLAN result and a fully engaged school community.
I was honoured to launch its new playground recently, which was made possible through the generous support of the CRC, which is the profit they make from the sale of alcohol from the tavern proceeds at the INPEX camp at Howard Springs; Bendigo Community Bank at Coolalinga; the Northern Territory government – the school came to see me and I managed to organise some funds for them, and thank you very much to the Education minister; Rotary Club and the community partner in-kind support; and JKC.
It was a well-deserved addition to the school, which has kicked a few goals over the years, particularly in the area of environment and conservation. Its Growing Green Kids program has won national awards and it took out the Clean, Green Healthy School category in the Territory Tidy Towns Awards. According to the My School website, it also performs on par with similar schools interstate.
I sit on the Berry Springs School Council and am proud and honoured to do so. I do not get there as often as I would like, but when I get some time, I call in and sit down with the principal, Leah Crockford, who is on leave at the moment. She has done a fantastic job, as I believe all our schools do a sterling job.
It is not easy. As I said before, I have been married to a teacher for 42 years and I constantly hear firsthand about the challenges that exist. I also hear the good, heartening stories.
I was the Chair of the Howard Springs Primary School Council in 1997, which I am not too sure if the member for Nelson knows. If you look at the honour board in the school, there it is – the second chairman of the school council. I enjoyed my time there; it was terrific.
Mr Wood: Yes, my kids went there.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes, it was probably then as well.
One of the programs I operate across the electorate – there are in excess of 20 schools – is one of my own called Wheels for Attendance. I buy six or eight bikes a year and try to distribute them to the schools. Berry Springs, Dundee, Palumpa, Belyuen, Wooliana, Woolaning, Emu Point and Nauiyu have received them. I give the bikes to the principal, and tell them I want the bikes to encourage kids to go to school. The principals do it in different ways. Some of them give a certificate each week, the kids get a ticket and at the end of the semester the school draws one out. I cannot get to all the schools since they finish at the same time, so I cannot give away the bikes.
Some principals are very hard; it has to be 100% attendance. Others give them to kids whose parents struggle to get them to school, so it is an encouragement for them. I have found the program has been very successful and many of the schools appreciate it. I wish I could buy enough bikes for every school.
Another great school – Madam Speaker would agree – is Taminmin College. The member for Nelson has already mentioned it. It is a terrific comprehensive rural school which offers a great range of VET courses. As he said, it has some mixed produce farming there on 75 ha. The members for Goyder and Nelson know that Taminmin is a terrific school with a wonderful philosophy of REACH; respect; effort towards excellence; achieve your goals; caring community; and honesty. Taminmin also has a fantastic chairperson of the school council. Bev is like an ankle biter. Once she attaches onto you to get something done you can never get rid of her. She never gives up. That is good for a chairperson. I wish I was that good when I did my time as the chairperson.
As rural members, we all know how much the school means to our community. Taminmin’s My School profile shows it performs generally on par with similar schools in the state. My point is actually a plea. I ask members to stop running down our schools. Let us stop spruiking the doom and gloom. We need to praise the students and what we do in the education system.
The last schools I will mention are related to work government has done recently – which I am proud of – for the Batchelor Outdoor Education Centre and the Dundee School. These two education facilities had their upgrades brought forward through the Building our Economy initiative. I was very pleased to push for those upgrades; they are well deserved. It is another example of how this government is not only helping small and medium businesses but also continuing to improve education facilities across our community.
Madam Speaker, our education system is one that we should be proud of and I am grateful that the minister has put this motion forward.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in a debate on education. It is not about running schools or teachers down. I would be the last person to run down teachers or schools as three McCarthys are delivering high-quality education in the Territory, and I have many colleagues from an education career spanning over 30 years.
I will go to a few important points about policy. This statement is about major reform. What I learnt in government is that every policy needs specific review. You need to review your major reforms, urgently in some areas.
There are some deficits in this model. Major reform incurs major policy shift and it requires very methodical review. Schools under your reform have seen two years of the changes and they are now able to clearly articulate some of the challenges. I will not go down that road, minister.
I ask you to look into this area. I know that your advisers, staff and education officials are listening to this. I visited a school last Friday where a principal advised me that, under the new global budget system, he is carrying three salaries of teachers on medical leave, in addition to employing three teachers to replace the staff on leave. That is six salary budgets, with a process of applying to the centralised function of the department to address this salary deficit, or in this case three salaries. That is a process that is burdening the principal with extra work. There is a feeling that these cases will not be addressed and that his message is not being heard.
This reverses one of your policy directions in centralising a function back to the department. But if there is any review and revision that could be conducted, it is that. That is significant budget resource that currently is unaddressed. There are anomalies.
The global school budgets is a new policy – a major reform – and principals are celebrating the autonomy it delivers. However, there are some serious deficits in the model and most of them can be addressed with the input of a centralised function. I ask you to look at that; schools will be using their savings and running into deficits, and will be significantly out of pocket if this is not addressed. There are a number of areas.
Question Time was interesting today when the opposition posed questions about a number of issues in education. One I was very interested in was early childhood. I acknowledge the member for Wanguri and the Territory Labor opposition team, which have been doing an enormous amount of work with the staff, stakeholders, constituents and unions to make sure that Labor’s policy on education is well and truly crafted, is new and bold, and adds value to what is the most precious resource we have in the Northern Territory: our children.
That area dovetails into the Opposition Leader’s early childhood policy. Early childhood is very much a feature of Labor’s policy development and position should we be judged worthy to gain government in the Northern Territory. The minister did not give us much detail of the early childhood issue and we have been searching for more evidence. There is not a lot the CLP is offering in this space. I will try to contextualise this into an example from Tennant Creek.
Let us talk about Tennant Creek Primary School. Anecdotally and from evidence from our health service providers and educators in Tennant Creek, we think there are about 400 children under four years of age. I have spoken in this House about the larger demographic and the fact that there are about 8000 Aboriginal children turning five in 2017-18 across the Territory. However, in Tennant Creek we think – and you could support us with this research – there are around 400 kids under four. We are talking about the zero to four years age group.
Last year it was interesting that 20 kids were identified, in an empirical sense, that we can name who did not get a preschool placement. They consequently turned five and are now in the formal years at Tennant Creek Primary School. The teachers there are great; we are very lucky because they are very experienced, mature teachers with lots of experience under their belts from down south and in the Territory. We are seeing a trend that the kids who did not get the preschool placements are suffering serious adjustment issues in the main school in Transition. That should not surprise anybody with an education background.
It is an issue not only in program delivery, but in regard to infrastructure. I acknowledge that the Chief Minister, in Budget 2015-16, spoke in the House about a number of initiatives. One of those was the new preschool and early childhood learning centre in Alice Springs. One was in his electorate and the other in his home town of Alice Springs. Tennant Creek is now facing the same challenges. However, I suggest, based on anecdotal evidence, that we have higher support needs than there will be in Alice Springs, with all the support services Alice Springs can combine in early childhood growth and development.
Tennant Creek is becoming a hot spot in how we will cater for the early childhood cohort. It was great to run into a senior executive from Education in a supermarket because we talked about this issue. He talked about some of the investment going into Tennant Creek in the infrastructure side of the primary school. That is great; I welcome and support that. I have spoken to the principal about it and attended a council meeting where it was discussed. It is good news.
However, the real priority is to look at infrastructure and service provision. When we look at this cohort of children coming through into the early years, we cannot deny the fact that a large percentage of these kids will have what I define as high support needs – behavioural and emotional – let alone some with more serious cognitive deficits that will be realised through issues such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
We know the realities and challenges of our town and community. The teachers will talk about behaviour support and management as an extreme priority. There is infrastructure that is failing that purpose. We need consumables as well, and we will need to look at staff. The numbers that need to be planned for is a resourcing issue that cannot be addressed easily.
That is essentially a micro-example of the Northern Territory and one of the reasons Labor policy has focused on the early childhood area, where we also request the current government, with its access to significant resources in finalising a Budget Cabinet process, to come into this House and tell us about the initiatives that are in place, of course, without revealing any of the budget secrets around the protocols of budget, budget week, the leaks and all the razzamatazz that goes on.
It is a clear story. Once again, I welcome any government officials, particularly ministers, to Tennant Creek and the Barkly. You can visit and see the infrastructure plans around the stimulus package. You can also talk to teachers and hear their real concerns about professionals who understand and are planning for the cohort coming through.
If I had the resource of government what would it equate to? It equates to looking at our early childhood infrastructure and services such as the Tennant Creek childcare centre, the Tennant Creek Preschool, the service land, the precinct that can support infrastructure development and a concept that will deliver for a high-support-needs cohort which needs to be stabilised, managed and prepared for those early years and the consequent primary school, middle school and senior secondary school. Essentially the concept is about generational change. There are many people across the Territory who are very frustrated. I have just been dealing with a constituent issue in Tennant Creek. There have been young girls on the street late at night vandalising shopfronts. The community gets really upset, with good reason. Then the allegations and accusations take away from progressing initiatives to deal with it. Essentially it will not be a short story; this will be a long story about generational change.
The opposition spokesperson, the member for Wanguri, talked about Families as First Teachers. I was privileged to be at a Families as First Teachers Day – a big community celebration including all the regional stakeholders – at Ali Curung last month. It was amazing to see everybody together under one roof telling their stories, sharing their resources, with their kids being part of that. It was orchestrated by the Families as First Teachers program. That is an example of a program that is making a difference and initiating this generational change.
First, most of the parents are under 25 years of age – higher than the national average. They will be the first to tell you that most have very limited parenting skills. Second, we have this incredible demographic of young children who are coming through. Unless we start to address the issue with a philosophy of generational change, we will risk another lost generation.
In the area of child protection, the member for Port Darwin challenged and made some very valid points. It is not good though to use the rhetoric of abandoned generations. We need to be applying our precious and limited resources to the realms of parents, kids and extended families across the Northern Territory. We need to be more creative and take on new ideas. We must focus on the early childhood sector.
There is the story for Tennant Creek. I know that staff and the new principal are all working hard together. There is a story about an infrastructure requirement that has been delivered across the Northern Territory, the exact concept that we needed in the previous budgets. It would be great to hear an announcement for Tennant Creek. We will continue to lobby.
It is far more than just my words today when we talk about the reality of what the teachers, school support staff, administrators and parent body are dealing with. This is now becoming critical in trying to hold this together.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is great to talk about one of the underlying opportunities for growth, development and stability to realise the prosperity and great future of the Northern Territory.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I also am happy to speak on this education motion. It is great to hear people who have spent a lot of time in classrooms speaking on this motion. I am sure we share many similar experiences dealing with students, helping young minds learn and watching generations of Northern Territorians come into self-confidence and receive an education that sets them up. It is always great to talk to the kids years later and see what they have done and where they are.
As other teachers in the room will relate, one of the proudest moments is when one of your former students becomes a teacher and says that part of the reason they became a teacher was because they thought you were a great teacher and you inspired them.
It is great being a teacher for several years and seeing kids who are now in their mid or late 20s and have families of their own. I always find myself remembering those kids as the 14-year-old I first taught. They come up and say, ‘Hello, Mr Barrett’, and I say, ‘For goodness sake, you are 30, you can call me Nathan’. They tell me that they now have a couple of kids and I am always surprised because I remember them as being 14. No matter how old they are, I always think they are far too young for that.
As a person who has loved education and been a teacher, I look at what is happening now in the education space and am very pleased with the work the Minister for Education and the department has been doing.
I spend a lot of time in the schools in my electorate, where I feel at home. They are very welcoming and I often have great interactions with them. It is interesting that on the odd occasion when I return to schools where I have been part of the staff in the past they do not mind throwing me a whiteboard marker and saying, ‘Go on, Nath, see if you can teach them a maths concept’ or some such thing. ‘Let us do some trigonometry today with Mr Barrett.’ It is always great to be back in the classroom doing that.
This CLP government has put through reforms such as the independent public schools idea and the single line budgeting. I have spent a lot of time talking to the principals in my electorate about how they feel regarding what has happened in their schools and how these changes have affected them. I will be honest; there were teething problems in relation to that.
On the whole, it allowed three schools in Palmerston – Woodroffe Primary School, Rosebery Middle School and Palmerston Senior College – to form something they are calling ConnectED. I sat down with those principals early on and said, ‘Do you know what private schools do really well? They do the transitions well.’ Because they often run on a single campus with a lot more year levels in one space, they are very good at getting solid visibility from Transition all the way to Year 12. They are very good at focusing their students at a very young age on thinking, ‘When I am in Year 7, I would like to be a part of that team. When I am in Year 9 I would like to be part of what happens there. When I am in Year 10 I would like to go on that trip the Year 10s go on. When I am in Year 12 I would like to be part of the group that does that.’ That is because they have leadership structures that run from the Year 12s all the way back to Transition. You might have Year 12s mentoring Year 9s as leaders of middle school. You might have Year 9s mentoring Year 6s in the primary school and then the Year 6s spending time with the little kids in Transition.
I talked to the schools about these connections and the loss they experience when kids from many different schools meld together when they come to middle school. It is often hard to get through that first six months when they have them in a new class setting because at the end of the day the students are trying to find themselves.
One of the great things about ConnectEd is that it starts to bridge these gaps. These systems the Minister for Education has put in place allow closer collaboration between different areas of these schools where they are not just following the same national curriculum guidelines but starting to think about things like aligning house colours or house names across schools in Palmerston. Then they can always have a point of contact and know they are in that house. When kids move from one campus to another, they are moving with a group of people they have a tribe relationship with.
One of the great things in education is the study into understanding how kids operate. One of the ways kids operate in regard to the tribe idea is that you can form the kids into these loose groups which tend to form strong connections. They can help, advise and work with each other through problems, and together have greater success than any individual would have. It is then healthy competition which fosters an understanding of the importance of different people within that group and what they can bring to a team situation, where they do not have to be the one who is best at maths or English or is a sports star, but together they can provide solutions to problems from different angles. Gee, wouldn’t that be nice if we could do that in parliament?
I am very excited about this ConnectEd strategy. One of the first things I did was look at units that served in World War II in the Darwin area. I found those units through an historian by the name of Tom Lewis. He and I worked to get those units together and present them and their military colours as school houses. Units from the Army, Navy and Air Force were attached to house groups, which tracks right through to Year 12. It means they have the ability to look back at what these units did, their mottoes and catchphrases, and build that into their house ethos. As those houses move from Transition to Year 12, the strength of continuity should track all the way through.
I like that ConnectEd has taken that on. It has a board across all three schools to look at ways to foster changing leadership structures so house leaders in all campuses are working together on what is good for the students across those campuses. That is revolutionary thinking for the public school sector. It is out-of-the-box innovation. I like that it takes advantage of what naturally makes kids more comfortable and stronger in a group, brings it to the fore and uses it to help their educational outcomes.
I am looking forward to seeing the result of the first few years of this and how it tracks through. I like nothing more than going to schools and talking to students and teachers. Much of the things the Labor Party members talk about, particularly those who have not spent very much time in schools, is how unhappy school communities and teachers are. In the schools in my community, I do not run into unhappy students or teachers. Sometimes I find, in talking to principals, they have various issues that we work through at a department level, but they are not generally at a strategic policy level, as is discussed in this place.
In this connectivity that runs between Transition to Year 12, there are other synergies that can be brought for boards. For example, rather than having three separate boards, which spreads the talent pool very thinly, we could have a very good board over a group of schools that looks strategically at the whole setting.
That would not be possible had it not been for the reforms the Education minister has introduced or the work done and funds spent in education to ensure the schools could work the reforms best in future.
The funny thing about education is it has a way of reinventing the wheel every few years. Someone comes up with another great idea to restructure the way something should be delivered, so teachers have to rewrite all their programs and content, and essentially redo what they have been doing. What I like about these new systems is they give the schools autonomy so they do not have to change something that is working.
You will find in education that there is probably not a system that works for every school. What I like about the reforms that have been introduced into the education system is that they finally acknowledge that. That is something this government has introduced. We acknowledge that something that will work at Woodroffe Primary School will not work at Moulden Primary School, so those schools have the flexibility to take hold of the programs that are getting results and implement them across the school rather than all working off exactly the same program, whether it works or not. There are people who are defining and refining our programs that will work in their context. It gives schools the flexibility to do what they need to.
I spend a lot of time at my schools and look at them from an infrastructure point of view. There is a lot of infrastructure work happening in Palmerston at the moment, and that is not being lost on the schools. Rosebery Middle School and Rosebery Primary School are full. They often have more students than they can handle. They are bursting at the seams and often run out of classrooms. I am glad this government recognises that and that school infrastructure growth is encouraged and paid for, and those kids have classrooms that are ready to go.
It is interesting in education when you look at the number of students in a classroom and the delivery of education. Often it comes down to how and what programs are being run in a school and how the teachers are implementing them. If you give teachers the space to implement the plan they are comfortable teaching and they know works in their school, the motivation and the reward is there for them to know they are teaching something that will work. That is what I believe is making the difference in Palmerston at the moment. Teachers know they have the flexibility to teach something they know is working. We have very good teachers.
To say that these teachers are unhappy, that everything is going to the wall and there is a big crisis is very unfair.
As Minister for Young Territorians I take the time to look at how kids are going. Having spent a lot of time around kids in my life you get to know the tenor and culture of different schools. You also get to know the culture of different cohorts of students and how they are tracking. I am always impressed by the quality of the students I run into, because they are engaged and learning.
Recently I was at Bakewell Primary School. Some of what it is doing in its accelerated groups is – I will not say mind-blowing or incredible, but Paul Nyhuis, the principal, is a very seasoned campaigner. He knows what he is doing and he is implementing some great programs. I have seen the results.
I get blown away when I go to my own kids’ assemblies. You listen to a kid reading and wonder how the heck that kid knew how to read it. I am sure I could not have done that when I was a kid. That comes down to the tenacity and quality of the teachers there, teaching the programs they want to teach because they know those programs work in their school context. That comes down to the leadership of the schools; it is in very good hands.
I will not hear the opposition talk down schools and the processes and programs this government has put in place. As a teacher I am very proud of the work that has occurred.
We fully fund preschools. We have the highest expenditure per student in the country, and so we should, because we probably have the highest percentage of students who need extra help because of our large Indigenous and remote populations of students. We also now have more young people on the autism spectrum and with Aspergers, attention deficit disorder or auditory processing issues, which I do not recall noticing when I was a kid, but noticed more prevalence of through my time as a teacher for nine-and-a-half years. We have better programs in place now for that than when I was a student or when I started teaching.
We have the highest percentage of students in the government school system, which puts a lot of stress on our system, but also means we can develop very good teachers. Often the teachers who come back from remote placements, even with a very short experience in regard to years, are mature in the way they teach classes and approach the programs they teach. It is great to watch them work.
The underlying assumption is that in 2012 everything in the education sector was fine and somehow this government has set about ruining it, but the work the Labor Party was doing in that space was really only putting more programs, money and staff into it, which was not converting into results. Our KPIs need to be results driven. We need to look at it and ask, ‘How are our students doing? Are they learning how to read and write? Are they learning maths? Are they learning social skills and how to interact appropriately? Are they learning how to access information and IT in an effective way that sets them up for work?’
We have that approach because the Country Liberal Party understands that it is business that drives employment, not education. That is very important to get across in this debate. If you study the Industrial Revolution you will find it was industry that generated jobs, then those jobs generated a level of education commensurate with them. It was not the other way around. It was not that everyone decided to become very educated and then, out of the blue, all these jobs materialised. There are countries where economic studies have been done which showed that when you spend too much time and effort on education and not enough on business you end up with many people who are highly educated but did not have jobs. There are people with multiple degrees driving taxis because even though they became a highly-educated population, there was still not work or opportunities available for people. This is why we need to bring our higher education and VET system into line with what jobs these kids will be doing and the next set of industry jobs that will be available in the Territory.
Strategically we need to be thinking 20 years in advance. We need to be thinking about what we, as a government, can do in the education space while looking at the industry space and making sure our kids are ready to access those jobs and have a chance of being at the forefront of where the economy goes in the next instance.
The Minister for Education provided a detailed address which outlined the many achievements for this government, and what is amazing is that it all happened in three-and-a-half years. What the opposition cannot deny is that this government – for all of its strengths and weaknesses, which I am sure the opposition could and does point out – is that we have instigated some pretty big reforms. I pay tribute to Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and the Education minister, for the reforms he has initiated in the education sector, which have brought better results. He has been able to do that in three-and-a-half years, which has led to setting up education with a much better structure for the future. I see that happening now in the schools in my electorate through the ConnectEd program in the Palmerston schools.
There were more students achieving A+ merit, the best NTCET results and the highest number of Indigenous students completing the NTCET in 2015. There were 27 Indigenous Year 12 students who obtained their NTCET in 2015 after completing their studies in their remote home communities. The reforms of this government are starting to show in our NAPLAN studies. Preparing students for a future in trade, in 2015 1894 students received a Statement of Attainment for one or more units of VET.
Madam Speaker, this government is focused on education and preparing kids for business that will come in the next 20 years of the Northern Territory. I commend the Education minister for this motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to bring this motion to the House. We introduced this as a motion, and I recognise that the member for Wanguri suggested it was more like a statement and it was done this way so the opposition could not have time to respond. You might note that we adjourned it yesterday and brought it back today. I welcome that because it has allowed more people in the Chamber to provide input to this important debate.
What has frustrated me more than anything is the approach that Labor and the unions take to our education system, especially in the last three-and-a-half years. Education has gone through massive reforms. It is no accident it has gone through that because, as a government minister, I will not apologise for pushing hard. I was not happy with the results in many areas of education. Whilst we have always had good schools and have been well resourced with good teachers, I thought there was no real focus on improving results.
The previous Labor government’s focus was, ‘If there is a problem, just throw some more cash at it’. There was no real strategic focus on improving educational outcomes.
My frustration during this reform process was that we were constantly being attacked by the unions and Labor. They must be slightly embarrassed given that it is evident the results are improving. As I have said a couple of times this week in answering questions, if the results are going backwards shoot me and get me out of here, but there is proof things are getting better. I will not say everything is rosy in every school across the Northern Territory. For goodness’ sake, I get news flashes every day. I am sure the previous Minister for Education, and Education ministers before that, would get news flashes with incidents that schools deal with every day.
I take my hat off to the teachers who deal with Territorians’ children. Some of the things they get up to, quite frankly, disgust me at times. I do not want to take away from the good students, but we have some horrors. Teachers and principals have to deal with that every day. Many of these are society and community problems that are brought into our schools. I am not saying that everything is beautiful and rosy and look at life through rose-coloured glasses; however, I am frustrated at the continual attack on public education in the Northern Territory when it is not deserved. These guys have worked damn hard in a hard environment.
I am the one who has driven that change, along with this government, and rightly so. The course and the base have been reset and I know the decisions we have made in the last few years are the right decisions to put us on a far better course than where we were heading. It is time we praised them and stopped trashing them.
This government has undertaken a reform agenda to build an education system for the future. We have built the foundations of a system that is designed to perform to a high standard, meet and exceed the expectations of parents, compete internationally and support the social and economic future of the Northern Territory.
In 2012 this government inherited a very top-heavy, central bureaucracy in a school system where everyone had been trying their best, but was delivering a wide variety of programs and initiatives that were not connected. There was no involvement in the improvement of student outcomes. In fact, there was not enough focus on the performance of the system, the results being achieved or the quality and standards of programs being delivered in our schools.
Our reviews into Indigenous education and middle schools have found that although there had been significant increases in funding, the system was struggling. I have tried to work out an analogy for this and I can only imagine a tap that is connected to a hose that is full of cracks and holes and a little trickle comes out of the end. The only thing the former Labor government could do was turn the tap up more, putting more money into the system. But there were so many cracks and holes and such a scatter-gun approach that no more was coming out of end; it was not getting better.
We have not been afraid to take some hard decisions. We have taken a strategic approach to resource allocation by ending what is not working and reorientating the system based on evidence. To stop wastage and ensure we have an efficient system, the government is focusing on building high performance in our system as well as implementing strategies for those schools and students who need additional support to succeed.
Global school budgets use a needs-based funding approach to ensure schools get the level of funding needed to meet the needs of their students. Many people might argue that is what Gonski set out to achieve. The problem is that Gonski became a banner, something easy to run with. I guarantee most people flying the flag of Gonski had never taken the time to read the report and look at what the impacts would have been for the Northern Territory; they might understand why we baulked at signing up to Gonski in the context of the Northern Territory.
Global school budgets have given the authority and flexibility to schools to provide programs that are relevant and meaningful for their students, including the discretion to employ staff with a range of skills and professional expertise. As well as teachers, schools may, at their discretion, employ staff with other expertise, such as VET trainers and counsellors. This is happening now.
The introduction of independent public schools is another strategy which ensures that high-performing schools can earn autonomy for greater decision-making at the local level. I agree with my Australian government counterpart, Senator Hon Simon Birmingham, the federal minister for Education. While funding is important, how we use funding is more important. The Australian government has given us a funding model that allows us the flexibility and autonomy to make the right decisions for our system and focus on what matters: autonomy for schools, especially those performing well; excellent teaching: a high-quality learning program; and, of course, engagement with parents.
We have also cemented a high-level partnership, working closely with the Australian government on a long-term reform plan to improve outcomes for our Indigenous students and improve rates of attendance. That is a struggle and has been for a long time – you guys know as do we – and we are trying to deal with it.
A commitment to using evidence to determine what works is at the heart of this government’s strategy to build a high-performing system. We have said that results are beginning to show that this strategy is paying dividends with an increase in government school enrolments and improvements in our NAPLAN and Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results.
I will talk about international education in connection with building a first-class education system, about which I ran out of time yesterday. Expanding our excellent education services into this market was a huge untapped opportunity until this government turned its attention to it. In December 2015 there were over 2100 enrolments by full-fee-paying international students in the Northern Territory on a student visa. This represents a 14% increase on the previous year and a 39% increase over the past two years. This compares to the national growth of only 10%. Nationally, international student numbers are growing by 10%, and in the Northern Territory in the last two years, 39% and 14% respectively.
The member for Barkly said we did not talk much about early childhood education and care in the questions that I was asked today. To be fair, three minutes is difficult for unpacking an entire package. But there was some misinformation today. Yes, there is a new strategy but there is money behind it. The member for Wanguri needs to understand that there is real, new money behind this strategy.
I also pick up what the member for Barkly said about carrying the absent teacher salaries in the global school budgets. He needs to understand that the global school budget does include historical relief teacher funding. A level of absenteeism is expected and is funded, and can be managed within the budgets allocated. Should absenteeism be exceptional and unexpected, then schools can apply for funding under the exceptional circumstances framework. For example, in Week 10 of Term 1 more than $700 000 was paid in funding to 10 schools in exceptional circumstances. Where the need is there the funding is available. We back it up, member for Barkly.
Long leave types including workers compensation, long service leave, remote study leave and parental leave are all centrally funded and do not affect global school budgets.
The other thing we should talk about – and I did touch on it – is early childhood education and care. The Northern Territory government recognises the importance of providing quality early years education for young Territorians from birth to eight years through a continued investment in early childhood education and care to ensure we provide the best possible start for all children.
The Northern Territory government is one of the only jurisdictions in the country providing free preschool education for all children, at a cost of about $38m per year. All Indigenous children living in remote and very remote communities in the Northern Territory can access preschool from the age of three years. Since 2014 we have fully funded, with Commonwealth assistance, a 15-hours-a-week preschool program in all government preschools.
We continue to provide $5.9m to subsidise the cost of long day care and family day care services for Territory families so they also have access to quality early childhood education care and services.
The Northern Territory is implementing a targeted approach to increasing the quality of education and care services across the Northern Territory through a partial reassessment process. This approach has seen 17 services lift their quality ratings, which is good news for parents and children who use those services.
We continue to provide scholarships to increase the skills and knowledge of our childhood educators, expanding the Families as First Teachers program to 11 additional remote and very remote sites, which is bringing the total to 32 sites by 2017. The Families as First Teachers program is driving generational change and assisting in building resilient families in remote and very remote communities in the Northern Territory. In Semester 2 of 2015, 1316 children and 1404 parents and carers participated in the program’s early learning activities. That is an increase of 15% and 31% respectively from 2014. These are major changes.
The Northern Territory government also recognises that improving outcomes for Territory children requires a whole-of-government approach. The Department of Education is working with agencies, including the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Families, as well as the Australian government, non-government organisations and families, to achieve this, and we are seeing good results. Are we there yet? No, we have a long way to go but we are coming off an extremely low base that was overseen by nearly 12 years of Labor government.
The member for Nelson raised Taminmin and Girraween schools. I can remember sitting on a bus for nearly two hours each way going to and from school, so I have sympathy. The bus service is under continued review. It is always being reviewed as new subdivisions open up, or as parents move into different areas and you are provided with feedback. Education and the Department of Transport are always looking at reviewing those bus services. Like the member for Nelson, I believe we have a good bus service in the Northern Territory.
I go back to international education for a second. Education is now the Territory’s ninth biggest export industry, which created $55m to the economy in 2014-15. Through the Department of Education we have established an English language centre in Dili, Timor-Leste, in partnership with the Timor-Leste Secretariat of State for Vocational Training Employment and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The English language centre is a three-year investment and is a key part of the expansion of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre’s transitional educational footprint. The program will expose Timor-Leste citizens to the Australian education sector and, through the technologies and education practices employed, will provide a platform to leverage future international education opportunities and deliver the Territory a ready pool of capable seasonal workers.
There have been 26 students participating in the English language program in Dili who will all graduate this year. I look forward to that graduation. I also acknowledge their hard work in making such an achievement that will open economic opportunities for them and their families. With the first-ever federal minister for international education appointed in 2015, and a national strategy for international education due to be launched in 2016, the Northern Territory is well positioned to build on these initiatives and our success to date.
International education is a fantastic opportunity for the Northern Territory to showcase high-quality education facilities, engage with Asian markets through the education sector and build deep and long-lasting relationships with our near neighbours. We will continue to develop and strengthen new and existing partnerships with the Asian region so the Territory is truly seen as Australia’s gateway to Asia and Asia’s gateway to Australia.
The government has transformed the Northern Territory education system with a new contemporary Education Act, greater school autonomy that is well supported and a strong eye to measuring and monitoring school achievement and system performance to enable evidence-based decisions and strengthen program delivery.
Schools are setting the bar higher and focusing on supporting middle- and high-achieving students to aim higher and improve achievement to advance the whole system along with them. It is all about getting the balance right.
Regular attendance for all students, especially in our remote schools, remains our biggest challenge going forward, and I acknowledge that. For young people to be successful they need to attend school regularly. We understand that a range of factors can impact on the desire and ability of young people to attend school. However, through a whole-of-government approach and strong community support we can improve student attendance and close the gap for Indigenous students. This will remain a key focus of this government, in partnership with the Australian government and communities throughout the Northern Territory.
We have seen gains in NAPLAN and the number of students completing an NTCET. We will remain focused on continuing to improve NAPLAN results and the number of students completing Year 12.
Indigenous student achievement remains low compared to non-Indigenous students. Government’s 10-year Indigenous education strategy is implementing a range of evidence-based initiatives from early childhood through to employment pathways aimed at closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
Everywhere I go, at every school I visit across the Territory, I find passionate and committed teachers and principals, and skilled and dedicated support staff. I speak to volunteer school council members and chairpersons, who are all selfless and steadfast in their commitment to making their school the very best it can be. I thank these committed people for embracing the reform agenda in education that is being delivered by this government.
I am very proud of our schools for taking up the challenge with both hands to lift the bar for the benefit of young Territorians, for implementing Direct Instruction in 19 remote schools to give Indigenous students the best opportunity to fully particulate in the 21st century economy, for achieving the best Year 12 results we have ever seen in the Northern Territory and breaking our own records year upon year, and for lifting the average ATAR score for Year 12 students in Territory government and non-government schools from 61 marks to 65 marks in a single year, in 2015.
This government has a comprehensive reform agenda and has continued to make a positive impact and deliver promising results. We have set ourselves ambitious targets internationally and we continue to stretch ourselves in order to achieve real improvements and outcomes for our children and to close that gap. We recognise that there is still much to do but we aim high. We want more Territory children.
I acknowledge the member for Nelson’s comments with regard to the bus travel in his community. We are reviewing this request.
I place on the record that I am disappointed that Labor is once again resorting to scare tactics to cover for its lack of policy. The member for Wanguri and her colleagues will be pleasantly surprised with the budget when it is released in May this year. It is concerning that Labor has not addressed the most fundamental business of schools and has shown no understanding of teaching and learning reform and the importance of improved outcomes for our children.
Madam Speaker, in addition, I share that I am very excited to officially launch our early childhood strategy Great Start, Great Future in the near future and look forward to outlining funding packages that will accompany this strategy. This government is now well advanced on the journey to transform education in the Northern Territory. We will continue to focus on what works and getting the most out of the reforms and initiatives this government has put so much effort into creating. We will continue to invest in our children and our economic and social future. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table members’ travel reports received from the Leader of the Opposition dated 20 April 2016; the member for Daly, received on 19 April 2016; and member for Nhulunbuy, received on 21 April 2016.
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Committee of Members’ Interests Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 200 I table the report and the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of April 2016 on the matter of speaking in a language other than English.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The Standing Orders Committee report arises from a reference from the Assembly originating from a motion by the member for Stuart which was debated during the March sittings. The motion was subsequently amended by the member for Goyder and further amended by me, resulting in the committee giving consideration to formalising a process for the use of a language other than English in the Chamber.
The Standing Orders Committee was requested to inquire into the best procedure to allow members to speak any language other than English in debate, and with recommendations report back to the Assembly no later than the sitting week commencing Tuesday 19 April 2016.
I am pleased to report that the committee has considered the matter at length and brings to the Assembly a recommendation which will be a significant improvement to the existing arrangements where leave of the Chair is given on an ad hoc basis.
The proposed procedure will permit the business of the Assembly being transacted in language other than English where a member provides a translation of the words spoken prior to the language other than English being used, and provides a written transcript both in English and the other language.
The committee took the view that the approach is a significant improvement on the existing arrangements where members are allowed to speak in any language other than English by leave of the Chair of the Assembly and are not formally required to provide a subsequent translation or interpretation, resulting in some instances, but not others, where the translation is recorded. The new approach will ensure that the member speaks English prior to speaking in any other language to explain what the member is about to say in the other language.
The committee was pleased to be given this important reference and to ensure that the Assembly accommodates the diversity of a rich tradition of languages now being spoken in the community being also spoken in the Chamber when pertinent.
Madam Speaker, I commend the committee’s report and its recommendation to the Assembly.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To clarify, the committee agreed that the member would speak in English, then at the same time as speaking in another language they would table a copy of that speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is right. That is all circulated.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the report to the parliament. This is an important debate. I have a slightly dissenting opinion of the report – only slightly, a bit like the lawyers saying is it an ‘and’, ‘must’ or ‘shall’. I will get to that in a minute.
As I have said previously, I have been to Northern Canada where different languages are used. The language used there is predominantly the language of the people. In the case of Nunavut it is Inuktitut, but French and English are also spoken. They have a set-up as we do, but around the panels they will have a number of interpreters who are immediately interpreting what is said in the language. You can put on earphones and listen to the debate.
The problem for the interpreters is that sometimes the people speaking jump between English and Inuktitut. This means that the next interpreter has to break into an interpretation back from English to Inuktitut for those listening who speak the other language. It is an interesting set-up if you proceed down that path. Obviously that would be very costly and the occasions people want to speak in their own language would be few.
It is important that people are allowed to speak in their own language. This change to standing orders allows people to hear what is being said in English and then in the language of the speaker. That means that you know what the debate is about but you are also allowing the person to speak in their own language, which is good.
My understanding is that if you do that you only have the same amount of time as normal. One of the issues I had – this is where my dissent to the report comes in – is that what has been approved by the majority of people in this report is that we have included the word ‘and’. The word ‘and’ here means that the person making this speech in their own language has to do two things now, both make a speech in English and provide a written copy of the speech. That seems like duplication. I am not sure whether with that ‘and’ in it that someone can make the speech in their own language and just give a written report. I am not sure whether that goes against the original intent of what we were trying to do.
Be that as it may, my concern is now that a person who wants to speak in their language will have to first speak in English, then in their own language, and provide a written report. As Hansard will report exactly what has been spoken in English, there would be no necessity to have a written statement at the same time. Vice versa, if the person handed the Clerk the English version of what was being said prior to the speech and it was handed out, we would all understand what the person was saying. The advantage of that is the person could then speak for a longer period.
To me, that ‘and’ has to some extent complicated something that should be simpler. I decided to raise that because whilst people might just think it was an ‘and’ and an ‘or’, the ‘or’ makes the process more efficient, gives the speaker an opportunity to speak for longer, whereas the ‘and’ will limit the time that person can speak and doubles up on the requirement to have a written statement, which will be done by Hansard anyway.
I thank the committee for looking at this. At least it puts something in our standing orders in relation to the use of another language, which is important.
This House has to reflect the people who live in the Northern Territory, and many people in the Territory speak different languages. Many of those languages are spoken by quite small groups of people, but at least we are recognising those languages and, to some extent, encouraging their use.
My wife’s language is Batjamalh. When she passes from this earth, Batjamalh will just be found in a book and will not be spoken. She does not speak it much because she was brought up at Daly River where they moved from Batjamalh language to Ngan'gikurunggurr and English.
Emmi is a language that is spoken in the area around the mouth of the Daly River. That language is 99.9% dead. It will be picked up in an ethnobotany book my wife and her relations have just completed with Glenn Wightman. I am using that as an example of why languages are fading away as older people pass away. However, there are areas of strong language. The member for Nhulunbuy would know that her area is very strong in language. I can tell when she is pronouncing various people’s names, areas and towns that she has had some training in the letter ‘U’. She tells us how to pronounce Nhulunbuy. We should be sensitive to the way names are pronounced and try to pronounce them correctly.
I always laugh at Malak because it is supposed to be pronounced ‘Muluk’ – named after the Malak Malak people. The best man at my wedding was a Malak Malak man. However, I digress.
Madam Speaker, recognising languages in this parliament also encourages those languages. It tells people that we respect those languages. It is important, as a parliament, that we do that.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the report of the 20 April 2016 meeting of the Standing Orders Committee on the matter of breastfeeding and proxy votes.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee report arises from a request received by the committee from the member for Drysdale, asking the Assembly to accommodate breastfeeding mothers during divisions in the Chamber.
The report I tabled today contains a proposal for two new standing orders for consideration, and hopefully, adoption by the Assembly.
The Standing Orders Committee considered the matters of infants and breastfeeding on a number of occasions during the 9th Assembly, when the committee reported to the Assembly in June 2003, and was of the opinion that it was available for the Speaker, at any time, to rule that if a member was required to be in the Chamber it was in order for that member, if necessary, to bring an infant into the Chamber to be breastfed. This flexibility remains the situation in the Northern Territory; however, it has never been tested.
Voting by proxy is a different matter to nursing a child in the Chamber. The member for Drysdale requested that the committee give consideration to the matter of proxy votes. The committee has determined to recommended a new step-by-step procedure for proxy voting which will not offend the requirements of voting in the Assembly under the Self-Government Act, and to also recommend a revision of standing orders about strangers on the floor of the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, the proposals are contained in the report, and I commend the recommendations to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter proposing a discussion of the following definite matter of public importance:
The letter is signed by the member for Karama.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank members of the Assembly for their support of discussion of this definite matter of public importance.
One of the privileges I have had in my life was to be born and raised in Darwin. I spent quite a few of my adult years living and working elsewhere – Melbourne and Hong Kong, for example – but I always knew I would come home, particularly when I was ready to have and raise children.
I love our tropical environment and our lifestyle. I love the openness and freedoms of our children being able to run around and play in our suburban blocks. Some people have pools and some do not. I was lucky enough to grow up in Nightcliff where we had one of the first swimming pools in the suburb. As a mother of three children – having raised an additional one as well – we have never had a pool. We had a really big lawn where the kids had the plastic out on the lawn, the water hoses, the sprinklers, the trampolines – a lot of running around and a lot of fun.
I cannot understand any justification whatsoever in the dying months of the government for a proposal to dramatically tear up our lifestyle of tropical, leafy, abundant gardens and single dwelling blocks ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 and above. Why would a government, with just four months until a general election, have a Planning Commission issue a proposal – that, quite frankly, hardly anyone knew existed – to rezone single dwelling blocks to allow dual occupancy?
There is a bit of jargon in that, so I will break it down. Under the proposal for lots, suburban household blocks ranging in size from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 will be rezoned to dual occupancy. That means if you own a block of land in your suburb that is larger than 800 m2, if this goes ahead – and all it would require is a report from the Planning Commission to the Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Fong Lim, to say, ‘Do it’, and he would sign it off; it does not come to parliament to go through the rigours of debate by people elected to represent people across the areas of the Territory. There is one public meeting required, with notice; that is it. It would mean that everyone sitting on 800 m2 of land or larger could say, ‘I am carving my land in half, down to 400 m2 blocks side by side’. Frankly, to get a house on that block, the setbacks – we have no detail of what they would look like – would not be 3 m. There would not be enough room for it. Picture it!
There is nothing wrong with people who choose to live in highly densified suburbs. I try to break this down and explain to people there will be subdivisions in Palmerston which will literally have roof to roof abutting the dividing boundary fence. That is what it looks like – no room for trees, a back yard or garden. If you have a pool it will be a pretty small one; it will be a plunge pool.
One of the things we love about Darwin – it moves me every time I fly home when I look out the window – is trees. You can hardly see the roofs of the houses. When you look out across Darwin you see the green of the trees.
If the landowner chooses, the proposal would change having to go through a process of talking to their neighbour and arguing their case to the Development Consent Authority, and they would have the right to split their property down to 400 m2. It would only be a conversation between them and their builder.
I note the Minister for Lands and Planning has not led any public discussion on this. He has left it to the government’s handpicked and appointed Planning Commission, headed by their Liberal mate from down south, Gary Nairn. He has left the running to Gary, to take that rap.
They say it is ‘a proposal for a variety of minimum lot sizes ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 that is being considered’ and that ‘for dual occupancy policy to be included in the Planning Scheme the minister must further publicly exhibit the proposal for an additional 28 days’. The deadline for submissions is just a couple of weeks away. I have done some calculations and this is well before the caretaker period where you are able to sign off, member for Fong Lim. You have squeezed it into your window before the caretaker period so you can you sign it off.
I asked the minister in Question Time today a very specific question regarding how many lots of 800 m2 across the Territory have the potential for dual occupancy if it is signed off. Then I asked the minister how many lots of 900 m2, 950 m2 and 1000 m2 had that potential.
The public has every right to the answer because this is under active consideration by your Planning Commission. If you have the answer, please table it in this MPI debate or publicly release it.
Mr Tollner: It is publicly released. Are you all there?
Ms LAWRIE: Point to the site. I pick up on the interjection. Is it accessible on your website?
Mr Tollner: It is accessible. It has every house.
Ms LAWRIE: It does not have the calculations I am asking about, minister.
If it is so easy and so accessible, I am sure the minister, in his response, will tell us how to get that data. How many lots of 800 m2, 900 m2, 950 m2 and 1000 m2 have the potential for subdivision for dual occupancy?
I thank residents of Fannie Bay for bringing this proposal by the Planning Commission to my attention. They e-mailed members of parliament. I did not know it was happening. I confess that I do not peruse the Planning Commission website every week.
I would have thought a proposal of this magnitude would be announced by the government of the day for consideration. Instead, it was the Planning Commission.
I recognise a submission – I have approval to talk about these submissions – from Beau and Lindsay of Fannie Bay to Mr Nairn on this proposal of dual occupancy and zoned single dwelling. I will quote some excerpts from it because I am conscious of only having 30 minutes. ‘The following loss of amenity and social disruption will result from dividing single dwelling blocks into dual occupancy with a minimum of 400 m2 lots:
We are currently in a phase of negative population growth which is impacting on federal government funding. Many of these families have three or four generations living here.
There would also be pressure on existing infrastructure such as power, water, and storm water run-off, especially in the older suburbs that are already overtaxed in this infrastructure.
Traffic congestion and clogging up narrow streets with additional cars.
The increased use of power by forcing people to air condition because tropical architecture cannot work without air circulation which is not possible without space.’
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The members for Fong Lim and Sanderson are laughing, but this is a submission from a resident. Show some dignity. ‘Just in case the commission has forgotten we live in the tropics, we are currently experiencing our hottest Wet Season on record. Houses are built to withstand cyclones. In most cases this means they are built of concrete and steel which absorbs the heat. If you combine that with a loss of vegetation, Darwin will end up like a furnace.’
It goes on to talk about some of the population comparisons in a Deloitte report, Building the Lucky Country, but they point out that they are comparing Darwin to Sydney and Melbourne. We have a population of about 80 000, compared to populations of four or five million.
I urge honourable members to read the submission that was sent to all members by Beau and Lindsay. It is excellent and totally captures why the Planning Commission needs to withdraw its dual occupancy proposal.
I will also quote from Gail and Jurgen of Fannie Bay. It is an excellent submission. It points out that the proposal disregards the principles and objectives of the key Northern Territory land use policies. It points out that the objective is to plan for and provide a framework of controls for the orderly use and development of the land, to be achieved by minimising adverse impacts, ensuring, as far as possible, that planning reflects the wishes and needs of the community, through appropriate public consultation, and fair and open decision making and review processes.
It goes on to refer to the government’s 2015 NT Compact Urban Growth policy. It points out that the dual occupancy proposal would promote densification, not around activity centres and along transport corridors as NT land use policies say it should, but throughout single-dwelling suburbs. This would have a serious, adverse impact on those suburbs, changing the existing character altogether. Dual occupancy does not reflect the wishes and needs of the community, and the proposal was not made after appropriate public consultation.
I point out that as a former Lands and Planning minister I am very aware the Labor government consulted with the community on the issue of dual occupancy. As a result of those consultations, dual occupancy in the Planning Scheme provides for someone to go through a process. If you want to subdivide your block of land under dual occupancy in the scheme, you have to talk to your neighbours. If your neighbours do not agree, you go before the Development Consent Authority and the proposal is tested. Issues such as amenity, traffic congestion – all the natural issues that are to be discussed regarding changes to planning rights – are thrashed out at the Development Consent Authority.
Nowhere in any intent was there ever an idea by the Labor government to have dual occupancy changes on 800 m2 to 1000 m2 as a matter of right, let alone the idea that it is something sensible to do to our city.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning, when consideration about dual occupancy was occurring, the member for Port Darwin indicated across the Chamber that he wanted to have a conversation with me. So I left my chair and stood at the side of the Chamber. He said to me, ‘Letting you know on dual occupancy – do 1000 m2 as a right and you will get no argument from our side. I will make sure because I need to subdivide my block of 1000 m2.’ For privacy’s sake, I will not give the reason he said he had to do it.
I have no evidence of that conversation because I do not tape members of parliament when they talk to me, but it occurred. My concern is why is this happening? I believe it is happening because the member for Port Darwin is ensuring that before a change of government, dual occupancy for 1000 m2 occurs.
My request is to go through a spot rezoning application, member for Port Darwin; do not inflict this on the community. Please, CLP government, withdraw and ensure the Planning Commission withdraws this proposal. Do no sign off on this, member for Fong Lim, before you exit parliament. Do not make a decision that will impact on so many people’s lives and the very fabric of our lifestyle in Darwin.
I have not even touched on the impact of 800 m2 on the regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs because, quite frankly, I believe you are going after 1000 m2 based on that conversation years ago. That is my deep concern. I could never be proven right or wrong until it is too late, quite frankly.
The Property Council, which represents developers, has pointed out its issues. In its submission, which I thank it for providing to me, it has indicated that 800 m2 is not appropriate. It has said that if dual occupancy is adopted a minimum lot size of 900 m2, 950 m2 or 1000 m2 is generally considered more suitable. It recognises that design controls would need to include appropriate set-backs, landscaping, parking requirements, infrastructure requirements, storm water provision and the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding locality.
It said that the The proposed amendment to provide an exemption for dual occupancy developments from the standard 3 m separation is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing single dwelling character of the locality. The proposed amendment to provide for reduced set-backs for dual occupancy developments is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing single dwelling character of the locality. This is particularly relevant for set-backs from the front boundary. The capacity of existing infrastructure and the impact of dual occupancy developments on traffic and privacy are major concerns. Many of the existing neighbourhoods that will be affected by this change do not have the soft and hard infrastructure needed to support this intensification. The various levels of government and service authorities must have adequate plans to ensure the required soft and hard infrastructure can be provided when it is required.
This word is critical, ‘before’ dual occupancy is adopted.
I will repeat that. This is from the Property Council. ‘Many of the existing neighbourhoods that will be affected by this change do not have the soft and hard infrastructure needed to support this intensification. The various levels of government and service authorities must have adequate plans to ensure the required soft and hard infrastructure can be provided when it is required before dual occupancy is adopted.’
The residents who took the time to write these submissions are saying not to do this; withdraw the proposal to fundamentally alter our tropical lifestyle by providing for dual occupancy. We will see the carve-up of suburban blocks. If dual occupancy is down to 800 m2 then we will see single blocks of 400 m2. Equally, no one wants to see 1000 m2 subdivided, by right, down to 500 m2 blocks simply because the member for Fong Lim can have his Planning Commission recommend it to him and can sign it off before a Territory election.
You have no mandate to do this, CLP government; you did not go to the 2012 Territory election espousing dual occupancy. You did not say that you would even consider this. If my memory serves correctly, you campaigned against dual occupancy when it was discussed under a previous Labor government. That government listened to the community and did not proceed with it as a right. The requirement is to talk to your neighbours and go through the existing Development Consent Authority process to test a request on dual occupancy, when you can argue that it would not affect amenity or cause traffic congestion.
Do not tear up the fabric of our society because of greed. You have no right to do that – none at all. I have no doubt that this CLP government will go after me as they have gone after me. I will not say what the member for Port Darwin said about me outside of this Chamber. I am already spending a fortune on lawyers fighting you and your grubby government and your behaviour. I will not start a defamation fight as well. I know what he said to me that day. When I saw this I saw it for what it is: pure greed. Do not do this to our city on your way out.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, what a waste of time the member for Karama is – a complete and absolute, utter waste of time. She keeps us sitting to discuss an issue that she, by her own admission, has done no research on – zero.
I held this document up during her speech and I asked, ‘Have you seen this?’ But no, she has not seen it. It is a discussion paper that was issued publicly in March 2016 by the Planning Commission. She has not bothered to go online to see what the Planning Commission has said. Instead she came into the House and decided to make an issue when no issue exists, simply because she loves the sound of her own voice.
What an utter time waster the member for Karama is. She asked silly questions in Question Time about 800 m2 blocks in the Territory. Anybody with an interest in this would have looked at this document, which has been circulated publically; it is there for everybody to see. It answers that question very succinctly on page three. She cannot be bothered to even look at what is publically available.
She asked a silly question in Question Time about dual occupancy, and we find that she was the minister when the Labor government looked at dual occupancy. They went through a public consultation process, which is supposedly all right, but this government cannot do that is the argument being put to us by the member for Karama. ‘Do not consult; do not talk to anyone.’ You did not bother looking at what the Planning Commission has issued and you have no clue where this originated. You just came in here defaming people and causing a lot of grief. For what?
You are a hollow drum, member for Karama. There is nothing beyond the end of your nose, is there? You cannot see what is right in front of you. The fact of the matter is, on the opening page of this document there is a statement from the Planning Commissioner. He said:
I commend the Planning Commission. I have asked the Planning Commission to start consulting with Territorians. I want it to consult deeply by turning up to town hall meetings and sitting on street corners, but I have also asked it to go even further and employ market researchers so we can get an understanding of what people want.
Your arguments are not there, member for Karama. You are a hollow drum. You are fighting against a storm that does not exist. You are Chicken Little. You are worried about the sky falling in ...
Mr Wood: Be careful about the chickens.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry about the chicken slur.
Ms Lawrie: Then do not sign off.
Mr TOLLNER: You are a waste of time. I do not even have a proposal from the Planning Commission yet. What do I have to sign off on? This shows your lack of an argument. You are appalling.
I commend the Planning Commission for consulting. Something I have found worrying though is the view that just because the Planning Commission puts something in an area or a town plan or, in this case, raises dual occupancy, people are running around everywhere saying it is a fait accompli. It is not. The Planning Commission is simply doing its job, which is consulting with people and doing things like town and area plans.
I heard the member for Nelson say – it is one of the things that drives me a bit mad – ‘An extra 38 000 people will be living in the rural area’. In 50 years’ time that may well be the case, but no one is suggesting that the Planning Commission puts together an area plan, and you click your fingers and automatically there are another 38 000 people living in the rural area. It does not happen like that. Running around creating fear and confusion about what is genuinely an effort to consult and talk with people is wrong. It is madness.
Why do you not work with the Planning Commission? Why do you not at least visit its website and download some of its documents so when you come in here with a definite matter of public importance you have a clue what you are talking about. Or is it all too hard? You just love to hear the sound of your own voice whingeing and grizzling about something that ultimately does not affect you in any case. What a complete waste of time and space you are, member for Karama.
I do not see there is any point talking any further about this nonsense, Madam Speaker. I believe the member for Karama has overstepped her mark; her head has become too big for her ability. She ought to take some pill and get over herself. Until she does the most menial amount of research, do not come in here with stupid matters of public importance.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, that was an interesting contribution from our Planning minister, ‘No point speaking on this nonsense’. Well, this is far from nonsense. This is something our community is extremely concerned about. I thank the member for Karama for bringing this MPI to the House tonight.
This is something that can change the face of our city. Before we know it, it will have gone from the beautiful tropical city we love to something that looks like a southern capital city. We will lose our uniqueness, the reason people want to live and raise their families here.
I thank the minister’s office, which arranged an urgent briefing for me once we became aware of this issue. As the shadow minister, a number of concerns have been raised with me in that role.
Mr Tollner: The member for Karama could not do that. She did not want a briefing. She just decided to come in and spruik something she does not have a clue about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FYLES: Take your books and go home. You said it is nonsense; you have made your point
As the shadow minister, a number of concerned residents from across Darwin contacted me. A number of residents from my electorate also contacted me, most concerned about this proposal. One of their biggest concerns is that it seems to be a little benign planning document that has been released, with not many people aware of it. There is only a short time frame – only 30 days, and you can include school holidays and Easter in that time – for the process. There is strong community concern about this proposal and the time frame.
This matter of public importance is about protecting our lifestyle. This will change our tropical city. I was born in 1978, not immediately after Cyclone Tracy, but I remember growing up with a lack of vegetation. That quickly changed as Darwinites replanted and rebuilt our tropical city.
The Planning Commission’s proposal can make significant changes to our city. All the Planning Commission has to do is make a recommendation to the minister who, I understand, has to take 30 days and there has to be one public meeting – and that is it. Dual occupancy could change the face of our city forever.
There will not be any genuine consultation or representation from our community. If the minister was genuine about this, instead of coming in here and having a spray at the member for Karama he would undertake to bring it back to this parliament. We are all elected by our communities, which are concerned about this issue.
People would feel a lot more comfortable if they knew that this process would come back to parliament. But no, this process can be done in the dying days of this government relatively simply, without the genuine representation of our community. The community does not believe this is going through the normal processes. We believe the way the government is pushing this and the minister’s dismissive approach is disappointing.
This will have a huge impact on our community. The proposal means that any block of 800 m2 or larger can be divided in half for potentially two dwellings. Two families means more vehicles, more people. Where will those children go to school? Where will those people park their cars? Where will those people go for recreation or sport? We are already seeing planning issues, particularly in our older northern suburbs, where there is traffic congestion and our schools are full. In the electorate I represent we have already seen infill, and we will see more based around hubs. Our local primary school already has nearly 550 to 600 students and demountable buildings on-site. These are the issues we need to face.
This proposal would mean that blocks can be cut in half and two families can live on that block. The size of your suburb can be doubled in size without planning for any of the social impact or infrastructure. That is just one problem with the proposal.
The current status of the Planning Commission’s proposal for dual occupancy is that a very short time frame for public consultation has been established by the government, something that I have mentioned, as has the member for Karama. They are putting up options of rezoning blocks from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 in size.
The Planning Commissioner and the department will provide advice to a minister we do not trust. He has already told us that cash opens his doors. After tonight’s contribution to debate I do not think Territorians will have any more trust in the Minister for Lands and Planning.
The government may make a decision to make amendments to the Planning Scheme. If so, the amendment will be issued to the public for a 28-day statutory time frame. The minister will make a final decision; it will not come back to this House or go back to our community.
It would have been helpful if rather than having a spray the minister could have talked us through the process from there. There are a number of questions which remain unanswered. Is there still a DCA process for individuals wanting to pursue subdivision of their land? Is there still a process for community members, who potentially could have a neighbouring block split in half for dual occupancy? What involvement do they have as neighbours? It will impact on their lives.
This is an emotive issue; our homes are probably the biggest asset we will ever own. It is where we choose to raise our children and make our lives. There are some serious questions in the timing of these documents. Why is this coming up now, after the preparation of the Darwin inner and mid-suburbs land use plans? The minister will say this is part of the Darwin inner and mid-suburbs land use plans.
The Planning Commissioner has issued a discussion paper. When they were making those plans an issue was raised that residents would prefer dual occupancy. I quote from page two of the Planning Commission’s proposal:
In what frame was that question asked? I responded to the Planning Commission’s survey. I am pretty sure it was their survey; it said it ran one. I took part in quite a detailed phone survey about my community in my home.
I would like to know the context of those questions, because if one was, ‘Do you want dual occupancy or a high rise unit tower?’, then I can tell you how I would respond. But if you had asked me if I could choose to leave my suburb and the planning process the way it is, that would be my number one response.
I question the timing of this announcement, after we have completed the inner and mid-suburbs plans, which are meant to be the master plans for our suburbs. You are adding this whole new layer about which we do not have that information in those plans.
This has raised community concern. I have mentioned the number of people who have contacted me and I acknowledge the people in the gallery tonight, which is wonderful. We are debating an issue that is at the heart of Territorians.
The Planning Commission issued a media release, which the member for Karama referenced, which raised questions. The media release said the proposed amendment to provide an exemption for dual occupancy developments from the standard 3 m separation is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing SD character of the locality.
It went on to say, ‘We believe that reduced set-backs for dual occupancy are also not appropriate as it would alter the existing SD character. This is relevant for set-backs for the front boundary. One of the major concerns we have is the capacity of existing infrastructure and the impact of dual occupancy developments on traffic and privacy.’
That was the Planning Commission’s recent media release. It is true. I represent one of the older Darwin suburbs where we have numerous blocks – I think all of the blocks in Nightcliff – which would be larger than 900 m2. Most of the Rapid Creek blocks would be 700 m2 to 800 m2. This proposal would impact greatly on a suburb that is already facing congestion. Trying to leave the suburb in the morning, down Nightcliff Road traffic banks up right back to Chapman Road. Doubling the number of vehicles in that suburb is a factor that is looked at when an application goes through the normal planning process, but this proposal does not allow for that.
Some of the feedback from residents is that this would allow changes in direct contradiction to the planning principles of the Northern Territory Planning Commission’s inner suburbs and mid-suburbs area plans. The stated objective for residential areas is to limit the impact of new single-dwelling development on the established neighbourhood character. The area plans did not identify a need for subdivision of the SD lots to cater for the expected population growth. In the wake of that, why are we seeing this proposal?
We already have a system where somebody on a large SD block can apply, through the process, to have it rezoned for dual occupancy. That proposal allows time for the community to provide feedback. It also allows time for agencies, such as Power and Water and the City of Darwin, to provide comment. What formal process do they have through this scheme to provide comment and feedback?
I watch very closely for rezonings in my suburb. We check the website every week and make a decision whether to let people in our community know about a rezoning. If it something simple like a shed then we tend not to, but if it is a more significant rezoning we letterbox residents nearby. We do not give them a view; we just let them know this is happening in their neighbourhood because if you do not drive or walk a certain way, you might not be aware that two doors down at the back they are applying for a rezoning. You will be aware when something is built on the property and they are looking into your yard, you have less water pressure or there are more cars on your street.
Where in this process does the community provide feedback, something that is so vitally important? The City of Darwin provides feedback, as do schools in some situations. We have strong concerns that this new change will bypass normal processes.
I spoke about the concerns regarding the framing of the questions and in what context they were asked: dual occupancy versus multiple dwelling, or leaving the blocks for single dwellings.
There are concerns about the lot size. It would be good to ask the minister a question, but he has gone home ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please sit down. Honourable member, please withdraw that comment.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I referenced that he had a spray and left us to our devices …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is obviously making a reference in the conversation and I ask that she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: She did not reference leaving the House. She has withdrawn it; it is all right.
Ms FYLES: It is okay; I withdraw.
The Planning Scheme currently specifies a minimum lot size of 450 m2 in zone SD for greenfield areas. Potentially we will have blocks of 400 m2 in our existing areas, which is below the size for a greenfield site. That raises an important issue.
In my community there is high-density living down to blocks – I think there is one block in my electorate that is 1500 m2 or 1600 m2, so it is pretty big, a beautiful block ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms FYLES: No, I have told you my stories about being rural, member for Nelson. It did not work out. For four days when I was in high school I went to Howards Springs when mum and dad went away. But I love to visit my friends there.
We have huge variations, but people know what they are buying. If you choose to live in Sunset Cove near Woolworths, you choose the lifestyle of a very small block with lovely parks across the road. You would have a relatively small property to maintain but access to two huge parks, one with playground equipment. That is one type of living, but it was established as such; traditional blocks were not carved up to achieve it. You could also live in a unit with no outside maintenance.
This will impact people who have chosen to live on a large block with lots of space. The member for Karama spoke about her memories. I am creating memories for my children. We have space and vegetation around us, and lawn for the children to run on. We are fortunate to have a swimming pool.
This is pushing a type of living into an area that might not be designed for it. I have a number of questions I would have liked to ask the minister, but as I am running out of time I will outline Territory Labor’s current position. This was something Labor looked at and consulted on when in government, but it did not pursue rezoning residential properties as a result.
Our current position is that we do not support the proposal to zone properties ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 as dual occupancy. Territory Labor believes that the current system provides adequate checks and balances for property owners to rezone their property if they choose. The current system requires for a subdivision to go through – I spoke about those technical aspects.
Territory Labor believes rezoning all properties over a certain size as dual occupancy will significantly change the residential landscapes of Darwin, particularly the inner northern suburbs, out to Palmerston and across our regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
We believe there are alternative solutions to urban infill, for example, redevelopment of Berrimah Farm-type sites, and we strongly support the rural area remaining rural. We do not support the urbanisation of the rural area.
Madam Speaker, I am out of time, but I believe I have outlined our position and the reason this is a bad proposal. I support this very important motion in the House tonight.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, listening to the debate I thought it is funny how some debates that have been pretty broad-ranging – on education and the nitty-gritty stuff we need to debate in this House – have had to come from this side of the House. That is a shame because planning is an important issues and affects everyone.
I take up a couple of points made by the member for Nightcliff. The government putting some broad principles over single dwelling lots that enables them to be subdivided concerns me. Someone in the rural area mentioned that that could double the number of blocks in Noonamah Ridge. Wouldn’t that be interesting? Most of those blocks will be single dwelling.
What concerns me is if you allow this type of development, who will pay for the upgrades? I could take it one step before that. Has the Planning Commission done a proper study of traffic, power, water and sewerage infrastructure, and environmental and social impact? That is exactly what it has not done in the rural area. It has taken this broad-brush approach and said, ‘We will urbanise large areas of the rural area’.
In the areas the government is looking to change, the people who subdivide become developers. For instance, if there are 100 blocks in the Stuart Park area and people would like to subdivide their block, that is 100 developers. Who will pay for the upgrade in infrastructure? I will not pay for it. When a normal development occurs the developer includes it in the cost of the land. Is there an infrastructure development levy in the Darwin region? I do not know. There is one in the rural area but that is only for roads and drainage. If someone subdivides, do they have to pay $20 000 for a possible increase in the water and $20 000 for an increase in the sewerage, because some of these suburbs are very old? Do they have to pay $20 000 for an upgrade of the power system for new transformers? Do we have to widen some roads? The cumulative effect has to be taken into account.
Not only that, the social and environmental impacts must be taken into account: the more hardstand you have, the more run-off you have. Will storm water drains be able to take it? With 100 more houses on 100 blocks, that is 100 more roofs where water will run off into storm water drains.
What are the social impacts? The city area does not have as many kids as the rural area. But say it has three people per house, there will be 300 more people living in that area. What is the impact on the schools, the traffic, the shopping centres, the childcare centres and all those normal things we need? Has that been looked at before we start making decisions about allowing people to cut blocks, or will we say cut them and then let us look at the problems later?
That is part of what is happening in the rural area. The Planning Commission has issued plans which include what they call activity centres. Before I go on to that I will take up what the minister said. ‘We are looking 30 or 40 years away; what does it matter?’ Of course it matters.
If you rezone land now, that is final; it will be developed as urban land when it does not need to be. The issue we have in the rural area is – and I do not know why the minister was laughing – the Planning Commission’s plans talk about enough new dwellings in an area – 3100 one-acre blocks, something we oppose – which will have at least 20 000 people if you work on four people per house.
They want to put over 1000 people in Howard Springs, 3000 in Coolalinga, 5000 in Humpty Doo and 10 000 in Berry Springs. Show me the traffic, infrastructure, environmental and social impact studies first.
Take Howard Springs, a small district centre that has some land, none of which is government land; it is almost all private. They did not doorknock anyone’s house and ask if they minded if they put a flyer in their gate to show that their land would possibly be urban.
I took this little document around, which I put together because the government’s document did not give enough detail for people to know what was happening. I made sure that as many people as possible whose blocks of lands would be affected read this. One person cannot reach everyone. There is nothing biased in this, it just explains to them that their block might be urban or could be a large rural block, because they were not told that.
If you take Howard Springs, it says that we will have 310 blocks, I think, some of which will have flats and some single dwellings. Some will be 4000 m2 blocks. There is a lagoon next door. Do you know what they say? ‘It will be adapted.’ I love the word ‘adapted’. You cannot have suburbs next to a lagoon; you have to turn it into a pool or an ornamental lake, such as in parts of Palmerston, which then cost a fortune to look after. We will ‘adapt’ it.
The problem is that Whitewood Road has heaps of traffic on it already. You will put over 300 dwellings there? Two cars per dwelling is pretty normal, two trips a day. That is 1200 trips of vehicles a day on Whitewood Road. Has anyone done studies on that? No. Has anyone looked at what the effect on the lagoon would be if we fill up all the land near the Howard Springs shops with houses? The more hardstand, bitumen and roofs, the less water that will go into the environment. What effect will it have on the schools? I have said that Howard Springs is a small school – it might be good.
Were all these things discussed before this was issued? Yes, they did have some workshops. I like workshops, they are okay. But the people were asked three guiding questions. What do you think are the main constraints and challenges for land use planning in your rural activity centre? First of all, people have trouble understanding what an activity centre is – it beats me. What community facilities, and where, need to be planned to support growth over the next 20 or 30 years? How do you think rural activity centres should be developed to accommodate some population growth while protecting established lifestyle?
That is fine, those questions can be asked, but some people wondered why it was limited to those questions. Why were questions about things like smaller blocks not asked?
The government also issued a document done by McGregor Tan Research last year. It said that most people support activity centres, but expanded to about 500 m to 800 m outside the existing shops. What people found – and they would not have obtained it from these documents that were given out – was in the case of Humpty Doo the activity centre is 6.2 km long, nothing like the survey said. How is that reflected in what people said? In the case of Coolalinga and Freds Pass, it says it is 7.2 km long and Berry Springs is just as long at 7 km. That is not reflective of what was in the survey. Nobody has asked for a 7 km activity centre. The survey asked how far out people would prefer it to be and 51% said within 400 m to 800 m, and the worst was up to 1.5 km. That was not reflected in this document.
The other concern I have is that things we did not ask for have been pushed onto us. We have said to both this and the previous governments that we do not want blocks smaller than 1 ha. I have a couple of petitions – 2000 people signed a petition in two weeks – saying that 1 ha should be the smallest. What is a cunning way to get around that? The Planning Commission said, ‘We will have two versions of Rural Residential; one will be inside the activity centres and one will be outside. Outside the activity centres will be 1 ha and inside the activity centres it will be 4000 m2 or one acre.’ This is exactly what we do not want. What did they then do? They expanded the activity centres to 6.2 km, 7.2 km and 7 km to fill with Rural Residential one-acre blocks. What a con!
People are supportive of some development around the activity centres, but it has not happened. What is a laugh in all of this is that over the last 20 years – we say this will happen in ages to come – they have tried to change the zones, but have not used the existing zones they already have. There is residential, single-dwelling and even higher-density land in Humpty Doo district centre now.
Ex-minister, the land you approved at Humpty Doo, against the advice of the DCA, sits there barren.
Mr Chandler: It is undeveloped.
Mr WOOD: That is right, a nice planning word – undeveloped land, because it cannot be developed. It was a mistake to develop that land. It was out of place and the advice was to not develop it. There is land in Freds Pass district centre and Berry Springs which you could develop.
One of the arguments the Planning Commission puts forward is people want to retire in the rural area. I know they do. I am not saying they should not have smaller blocks, but you put them in the village, not spread them out for 6.2 km. If we need more villages, let us build more so you keep the concept of village rural as just that. You do not turn the village into another version of Palmerston. That is exactly what is happening with this.
My concern is that we have not built facilities for aged care. The government keeps saying we need facilities for people who want to get off their block. Why has it not helped by opening up the land it owns for someone to build a retirement village? I asked this and the previous governments to look at it; they ummed and ahed and said, ‘There are surveys’. I see people leaving the rural area to go down south all the time. People I have known for many years packed up and went. That is partly because we do not have rural facilities. There are rural people who have gone to Pearl or Tiwi, which is nice but it is not their area. They have left the area they know because governments have failed to provide them with the facilities to stay in the rural area.
If they blame me for saying people want to get off the blocks, I agree. I am not saying they should not. Your response is 3100 one-acre blocks. Give us a break! That is 3100 people retiring on one-acre blocks, and an excuse to get around the minimum lot size.
The argument will be there is not enough water in the ground. If you have a 1 ha block, you have to have town water. You can do something with that. A one-acre block, I guarantee, will wipe out all the vegetation except for one-and-a-half trees, will crowd people in and will not be rural. It will be like the last block left in Nightcliff, a large suburban block. If you drive along the Arnhem Highway to Humpty Doo Tavern, you will notice that most of that country is native vegetation …
Mr Chandler: Could not see it for the signs.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We are working on the signs, minister.
In this last minute, thank you, if we allow that to turn into one-acre blocks all that bush will go and you will lose the very heart of what we are talking about.
I still have problems with people who make decisions not understanding the rural mentality, which is about living in the bush with a horse, an ATV and chooks, enjoying the quiet, private life – whatever. It is something special and a great way to bring up kids. We need to give people that opportunity, not preserve what is happening now – urbanising us and leaving little spots. We want that expanded and you are taking it up with urbanising the rural area.
You need to build Weddell and leave the rest as the CLP meant it to be – villages, district centres and rural. That is what was promised in 2010. Please keep your promise ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr CHANDLER (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, in adding a little to this debate this evening I might have a different approach to this. I welcome this MPI because to me it clearly demonstrates democracy working. That is important.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning there were some pretty tough decisions made. There were even decisions I had to make that I would not have made if circumstances were not as they were when we first came into government.
There is a level of hypocrisy that has occurred during this debate, however. If we were to pretend for one moment that when we inherited government everything the previous government had done was perfect, we would be lying to ourselves. The truth is not everything the previous government did with regard to planning was perfect. I would say that much of the cost of living in Darwin was due to the lack of decisions by the former government, particularly around land release. If Weddell was so important, why did they not get on and do it instead of not releasing land, which forced the price of blocks of land across the Northern Territory right above what the average person could …
Ms Lawrie: Palmerston East.
Mr CHANDLER: Let us talk about Palmerston East. I can tell you that three-and-a-half years ago a block of land in Bellamack was $300 000. With changes to the Planning Scheme over the years, we have been able to provide blocks of land in Palmerston, in Zuccoli, which recently were on the market for about $120 000 to $130 000, albeit smaller blocks of land. We will always have an argument here because not everyone will agree with certain approaches governments might take.
Let us go back to where we started and what we inherited from the previous government. In Palmerston an average block of land was selling for about $300 000. It was atrocious that the first homebuyer, the average punter, had to spend $300 000 on a block of dirt, before they laid one brick, in a place like the Northern Territory that has as much land as it does. Who do we have to blame for that? The former Labor government and its failure to release land.
We came to government on the promise we would work on ways to reduce the cost of living. As the newly-appointed Minister for Lands and Planning, I knew we had to have a different approach to releasing land in the Northern Territory. We needed to bring down the cost of land in the Northern Territory. The only way to do that, given the high cost of developing Weddell – and they talk about Weddell as if it was a done deal but I was shocked on coming into government and realising the lack of planning that had been done on Weddell.
With all the paraphernalia there was I thought I could pick up a plan that said, ‘This is the road map, all the surveying is done; there are the maps, the subdivisions; parks and blocks of land are designed; everything is ready to go.’ Guess what? No, it was not. I found, as the incoming Minister for Lands and Planning. that they were future plans; it was all talk and vision. The vision is fine; I still think Weddell will happen at some stage in the near future. The reality was all the planning had not been done. I was left scratching my head, with the little hair I have left, wondering how land could be released quickly, knowing that it would probably be a couple of years just to get Weddell up and running. I do not have the figures at hand, but the earlier cost projections for that were many tens of millions of dollars.
The idea was to look at some of the infill sites around Darwin that were appropriately zoned, had the services provided already and could be developed quickly. That was one of the first things we did.
We then started to look at the Planning Scheme, and not everyone agreed. Everyone has a different view when it comes to planning, and I found that out really quickly.
In the perfect world I say that a great urban block would be 800 m2 to 1000 m2. I would love to think that we could have houses built like they once were. One of the first houses I lived in on the RAAF Base had louvres on both sides, and was a beautiful home.
In the first few years in the Air Force I was a shift worker and had to sleep during the day. We did not have air conditioning; I relied on the breezes that flowed through that home. You could not build a home like that today on a 400 m2 block with another so close; that will not work.
But when looking at things like the cost of living and giving young couples the ability to buy a block for the first time, I had to work on a plan to reduce the cost of land, so I looked at how we might amend the Planning Scheme in certain areas.
We also had to look at providing choice, which is essential in a developing jurisdiction such as the Northern Territory. Not everyone wants to live in a tower block in the CBD, or on an 800 m2 to 1000 m2 block of land in the suburbs, or a 20-, 40- or 50-acre block in the rural area – with all due respect to those who live in the rural area.
I thought our Planning Scheme was too restrictive, so to provide more choice we provided some more flexibility in the Planning Scheme.
I welcome this MPI tonight because we sometimes rush ahead of ourselves and think things are a done deal. That is not the case. When I looked at dual occupancy in zone SD the first thing that came to mind was that this was a discussion paper by the Planning Commission. One thing this government introduced was a Planning Commission. Gary Nairn does an amazing job at consulting. I know that Gerry and the Planning Commissioner are often at odds, but the facts speak for themselves. I know how much time these guys spend negotiating, liaising and talking to the general public to seek their feedback.
Conversely, many people in the rural area want development. They spoke to me, particularly when I was the Lands and Planning minister. They were frustrated at the lack of ability to develop areas such as their own blocks of land in the rural areas with the approach that was taken by the member for Nelson and those who are now in opposition, and the previous government. I said, ‘You need to speak to the member for Nelson’. Their words to me were, ‘It is no good speaking to Gerry because we know what his position is on planning and the development of the rural area’. I said, ‘I have listened to Gerry and he wants things to remain in certain areas and allow development in others’. But they said it would be no good speaking to him. Unfortunately, the member for Nelson can walk into a Chamber like this and say he spoke to thousands of people who are all against development, but he does not recognise that there are probably thousands of people who want development.
It gets back to the point that the role of Minister for Lands and Planning – I am sure the member for Karama is pragmatic enough to appreciate that as she was the Minister for Lands and Planning, as was the member for Barkly, Mr McCarthy – is one of the most difficult positions to have because no one will ever agree with everything you do. Developers you have said no to will be upset and when you have approved developments there will be people who are upset. You can never – like politics itself – make everybody happy all of the time when it comes to development. But you can try to address some of the concerns of society and present the best planning you possibly can.
I always get a bit frustrated in that we all live in properties today because at some point someone made the decision to develop that area. Even the member for Nightcliff …
Ms Fyles: A peanut farm.
Mr CHANDLER: Peanuts, potatoes and other things were grown in areas like Nightcliff. Even the member for Nelson must admit that 100 years or so ago the block of land he lives on was a virgin piece of the Territory that was not subdivided. I could go back to my grandfather who had 40 acres in Coburg and ran cows. I would love to have 40 acres in Coburg today; it might be a different story. The truth is that as cities develop you need to have a robust planning scheme in place.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning, I was frustrated, from time to time, with the opposition’s approach to me on what it said was lack of consultation with the community. I went back and did a bit of research. There were many times I extended the time frame for public submissions and consultation. I learned at the same time that there were many examples of the former Labor government not doing any more than the statutory requirement. In most cases it was 28 days and they pushed something through. There were many times in my few years as the Minister for Lands and Planning where we extended the public consultation before we made a decision one way or another.
You did not hear about the many times we did not approve developments, because most times the developer did not run off to the media and complain that we had not approved a development. They looked at other developments to work on.
The area of lands and planning will never make everyone happy. As a former Minister for Lands and Planning, after coming to government in the Territory, I thought it was atrocious that, especially for young homebuyers, the price for a block of land in Bellamack was $300 000, and it was the result of the lack of planning by the Labor government.
The member for Nelson raised some other issues about consultation, planning and whether developers have to pay for infrastructure. That is how it works today. If someone goes through the process and applies to build on a block of land, and Power and Water says the transformers might need upgrading in the area, who pays? It is not the government, it is the developer. The Department of Transport might say some road improvements are needed at that intersection because of that block of land. Who pays? It is not the government; it is the developer. I assume in the future, before a development is approved, the developer will be made aware of their responsibility for upgrades to a system. That would not change.
I welcome this tonight because it is a clear planning process we have in place, which the member for Karama can get the Chamber to debate as a matter of public importance. We should talk about this more.
I go back to the Planning Commission’s discussion paper document, which is not signed off. The Planning Commission is consulting with the community to get feedback before a recommendation is made to the minister to make a decision. That will be the current Minister for Lands and Planning, Mr Dave Tollner.
This is a wonderful opportunity to talk about planning tonight, but it is important we get some of these things on the record. Why did we make some of the decisions we made in the last few years in regard to planning in the Northern Territory? I reiterate the points. Not everyone will agree with a government’s approach to planning in every aspect. Society is full of different people with different wants, wishes and needs. Again, not everyone wants to live in a tall building in the CBD, nor do they want an 800 m2 block of land or a 40-acre block down the track. What they want is flexibility in the Planning Scheme so they can live in an environment that suits their purposes.
Everyone wants to talk about a worse-case scenario. I do not think you will get a worse-case scenario if this is introduced because you will never get everybody taking up the offer of dual occupancy; you might have one or two people in a street. You might get entire streets that band together and say they do not want to do this because they love their street, so nobody there will take advantage of this opportunity. I do not believe you will get a 100% take-up on this. It is foolish to think that will ever happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we need a Planning Scheme that is robust enough to allow some flexibility to give Territorians what they want and need, which is flexibility and a government which will ensure that our blocks of land do not become too expensive, which is what we had under the previous Labor government.
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In doing so, I will mention Pasta in the Park, which first occurred in 1988 in Ken Waters Park adjoining Keith Lane. I remember attending the first event. That park is in behind the Fannie Bay shops where the Super Pizza shop is.
Since then, the Italian Festival Association was reformed to deliver a much sought-after festival for the Darwin community to showcase the pride and spirit of Italian culture. More recently it held two biennual festivals on 18 May 2013 and 9 May 2015. It is gearing up for the next festival in May 2017. This festival has been attended by more than 20 000 people each year. I do not think there were 20 000 the first year, in 1988.
The committee consists of 11 volunteers who are all of Italian descent. They rely on volunteers from the wider community to assist on festival day. There are up to 250 volunteers from all walks of life and backgrounds, under the guidance of a professional volunteer coordinator.
It works in good relationships and reputations to request sponsorship from local Italian businesses, corporations with an Italian affiliation and government. The IFA, the Italian Festival Association, includes local talent in the festival’s entertainment program and employs local businesses to provide festival services, instantly raising awareness of the festival within different networks, not necessarily Italian. It communicates its upcoming festivals to its interstate counterparts, which has strengthened the relationship between Darwin and interstate Italian dignitaries and performers, and hence has drawn them to the festival. This includes some of the Italian Consulate officials and the Italian Ambassador to Australia. It also collects donations at the festival for a chosen charity.
Post-festival, the committee holds a thank you ceremony with an Italian dinner. The volunteers are formally thanked and charity organisations receive their cheques on that evening. A separate event is held for the sponsors, donors and stakeholders.
Last Monday night, 19 April, in Melbourne, IFA’s Darwin Italian Festival was recognised as the 2015 Public Event of the Year in Australia. It was nominated by the Darwin-based Associated Advertising and Promotions, which was employed as the event manager for the 2015 festival, and last night took the Meetings & Events Australia national award. The MEA Industry Awards recognise excellence and best practice in meetings and events in the industry.
The IFA, I am advised, is humble and proud to be acknowledged for its signature event as it further enhances its ethos of the pursuit of high standards in event delivery and organisation. Further, this victory confirms that IFA is staging an event that is on par with the Northern Territory’s interstate counterparts, and in this instance has put Darwin in the forefront of the nation. I congratulate all those involved.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take a moment to mention the Palmerston Probus club. The club, for which I am the patron, held its annual general meeting on 17 March 2016. At the meeting a new committee was elected for the coming year and the old committee was farewelled.
I take this opportunity to thank and commend the outgoing committee members on their wonderful term this past year and warmly welcome and congratulate the incoming committee. In particular, I mention the following people: Ray Grimshaw, the outgoing president after serving two years in the position; Dot Chapman, the outgoing vice president and cinema theatre group chair who is now the club’s new president – congratulations to you, Dot; Marilyn Roberts, who will remain the club’s secretary and is the incoming gardening club officer; Ron Pearse, who will again serve as treasurer; Ann Harding, who is the outgoing attendance welcome officer and who will continue to be the welfare officer; June Roos, who will remain the singing group liaison and was also elected the cinema theatre group chair; Christine Ilic, who will remain the newsletter editor and is also elected to two new roles as the incoming vice president and club photographer; Shirley Collins, who will continue to serve as the dining group chair; Anne Chapman, who has been elected to the new position of assistant secretary; Iris Bond, who was elected as the attendance welcome officer; and Gerard Maguire, who has been elected to the new position of Facebook coordinator.
Another exciting development with the Palmerston Combined Probus club is that on 15 March they took part in a meeting of all four Territory Probus clubs in Emerald Springs, which serves as a midpoint for the Probus clubs of Darwin, Charles Darwin, Katherine and Palmerston. The clubs enjoyed a fine lunch and were entertained by Alan Mitchell with some yarns from his early days as a Northern Territory police officer in some of the more remote settlements of the Territory. The event was a great success and the clubs are hoping to have similar meet-ups on a more regular basis.
I have nothing but praise for Probus as an organisation, in particular the Palmerston Combined Probus club for being so active and promoting healthy minds and active bodies in Palmerston.
Unfortunately, I do not often make it to Probus club meetings, but when I do I enjoy spending time with everyone. They are a very important part of our Palmerston community.
The Palmerston fun run was held on 17 April. I was involved in the Cazalys Palmy 5 Fun Run/Walk which was held at the water park. I thank all the organisers and volunteers who helped make the run a smashing success. It was a very hot day, but the Palmerston spirit was high and more than a few people took advantage of the water park’s water slides and the big bucket after the race.
The run was very well attended with around 400 runners of all ages, which is a huge increase from the inaugural run held last year. I was joined by my colleagues, ministers Barrett and Chandler and the federal member, Natasha Griggs, in providing bacon and egg sandwiches to all the run participants. Although I was unable to attend due to illness, I thank the volunteers who turned up in droves to cook and serve the bacon and egg sandwiches. They included Nathan and Emily Fanning; Hollie Garlepp; Kim Davey; Ben Dawson; Ben Hosking, the Country Liberals candidate for Drysdale; Murray McAllister; Bob and Suzanne Cavanagh; Bob and Wendy Flanagan; and Mary Cunningham.
I also thank Athletics NT which organised the event, in particular John Bowden and Richard Welsh. It is great to see an event which supports a healthy Palmerston so well attended. I look forward to being involved in next year’s Palmy 5 km fun run.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, transport infrastructure is a high priority for the Northern Territory government and roads are of great importance to business, industry and community in the Northern Territory. We all know that without reliable roads, efficient ports, good rail services and effective logistics infrastructure we cannot sustain business activity, attract new investment or expand our industries, which are all essential for growing the Territory’s economy.
The focus of this government is to unlock the potential of the Northern Territory by developing and maintaining a road network which supports job creation and economic development and growth. Transport infrastructure is a key driver of economic development and has been specifically identified by the agricultural, resource, tourism and transport industries as requiring investment to improve industry performance and growth. Both government and industry need to invest in improving our basic infrastructure to expand and maintain high standards for our road, port and rail networks.
The Country Liberals government has made a record infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory. In 2015-16 we are investing more than $1.5bn in infrastructure across the Territory. All of these projects have supported the development of northern Australia. They create real jobs and opportunities for local contractors and small businesses, which means Territorians receive better services.
The Department of Transport’s 2015-16 overall program is $664.2m, which includes roads and other transport assets. A number of significant projects have been awarded this financial year, including: the $25m project to complete the sealing of the Mereenie inner loop; $40m for the Roper and Wilton Bridges; $4.5m for the Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection upgrade; and the $57m allocated to Palmerston road upgrades. This is to address the rapid growth and development in Palmerston and it is great to see how that is currently unfolding.
The government is investing over $57m in upgrading the Palmerston road network. This is on top of the current $88m duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive. Works in Palmerston include upgrading Roystonea Avenue, upgrading Lambrick Avenue to Owston Avenue, the duplication of Temple Terrace and upgrading the Roystonea Avenue and Temple Terrace intersection.
Future tender opportunities across the Territory include the Litchfield Park Road and Lower Finniss River crossing upgrade, Darwin urban landscaping projects, Vanderlin Drive duplication, Outback Way sections along the Plenty Highway, Gimbat Road upgrade to Kambolgie Creek, and more.
The NT government is partnering with the Australian government to deliver many vital projects which will continue to support the shared vision of developing the north. The Country Liberals government recognises that transport access is an economic enabler, increases transport connectivity and creates jobs.
The Country Liberals government has been working hard behind the scenes to get the Territory moving forward. Budget 2015-16 provided a $1m investment into a feasibility study for a potential new rail project linking Tennant Creek to Mount Isa. Linking northern and eastern markets will provide incentives to explorers and producers to invest in the NT, creating jobs and driving money into the future.
I can also see the day where we have a rail network that extends into Western Australia and along the Ord River system. You can imagine that kind of rail network and what opportunities that could provide.
Future transport projects are also being planned and design consultancy has been awarded for the design of the Melville Island road upgrades to support the timber export industry. A design consultancy tender closed for the upgrade of the Adelaide River floodplain study on the Arnhem Highway. This is just a snapshot; a lot more is happening in this space.
I also thank the Department of Transport for its work, especially the roads division. I understand this can be a thankless task sometimes; however, I know you recognise the difference you are making to the Territory, as do I.
I will give a quick project update on the Palmerston hospital. Unlike the rhetoric from the opposition today, including the member for Karama, espousing the legacy the former Labor government left the Palmerston and rural area – a chicken fence – the current two-level, 116-bed hospital is well under way. I have some photos here but I will not show them. Works being carried out this week include the following: tie and stand column reo cages; place column shudders and close off ready for pouring; pour columns; tie reo bar to stair and lift shaft walls; pad footings poured to date is 277; columns poured to date is 240; and under slab electrical conduit works done, and the list goes on and on.
A number of subcontractors are on-site, including for environmental control, and this work will continue. I will not go through the entire list of work that is currently happening, but this will give you an idea of the current trade packages that have been awarded to local firms: bulk excavation and site clearing to Allan King & Sons; boundary fencing and gates, Totem Fencing; footings and columns to C and V Concrete; site survey and set-out works to Bennett and Bennett; quantity surveying services to QS Services; early works hydraulic services to Project Plumbing; tower crane, High Rise and Rigging; concrete supply, HB Concrete Darwin; reinforcement supply, OneSteel Darwin – they would be pretty happy with the hospital; site surveillance cameras, Intec NT; genset fuel supply, Mini Tankers; formwork, NT Proform Construction; reinforcement supply, OneSteel – the list goes on. That gives you an idea of some of the local companies which are involved in building what will be a fantastic hospital for Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area.
The construction time line is in place. Anyone who has an opportunity should get out and see how it is going ahead, or keep an eye on some of the updates we are providing through an advertising campaign to keep residents up to date.
People can clearly see infrastructure projects as they drive past them, like Tiger Brennan Driver, which is occurring at the moment. Because the hospital is off the road somewhat, people do not get to see how much work is happening at that site.
Mr Deputy Speaker, enough of the rhetoric and the jokes about holes in the ground. People can clearly see this government is getting on and building this hospital with the support of the federal government. They will see a hospital coming out of the ground and growing into the sky each day in the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory has an incarceration rate three times higher than any other jurisdiction in Australia with 84% of adult prisoners being Indigenous. All the evidence shows that prisoners who remain in regular contact with family and friends are less likely to reoffend.
When Labor committed to building the new prison complex, a bus service was one of the conditions of the prison’s construction. Indeed, a bus shelter has been built. Yet there is no bus service and no intention to have a bus service for prisoners, visitors the prison and staff.
This is an inhumane decision in contravention of recommendations of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report. This decision also breaches UN principles about the rights of prisoners to be visited by, or have correspondence with, family.
We have John Lawrence SC to thank for uncovering this scandal. He has exposed a situation whereby the Department of Correctional Services refused to implement best practice for its prisoners, and the Department of Transport’s newly-privatised bus service refused to provide a bus service for lack of passenger traffic.
What about the families and the individuals? Is there a role for government to step in where the private sector fails the public? Not for this government. Who can really afford the potentially $140 round-trip cab fare to the prison? It is cruel.
The minister points to data that shows recidivism rates have not changed in the Territory. I put it to the minister that if the Department of Correctional Services meets its targets for prisoners enrolled in formal education, in employment and in Sentenced to a Job, it might have different outcomes for prisoners regarding recidivism.
I urge the government to reverse its decision immediately and establish a bus route to the prison. There is no rational reason to further marginalise an already marginalised population within our community. There is no need to further punish the families of prisoners, including partners and children, with loss of contact with their loved ones. It is simply appalling that the Northern Territory government, through arrogance, refuses to provide that service when all the evidence shows it is needed.
While I am on my feet this evening I will also to talk about another extremely important issue in my community. Asbestos is widely known as being dangerous, and over the past many decades we have become aware of its potential hazards and have implemented a number of strategies to help reduce the hazard to the community. The Nightcliff foreshore area, running from the Casuarina Coastal Reserve right along Rapid Creek up to Nightcliff, has large amounts of asbestos embedded in the cliffs. It is a concerning issue which has been raised with me numerous times. For example, one e-mail I received said, ‘There is quite reasonable quantities for the kids to pick up and play with, eat, crumble, expose to the air, and potentially ingest into their airways, even their lungs. It is virtually impossible and frankly unreasonable for parents to know the difference when their kids are on the beach of what they are playing with. I know people say it is wet and it does not represent a danger to our health but loose fibres on a dry, windy day could mean the difference between life and death in 50 years’ time.’
It is a concerning issue about which I have been contacted by numerous residents. I have tried to raise it with the Northern Territory government and the City of Darwin. The area from the coastal reserve along the foreshore is generally the City of Darwin’s responsibility on the top of the cliffs, but as you come down the cliffs to the water mark it becomes more confusing whose responsibility it is.
I started correspondence on this subject on 6 July last year when I was contacted by members of the community who were concerned that some asbestos had been uncovered. I e-mailed the city council and the Northern Territory government. I received a response from minister Price, the Minister for Local Government and Community Services, acknowledging my letter. She had contacted the City of Darwin. The licensed asbestos contractors had attended the site and removed the asbestos, so there definitely was asbestos there at some point. That all took place in early July.
I then contacted council on 20 July as I felt that the asbestos was on top of the cliffs, and asked the mayor in my correspondence what ongoing measures were in place to ensure the situation is monitored, for loose asbestos to be continuously removed and to prevent further dumping grounds of asbestos being exposed to the public.
I received a response from the mayor and the City of Darwin staff talking about the asbestos register and officers meeting with WorkSafe NT. They also supplied me with copies of the asbestos register for that area, and I thank the City of Darwin for that information.
It is a very concerning issue, and as the local member I was not going to just accept that I had received some responses. I chased them up again through July and August regarding asbestos exposure at the time. I was concerned about the asbestos there and the plans by government and council to alleviate that danger.
After much correspondence, in December I wrote to both the member for Stuart and the Lord Mayor suggesting that we have an on-site briefing. One of the continuing themes was that the responsibility was between the City of Darwin and the Northern Territory government. I could not clearly understand who was responsible for what, who I should notify and how I should inform my community of this dangerous issue.
I wrote to them explaining that it was a significant concern for the residents and visitors to the area, and thanking them for the information to date. However, I wanted to request an on-site briefing. I quote from my letter:
I recommended Tuesday 19 January, acknowledging we had the Christmas break. I received confirmation from the minister’s office and the mayor’s office that they would like to partake in that on-site briefing. Then the meeting was pushed to 29 January at 10 am, which suited all the parties.
I headed to the Nightcliff swimming pool car park with my electorate officer and we could not see anyone around. We phoned the minister’s office to find out the minister and the mayor were waiting in the minister’s conference room. I found it puzzling that an on-site briefing would take place in Parliament House, but I understand these things happen. I phoned them to find out what had happened and said, ‘We are at the pool’. They said, ‘We are in the conference room’. I said, ‘We will not be able to get to town and you will not be able to get here so let’s reschedule’. I tried to reschedule the meeting. My electorate officer suggested another time of 19 February around lunchtime, but I received this response, ‘As discussed on the phone at 3.45 pm on 9 February, minister Price was upset that the member for Nightcliff offered no apology or explanation for not attending the scheduled meeting at her ministerial office’.
She went on to say that there were various people there, I would not be getting a briefing, the environmental protection agency is leading a working group and I should contact them. Done, end of story. The people of Nightcliff will not get an explanation on this important issue. The minister needs to acknowledge – I am not sure how she thought an on-site briefing would take place in her ministerial office. It was annoying at the time. I had scheduled time out of my busy day to make that meeting, but I understand things happen.
I urge the minister to stop being childish. Give me, as the elected representative of my community, a briefing on this very important issue. Numerous people are still raising the issue with me. We have questions. How does the register work? How are the community and the public involved? How can the community have a plan going forward so we can be involved and provide that information at the coalface into the system and know we are protecting the community?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on minister Price to stop refusing a briefing to a local member and acknowledge this important issue. Provide a briefing so we can go forward and continue to work on this important issue.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not often that I give so much as an ounce of credence, or place importance on things the members opposite say in this place. Let us face it; the Labor opposition is only interested in talking down the NT and trying to score cheap political points as they do so. This is particularly true when members opposite speak about matters in my electorate of Katherine.
While some members opposite might visit my electorate from time to time, none of them live there and they represent nothing more than a short blip on the radar when they pass through. Therefore, they are not qualified to talk about matters in Katherine, especially when they refer to issues that affect local Katherine businesses.
I was dismayed to hear, once again, the member for Nightcliff in adjournment on Tuesday night this week talking down Katherine by cherry-picking feedback she claims to have received. Katherine is a vibrant, rock-solid community that stands at the epicentre of the Territory’s cattle, horticultural and Defence industries. The businesses there that support our local economy are resilient and their owners are committed individuals who, by and large, have strong attachments to the community and see the success of their businesses as a key component of the overall sturdiness of our economy and social fabric.
It behoves me to respond to the diatribe the member for Nightcliff spewed forth on Tuesday night in this place. The TBLs – or, as they are now called, POSIs, which stands for point of sale interventions – work. This is in stark contrast to Labor’s Banned Drinker Register, and, frankly, any other strategy that has been employed over decades to try to stem the prevalence of public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour, which was commonplace in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs a few short years ago.
Let me hark back to 2014. Katherine was overrun with drunks on our streets. You could not walk down the main street without being confronted or affronted by drunk people or their behaviour. Katherine was considered by many as a party town where one could easily get a drink, get drunk and have a merry old time at the expense of every other person using the public space.
Remember, all of you, in times past, walking down Katherine Terrace and having to step over a drunk asleep on the footpath, trying to do your shopping and being humbugged for your trolley, then abused when you did not hand it over with the $1 locked inside, and trying to pop into a bottle shop for a bottle of wine to have with dinner, and having to dodge arguing, fighting, spitting and swearing drunks.
In December 2014, as had already rolled out in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, TBLs were introduced. Police were at bottle shops, regulating the sale of liquor only to people who could convince those officers they would be drinking in a location that was not in breach of the existing 2 km rule or drinking in public places legislation.
I was in Katherine when that happened. It was like turning off a tap. Instantly the number of drunks on the streets diminished and almost completely dried up. I have not had to step over a drunk on the sidewalk, have not been bothered in the car park for my shopping trolley and have not had to dodge drunks fighting, swearing and arguing outside a bottle shop for in months. Almost every person in Katherine, residents and visitors alike, would have similar experiences to mine to share.
We never want to go back to the bad old days, do we? But the Labor Party has sworn and declared that if it wins government in August this year, it will scrap the TBLs and reintroduce the Banned Drinker Register. Labor, given the chance, will scrap the only alcohol policy in the Territory’s history that worked to reduce public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour in the public spaces of Katherine and other towns. Labor, given the chance, will take us back to the time when we had to step over sleeping drunks and dodge fights every time we did our shopping. Make no mistake, Labor’s policy stands for more drunks on the streets of Katherine, not fewer.
While I acknowledge that the introduction of TBLs has had an effect on some businesses, it is a very long bow to draw in suggesting it is the only reason. We all know that mining has taken a downturn. Frances Creek and Pine Creek closed down, as did Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron’s operations in the Roper/McArthur regions. This alone affected Katherine through job losses. I know a number of local Katherine people who lost their jobs when these mines closed down, just as I know people who used to work at Bootu Creek and now no longer have jobs there.
We also know that the cucumber green mottled mosaic virus severely affected the melon and other cucurbit crops in Katherine. Our melon production more than halved across the Territory and Katherine was the worst-affected area. This is money that did not flow into the local economy and support jobs. Fortunately, melon growers were allowed to replant at the end of February when the growing season started this year, so hopefully we will see that situation alleviated somewhat.
It is fair to say that there have been multiple influences on Katherine’s local economy. I have a great deal of sympathy for those businesses affected by this downturn and share their concerns. I do not like to see local businesses suffer any more than anyone else. That is why we have seen some significant injections of funding into Katherine in recent times in an effort by government to prop up what you could describe as a slower economy.
The last thing I will touch on is the challenge thrown down by the member for Nightcliff on Tuesday night when she asked me to produce numbers in relation to reduced crime in Katherine. I can show you this graph. It is a simple graph, based on statistics from the Attorney-General’s website, which clearly shows an overall trend prior to August 2012 of increasing total assaults and alcohol-related assaults under Labor. That refers to this portion of the graph, on the left-hand side.
If you continue to scan to the right, the trend of total assaults and alcohol-related assaults has taken a huge downswing. Assault rates in Katherine are now at their lowest level since at least 2008 when these statistics, in this form, were compiled. I seek leave to table a copy of this graph.
Leave granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE In addition we also know that hospital emergency department presentations are down. St John Ambulance is nowhere near as busy as prior to the introduction of TBLs.
A Labor government would see a return to the bad old days of increasing trend lines in assaults. In effect that means more women and children will be bashed and abused under a Labor government.
I have a message for the Labor candidate in Katherine: be very careful about openly adopting and promoting Labor’s policy of scrapping TBLs, and increasing assaults and abuse of women and children. If that happens, you will be complicit. You will also be walking a very thin line with the people of Katherine who recognise the significant differences that TBLs have made to our streets.
Katherine is a much better place for the introduction of TBLs. There have been some effects on businesses and I acknowledge that. However, I do not accept it is entirely to do with the TBLs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if we ever see a Labor government again, which I suppose one day we will, TBLs will be scrapped – I hope that does not happen – and we will see a return to the bad old days. I hope that I am not in politics to see it.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the adjournment debate this evening I will talk about three exceptionally wonderful, community-spirited and talented youths who have been raised and are still living in Karama. I acknowledge the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards which was recently held. Karama had three nominees in the Northern Territory Young Achievers and these three young Territorians are exceptionally beautiful, caring and talented young people. In no particular order I will talk about the nominees, two of whom won in their categories.
Alicia Kent is a fine young woman, aged 22, who volunteers with headspace, Shout Out!, Yeah and the City of Darwin Youth Advisory Group, and participated in the CEO Sleepout, raising money for homelessness.
Alicia initiated a midnight basketball donation drive collecting brand new socks, drink bottles and second-hand shoes for young people who could not afford them. She was successful in asking Coles to donate fruit for 80 people every Saturday for seven weeks. She is passionate about youth and mental health work and is currently undertaking a Diploma of Youth Work.
I have had the privilege of knowing Alicia since she was a very little possum. I know her parents, Andrew and Tina, well. She is part of a very loving family. Alicia just came back from spending time down south visiting her brother, Ben, in hospital after he underwent significant spinal surgery. She was there caring for him, came back to attend the awards and did us all incredibly proud in winning her category.
I have seen Alicia grow up into an exemplary person. She took the way she was raised, in the bosom of a family, to deeply care or, look out for and support others, and extended that into deeply caring for supporting and helping people in her community. She has been a driving force, as you have heard, in caring for young people in our society, particularly the disadvantaged.
I attended the midnight basketball grand final evening at Alicia’s invitation. It was such an inspirational event to see all of these kids – who would otherwise be on the streets at night – inside the air conditioned basketball arena having a massive time. The police supported it and it was a huge success.
Alicia is so passionate and looking forward to the next season of midnight basketball. I thank Alicia for continuing to inspire me as her local member for Karama. I am a huge fan of the work she does in our community and the support, love and care she shows everyone. Huge congratulations to Andrew and Tina, who I know would be so proud of their daughter.
The next person I recognise, who was also in the Somerville Community Service Award category, is Jarrod John Rollo from Karama. Jarrod John Rollo is just 15, but he is passionate about spreading cancer awareness throughout our local and wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Jarrod successfully organised his third Pink Rugby game, and with the assistance of generous companies and the Northern Territory National Rugby League he raised over $3000 for the Royal Darwin Hospital hospice. He is now looking to host a blue game for Beyondblue depression and anxiety, and a closing the gap game for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Jarrod hopes these will become a regular fixture.
Jarrod has the most adorable family and such a giving and gorgeous nature. He comes up with these brilliant ideas and has the drive and energy to make it happen. I am so incredibly proud of you, Jarrod. I have seen you growing up over many years. At just 15 you are kicking the most awesome goals to support people for such worthy causes. I look forward to seeing you. I saw your mum just before the awards ceremony and she was so pumped and excited to be attending the NT Young Achiever Awards and seeing your nomination. Jarrod, you have won the hearts of so many people with the work you do.
Keep kicking goals; go after the blue game and the closing the gap game. I stand staunchly in your corner, supporting you. Come see me and we will have a chat about anything I can do to help to find donations and support these awesome events you have planned. Keep going with that Pink Rugby game as it is a beautiful thing our rugby community does.
The third champion from Karama in the NT Young Achiever Awards evening was in the Zip Print Sports Award category, which went to our local megastar, Abby Cubillo. Abby is just 16, grew up in Karama and I have known her all her life.
She started playing basketball in 2007, has since played in five national championships and captained the Under 18 team in 2015. Abby was selected as the only NT representative in the Australian national Under 17 Sapphires team, competing in the 2016 FIBA Oceania qualifying tournament.
Her short-term goal is to settle into the Australian Institute of Sport and gain selection in the Australian Under 17 Sapphires team to compete in the 2016 world championships in Spain. Her long-term goal is to advance to the WNBL.
Abby is one of three incredibly talented sisters, raised by their mum, Teri, following the incredibly tragic death of their father due to cancer when they were young girls. Teri, you have done an amazing job. I wrote a support letter for the nomination of Mother of the Year.
Abby is a vibrant, dynamic, driven, energetic, talented basketballer. She is not your classic tall mountain of a basketballer, but she is a national star, home-grown, home-coached and home-encouraged. Congratulations, Abby, for taking out the Zip Print Sports Award at the NT Young Achiever Awards. It was great to see you on the back page of the NT News along with Freddy for the going away of the basketball representatives in the Territory.
Karama is a very close-knit community. The families look out for and support each other. Sometimes there are families who have barely enough brass razoos to rub together, but they manage to ensure their kids have the best possible life and opportunities. They appreciate that not everyone gets it easy in life. The stories and experiences of Alicia, Jarrod and Abby are representative of the beautiful kids who have grown up in Karama. I watched them grow into, in Alicia’s case, a magnificent young woman and in Jarrod’s case, a 15-year-old who has such a bright future. He has done so much at just 15 years of age to pull together three Pink Rugby games. He is not resting on his laurels; he is going after the blue game for depression and anxiety and the closing the gap game. He has such an amazing future ahead of him. He is so inspirational.
Abby, I am so proud of you, darling. May you keep playing stellar basketball. I saw the match write-ups when you were playing with the Sapphires and you were getting Best on Ground. They were writing so many amazing things about you. Getting into the AIS and back into the Sapphires, and going on to the world championships, you have incredible journeys ahead of you. I hope you make the WNBL. You are a star.
Congratulations to these three very worthy and talented local Karama people for their nominations, and to Alicia and Abby for taking out their categories. A big heartfelt thanks to their beautiful families for raising such amazing young Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I again place on the record, as shadow minister for Essential Services, this question: where on earth is the Power and Water Corporation annual report? I have brought this to the attention of this parliament three times during the last three sittings. We are now in April. Those annual reports should have been deemed tabled in this parliament last year. Power and Water Corporation had an opportunity to do that in the September, November and December sittings. We had sittings in February and March, and now it is April.
In one month the budget for the Northern Territory will be delivered. The financial figures provided by the Power and Water Corporation did not receive the stamp of approval from the Auditor-General in the Northern Territory Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. In that report the Auditor-General said there were problems and she was unable to form an opinion on the public non-financial corporation sector to do with the Power and Water Corporation. It also stated that there were inadequate books and records maintained, and there were concerns about property, plant, and equipment valuations.
I read directly from the letter provided by the Auditor-General in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement about the financial information of the Power and Water Corporation under the section ‘Disclaimer of opinion’:
One must question what on earth is going on within the Power and Water Corporation if in April 2016 we are yet to see the annual report which should have been provided last year, and we are fast approaching the Territory’s budget, which the Treasurer will present in this Chamber next month. It makes you wonder if you can rely on the financial data and budget papers we will see about the Power and Water Corporation. How will that impact the rest of the Northern Territory’s figures?
Tonight I ask again. I look forward to seeing the deemed paper at the end of the night. I will look at it first thing in the morning to see whether the Power and Water Corporation report is finally in. I keep looking and waiting, and we are still waiting. We are in the April sittings, still awaiting the Power and Water Corporation annual report.
It is important to place that on the record. I hope we see that annual report sooner rather than later so we can have some confidence next month when we see the Territory budget presented.
It again raises serious questions about the structural separation process of the Power and Water Corporation. At the time when the government rammed through the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, as an opposition we made it very clear that we felt it was a rushed process; they had not done the work and they were simply not ready.
It is April now and we are fast approaching the Territory budget to be delivered in May by the Treasurer. We are yet to see an annual report and the financial information from the Power and Water Corporation.
It makes me feel, with absolute confirmation, that the government rushed structural separation. It was not ready and should have taken its time to do it properly. It does not leave much confidence in the process it followed when separating the corporations, when it is April 2016 and we are yet to see the annual report from last year with the final financial figures from the Power and Water Corporation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope we see the Power and Water Corporation annual report sooner rather than later.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge some of the many great things that have happened in my electorate. I will start by acknowledging a group of wonderful staff from the Health department at Gove, not just at Gove District Hospital but a couple of agencies which support health, including AOD.
I recently attended the Northern Territory Department of Health leadership and management development graduation ceremony which was held in Parliament House. I was not invited by the minister so I actually gate crashed the event. I did not suspect I would be turfed out, nor was I.
I was delighted that those people from Gove who were attending let me know that it was on. They knew I was in parliament when it occurred at the end of last sittings. They said, ‘Why do you not come along as it is a really special occasion?’
I was pleased to make it to that event and I acknowledge the following people on their achievements. Holly Oakley, who I have known since she was a schoolgirl, graduated in the Building our Leaders – First Line leadership and management development program. Congratulations to Holly who is a busy working mum and manages to squeeze in study as well.
The following people graduated in what was called Leading the Way – Middle Managers development program: Mary-Clare Arkcoll; Kimberley Armitage; Janine Bevis; Shane Flanigan; Justin Heath; David Outen; and Tracey Sheehan.
This was a real achievement for these guys. They are all very busy professionals who took on this 12-month course, which was quite demanding in the travel they were required to undertake, coming to Darwin for workshops and the out-of-session requirements associated with their study. They did this on top of their full-time work. They all told me what an amazing opportunity it was, how much they have learned from it and how it can only help them to do their jobs better.
I acknowledge the minister and the Department of Health for supporting these hard-working public servants who are serving the public in remote areas. Congratulations to them on their efforts.
Nhulunbuy Primary School recently announced its student leaders. Unfortunately, I was not in Nhulunbuy when their special school assembly was held, but I hear they all gave remarkable speeches with a good deal of confidence.
Congratulations to Nhulunbuy Primary School captains for 2016, Ned Pitkin and Levina Smith – I have known these kids since they were very little – and the school vice captains are Cooper Field and Flynn Asplin.
The SRC at Nhulunbuy Primary School for 2016 has taken on a unique approach by giving each member a focus area of responsibility on top of the usual duties of an SRC member. The 2016 SRC members are, with their special portfolio responsibilities: Shae Whitmore, who is education minister on SRC; Rhett O’Brien who is also the education minister; Tiana Inglis, the communications minister; Matthew Winter, who is also the communications minister; and serving as environment minister is Belle Birrell and Jordan Hay. Congratulations to those guys. Good luck in your roles. If you need any advice about responsibilities just give me a call and I will be happy to provide you with some advice.
At Nhulunbuy Primary School the house captains for 2016 have been announced. In the house of Daliwuy the captains are Noah Blundell and Kiyarnie Reynolds, and the vice captains are Tima Rosa and Charlotte Brundell. In Arnhem house the captains are Koby Douglas and Keisha Steward, and vice captains are Jackson Carr and Sienna Bunton. Wirrawuy house captains are Jett Pendel and Ella MacMahon, and vice captains are Rileigh Bartlett and Shacarl Gumbula. Mitchell house captains are Jacob Fitowski and Aimee Nolan, and vice captains are Brandon Fragiacomo and Emily Miller-Groen.
I will turn now to the Gove Barras swimming club, a fantastic club that has existed for years in Nhulunbuy. My kids were very keen swimmers a number of years ago. I acknowledge the achievements of the current squad at Gove Barras. Early in March a team of seven swimmers from Nhulunbuy competed in the 2016 Vorgee NT Open and Age Championships in Darwin. The swimmers who travelled from Nhulunbuy – and, I can assure you, at some cost – to compete with 127 other swimmers were Liam Arkcoll; Ciara Arkcoll; Lori McDonald; Tima Rosa; Hannah Fourie; and Tia Hutton.
Tia Hutton was selected to swim in the combined swimming championship squad representing the NT in Darwin in September. Congratulations and best of luck to Tia when September comes around.
The Gove Barras team achieved the highest percentage of personal best times at the meet, which is pretty remarkable for a little remote swimming club a long way from anywhere.
I also acknowledge the huge contribution that people like Trudy Guiney and Anna McDonald make as parents and coaches of these kids. I apologise if I have left out the names of other adult helpers who were key in taking the kids to this event.
I place on the record the results of the swimmers from Nhulunbuy. Liam Arkcoll came away with six medals, which is absolutely remarkable. This included the 50 m breast gold, 50 m free silver, 100 m free silver, 100 m breast silver, 50 m butterfly bronze and the 50 m back bronze.
Congratulations to Lauren Bridgfoot who came away with the 50 m breast bronze medal and the 100 m breast gold medal.
Tia Hutton came away with seven medals. It is a small wonder that she was selected for this swimming championship squad representing the NT in September. Tia won the 50 m free silver, 50 m butterfly silver, 100 m free silver, 200 m individual medley silver, 200 m free silver, 100 m free silver and the 100 m back silver. Well done, Tia, that is a remarkable achievement.
Congratulations also in the team events to Ciara, Tima, Tia and Lori who took out the medals for the bronze individual medley relay team and the bronze freestyle relay team. Well done to the Gove Barras swimming club for the hard work put into training and the huge cost that it takes to make it to these events. Well done to the adults who support you with your swimming.
In the last minutes I have left, I acknowledge the work of Palliative Care Northern Territory, particularly its President, Sandra Clyne, who is a resident of Alice Springs. She does this role in an entirely voluntary capacity and is frustrated to be receiving no response or joy from the current CLP government. She has made efforts to lobby the government, as the President of Palliative Care NT, to establish a dedicated, purpose-built palliative care unit on the campus of Alice Springs Hospital.
I will read a bit from the letter that Sandra sent to me when we first made contact in February:
I am over that now. I realise that money is gone and it is not coming back, but I want to see it spent on a purpose-built facility that best meets and supports the needs of people living in Central Australia.
In this process there has been no consultation, and the minister and Chief Minister have made decisions about where the money will be spent. People like Sandra Clyne represent a fairly large constituency of people, including Indigenous people who have a vested interest in being consulted in this process and on why palliative care is so important.
As Sandra said to me, one of the top reasons for a specific palliative care unit is that patients and families come to palliative care with an expectation that all staff have an appropriate person-centred approach that values both patient and family as the unit of care. It needs to be a place where carers and families have access to facilities that connect them comfortably with their dying relative.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to produce a multipurpose facility is not the same as a dedicated palliative care unit. I know they are lobbying hard in Alice Springs. They are collecting hundreds of signatures around Central Australia to lobby the Health minister and the Chief Minister to stop this process and to consult, and deliver a purpose-built health facility that will best suit the needs and aspirations of people in Alice Springs.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Cameron Carmichael. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETROLEUM BILL
(Serial 164)
(Serial 164)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Petroleum Act to facilitate the implementation of a contemporary regulatory framework for the management of environmental risks and impacts associated with onshore petroleum exploration and production.
In essence, the bill will change the act in such a way as to allow the Administrator to make regulations that give the minister the ability to exercise discretion and make decisions about matters relating to the protection of the environment. Passage of the bill would mean that the proposed Petroleum (Environment) Regulations could be made by the Administrator in June 2016.
In developing the draft regulations it has become clear that the act requires a broader power to make regulations than is currently specified in the act. The expansion of the regulation-making power would enable the Minister for Mines and Energy, or his delegate, to exercise discretion in the interests of protecting the environment.
The bill itself is a comparatively simple document. It will amend section 118 of the act, which contains the regulation-making powers, by adding the additional subsection:
- (3) In regulations prescribing matters for the protection of the environment, as mentioned in subsection (2)(p), the Administrator may provide for
- (a) functions to be performed, and powers to be exercised, by the Minister; and
In August 2015 the government released the Onshore Oil and Gas Guiding Principles as an interim measure to inform both industry and the wider community about how the onshore oil and gas industry must conduct itself while the government develops and implements a best-practice regulatory framework. As the government noted in the guiding principles, the next step in the road to reform is the introduction of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations.
The Department of Mines and Energy has been working hard to develop regulations that are best practice. DME has also closely looked at the way that environmental impacts and risks associated with petroleum activities are managed in best-practice jurisdictions such as South Australia and Western Australia. It has also taken into account the advice of independent experts, Dr Tina Hunter and Dr Allan Hawke AC. It is clear that the most effective and efficient way to manage the environmental risks and impacts associated with onshore gas petroleum activities is to make objective-based regulations under the Petroleum Act.
DME released a draft version of the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations on its website for public comment on 5 March 2016. The opportunity to make comments closed on 4 April. DME also undertook a number of targeted stakeholder consultations about the regulations.
Key features of the proposed regulations are as follows:
(a) Interest holders must not conduct a petroleum activity unless there is an approved environment plan in place.
The regulatory framework to be established by the Petroleum (Environment) Regulations is the most clear and transparent way to ensure that environmental risks and impacts are reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practical and acceptable.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
ELECTRICITY LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 169)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 169)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the operation of the National Electricity Law, National Electricity Rules and National Electricity Regulations in the Territory are consistent with other jurisdictions to the extent possible while providing for the Territory’s unique circumstances.
On 1 July 2015 the National Electricity (Northern Territory) (National Uniform Legislation) Act, also known as implementing legislation, came into force in the Territory. The purpose of the implementing legislation is to facilitate the transfer of economic regulation of the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks to the Australian Energy Regulator, referred to as the AER, through a three-phase approach, and thus transition to a greater alignment of the Territory’s regulatory arrangements with the national framework.
Since the commencement of the implementing legislation and through the development of modifications to the National Electricity Rules, a number of issues have been identified that require amendment to ensure the national electricity framework adopted meets the Territory’s requirements.
To ensure the Territory’s regulatory framework can be updated automatically when it is updated nationally, the draft bill amends the implementing legislation and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act to ensure the national electricity legislative framework has ambulatory function, meaning that when the National Electricity Law, Rules or Regulations are updated nationally the updates versions will automatically apply in the Territory. This approach is consistent with other jurisdictions that are subject to the national cooperative scheme and will allow the Territory to enjoy the benefits arising from updates to the national electricity legislation without incurring the administrative costs associated with preparing regular legislative amendments. The Territory will still retain its ability to make modifications to the national instruments to suit circumstances unique to the Northern Territory.
To ensure the Australian Energy Market Commission’s rule-making powers are relevant to the Territory: the Australian Energy Market Commission, known as the AEMC, is responsible for developing and maintaining a uniform set of National Electricity Rules in accordance with the requirements set out in the National Electricity Law. One such requirement is that the AEMC may only make a rule if it is satisfied that the rule complies with its rule-making criteria. However, as the National Electricity Law was established in the context of operating and maintaining the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system in the eastern and southern states, the AEMC’s capacity to have regard to the Territory’s local electricity systems is restricted.
It is unlikely that the Territory will ever be physically connected to the national electricity system. As such, the draft bill allows the AEMC to make ‘differential rules’ if it considers that such a rule will better contribute to the achievement of its rule-making criteria in respect to the Territory’s electricity systems. This approach will enable the AEMC to maintain a uniform set of national rules to the greatest extent possible, whilst also recognising the Territory’s differences.
To modify definitions to ensure appropriate Territory application: modified definitions will ensure that references to the National Electricity Law, the National Electricity Rules and the National Electricity Regulations are to either the Northern Territory’s modified instruments or the national instruments depending on the context.
Amendments to these definitions create an additional effect of requiring that the AEMC maintains on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the National Electricity Rules as in force in the Territory, which is expected to be well received by all Territory electricity entities, including potential entrants to the Territory’s electricity market.
To ensure consultation undertaken by the AER prior to 1 July this year satisfies consultation requirements under the National Electricity Rules: from time to time the AER will make, amend or replace schemes and guidelines, and will be required to follow consultation procedures as specified in the National Electricity Rules. Given some schemes or guidelines may be replaced or made prior to the commencement of the National Electricity Rules in the Territory on 1 July this year, it is necessary to ensure that consultation undertaken by the AER with the Power and Water Corporation satisfies consultation requirements under the National Electricity Rules.
Cost pass-through decisions: the draft bill amends the implementing legislation and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act to put in place transitional cost pass-through arrangements. Certain events may trigger a cost pass-through where the AER may decide that PWC should be allowed to recover or reduce efficient costs associated with an event outside of its reasonable control, such as where a cyclone destroys electricity infrastructure.
Amendments will ensure that costs associated with cost pass-through events that occur during the current 2014 to 2019 regulatory period can be recovered or reduced in the next regulatory period. Amendments will also ensure that cost pass-through decisions made under the Territory’s regulatory framework will remain subject to judicial review.
To recognise that Western Australia is expected to soon become a non-connected participating jurisdiction, given that Western Australia is seeking to apply the National Electricity Rules from as early as the end of 2016, minor amendments are required to certain provisions in the implementing legislation to recognise that Western Australia will be a participating jurisdiction but, like the Territory, does not have interconnected electricity systems.
The bill will ensure that the national electricity framework, which represents the best electricity practice in Australia, is applied in the Territory in a manner than aligns with regulatory arrangements in other jurisdictions to the greatest extent possible, while also being fit for purpose for the Northern Territory
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and tabled the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(DRUG OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 166)
(DRUG OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 166)
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 Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will ensure that the punishment for those who engage in commercial drug operations significantly outweighs any benefit. The bill will ensure that offences and penalties are proportionate to the relevant criminal conduct and reflect community denunciation.
The bill will also ensure that the Misuse of Drugs Act contains relevant, up-to-date terminology and definitions consistent with other Australian jurisdictions and current drafting practice, and that all offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations comply with the principles of criminal responsibility in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The Country Liberals government is deeply concerned at the impact drugs like ice are having on our community and is committed to reducing the accessibility of illicit drugs in the Northern Territory. All members of the Territory community deserve to feel safe at home, at school, in the workplace and while travelling. The proliferation of drugs in our community impacts the safety and wellbeing of Territorians. The CLP has no tolerance for individuals who manufacture or supply illicit drugs to vulnerable members of our community. The Justices Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will reduce the accessibility of illicit drugs and related paraphernalia in our community and will contribute to a safer community.
The Justices Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 arises from a number of concerns including:
1. The definition of ‘drug analogue’.
- The ad hoc nature of the definition of ‘analogue drug’ (being a chemical variation of another substance) across Australian jurisdictions has resulted in certain compounds being captured by some jurisdictions and not by others. The Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs has drafted a national uniform definition which was agreed to by all jurisdictions in 2014 and will be adopted by the Northern Territory in this bill.
Of particular concern is the information provided by the Northern Territory Police that they have executed a number of search warrants on premises where drugs were being manufactured or cultivated and children were either living there or were present. This includes a matter in which a number of children were sleeping on the floor of a premises alongside a large hydroponic cannabis crop, and several matters where children were living at addresses with volatile clandestine drug laboratories.
3. Possession of weapons.
The Northern Territory Police have advised there is a significant increase in the execution of high-risk warrants due to drug users, suppliers, manufacturers and cultivators arming themselves with weapons, often firearms, for both protection and intimidation. The way in which high-risk warrants must be executed causes ramifications to the general public. For example, the use of flash bang grenades, armoured vehicles and the presence of heavily-armed police officers impacts on the safety and free movement of the community.
The unlawful possession of a firearm, ammunition or other type of weapon is clearly an aggravating feature of drug offending and should therefore be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.
4. The cost and benefit.
Those who engage in the business of drug manufacture and supply do so because the risk of undertaking these activities is outweighed by the financial gain. In order to address this, the penalties for commercial drug-related activities need to be proportionate and reflect the government’s stance on illicit drugs.
5. Supply or display of drug paraphernalia.
This government is also committed to acting on the recommendations of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Ice Select Committee in the November 2015 report entitled Breaking the Ice: Inquiry into ice use in the Northern Territory.
In order to address all of these concerns, the Justice Legislation (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 has been drafted:
(a) amending the Misuse of Drugs Act by:
updating the definition of ‘cultivate’, ‘manufacture’ and ‘takes part in’ in section 3 so they are consistent with the Model Criminal Code and other Australian jurisdictions
inserting new section 4B, which amends the definition of ‘drug analogue’ so that it complies with the definition agreed to at a national level by the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs
inserting new sections 6C and 6D relating to the cultivation of a prohibited plant in the presence of a child
inserting a new section 6G relating to the manufacture of a dangerous drug in the presence of a child
inserting new section 15 relating to the display and supply of cocaine kits, ice pipes and water pipes
omitting offences contained in sections 15, 16 and 17 (related to forging prescriptions and obtaining prescriptions or dangerous drugs by deception) due to a duplication in the Criminal Code Act, (namely sections 258, 227(4) and 260)
amending section 37(1) to prescribe the ‘actual possession’ of a firearm, ammunition, offensive, prohibited or controlled weapon as a circumstance of aggravation in sentencing
inserting a new section 38 providing an aggravated penalty for procuring a child under the age of 14 to commit an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act
increasing the maximum penalty for manufacturing a Schedule 2 dangerous drug that is not a commercial quantity from seven to 14 years’ imprisonment
increasing the maximum penalty for supplying a precursor knowing it may be used in the manufacture of a dangerous drug from seven to 10 years’ imprisonment
inserting a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for possessing a trafficable quantity of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug in a public place
increasing the maximum penalty for infringement notices issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act from 1.7 penalty units to two penalty units to ensure the infringement notices are issued in whole dollars
updating Schedule 2 to ensure all dangerous drugs are correctly referenced and
(b) amending section 55 of the Sentencing Act to provide for a minimum percentage non-parole period to be fixed for sentences relating to prescribed drug offences.
The bill also makes a number of minor technical drafting amendments to ensure the modernity of and consistency within the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 also amends the penalties for a number of offences to address the disparity between penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act which has existed as a result of the uniform approach to conversion of monetary amounts into penalty units by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010, which applied a 15% increase to penalties across the board on the basis that a more considered approach would be taken in the future with respect to specific legislation.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 addresses this disparity and ensures all penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act reflect the operation of section 38DA(2) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a maximum fine is calculated by multiplying the maximum term of imprisonment by 100 penalty units. For example, if the maximum term of imprisonment is two years, the maximum fine is 200 penalty units. This amendment ensures that all penalties in the Misuse of Drugs Act are proportionate and consistent with other offences in the act.
I now turn my mind to the specifics of the bill.
1. Definitions.
The definition of ‘manufacture’ is also amended so that it is consistent with Model Criminal Code and other Australian jurisdictions.
New section 4B amends the definition of ‘drug analogue’ so it complies with the definition agreed to at a national level by the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs. The definition does not narrow or broaden the current NT definition as the definition is already based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, from which the national definition is based. However, it makes the provision easier to interpret by reordering the definition, clarifying ambiguous references and removing duplicate references.
2. The cultivation of a prohibited plant in the presence of a child.
3. The manufacture of a dangerous drug in the presence of a child.
The provisions have been drafted so that the device remains technologically neutral. This means that the device could be used for administering any dangerous drug and is not restricted to methylamphetamine or cannabis, the drugs most commonly administered by way of pipes.
The provision also allows for additional means of administering a dangerous drug to be added by regulation, which means the offences will still be applicable even if the technology to administer dangerous drugs changes. Further, a person will not be able to avoid the operation of the legislation by selling components for pipes that require assembly due to reference in section 15 to a device, ‘whether in its original form or with adjustment or modification’. To clarify, new section 15 will not apply to a devise which is designed and used to administer licit substances (for example tobacco pipes) unless the device is modified to administer a dangerous drug.
5. Aggravated penalty for possession of a weapon.
The requirement for the person to be in ‘actual possession’ is necessary to ensure the aggravating circumstance does not apply to mere ownership or control, for example, if a person has a firearms licence and firearms at their residence. Actual possession will require the person to have physical custody or control of the firearm when committing the offence.
6. Aggravated penalty for procuring a child to commit an offence.
New section 38 operates in conjunction with sections 43BG and 43BH of the Criminal Code Act, which provide that a person who procures another to engage in a criminal offence is guilty of the offence as if they had committed the offence themselves. This applies whether or not the procured person has the capacity to be criminally responsible for the offence. For example, a child under the age of 10 is not criminally responsible for an offence and a child between the ages of 10 and 14 can only be criminally responsible if they know their conduct is wrong.
7. Other penalties.
The amendment of many of these penalties reflects the operation of section 38DA(2) of the Interpretation Act which provides that a maximum fine is calculated by multiplying the maximum term of imprisonment by 100 penalty units. For example, if the maximum term of imprisonment is two years the maximum fine is 200 penalty units.
The amendment to the maximum penalty for offences under sections 12(1) and 12(2), new section 12(4A), section 12(5), and sections 13 and 14 from 17 units to two years’ imprisonment to 50 penalty units and six months’ imprisonment reflects the criminality of the offences.
If the imprisonment component of the maximum penalty is not retained the court will be unable to place the offender on a community-based order. The amended penalty is proportionate to the offending conduct and is consistent with other offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act, including the new offences relating to drug paraphernalia, which will carry a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or two years’ imprisonment.
The increase in penalty for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 drug from seven to 14 years’ imprisonment addresses the disparity between the maximum penalties for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 1 substance (25 years’ imprisonment) and manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 substance (seven years’ imprisonment).
No penalty is currently provided for possessing a trafficable quantity of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug in a public place. Accordingly, a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment is provided. The penalty reflects the fact that the maximum penalty for possessing a trafficable quantity of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug is five years’ imprisonment, and the additional aggravation of possessing the drug in a public place necessarily increases the maximum penalty.
The maximum penalty for supplying a precursor for use in the manufacture of a dangerous drug is increased from seven to 10 years. This increase in penalty reflects the fact that the supply of precursors plays a pivotal role in assisting the drug manufacturing trade. Further, supplying a substance with the knowledge that it will be used to manufacture a dangerous drug is far more serious than the offence of possessing a precursor, for which the penalty is currently seven years’ imprisonment.
The maximum penalty for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 drug is also increased from seven to 14 years’ imprisonment. This increase in penalty addresses the disparity between the maximum penalties for manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of Schedule 1 substance (25 years’ imprisonment) and manufacturing less than a commercial quantity of a Schedule 2 substance (seven years’ imprisonment).
Although some of the offences provide for a period of imprisonment and not an alternate monetary penalty, this is an intentional drafting decision. Due to the operation of section 38DA of the Interpretation Act, the court may impose a fine if warranted in the circumstances.
8. Correct referencing: Schedule 2.
9. Minimum non-parole.
Transitional provisions are included in the bill and will ensure that a person in not guilty of an offence under the new or amended offence provisions unless all conduct constituting the offence occurs after commencement of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Act of 2016. If any of the conduct constituting the offence occurred prior to the commencement, provisions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which operated prior to commencement of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Act of 2016 will apply.
To conclude, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2016 will address a number of deficiencies in the Misuse of Drugs Act and will ensure the punishment for those who engage in commercial drug operations significantly outweighs any benefit. Commercial drug operations will be shut down and offenders will be sent to prison.
This government is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Territorians, particularly our children, and offending which takes advantage of the most vulnerable members of our society will not be tolerated.
The amendments in this bill will not unfairly target individual drug users who need treatment and support. Rather, it will impact those individuals who manufacture and supply dangerous drugs and related items for their financial gain.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
YOUTH JUSTICE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 165)
(Serial 165)
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 Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2016 proposes to amend the Youth Justice Act to clarify the provision of mechanical devices for use by the Commissioner of Correction Services to restrict the movement of a detainee and further clarify when such devices can be used or authorised for use to escort a detainee both inside and external to a detention centre as an exception to the use of force in maintaining discipline or to protect the safety of a detainee and of other persons.
In recent years we have seen children in custody being more violent, dangerous and irresponsible than we have seen before.
Recent critical incidents in youth detention centres demonstrate the legislative impediments upon government to adequately provide for the safety of detainees, members of staff in detention centres and the public. Without urgent legislative change, there is grave concern that a detainee, member of staff in a detention centre or member of the public may be seriously injured. The bill provides that detainees, members of staff and the public will benefit from increased safety and security in circumstances where it is necessary to use mechanical devices to restrict the movement of a detainee.
The proposed amendments will achieve greater protection for the safety and security of detainees, members of staff at detention centres and the public by bridging current operational gaps in the Youth Justice Act. The Youth Justice Act currently provides, in section 155, that handcuffs or a similar device may be approved by the superintendent for the purposes of escorting a detainee outside of the detention centre. The superintendent may also use handcuffs or a similar device to restrain a detainee as an exception to the prohibition against using approved restraints for the purposes of maintaining discipline at a detention centre pursuant to section 153 of the Youth Justice Act.
This includes if the superintendent is of the opinion that an emergency situation exists and a detainee should be temporarily restrained to protect the detainee from self-harm or to protect the safety of another person, the superintendent may use handcuffs or a similar device to restrain the detainee until he or she is satisfied the emergency situation no longer exists. The phrase ‘handcuffs or a similar device’ is not defined.
The newly-inserted section 151AB contains a definition of ‘approved restraint’. An ‘approved restraint’ is a mechanical device the Commissioner of Correctional Services has approved for restricting the movement of detainees. This clause provides clarity as to the mechanical devices of restraint which may be approved for use when restricting the movement of a detainee’s arms, feet or body. In practice, it is proposed the term ‘approved restraint’ strictly refer to four categories of restraint instruments: handcuffs; ankle cuffs; waist restraining belts; and safety equipment.
The newly inserted definition of an ‘approved restraint’ also ensures that modern mechanical devices of restraint or advancements in technology will adequately be provided for in the Youth Justice Act. The bill thereby omits all references to ‘handcuffs or a similar device’ and replaces it with ‘approved restraint’.
Detainees have become physically aggressive with members of staff by kicking or throwing their arms, legs or body around. Members of staff have sustained injuries from detainees who have hit, punched, kicked, spat at or bitten them. The bill provides that a superintendent will be legislatively empowered to authorise staff members to use approved restraints to restrict the detainee’s arms, legs and body when necessary to engage the detainee or assist the detainee in safely de-escalating his or her behaviour.
The bill inserts a definition of ‘appropriate’ in relation to the use of an approved restraint in the newly-inserted section 151AA. The ‘appropriate’ use of an approved restraint means using the restraint in the least restrictive or invasive way reasonable in the circumstances, and using the restraint for the minimum amount of time reasonable in the circumstances.
Proposed section 151AA thereby contains a twofold safeguard regarding the manner in which an approved restraint is to be used when restricting the movement of detainees and the period of time that an approved restraint can be applied.
Subsequent clauses in the bill specify that the superintendent may use appropriately an approved restraint on a detainee, or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on a detainee, meaning approved restraints are to be used in a manner which accords with the newly-inserted definition of what ‘is appropriate’.
Section 151(3)(c) of the Youth Justice Act pertains to the superintendent’s overarching responsibility to ensure the safe custody and protection of all persons who are within the precincts of the detention centre, whether as detainees or otherwise. Section 152 qualifies the powers of the superintendent in discharging such a responsibility, as the superintendent has the powers that are necessary or convenient for the purposes of his or her functions.
The bill contains the newly-inserted section 152(1A), which specifies that to protect a detainee from self-harm, or to protect the safety of another person, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on a detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on a detainee. This regards the very real circumstances when restraints must be used for safety purposes, for instance, when a detainee is self-harming or poses a threat to himself or herself or others, including members of staff at a detention centre. In circumstances where a detainee is engaged in self-harm, members of staff must intervene.
With regard to safety, the use of a restraint in the Youth Justice Act is currently confined to maintaining discipline at a detention centre. This is an inadequacy in the legislation as the responsibility to maintain discipline should not be conflated with the need to provide for the safe custody of detainees.
The Youth Justice Act currently also limits what members of staff can do to safely intervene in potentially life-threatening incidents, to the use of physical force or ‘handcuffs or a similar device’. The application of physical force to a detainee’s arms, legs and body, when the detainee is self-harming or attempting to self-harm, can further compromise the detainee’s health. This includes the increased risk of positional asphyxia, whereby a detainee is positioned in such a way as to prevent him or her from breathing adequately.
I previously alerted this House to the ambiguity of the term ‘handcuffs or a similar device’. The bill provides members of staff with clarity as to the mechanical devices which can be used to restrict the movement of a detainee and the specific circumstances in which approved restraints may be used or are authorised for use. In clarifying the legislative definition of mechanical devices which are approved for use on detainees by the Commissioner of Correctional Services, the bill enables the commissioner to approve mechanical devices of restraint so that the superintendent or staff members will be able to select the approved restraints that are most suitable for the physique of the individual detainee and the behaviour he or she is displaying, or security risk he or she presents.
The bill contains an amendment to section 153(3)(d) of the Youth Justice Act to specify that the use of approved restraints to restrict normal movement is generally prohibited for the purpose of maintaining discipline. The Youth Justice Act provides that the superintendent may use force which is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Reasonably necessary force does not include use of approved restraints to restrict normal movement.
The bill then further amends section 153(4) to provide an exception to the ban on the use of approved restraints. If the superintendent is of the opinion that an emergency situation exists or that restraining a detainee would reduce the risk to the good order or security of the detention centre, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on the detainee.
This clause is intended to further enable members of staff to safely de-escalate incidents where detainees have compromised the good order or security of a detention centre by attempting to escape or committing acts of property damage including vandalism. Without legislative amendment, such incidents have escalated to an emergency situation. The immediacy of the emergency situation has then meant that members of staff were unable to engage with detainees so as not to risk their own safety or that of the detainee.
Additionally, property damage by detainees to detention facilities has placed a significant financial burden upon government and the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. Damage as a direct result of the destructive behaviours displayed by detainees has been so substantial as to render large areas of the facilities unsafe and inoperable. Incidents of this nature have highlighted the operational failing in the use of mechanical devices to restrain detainees when there is a risk to the good order and security of the detention centre.
Providing the authority to use appropriately, or authorise the appropriate use of, mechanical devices to reduce a risk to the good order or security of the detention centre would allow staff to safely de-escalate volatile events before they crescendo into dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations, thereby decreasing the likelihood of harm to detainees and members of staff. Section 153(4) therefore describes limited circumstances where the prohibition against using approved restraints for the purposes of maintaining discipline is lifted.
Amendments to section 155 will confirm that when a detainee is being escorted, whether inside or outside a detention centre, the superintendent may: use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee; or authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint upon a detainee. In practice, the provision will have application to detainees escorted outside a detention centre and for the movement of detainees inside a detention centre. This clause is targeted at mitigating incidents in detention centres where detainees have used physical force, including hitting, punching, kicking, spitting and biting to evade escort during movement inside a detention centre.
I am aware of an incident involving a detainee being escorted to the accommodation room (within a detention centre), who assaulted escorting youth justice officers in an attempt to escape from the accommodation block. Clearly, incidents of this nature illustrate that there is an operational necessity to use mechanical devices when escorting a detainee inside a detention centre. The fact that the current legislation does not allow members of staff to take appropriate measures to ensure their own safety and the safety of others, including detainees, is alarming.
The proposed amendments empower the superintendent to authorise youth justice officers to use appropriately approved restraints to escort detainees within a detention centre. This will mitigate incidents of aggravated disruption to the security or good order of a detention centre and improve safety for detainees and members of staff in detention centres.
Section 155 will also provide for the use of approved restraints in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, including a cyclone, where the population of detainees may need to be restrained and moved within a detention centre to ensure their own safety or the security of a detention centre.
The proposed amendments render that the public will benefit from the reduced risk of escape of detainees from youth detention centres. The safety of the public has been compromised by some detainees who have used excessive force and violence to accost members of staff and breach the perimeter of the detention centre. This has resulted, in some instances, in serious injuries to both detainees and members of staff.
This government will not accept that the current legislation blatantly exposes members of staff and the public to unacceptable levels of risk, in that it does not allow for an adequate management regime for detainees who have a history of combative and violent behaviour. Where we know detainees present a high risk through previous escape attempts or abusive outbursts, we must be able to use appropriately or authorise the appropriate use of approved restraints to ensure that all detainees remain within the safe custody of the Commissioner of Correctional Services. Stricter security measures include the use of approved restraints for movement of detainees inside a detention centre or when there is a risk to the good order or security of a detention centre.
Additionally, escorting a detainee outside of a detention centre means the detainee can interact directly with the public, for instance, when the detainee is attending court or receiving medical attention. The bill is aimed at mitigating incidents regarding young people which may compromise the safety of the public and their confidence in the integrity of the youth detention system.
The bill amends sections 152(1A), 153(4) and 155 to clarify that, in the relevant circumstances, the superintendent may:
use appropriately an approved restraint on the detainee, or
authorise the appropriate use of an approved restraint on the detainee.
Section 157 of the Youth Justice Act currently provides that the superintendent of a detention centre may delegate in writing any of his or her powers and functions to a member of staff of the detention centre. In practice, the superintendent’s delegation of any of his powers or functions is recorded in a written delegation instrument, signed by the superintendent.
An approved restraint will only be used by members of staff who have the relevant training, including training to authorise use of an approved restraint.
The bill inserts section 158A to impose an obligation on the superintendent of a detention centre to maintain a register of the particulars of the mechanical device and the circumstances in which it was used or authorised for use. This will ensure transparency and accountability in the use of approved restraints on detainees in detention centres. In particular, section 158A contains a requirement that the superintendent record specific details about the circumstances in which the approved restraint was used, and the person who authorised the use of the approved restraint. This complements the notion that approved restraints must only be used when it is reasonable in all the circumstances and when appropriate authority is given.
Additionally, the requirement on the superintendent to record the date and time in which the approved restraint was applied and removed reinforces that approved restraints are a temporary measure used to assist the detainee and members of staff in safely de-escalating the detainee’s behaviour.
The bill specifies that the register may be kept in any form and on any medium that the Commissioner of Correctional Services considers appropriate. This replicates the current requirement for the Commissioner for Correctional Services to keep a register of detainees in section 158 of the Youth Justice Act. It is anticipated that the register regarding the use of approved restraints be kept in writing. The register created in this clause is not intended to supplant any current legislative requirements but will instead complement the superintendent’s obligation to maintain details regarding detainees in the Integrated Offender Management System, commonly known as IOMS, pursuant to section 158 of the Youth Justice Act.
I acknowledge that the proposed amendments may incite commentary from legal and youth services professions as to the perception that mechanical devices will be used to excess or in such a way that is not proportionate to the risk posed by young people in detention. I make no excuses for the proposed amendments. They are crucial in providing detainees, members of staff at youth detention centres and the public with greater safety and security. They are consistent with this government’s priorities regarding young people in the justice system.
The proposed amendments are complemented by a commitment on behalf of government to review the Youth Justice Act, namely Part 8, ‘Youth detention centres’, Division 2, ‘Superintendent’, within 24 months of the bill coming into force. To achieve this I have approved the establishment of the youth detention provisions legislative review working group, from now on known as the working group. The working group consists of representatives drawn from Northern Territory government agencies, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and non-government stakeholders with specialist knowledge, experience or interest in relation to the youth justice system, young people in the system and youth detention centres. It is anticipated that the government will use the results of the review and consultation with working group members to inform possible amendments to the Youth Justice Act.
In undertaking the review, the working group will be tasked with: considering whether the existing provisions are reflective of contemporary detention practices and approaches to youth justice; determining if the relevant provisions continue to reflect the principles of the Youth Justice Act; and addressing identified deficits in the existing legislation.
We cannot allow violent, aggressive and dangerous conduct to go unattended to in our youth detention centres. We must make and keep these detention centres safe for the detainees and those people who detain.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
RACING AND BETTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 168)
(Serial 168)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STYLES (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory is the premier jurisdiction in Australia for corporate sports bookmakers, with 13 operators currently holding licences issued by the NT Racing Commission under the Racing and Betting Act.
A sports bookmaker accepts bets directly from a client over the Internet and telephone on thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing, sporting events and other approved events such as betting on the winners of various reality TV shows such as The Voice and My Kitchen Rules.
In 2014-15 NT sports bookmakers paid almost $5m in direct taxes to the Northern Territory government. Betfair Australia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Resorts Ltd, currently operates Australia’s only betting exchange in Hobart, Tasmania. Crown Resorts Ltd is also the majority owner of the CrownBet Pty Ltd, a name most of you will be familiar with from its association with this government’s very successful tourism promotion, Million Dollar Fish. CrownBet also holds an NT sports bookmaker licence.
A betting exchange is an online platform where customers effectively bet against one another, including setting the odds and the size of the bet. It operates in a similar way to a normal bookmaker; however, the client is not betting against the betting exchange operator but another client or number of clients.
The operator makes money by deducting a commission from the winning bet. A betting exchange operator provides a range of races and events for their clients to bet on, similar to that of a sports bookmaker.
Betfair is looking to relocate from Hobart to Darwin. While the Northern Territory tax and fee regime is an attractive lure, Betfair recognises the benefits of the superior regulatory approach taken by the Territory which offers a quicker response to operational issues than the Tasmanian regulator. This does not mean the Northern Territory is a pushover when it comes to the approval process, but our smaller size allows us to move with greater speed. In a sector as competitive as the online gambling sector, any additional time taken to obtain the necessary approvals can result in lost revenue and customers.
The Racing and Betting Act does not currently provide for a specific betting exchange licence, and Betfair’s business operations cannot be conducted under the existing sports bookmaker licensing regime.
___________________________
Statement by Speaker
Queen’s Birthday
Statement by Speaker
Queen’s Birthday
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that 90 years ago, at 11.10 am Darwin time, Her Majesty the Queen was born in Mayfair, London. I invite honourable members to join me in congratulating Her Majesty on her birthday, noting her continued dedication to the Commonwealth and as our head of state.
We will send a formal note to Her Majesty.
Members: Hear, hear! Three cheers for the Queen. Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray!
___________________________
Mr STYLES: I was so excited about that, I lost my place.
The Racing and Betting Act does not currently provide for a specific betting exchange licence, and Betfair’s business operations cannot be conducted under the existing sports bookmaker licensing regime.
The bill before the Assembly today proposes that a specific betting exchange licence be established in the Racing and Betting Act. This will allow entities such as Betfair to set up operations in the Northern Territory, and removes the legal uncertainty that is currently present. It is also anticipated that having a specific betting exchange licence will act as a catalyst to attract other international betting exchange operators to the Northern Territory.
The betting exchange licence will be regulated in the same way as the current sports bookmaker licence. Applications will be made to the Northern Territory Racing Commission which will undertake assessments on:
the suitability of the persons involved in the business
whether there is sufficient financial support in place to ensure the business remains viable
whether the business’ operating systems meet the appropriate technical standards; and while not legislated; and
that the business has responsible gambling policies and practices in place.
The tax regime for a betting exchange licence will mirror that of the sports bookmaker licence, currently being 10% of gross monthly profits to a maximum of 500 000 revenue units per annum.
In acknowledging the more complex regulatory work required in association with the systems and any disputes that may arise, the application fee and annual licence fee for a betting exchange licence have been set at 200 000 revenue units. The issuing of a licence to Betfair Australia will provide an increase in direct government revenue of approximately $805 000 per year.
Apart from direct taxes and fees, the presence of a betting exchange operator will have wider benefits to the Northern Territory economy. It is understood that Betfair will, in its stages of operations, have around a dozen staff based, more than likely, in Darwin. This is expected to increase over time if the business meets expected growth targets.
This bill I present to the Assembly today will also act to formalise an existing informal arrangement between the Territory’s racing controlling bodies, Thoroughbred Racing NT and the Darwin Greyhound Association, and interstate wagering operators by establishing the power for Northern Territory racing and sporting control bodies to change a product fee. A product fee is levied by a horse, trotting or greyhound club, or a sporting body, on a wagering operator for accepting bets on their product. The product fee is charged for the information provided by the respective bodies, which is then used by the bookmaker to frame its betting markets. In racing the information is known as a ‘race field’, and includes the names of horses or greyhounds, their positions, weights, form and other racing data.
In 2006 New South Wales introduced legislation that provided the power for race clubs to charge bookmakers for the use of their ‘race field’ information. This was in response to the explosion of corporate bookmakers and the money being made by the online wagering sector. Given it was its product, the racing sector felt it was appropriate that it received a cut of the action.
Despite a number of legal challenges, all jurisdictions, aside from the Northern Territory, now have legislated the power for racing control bodies to levy a product fee. The payment of a product fee is now seen as a necessary expense in conducting wagering operations.
In March 2013, Thoroughbred Racing NT managed to secure an informal agreement with all of Australia’s licensed wagering operators to make an ex-gratia payment, similar to that of a product fee. The Darwin Greyhound Association secured a similar deal in October 2014. In March 2015 the NT Racing Commission made it a condition of all NT licensed sports bookmakers that they were required to make a payment to the NT racing control bodies for use of their racing information. However, this did not apply to interstate operators, who still continue to make the payment under the informal agreement in place since March 2013.
While there appears to be no imminent danger of the interstate operators reneging on the agreement in place, at least one makes their payment under protest.
For the period of March 2013 to 30 June 2015, Thoroughbred Racing NT has received just over $2.6m through payments of this fee, with over 70% coming from interstate operators. Without the legislative amendments proposed in this bill, this money could potentially be lost, with government the likely source of replacement funding. The amendments proposed in the bill will protect this revenue.
It is not anticipated that introduction of this legislation will come as a surprise to Australia’s wagering operators, as the product fee is seen as a necessary cost of doing business.
While the proposed legislation also provides the power for an NT sporting body to levy the fee, the reality is that the majority of these bodies are already covered by national agreements in place between the peak body, such as the AFL, NRL and Cricket Australia, and the wagering operators. Unfortunately this legislation will not impact on those bets accepted by offshore operators accepting bets illegally on Northern Territory racing and sporting events.
The new legislation will provide an appeal process for a person aggrieved by a decision of a Northern Territory controlling body in relation to the product fee. The first step will be a review carried out by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant department, and will focus on whether the controlling body has made the decision in line with its powers and any prescribed regulations relating to conditions of the approval.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I interrupt again so I can welcome some students.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Penthea Carmichael. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr STYLES: A special welcome to all my students from Wulagi. It is great to see you here.
While we have recently moved away from having the Chief Executive Officer of departments review such decisions, in this instance it was considered inappropriate for a minister to review the decision due to the commercial nature of the bodies involved in the process. Further, one of the ‘owners’ of the information is, on behalf of the greyhound sector, the Northern Territory Racing Commission, whose members are appointed by the minister.
If the person remains dissatisfied following the Chief Executive Officer’s review, the decision can be referred to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Given the product fee only applies to a specific sector where all the existing operators are already paying this fee, albeit under a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, it is envisaged that the need for reviews will be minimal.
I ask the Assembly to note that offences created as a result of the bill have not, despite government’s general approach to do so, been made compliant with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. This is because there is insufficient time to consider the wider policy implications of such revisions on the offences given the urgent need to introduce and debate this bill.
Drafting only the new offences to be compliant may have resulted in an imbalance in penalties against a betting exchange licensee when compared to a sports bookmaker. Instead, all offences in the Racing and Betting Act will be reviewed at a later stage and updated to ensure they are compliant with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The unapproved use of racing or sporting information by a wagering operator is serious as it robs the NT of the associated revenue and, as such, has been made an offence with a commensurate penalty. The penalty of 100 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment for an individual is in line with other Australian jurisdictions.
I ask the Assembly to note that the existing penalties in the Racing and Betting Act are very old and out of step with more recent Northern Territory legislation, and will be updated at the time the offences are made compliant with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. In this case, the penalty does fit the crime.
The bill before the Assembly will reinforce the Northern Territory as the premier online wagering jurisdiction in Australia by providing a specific betting exchange licence that will result in at least one international company relocating its operations to Darwin. This will provide direct and indirect benefits to the Northern Territory economy, and it is hoped it will also attract other international operators.
The bill also protects revenue for the racing sector by formalising an existing informal arrangement to provide Northern Territory racing and sporting control bodies to levy a product fee.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and I table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Debate adjourned.
BUSHFIRES MANAGEMENT BILL
(Serial 167)
(Serial 167)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HIGGINS (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace the Bushfires Act. The Bushfires Act commenced in 1980 and provides the legislative framework for fire management outside the major urban centres of the Northern Territory. The act applies to all land apart from emergency response areas (ERAs) as defined under the Fire and Emergency Act. ERAs are small areas covering urban and urban-fringe development in and around the major population centres.
Land subject to the provisions of the act accounts for over 99% of the Northern Territory and comprises pastoral land, parks and reserves, vacant Crown land, land held by Aboriginal land trusts, land used for other agricultural purposes and, importantly, significant areas of industrial and rural residential development on the outskirts of the major centres.
The act establishes the Bushfires Council and a series of regional committees to advise the minister on measures to be taken to prevent and control bushfires. It is underpinned by the principle that fire management is the responsibility of the landowner and that the role for government in bushfire response only exists when a landowner is unable to control a fire that poses a threat to that property or neighbouring properties.
The Territory is threated by many hundreds of wildfires every year. It is by far the most fire-prone environment in Australia. The continuing spread of high fire danger fuels such as gamba grass, especially when it occurs in areas of intensive rural residential development, is creating much greater bushfire risk to life and property. Managing this heightened risk in recent years has highlighted the existence of gaps and shortcomings in the existing legislation. A series of devastating fires in Central Australia in 2011 also drew attention to limitations in the legislative framework for effectively managing periods of unusually high fire danger.
In January 2014 the Department of Land Resource Management commenced a review of the Bushfires Act which continued over the following 24 months. The review was built on a foundation of extensive consultation with stakeholders, particularly targeting those Territorians living and working in rural and remote areas, and included 28 meetings and public forums. Additionally, a discussion paper, and later a recommendations paper, was published online, and hard copies of both documents were sent directly to over 250 stakeholders. Thirty-one written submissions were received from this process and provided extensive, informative and astute input into the development of the bill.
Since becoming Minister for Land Resource Management I have also taken the opportunity to further this consultation. As the member for Daly I have a particular interest in bushfire management and proudly support the 13 volunteer bushfire brigades that operate within my electorate. In my capacity as local member I met with senior representatives from these brigades to hear their views about local fire management priorities and the development of this bill.
Following this meeting I released the draft Bushfires Management Bill for a three-week public comment period. As part of this process I also arranged for an independent fire management expert to attend a further 10 public meetings about the bill and provide me with an assessment of the consultation comments received. The comments from these meetings led to several minor amendments to the bill and was the final stage of a very thorough two-year community engagement process.
Broadly, the feedback from the consultation called for some key principles in the legislation to be retained and for some areas to be modified and strengthened, particularly with regard to the roles of Bushfires NT and other stakeholders. There were also strong calls for additional matters to be addressed, particularly around planning and mitigation. Every effort has been made to accommodate the views of rural and remote communities in this bill.
Key parts of the current act have stood the test of time and served the Territory well. There is no proposal to change the advisory structure or the key principle of a landowner being responsible for fire on that land.
This bill modernises and builds on the strengths of the existing legislation. It also draws on contemporary trends and approaches to fire management in other jurisdictions, and combines these with the successful bushfire management arrangements that have evolved in the Territory in recent years. It provides a custom framework designed to address the unique challenges of bushfire management in the Territory, while also addressing the gaps that have been identified in the existing act.
Fire is an ever-present component of the Territory landscape. Most landscapes are well adapted to fire; indeed, many require regular fire events for renewal and rejuvenation of native vegetation and to prevent the accumulation of dangerous fuel loads. Historically fire has been considered by most Territorians to be normal and unremarkable, and has rarely been seen as a threat to community safety or commerce.
The new legislation recognises the importance of fire in the environment, and its use in both traditional and current approaches to land management. A point of difference between this legislation and bushfire-related legislation in many other jurisdictions is its focus on planning and fire management rather than just fire exclusion.
The period since the act was introduced has seen significant changes in fire management challenges in some areas. Expansion of rural living and other development in peri-urban areas, along with the spread of high-risk fuels such as gamba grass, have greatly increased the risk posed by bushfires in these areas. This has, in line with community expectations, required the development of a sophisticated wildfire response capacity.
Larger and more complex response and suppression operations, a growing emphasis on centralised command structures, increased use of water-bombing aircraft and more extensive incident and fire ground management have become the norm in high-risk areas. The new legislation continues to provide the powers necessary for government employees and others to participate in responses, and for government employees to determine the appropriate nature and scale of responses to significant fires.
The increasing threat posed by bushfires has led to greater emphasis on planning and mitigation, and the benefits of coordinated actions and regional planning have come into greater focus. In recent years government has implemented a range of programs designed to improved preparedness and mitigation, but most of these have been one-off initiatives that are not encompassed by the existing legislative framework.
The new legislation establishes a planning and mitigation framework across all of the Territory. It focuses on engagement with landowners and is designed to unlock the potential benefits of coordinated and strategic regional planning. It introduces a formal role for regional committees in regional planning and requires that all of the Territory will be supported by a series of regional bushfire management plans. These regional plans are guiding rather than prescriptive, and so do not create burdensome responsibilities for land managers
There is capacity, in circumstances where a significant risk of life or property has been identified, to prescribe mitigation actions in an area or on an individual property. This will only be possible following a detailed risk assessment process involving consultation with affected landowners and other stakeholders. In circumstances where a landowner, through failure to comply with a prescribed plan, continues to present a significant risk to others, it will ultimately be possible to enforce compliance with a prescribed property fire management plan.
The current act provides for the establishment of volunteer bushfire brigades, and the 22 existing brigades provide the bulk of the mitigation and firefighting workforce, especially in the high-risk areas of rural residential development. There are currently over 1000 registered volunteers, including over 250 qualified and highly-skilled active volunteer firefighters.
The new legislation allows volunteers to be appointed as authorised bushfire volunteers. This will create a formal role for volunteer firefighters in the incident management structure and allow volunteers, by participation in the chain of command, to exercise the powers necessary to take part in a bushfire response.
I am particularly proud that the creation of authorised bushfire volunteers will also confirm the specific protection from civil and criminal liability while undertaking firefighting duties. This is an important step in improving support for our volunteers and ensuring they are adequately protected and not exposed to unacceptable levels of personal liability risk while contributing to this important community service.
The new legislation also provides authorised bushfire volunteers protection against dismissal or loss of employment benefits as a result of absence from work when requested by the Executive Director of Bushfires NT to attend large-scale high-risk wildfires. This is another important addition to the legislation that will ensure our volunteers do not suffer professional or employment loss as a result of their volunteering contribution during critical events.
As part of the rollout of the Bushfires Management Act, I will continue to further support our volunteers through the creation of a volunteers consultative committee. I have asked for this committee to have a ministerial advisory role to ensure volunteers have a direct link to the government and that I, as minister, can provide them with appropriate support. The committee will provide advice to Bushfires NT on a variety of volunteer issues, including training, recruitment and retention, volunteer health and safety, vehicle and equipment design and allocation, and appropriate standard operating procedures and policies.
In summary, the Bushfires Management Act will continue the best aspects of its preceding legislation, strengthen support for volunteers and other stakeholders, and provide a comprehensive planning and mitigation framework uniquely suited to the land and bushfire management requirements of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS BILL
(Serial 147)
(Serial 147)
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill (Serial 147) before the House. My speech is not particularly long, but I know there are consideration in detail stage amendments so I am not sure if we will get through this before lunch.
It is an important bill which seeks to provide a much greater level of protection for vulnerable victims who are at risk of harm or have been subject to harm. As such, members of the opposition welcome this bill.
The bill was introduced in the December 2015 sittings and has sat on the Notice Paper pending consultation. There was an issues paper that was circulated at that time by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. To be honest, I am not sure why the issues paper was released when the bill was. The bill was purely technical in nature with a lifting of the personal violence restraining order into a stand-alone act out of the Justices Act, with no policy reform and no endeavour to implement some of the many reforms needed and lobbied for by legal stakeholders.
Whilst puzzling, the most important thing today is that the consideration in detail stage amendments have now been implemented, or will be with the passage of this bill. The amendments today will deliver much better legislation in safeguarding those persons who are seeking protection.
I thank that Attorney-General’s office for facilitating briefings for me. The first was in January, which was very brief. The briefing I had on Monday was a little longer as we stepped through the consideration in detail stage amendments. I appreciate that those amendments were sent to me along with the Attorney-General’s speech notes. I was grateful to have received them in advance.
The amendments before the House will make personal violence restraining orders in the Territory more closely aligned with the provisions for victims seeking protection under domestic violence orders. This is as it should be. This is what legal stakeholders have been advocating for. It was not enough to simply pluck out the existing provisions around personal violence restraining orders from the Justices Act and place them in a stand-alone act; there clearly needed to be policy changes. I am pleased that today’s amendments cover most of those changes called for.
I was pleased, when I asked on Monday in the briefing about the cost of lodging an application for a personal violence restraining order, to learn the cost has been removed by regulation. It was raised in the issues paper, and was being lobbied for by legal stakeholders. Well done; that is as it should be. In the Territory there is no cost in lodging an application for a domestic violence order, nor should there be for a personal violence restraining order. At $103 in the Northern Territory, it is second only to South Australia, where it costs a whopping $256. Access to justice and protection for vulnerable people – victims of personal violence or threats of personal violence – should not have a dollar value attached to it. That is the case in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. I am pleased to see the Northern Territory falls into line with the majority of jurisdictions on that matter.
Members of the opposition are supportive of amendments, which do a number of things – I will not mention all of them. It provides for a more comprehensive definition of a personal violence offence. In turn, it better defines ‘intimidation’, ‘stalking’ and ‘economic abuse’. I note that the definitions are explicit in including intimidation and stalking via electronic media. It is a sad reality that for all the benefits that come with technology it can also be a powerful and destructive tool used to intimidate, menace, threaten and frighten.
Importantly there is provision in clause 3A(b)(vi),which includes attempting, or threatening to commit conduct mentioned, intimidation, stalking, economic abuse. As the minister notes in his amendment, this is sufficient to cause considerable distress to the person concerned.
Clause 3A also includes, under the definition of ‘personal violence offence’, ‘damaging property, including the injury to or death of an animal’.
We welcome the inclusion of an interim personal violence restraining order, because victims have been in a very vulnerable position while waiting for their applications to reach a final hearing in the court. As stakeholders have said, expecting a victim to wait until the situation escalates to the point of police intervention is inadequate. The provision to request an interim personal violence restraining order would go some way to providing more immediate protection for a person who is living in fear and placed at risk. Interim personal violence restraining orders are in place in all other jurisdictions except Queensland, so the amendment, which closes this gap, is welcome.
Since my briefing on Monday, there has been one further amendment circulated to close that gap, to clause 14, to ensure that ‘interim personal violence restraining order’ is included in the legislation.
The amendment to mediation provisions is also welcome. I attribute that change – I think I am correct – to the Top End Women’s Legal Service, which raised, in its submission, the ambiguity around application of the provision. This is to do with the court’s referral of the person seeking protection to attend mediation with the defendant before the application is heard before the court. It is not appropriate for that to occur where there has been a history of violence and/or where mediation has previously failed.
The amendment to clause 10(2), under the heading ‘Referral to mediation’ will now read, ‘However, the court must not make a referral and must proceed to hear the application if it is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances’.
It is a good amendment. It makes it very black and white and removes any ambiguity. Previously that clause read ‘if it is in the interests of justice to do so’. It has changed to now read that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances, which is good. There is no point in sending the person seeking the protection back to mediation with the defendant if there has been a history of violence, and mediation has previously been attempted but was unsuccessful. This closes that gap. I understand there was some room for interpretation with magistrates. This makes it very clear, which is good.
Amendments contained in clause 14C are important in making provisions to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the defendant. In the event of a domestic violence order, the defendant is known to the victim and applicant. But that is not necessarily the case with a personal violence restraining order. The applicant may not know the identity or the address of the person from whom they are applying to the court to seek protection. It is obviously very difficult to take out a personal violence restraining order without knowing the identity, address or whereabouts of the defendant. It is a very sensible, necessary amendment which also allows the court to call on other persons who may know that defendant in order to obtain an identity and address.
It is good to see that the bill contains consequential amendments which serve to strengthen the level of protection for victims through cross-border provisions in the bill, as well as provisions in the Firearms Act. Again, in line and consistent with domestic violence orders, under these consequential amendments there would be an automatic suspension of a firearms licence for the defendant on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order.
I acknowledge the advocacy of the Territory’s community legal services in relation to this bill, particularly that of Top End Women’s Legal Services, which I know has lobbied for a few years to have a stand-alone act for personal violence restraining orders, to have in place provisions which provide a greater level of protection for the victim and the applicant, and for those provisions to be commensurate with the domestic violence orders.
I had a telephone briefing with Top End Women’s Legal Service in January after I had the initial briefing on the bill that had been tabled in December. At that time, it was happy to provide me with its submission to the issues paper. I can see, looking at its submission, the issues paper and what has transpired today in this bill, that its advocacy – and I am sure that of others – has resulted in some important changes which strengthen that level of protection, and in so doing reduce the risk of harm to people who are subject to personal violence.
There are still a couple of things I want to comment on. The first which might be addressed – with both federal and Territory budgets to be handed down next month – is the inadequacy of funding for community legal services. I heard on radio earlier this week Suzan Cox from the NT Legal Aid Commission acknowledging the funding the Territory government has provided to boost its service, but that one-off funding was not adequate; there needs to be a longer-term commitment to sustain these services. That includes Top End Women’s Legal Service.
The NT Working Women’s Centre may be a community legal service which has received advice that continuation of its funding beyond 30 June will not occur. There is a lot of lobbing going on through to Senator Michaelia Cash in Canberra to reconsider that position. It leaves women in the Northern Territory who are in need of this important service that operates out of Darwin and Alice Springs and through offices and outreach services unsupported.
There are nine people employed in that service. I met with them this morning. It is an incredibly stressful time for them. First and foremost, their concern is about seeing the service continue to support the women it has supported for over 20 years. A secondary consideration people may think less about is that their jobs are on the line as well.
I hope there is strong support from the Northern Territory going to Canberra. I have written to members of the federal government, including our two representatives from the Northern Territory, Natasha Griggs and Senator Nigel Scullion, to stand up for Top End women, not only through the NT Working Women’s Centre but community legal services which need more funding.
The reality is that because of a lack of funding there are unrepresented litigants before the court. They are often, by way of cultural barriers and socioeconomic disadvantage, at a distinct disadvantage of trying to self-represent during cases of personal violence restraining orders.
I raise the issue of the timing and length of personal violence restraining orders, enabling the option for longer-term orders in exceptional circumstances. This was raised in the issues paper. It is my understanding, on the advice of legal stakeholders, that legislation is silent on the length of the term of a personal violence restraining order. It seems to be normal practice that an order is made for a period of 12 months. I am advised that it is not uncommon for domestic violence orders to be made for a longer period of time, especially where the degree of violence and threat of harm is high. If that is the circumstance with domestic violence orders – we are looking at the level of threat of harm for the victim – why would it be different under a personal violence restraining order?
I go to the Top End Women’s Legal Service submission, which I know the Attorney-General is familiar with. In regard to long-term personal violence restraining orders it says that many persons seeking protection are self-represented litigants. These persons are unfamiliar with the legislation and court processes, and would be unlikely to make submissions in relation to the length of order sought, leaving the court to most likely an order in line with standard practice, 12 months.
Instead of amending the legislation to provide for a set time period for which a PVRO must last, a better approach may be to amend the application form for a PVRO to include a tick-a-box option in relation to the duration of the PVRO sought by the person seeking protection. For example, the application form in Victoria for a personal safety intervention order asks the question, ‘How long do you want the intervention order to last?’, with the options being less than 12 months, 12 months, or more than 12 months. There is also space in the application form to explain why the order is sought for this length of time.
Amending the PVRO form would provide some much-needed guidance to the applicant, and perhaps prompt questioning from the magistrate as to the need for a longer-term PVRO, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Our police officers do an incredible job in protecting Territorians. The domestic violence units within police, both in Darwin and Alice Springs, do really good work in an integrated service approach with victims of domestic violence and other service providers to reduce the level of harm. I was reminded of that when I was in Alice Springs over the weekend, talking with not only the retired former CEO of Alice Springs Women’s Shelter but her replacement, and how it is that the integrated approach to services really works.
Police would benefit from professional development to understand the potentially serious consequences of issues between non-related parties as opposed to those in a domestic situation, and their powers to obtain a personal violence restraining order on a victim’s behalf.
We know that our police do a fantastic job in very challenging times to keep people safe. They are challenging for various reasons. They spend entire shifts, lengthy hours, on what were called temporary beat locations. Police resources could be freed up. We see how the TBLs are effective but in regard to the resource available they could be just as effective if police were on TBLs during peak times. Bring back the Banned Drinker Register, which was a very effective and cost-efficient point of sale intervention which allowed police to be doing the things that technology cannot do, which is spending time with people, including the victims of personal violence, to best support their needs and their course of action in taking out one of these orders.
I have one other question following on from that, which is whether or not an advocate can make an application on behalf of a victim. I do not think current legislation allows for that. It comes down to a self-represented litigant. If I am incorrect I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me.
Madam Speaker, the Labor opposition supports this bill and the amendments, which are sensible. I am not sure that I will have questions when we go through the consideration in detail stage amendments. A couple might crop up as we go through.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
PERSONAL VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS BILL
(Serial 147)
(Serial 147)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and thank the minister for allowing a briefing on this bill, and for some notes sent to me regarding some of the questions I asked during that briefing.
I note that the purpose of the bill is to allow for the enactment of a stand-alone act dealing with personal violence restraining orders. It does not at any stage give a reason.
It may not be that important, but I have yet to work out why this bill had to be cut from the act. Surely you can look up that chapter if it is included. I do not understand why it had to be taken out of the Justices Act to stand alone. Be that as it may, it is important to have an updated version of the bill because it has been amended.
A personal violence restraining order allows a person who experiences violence but does not live with the perpetrator – that is, not in a domestic relationship – to seek civil remedy called a personal violence restraining order. Although there has been much discussion in relation to women, there is also the situation of families against women. Men also need this restraint for situations of men against men. There is a need for this legislation to be supported.
There have been issues in my family which we will look at a personal violence restraining order in relation to. It is important to have strong bills like this to ensure people are protected.
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy as she gave – as she always does on these matters – a well-researched response to this bill. She raised some interesting points on how things could be improved, which shows the effort she goes to when she takes on issues like this, which are not always easy to research.
The bill says:
- A personal violence restraining order allows a person who experiences violence in a relationship …
Can the minister give me a definition of ‘relationship’ from a legal point of view? We obviously know what a family relationship is, but what does it mean using the word on its own? I did not raise it at the briefing, but when I was reading through this again, I thought it would be nice to get a clear indication of exactly what that means.
The other issue that has come before us is the amendments, which are in relation to interim personal violence restraining orders and dealing with definitions for ‘personal violence offence’, ‘intimidation’, ‘stalking’ and ‘economic abuse’. Whilst I was reading that, it occurred to me that amendments were presented yesterday for one of the bills we have before us at the moment, the Medical Services Amendment Bill, which deals with harassment and other issues. My concern is we have to be very careful when we introduce legislation that it does not duplicate issues already covered by other legislation.
The amendments to this bill deal with intimidation:
- Intimidation of a person is:
(a) harassment of the person; or
(b) any conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of:
- (i) violence to the person; or
- (ii) damage to the property of the person, including the injury to or death of an animal that is the person’s property; or
(c) any conduct that has the effect of unreasonably controlling the person or causes the person mental harm.
At the briefing I asked if the police thought they should have power similar to those for domestic violence orders. The response was that they did not need to have those powers for this bill.
In closing, I take what the member for Nhulunbuy said. This is an area that required legal services. If people cannot access these legal services because of financial constraints, then we have to ensure those legal services are properly funded, otherwise the people most in need will not be served by the intent of this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the bill to the House, and for presenting the amendments to the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the Latin maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant – the specific trumps the general. That is, if you have legislation specifically targeted at a particular thing and there appears, but not necessarily exists, a contradictory item in relation to a general piece of legislation, the courts – I cannot cite the cases off the top of my head – will give weight to the specific legislation rather than the general. In answer to your questions about the potential inconsistency between two legislative instruments, that is how the courts will interpret the parliament’s intent. I hope that answers that question.
I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter. A number of issues have been raised, but also answered, in many respects, by members themselves. I note that there is general support for this legislation, which I welcome and embrace.
I pick up on the comments of the member for Nhulunbuy, the shadow Attorney-General, about funding for legal aid services. I am critically aware of the issues raised by Sue Cox from Northern Territory Legal Aid, and I am sympathetic to her cause. Whilst we have not quite put the budget to bed yet, I hope there will be some reasonably positive announcements regarding that. I do not want to see in our courts Dietrich applications, which will invariably flow from unrepresented clients, particularly unrepresented clients charged with serious and indictable offences.
I note that NAALAS has used the money recovered by me, working with Senator Scullion. Through Senator George Brandis and I, they received some cuts under the federal government’s ERC. We retrieved that money after some lobbying – and I thank Senator Brandis for his flexibility in this area – only to find myself almost immediately in the High Court dealing with a paperless arrest matter, which is where NAALAS chose to spend that money. It was frustrating in the extreme. The only reason I can mention it now is the matter has finally been put to bed.
I get more than a little irritated when you go into bat for an organisation whose primary function is to provide legal assistance to those who find themselves in the court system, and then it engages in what was clearly an unlikely cause in the high court. My argument with NAALAS is if it wants support for its primary functions, then it should use that support to pursue its primary function.
Ultimately it makes those determinations, but I find it frustrating. If they knock on my door asking for more money going forward or asking me to lobby the federal Attorney-General on this issue, they will not receive the same warm reception they did last time.
Having made that observation, this bill is supported by members on both sides of the House. There are a number of amendments, as a result of the consultation process with a number of organisations, not least of which was the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service; the Witness Assistance Service; the Department of Children and Families; the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit; the Department of Local Government and Community Services; the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service; Chief Magistrate Dr Lowndes – I place on the record my thanks to him especially – the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jack Karczewski; the Top End Women’s Legal Service; the Darwin Community Legal Service. They all had input into the bill that was before the House. As a result of that consultation process we adopted many of the suggestions – not all – that were made by those organisations to fine tune this bill.
This bill is a substantially different animal to what the old section 99, ‘Personal restraining order’ was in the Justices Act many years ago when I had to work with it. I would have liked to attend to the Justices Act, as a whole, as Attorney-General, but there were resource implications with pursuing that. That is a matter for a future Attorney-General to attend to, should they choose to do so.
Another comment in relation to this is about steps across the boundary of both domestic violence and personal violence legislation such as this. I had a conversation with the Chief Magistrate – soon to be Chief Judge – in relation to the thresholds and standards of proof required. One of my concerns with domestic violence legislation has been that where there is an application heard in the consent environment, there has appeared to be a willingness from the bench to issue domestic violence orders. I did, of course, point out to His Honour, who acknowledged the truth, that even if the parties are consenting to the issuing of the order before the court, the legislation must still be adhered to regarding the threshold that is required, which is that on the balance of probabilities some form of violence has occurred.
I make that point because that is how the legislation reads. When a person walks into a court and either through ignorance or for the sake of convenience they accept a consent order, then the court still has to satisfy itself to the balance of probabilities that the violence has occurred or possibly will occur.
I have insisted that be recognised in this legislative instrument as well because every time I see a person come out of the courtroom waving around or holding up a domestic violence order, either against them or on their behalf – and in the consent determination that occurs both ways – then I assume that violence has occurred or is likely to occur at the hands of that person. That assumption is based on a belief formed on the balance of probabilities.
That is, for most people, not an issue one way or another. However, for people in public life, such as the judiciary or other positions of responsibility, the existence of such an order would immediately raise a flag for other people around that person because of the requirements of the legislation. It is something I am particularly sensitive to and cautious about because whilst administrative or judicial convenience may be served by an easy process of stepping through these types of applications, I nevertheless remain concerned that a threshold still has to be established.
If two people who have not been, or are unlikely to be, violent towards each other stand in a courtroom seeking to find a mutual or consent order and a court issues it, then it is essentially meaningless and diminishes the legislation. If two people provide evidence where a court can form that opinion, they should be told to leave; no order should be granted. It is equally so with this legislation.
That is a precautionary tale; I cannot point to a specific incident of it occurring. Actually, I could but I do not want to because I do not seek to embarrass anyone or cause distress or concern. It is a threshold issue the courts need to be mindful of.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their care and attention to the bill before the House. It is clearly in the minds of people. I look forward to the passage of this bill with the subsequent amendments, which will improve the strength of the instrument I brought before the House some time ago.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail:
Clause 1, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.1, that clause 2 be defeated in order that a new commencement clause can be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.2 to insert new clause 2, being a new commencement clause. The new clause provides that a new Division 4A of Part 4, which provides for the amendments to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016 is to commence on the day on which the Administrator’s assent to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act is declared.
The remaining provisions of the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act will commence immediately after the commencement of the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Act 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.3 that the clause 3 definition of a personal violence offence be omitted. This is in order that a new, more comprehensive definition be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.4 to include new definitions.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
New clauses 3A to 3D:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I had this ugly feeling that something had slipped through the traps.
I move amendment 52.5 that new clauses 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D be inserted to provide in the new clause 3A for the new comprehensive definition of ‘a personal violent offence’ and to define in new clauses 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D the new conduct of intimidation, stalking and economic abuse.
Clause 3 of the bill currently provides that the conduct amounts to a personal violence offence by reference to particular provisions of the Criminal Code Act. It is considered that there are matters that do not fit within that definition, but are nevertheless matters which would be appropriate to provide some restraint of the defendant’s conduct.
Generally in these cases a person is engaging in some form of intimidation or abusive or harassing behaviour not sufficient to amount to a threat of assault, but sufficient to cause considerable distress to the person concerned.
The definition of ‘a personal violence offence’ has been amended to provide for a more comprehensive definition similar to the definition of ‘domestic violence’ as outlined in section 6 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Such conduct includes economic abuse, intimidation, harassment, stalking and damage to property.
The new definition of ‘a personal violence offence’ also still refers to the currently specified offences under the Criminal Code Act, being Part V, Division 2; Part IV, Divisions 3 to 6A; and sections 211 or 212, and another provision prescribed by regulation. These include offences against children and persons with a disability, homicide, recklessness or negligence endangering life, serious harm offences against the person, and assaults, including sexual assault.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 3A to 3D agreed to.
Clause 4 and 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.6 that clause 6, concerning making an application for an order, be amended to omit the words ‘under this Part’ to allow for a new interim personal violence restraining order to be made under Part 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.7 that clause 10(2) concerning mediation be amended to enable the court to hear an application without the need for mediation if the court is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances. Currently the court must refer a matter to compulsory mediation before the court is required to determine an application for a personal violence restraining order, unless the matter is of such a nature that the court is obliged to hear the matter immediately.
Clause 10(2) currently provides that a magistrate must hear an application where:
- … it is in the interests of justice to do so, including, for example, because:
- (a) there is a history of violence committed against the person by the defendant; and
Clause 10(2) has been amended to enable the court to hear an application without the need for mediation if the court is satisfied that a referral is not appropriate in the circumstances, thus leaving it to the discretion of a court to determine in what circumstances it would be appropriate to do so.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.8 to amend clause 14 of the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill 2015 dealing with a notice of orders, that the words ‘or an interim personal violence restraining order’ be inserted to ensure that on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order, the court must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the interim order to the protected person, the defendant and the Commissioner for Police.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
New clauses 14A to 14C
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.9, that new clause 14A dealing with interim person violence restraining orders; new clause 14B dealing with the issuing of an order prohibiting the publication of details of the victims and witnesses; and new clause 14C dealing with the issue of orders for a defendant’s identity and whereabouts be inserted. Currently there is a provision in the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Bill 2015 permitting the granting of an interim personal violence restraining order.
New clause 14A allows:
- (1) At any time during the proceedings for the hearing of an application for a personal violence restraining order, the Court may make an order (an interim personal violence restraining order) under this section.
- (2) The Court may make the interim personal violence restraining order:
- (a) even if the defendant does not appear at the hearing; or
- (i) even though the defendant has not given evidence; or
New clause 14B provides that personal violence restraining orders and interim personal violence restraining orders may include an order prohibiting the publication of personal details of a protected person or witness if the court is satisfied the publication would expose the person to the risk of harm.
New clause 14C is inserted to assist applicants to obtain information pertinent to an application, such as the identity and address of the defendant, for the purposes of making an application for a personal violence restraining order. It enables the court to make an order where the person seeking the protection has made reasonable inquiries but is unable to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the defendant, or another person may have information or a document or thing that will assist in ascertaining the identity or whereabouts of the defendant.
The court may order the other person to attend the court to be examined as to the identity or whereabouts of the defendant or to disclose the information or document or thing that relates to the identity or whereabouts of the defendant to the protected person.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 14A to 14C agreed to.
Clause 15, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.10 so the heading to clause 16 dealing with contravention of orders be amended to include an interim personal violence restraining order by inserting the words ‘personal violence restraining order or interim personal violence restraining’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.11 relating to clause 16(1)(a) dealing with contravention of orders, to insert the words ‘or an interim personal violence restraining order’ to provide that a person commits an offence if a personal violence restraining order or an interim personal restraining order is in place and the person engages in conduct that results in a contravention of the order.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.12, that clause 16(2)(b) dealing with the contravention of orders and circumstances in which a person does not commit an offence of contravening an order be amended to insert the words ‘a personal violence restraining’ to make it clear that with respect to personal violence restraining orders that have been varied, a person does not commit an offence unless the person has been given a copy of the order as varied, or the conduct is also in contravention of the order last given to the defendant.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 16A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.13 that new clause 16A dealing with the creation of an offence for the publication of a person’s personal details be inserted. This new clause 16A provides that a person commits a strict liability offence if the personal violence restraining order or interim personal violence restraining order prohibits the publication of a person’s personal details, and the person engages in conduct that results in a contravention of the order. The maximum penalty for such a breach is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for one year.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 16A agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.14 to invite defeat of the current clause 23 concerning the amendment to the definition of ‘personal violence restraining order’ in the Firearms Act in order for new amendments to be inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause defeated.
New clauses 23 and 23A:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 52.15, that new clauses 23 and 23A be inserted to amend the Firearms Act. New clause 23 amends the definition in section 3 of the Firearms Act to first insert a new definition of ‘interim personal violence restraining order’ by reference to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act and, second, amend the definition of ‘personal violence restraining order’ to omit reference to Part IVA, Division 2 of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act and replace it with the reference to the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act.
The new clause 23A is inserted to amend section 39(1) of the Firearms Act dealing with the automatic suspension of licences to include a reference to interim personal violence restraining orders. This is to ensure that the automatic suspension of the firearm’s licence, permit or certificate of registration on the making of an interim personal violence restraining order, which is consistent with the approach taken with interim domestic violence restraining orders.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 23 and 23A agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 26A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.16 to create new clause 26A after clause 26. The amendment is to insert a new clause 26A to amend section 141 of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act to amend a typographical error and omit the words ‘the Court proper’ and replace them with ‘the Court thinks proper’.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 26A agreed to.
Clause 27, by leave, agreed to.
New Division 4A:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 52.17 creating a new Division 4A after clause 27. The intent of the amendment is that a new Division 4A be inserted to amend the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016.
New clause 27B amends the heading in Part 2, Division 7 of the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 to omit the reference to the Justice Act and replace it with the new name of the act, the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act.
The new clause 27C similarly amends section 27 of the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 by omitting references to the Justice Act and replacing them with the correct reference to the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. These amendments take into consideration the amendment of a short title of the Justice Act to the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act.
New clause 27D amends drafting errors and corrects numbering errors. The amendment is to omit from heading to section 29 ‘Part IX, Division 5’ and replace it with ‘Part VIII, Division 6’, to refer to the correct Division of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. Section 29 is also amended to omit the words ‘At the end of the Act’ and replace it with ‘After section 213’.
It also amends section 29 by omitting ‘Division 5, Transitional matters for Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016, section 207, Appeal already commenced’, and replacing it with the correct Division reference, ‘Division 6, Transitional matters for Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016, section 214, Appeal already commenced’.
These amendments correct the numbering issues that occur as a result of two sets of provisions being inserted to the same act at the same time by two different acts, being the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 and the Personal Violence Restraining Orders Act 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New Division 4A agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on record my thanks to the departmental staff for the excellent work they have done in relation to this, particularly through the consultation process.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Building a First-Class Education System
Continued from 20 April 2016.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Education’s motion on education. On this side of the Chamber we hear a lot of screaming from the other side about how we have depleted the education system, made cuts, and all the terrible things – we have burnt the house down. Fortunately that is not the reality, and I commend the Minister for Education on the work he has done over the last four years. It has been a long and difficult road but he has navigated it well, and pushed through some excellent reforms. As a result, the education system is benefiting and has turned a major corner.
Our government has raised the education system to a high level. We fully fund all our preschools, have the highest expenditure per student in the country and our teacher to student ratio is the lowest in the country. We have the highest percentage of students in the government school system, which shows that Territorians have faith in the service the CLP government is providing to our education system.
It is important that we talk about this today. I will highlight some of the important things we have done with the education system that relate to the Palmerston region.
The only issue in education that Labor members ever came up with was that we are not spending enough money. That is fine; they can say that. It has been their core mantra in the way they have done business. It is the only assumption they made about the education system. All they ever did was think everything was fine and if they kept trickling in a little more money every budget, things would hop along well.
When we came to government we took a different approach. We examined what was happening in our public education system, the education sector, the middle years, Indigenous education, primary schools, resourcing and the bureaucracy, and analysed everything. We had to make some tough decisions, and redirect our resources so at the end of the day we had students with better outcomes. We can all agree that an outcome-driven education system is far better than one that receives trickles of additional taxpayers’ money every budget.
Under our government’s reforms students in the NT are now achieving the best results ever. Under our government the achievements of students enrolled in NT schools has superseded those of governments in the past. Labor keeps turning the debate to what matters to them, which is money, whereas we focus on what matters to us, which is results. Our students’ results speak for themselves.
In 2015 we made history with a record 1338 NT Year 12 students graduating with an NTCET, which was 21 more than the previous year in 2014. Not only do we have more students completing their NTCET, we have more students achieving A+ merits, with a total of 44 A+ merits gained by 35 students in 2015, compared with 30 A+ merits gained by 21 students in 2014. Our numbers and achievement levels are up, which means our results are up, which means our reforms have worked. We will continue to drive and strive for excellence in the government schooling sector.
The number of Indigenous students completing the NTCET in 2015 increased to 187, compared to 173 in the previous year. Compare that 187 in 2015 to 99 in 2010 under the previous Labor government; we must be doing something right. You cannot dispute those figures and that we have an increase and there has been positive change. Indigenous Year 12 achievement keeps building and providing real career options and pathways for young Indigenous Territorians, of which we are very proud.
As part of our reforms we have seen a very positive impact on NAPLAN data and testing. From 2011 to 2015, the Northern Territory’s students’ NAPLAN achievement gains have been higher than the national gain in three of the five domains – reading, grammar and punctuation and spelling – for the Years 3 to 7 cohort, and the four of the five domains – reading, numeracy, grammar and punctuation, and spelling – in the Years 5 to 9 student cohort.
This government is also committed to preparing students for a future in trade. In 2015 there were 1894 students who received their Statement of Attainment for one or more units of competency, and 985 students – almost 1000 – completed a full VET qualification. Of course, with our push to drive a diversified economy, we are making sure that by gaining those qualifications our kids will get jobs to stay in the Territory and plant their roots so they can be long-term Territorians to raise their families and build our beautiful Northern Territory.
Those educational outcomes cannot be disputed. We have been investing in other areas in education, not just the reforms which have driven student outcomes, which is what we want. We have also been investing significantly in infrastructure, which drives up morale in a school, gives the business community important work and gives the school a sense of community and something to be proud of, particularly in our older schools. When you have work done in and around school infrastructure investment, it means a lot to the school people and the community around that school.
We have seen the introduction of IPS, which is a fantastic initiative of our government. I am proud that Palmerston Senior College and Durack Primary School, both in the Drysdale electorate, are independent public schools. It is changing the face of education across the Territory, but certainly in Palmerston. Our school community is working collaboratively and innovatively together on how to best use this opportunity of autonomy to drive performance and create a point of difference in their school.
Our school councils and boards are seeing schools decide to have skills-based boards as well as the key parental input into the direction the school is taking. We are seeing many new offerings, opportunities and fresh ideas forging a way forward in Palmerston.
I commend both the principals of Palmerston Senior College and Durack Primary School, their chairs and newly-formed boards for showing tremendous leadership in this space. They have not buckled under the pressure of pulling this together. It may not have been an easy, ideal or smooth process, but they have risen to the challenge and made the most of it. They have transformed their schools, their school communities and the Palmerston community as a result of it. I am tremendously proud of them.
We have driven other initiatives in the school community such as the Sport Vouchers and Back to School Vouchers. They are two reasonably small initiatives that make an enormous impact on the ground. Parents and students are very grateful for those initiatives.
We have also been funding massive infrastructure projects over the last four years. I was at Palmerston Christian School chatting to the principal, who said, ‘It is fantastic; we will have to have you down for the opening. The Northern Territory just paid for 40% of our new classrooms. We are thrilled to see our school growing and developing. We already have students in the classrooms.’ He could not speak more highly of the program. It is a direct result of a partnership with that school to deliver that project.
Construction is under way for the new $21.35m special school in Bellamack. That is well and truly on track to be completed in Semester 2 of this year. It is amazing. It feels like just yesterday we were talking about making that announcement. Now we are looking at having, in Semester 2, which is not very far away, a completed specialised special school in Bellamack. It will provide an extra 84 places for preschool and primary-aged students. It is a much-needed facility for Palmerston and the rural area. It will support students with special needs to engage in a high-quality teaching and learning program in their local community. That is complemented by the new Henbury School as well. Palmerston has been needing a state-of-the-art facility like this and the families of special needs’ students in the Palmerston and rural deserve this.
Minister, a credit to you – education is a passion of yours. Labor can say many things about you, but they cannot say you are not passionate and dedicated to education. Delivering high-quality special education is right up there and it is a credit to you.
We have also doubled the capacity of Rosebery Preschool, which is fantastic. We have poured $1.2m into an extension at the school. It has a further 44 students, doubling its capacity. Palmerston is a growing community with many young families. We have plenty of young ones coming along and we need the schools and facilities to support those kids so they can have an excellent public school education experience and go on to do great things.
I am holding the media release about the Palmerston child and family centre. The Minister for Education, our federal member, Natasha Griggs, and I stood on a vacant bush block and announced there would be a Palmerston child and family centre opening. It is now well and truly operational. I am proud that Gray Primary School put in a successful bid to manage that facility in partnership with Child Australia. It is a wonderful thing for Gray Primary School to rise to that challenge. It will benefit from that diversification.
The Palmerston child and family centre offers 50 long day-care places to vulnerable and disadvantaged Palmerston families through its early learning centre. The childcare centre is a beautiful facility. It is wonderful that government and non-government organisations can work together to ensure that families are holistically supported to raise happy, healthy and strong children who are ready for school and learning.
Durack Preschool has had a large extension. We put $1m into increasing the capacity of Durack. That is an additional 44 little ones going to the preschool. It has been a wonderful addition to the Durack community and the school.
We have additional classrooms at Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre, which have been welcomed. SEC does a wonderful job and I love going to assemblies there. The teachers are fabulous and passionate, and they deserve fabulous facilities. We have delivered new classrooms, which has helped tremendously.
Gray Primary School has been repainted for the first time in 30 long years. I went to Gray Primary School from 1988 for about five years. It has been a long time between paint jobs and I am pleased we were able to repaint the school and breathe some freshness into that wonderful school community.
We also extended the staff car park at Gray Primary School, which again can seem like a small infrastructure project, but the reality of the project is massive on the ground. That is part of what our government is about. You do not need to pour endless amounts of money in to make something sound good; often it is the small things that make the greatest impact on a community. Something like extending a staff car park impacts teachers and support staff every day. Those are just some of the projects that have occurred in Palmerston.
Recently our government announced the $100m Boosting our Economy package, of which $68.5m is to improve education facilities across the Territory. That is well and truly more than half the Boosting our Economy package going into schools. Just about every school in the Territory has some works allocated to it. In Palmerston we have received a healthy chunk of that money.
I am pleased to say millions of dollars in investment is going into Palmerston schools for practical projects the schools want done. This is not something that popped into the minister’s head one day; the schools desperately wanted these projects. We have fast-tracked it to get the money out the door, give this injection into the business community and get our schools’ projects delivered.
Moulden Primary School has received various upgrades, including landscaping and new paths after the removal of some mounds. We have upgraded the fire and potable water pipes, including adjustments to the irrigation in the school so it is compliant.
Rosebery Middle School is receiving a basketball court shelter and tiered seating as well as a new multipurpose learning centre.
Bakewell Primary School has had money allocated to replace old air conditioning units with a chilled water system; expand and refurbish the administration and student services building; remove existing pavers and replace with large multipurpose playground equipment, including a soft fall and sand play area; changes to the Kiss and Go area; and transportable classrooms.
Gray Primary School will have significant water upgrades. Palmerston Senior College will have significant mechanical upgrades as well as water upgrades. In Ludmilla we are relocating and replacing the basketball court, and installing a chiller and chill-fanned core units to replace the ducted system, which is beyond economical repair.
Non-government schools have not missed out either, which is fantastic because they are an important part of our education system. McKillop College will have a second car park constructed, which is excellent because currently teachers, parents and students have to park on the dirt paddock at the front of the school. This will be turned into a bituminised car park, and a covered walkway will be constructed. Sacred Heart Primary School – the Catholics are doing well out of the package – will create a sensory room, construct a storage facility and install an adventure playground. Good Shepherd Lutheran College will construct two new classrooms at its junior campus, upgrade its basketball courts in Palmerston and do a couple of more minor works projects.
Marrara Christian College will build girls’ and boys’ ablution blocks for the primary school students, and will resurface the quadrangle, update the irrigation system and paint the school internally and externally. Palmerston Christian School will revitalise its toilets, resurface its basketball court and volleyball court, repaint the school, upgrade the caretaker cottage and provide fencing around the school. Kormilda will get an air conditioning refurbishment in its cultural centre, an irrigation upgrade in the boarding house, a shade sail in the primary school and repairs to an old roof. Milkwood Steiner School is also receiving money for a shed and some other minor works.
They are just a few of the schools receiving works packages out of the Boosting our Economy package. I reiterate, for the benefit of those opposite and Territorians, that our results have been fantastic. We are a results-driven government. The reforms to the education system have been about the best interest of the students. No, we did not spend the most money to get the best results. We have made some tough decisions but they have been good for students. We are seeing the best NAPLAN scores, the best Year 12 students’ scores, the highest level of participation of students, fantastic increases in the number of Indigenous students completing NTCET, and we are on our way to ensuring young Territorians have the best and highest-quality education we can possibly give. They rightfully deserve that.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his work in this regard and the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be that long, just a little long. We could probably debate what long and little long means.
Thank you, minister, for bringing forward this statement. It is hard to have statements that turn up instantly ...
Mr Chandler: It is a motion.
Mr WOOD: It is a statement disguised as a motion. Regardless, it gives me a chance to say a few things.
You may have received the letter regarding the school bus service to and from Girraween Primary School. Girraween Primary School is the biggest primary school in the rural area, with 475 students, and it is bursting. I thank the government for giving it extra classrooms. It is a very popular school because it has great teachers, a great principal, a great school council and a farm. Many people in the rural area are attracted to schools that have farms because they can relate to it when they go home ...
Mr Chandler: Like great local members.
Mr WOOD: I was being modest there, thank you – the great local members. In this debate about planning, Girraween Primary School represents what we are about in the rural area. It is a rural school with rural values.
Mr Chandler: They make good coffee.
Mr WOOD: They have a good fridge out there too.
Parents have raised their concerns with me. I recommended they write to the minister and they asked me to write a letter of support. What better chance now the minister has made this very broad statement disguised as a motion for me to raise this. Hopefully the minister will have some answers. I will read the letter; that will explain the difficulty the children have. One of the concerns of parents at Girraween Primary School is that children who live in the Girraween area, for example on Goy Road, are collected at 7.10 am and do not finish their route to the school until 8.20 am. This bus threads its way through the area collecting Taminmin students and goes via the Humpty Doo exchange before children are delivered to Girraween School.
Girraween primary currently has 465 students, many of whom would happily use the bus service if it was specifically designed for our students. The school council would appreciate a comprehensive review of the current bus system, including consultation with the community.
I believe we have pretty good school bus services in the Northern Territory. I am unsure how they compare to other places, but you could go to any school in the rural area by bus. Sometimes it is a bit difficult as you may have to change buses somewhere, but considering that students might even come from Adelaide River and Batchelor now to Taminmin ...
Mr Chandler: Yes.
Mr WOOD: They also come from Darwin River way. I see Taminmin students boarding the bus at Howard Springs travelling to Taminmin; so we have a pretty good bus service.
I will not just pat the government on the back because the bus service existed before this government and probably has for a long time.
I have occasionally seen the maps that the bus companies issue to show the bus routes and, boy, they can be complicated. If a bus has to pass several schools, it needs to try to drop the students off at a time when the school is open. If they are dropped there too early there is no one to look after and take responsibility for the kids. If they are dropped off too late then complaints will be made that the kids are late coming to school. A school bus may be delivering kids to three or four schools, so the timetable needs to be adjusted accordingly so the bus can reach all the schools on time.
One of the problems with this bus route is that although it may begin 10 minutes away from the school, it leaves at 7.10 am and arrives at the school at 8.20 am. It would be a maximum of 10 minutes away from the school.
This bus route did not exist a few years ago. Through lobbying by people in that area the government extended the bus route. It picks up children going to St Francis of Assisi, students going to Taminmin, maybe students going to Humpty Doo Primary School, and when it is finished it comes back to Girraween. That is a fairly long bus route.
I understand parents’ concerns about their children travelling on a bus that far with mixed students. As this school is now nearly bursting at the seams, it would be good to see if there are any other options available. Small buses are no cheaper to run than big buses. Is there any possibility of that bus route being reviewed? They are asking for a total review of the system. The most appropriate time for that to occur is at the beginning of the school year. We are a fair way into the school year now, but there would be no harm in the government reviewing this bus route.
I hope the minister has some answers, or can give some comfort to the parents that the Department of Education, along with the bus service, is able to consider the concerns of the parents from Girraween Primary School and give an answer, if it is possible, today during the debate. The department might have some answers for the parents.
I heard the member for Drysdale speaking about the wonderful schools in Palmerston. I will not say anything untoward about those schools, but we also have some fantastic schools in the rural area. I was looking at some of the attendance rates at the primary schools. They have all gone up since 2014 – I only had the 2015 attendance rates – by 1% or 2%.
I raise that issue because I know how hard the teachers and principals work to get kids to school. If they do not get kids to school they might not have as many teachers; that is how the system works today. But it is not the only reason they want kids at school; they do not want kids falling behind. They want to make sure they are there every day.
Bees Creek, Girraween, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo all have over 90% attendance rates. They are trying their best to improve. I sometimes see the attendance rate in the newsletters. They will remind parents they have a responsibility to send their kids to school. It is that constant reminder that is important because we need to ensure our kids go to school. Of course, it is the prime responsibility of parents to send their kids to school. We do not want kids getting behind in their education.
In my area there is one non-government school, the Good Shepherd Lutheran College, which is growing. It will have a new basketball court built near the Good Shepherd Primary School, which has been developed over the last couple of years. It is a school that is booming.
The other schools in the area are doing extremely well too. Howard Springs is the oldest primary school in the rural area, bar the Middle Point School. It was built before the cyclone when the first people went to live in the rural area. To some extent it is showing its age a bit. But if you accept what the member for Karama said about the Chan Building, it possibly should be a heritage building. But I digress.
It is an older style building. Originally it was also a cyclone shelter and I was the manager of the shelter. It was inspected and the government realised it might not be a good place to keep people, so it is no longer a cyclone shelter.
It is an excellent school with excellent programs. All our primary schools work hard. Humpty Doo has a great vegetable garden, chooks, herbs and native plants. There are so many things in our rural schools we should be proud of.
People who visit the schools in the rural area remark on how polite many of the kids are. Much of that comes from living in the rural area. It is a great place to grow up and do things. Other kids in more urban areas do not have the opportunity and that is reflected in the way kids attend school and behave. It is not to say you do not get kids who are a little tricky at times, but we certainly have some good schools.
I also thank the teachers. I said some umpteen years ago that I thought teachers had a pretty easy life. I said that they have eight weeks’ holidays and they knock off at 3.30 pm and go home, but the truth is far from that. Many teachers work very hard. I was talking to a teacher the other day who spends most of her weekend getting classes prepared for the next week; she does not go out much. I know of the extra curricula work and the reports. I get dazzled.
I have been to Taminmin College school council meetings and they start to put up graphs and statistics that are a bit beyond me. I would not mind them being in plain English. I must admit they issue a report which the average parent cannot understand. One parent has continually brought me the one about his son. I am not sure what the name of that report is. It is a standard report. It is good for teachers but I do not think all parents can understand it. It gives you an indication of where your child is at present, but it is written in a language – it is a pity I did not bring it with me. He has brought it in to me twice and has asked me to explain it and I cannot. It is written for people who know the education lingo. Sometimes we have to be careful we do not speak to ourselves but speak to the people who need that information.
Taminmin is a great school but I know there are kids who give teachers a hard time. When the debate about the Education Act was on I wanted to make sure there was something in the act which protects teachers. The partner of a teacher told me what his wife had gone through that day in a class. Sometimes the abuse can be so much that there does not seem to be any way of controlling it. You end up losing great teachers who simply find the pressure too great. The swearing and language used against them is something they should not have to put up with. They do their work well.
We have great VET courses at Taminmin. What other college has, basically, a racing VET course where people can learn to be strappers. One course has Brahman bulls that are taken to the Katherine Show and the Freds Pass Show, which is coming up soon. In an election year I am sure there will be more posters than you can poke a stick at. Freds Pass will have politicians coming out of its ears and it will be the same with the Darwin show.
Taminmin always shows its cattle at the Darwin show and, generally speaking, takes all the prizes because the only other school it needs to beat is the Katherine Rural College. That indicates why it is such a great school.
While we are discussing agriculture I will ask if the minister has looked at the future of Mataranka School. This may not be in your area, but Mataranka School was a university training area and my understanding is that it has handed it back to the government. I believe it should stay as a teaching station. I have told people before that my daughter studied and learnt to be a ringer there. She then headed out to Wavell, Cattle Creek and a couple of other cattle stations.
With the cattle industry booming at the moment, it would be a backwards step to sell that cattle station. It still should be an education facility. Many things have been moved to Katherine Rural College. Everyone remembers the issues with Mataranka some years ago. After the money that has been spent by the university on upgrading Mataranka it would be a shame if the cattle station was sold. I believe it is important.
I remember the member for Port Darwin and I speaking in parliament about the use of that station for training Aboriginal people, as well as prisoners. I do not know what happened to that idea. It is a great example of where you could train Aboriginal prisoners in stock work.
Some years ago there was a small cattle station at the Berrimah prison, called Mango Downs because they put a fence around a few mango trees, and that became their cattle station. Prisoners learnt to ride there.
I raise this, minister, as I hope the government does not make a quick decision if it has been handed back by the university to sell it. It should still be part of the educational facilities in the Northern Territory.
Back to the local schools, I should not forget St Francis of Assisi. They ask me to visit and there is always plenty of singing. It has a concert every two years, which I am lucky to be asked to help with. It is always a great concert and it is a great school.
We have a great mix of government and non-government schools. At times there is argy-bargy about one lot of schools getting more money than the other schools, but we need to work together. Choice in education is important, giving people alternatives. Everyone should learn the same basic curriculum, but we do not live in a world of black and white. We live in a world where people have different ideas and philosophies. By having a choice in education we allow those things to grow, which is important.
One thing I believe might help bring the schools together is the Beat Festival. It is a great concert every year, but there are no non-government schools participating. Why is it not just a school concert? Bring all those kids in; they can sing just as well as the others. It seems to be a bit of ‘them’ and ‘us’ when that happens. This is an opportunity to bring them all together. The kids probably all know one another in the suburbs where they come from. Over the years I have wondered whether there were any kids from St Francis. ‘Oh, no, this is only for government schools’. I may be wrong and it might have changed, but that is how I understand it to be.
Madam Speaker, my long short talk is coming to a conclusion, but if the minister is to wrap up today – I assume he will as you do not want to leave motions much longer because we have nearly finished this Assembly. If you can find out something about the Girraween Primary School issue and report when you are summing up it would be good. They have written to you; it is a good letter. Their concern is that if a kid has to leave home at 7.10 am and arrives at school at 8.20 am, and only lives 10 minutes down the road, perhaps there needs to be an extra bus service or an adjustment. I would appreciate if you have an idea of a solution for that.
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I agree with him about the buses as there are issues in Adelaide River and Batchelor, and for all the kids at Taminmin College.
I thank the minister for his motion before the House. I am not too sure if anyone has said this in the debate, but we have the highest expenditure per student in the country. Tied with that, our student to teacher ratio is the lowest in the country and we have the highest percentage of students in government schools.
Talking about student numbers, I remember when my wife started teaching in the Northern Territory. She had classes in excess of 36 children, and that was a struggle. I am very happy with the ratios we have now.
We have seen an increase of 700 enrolments in government schools and gains in the NAPLAN and Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results. Something that continually annoys me is the talking down of our education system, particularly our schools. It is something that needs talking up.
In my electorate of Daly alone, so much positive has happened or is happening in the schools. For example, the Berry Springs Primary School, which has 200 students enrolled, is a fantastic school with a fair NAPLAN result and a fully engaged school community.
I was honoured to launch its new playground recently, which was made possible through the generous support of the CRC, which is the profit they make from the sale of alcohol from the tavern proceeds at the INPEX camp at Howard Springs; Bendigo Community Bank at Coolalinga; the Northern Territory government – the school came to see me and I managed to organise some funds for them, and thank you very much to the Education minister; Rotary Club and the community partner in-kind support; and JKC.
It was a well-deserved addition to the school, which has kicked a few goals over the years, particularly in the area of environment and conservation. Its Growing Green Kids program has won national awards and it took out the Clean, Green Healthy School category in the Territory Tidy Towns Awards. According to the My School website, it also performs on par with similar schools interstate.
I sit on the Berry Springs School Council and am proud and honoured to do so. I do not get there as often as I would like, but when I get some time, I call in and sit down with the principal, Leah Crockford, who is on leave at the moment. She has done a fantastic job, as I believe all our schools do a sterling job.
It is not easy. As I said before, I have been married to a teacher for 42 years and I constantly hear firsthand about the challenges that exist. I also hear the good, heartening stories.
I was the Chair of the Howard Springs Primary School Council in 1997, which I am not too sure if the member for Nelson knows. If you look at the honour board in the school, there it is – the second chairman of the school council. I enjoyed my time there; it was terrific.
Mr Wood: Yes, my kids went there.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes, it was probably then as well.
One of the programs I operate across the electorate – there are in excess of 20 schools – is one of my own called Wheels for Attendance. I buy six or eight bikes a year and try to distribute them to the schools. Berry Springs, Dundee, Palumpa, Belyuen, Wooliana, Woolaning, Emu Point and Nauiyu have received them. I give the bikes to the principal, and tell them I want the bikes to encourage kids to go to school. The principals do it in different ways. Some of them give a certificate each week, the kids get a ticket and at the end of the semester the school draws one out. I cannot get to all the schools since they finish at the same time, so I cannot give away the bikes.
Some principals are very hard; it has to be 100% attendance. Others give them to kids whose parents struggle to get them to school, so it is an encouragement for them. I have found the program has been very successful and many of the schools appreciate it. I wish I could buy enough bikes for every school.
Another great school – Madam Speaker would agree – is Taminmin College. The member for Nelson has already mentioned it. It is a terrific comprehensive rural school which offers a great range of VET courses. As he said, it has some mixed produce farming there on 75 ha. The members for Goyder and Nelson know that Taminmin is a terrific school with a wonderful philosophy of REACH; respect; effort towards excellence; achieve your goals; caring community; and honesty. Taminmin also has a fantastic chairperson of the school council. Bev is like an ankle biter. Once she attaches onto you to get something done you can never get rid of her. She never gives up. That is good for a chairperson. I wish I was that good when I did my time as the chairperson.
As rural members, we all know how much the school means to our community. Taminmin’s My School profile shows it performs generally on par with similar schools in the state. My point is actually a plea. I ask members to stop running down our schools. Let us stop spruiking the doom and gloom. We need to praise the students and what we do in the education system.
The last schools I will mention are related to work government has done recently – which I am proud of – for the Batchelor Outdoor Education Centre and the Dundee School. These two education facilities had their upgrades brought forward through the Building our Economy initiative. I was very pleased to push for those upgrades; they are well deserved. It is another example of how this government is not only helping small and medium businesses but also continuing to improve education facilities across our community.
Madam Speaker, our education system is one that we should be proud of and I am grateful that the minister has put this motion forward.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in a debate on education. It is not about running schools or teachers down. I would be the last person to run down teachers or schools as three McCarthys are delivering high-quality education in the Territory, and I have many colleagues from an education career spanning over 30 years.
I will go to a few important points about policy. This statement is about major reform. What I learnt in government is that every policy needs specific review. You need to review your major reforms, urgently in some areas.
There are some deficits in this model. Major reform incurs major policy shift and it requires very methodical review. Schools under your reform have seen two years of the changes and they are now able to clearly articulate some of the challenges. I will not go down that road, minister.
I ask you to look into this area. I know that your advisers, staff and education officials are listening to this. I visited a school last Friday where a principal advised me that, under the new global budget system, he is carrying three salaries of teachers on medical leave, in addition to employing three teachers to replace the staff on leave. That is six salary budgets, with a process of applying to the centralised function of the department to address this salary deficit, or in this case three salaries. That is a process that is burdening the principal with extra work. There is a feeling that these cases will not be addressed and that his message is not being heard.
This reverses one of your policy directions in centralising a function back to the department. But if there is any review and revision that could be conducted, it is that. That is significant budget resource that currently is unaddressed. There are anomalies.
The global school budgets is a new policy – a major reform – and principals are celebrating the autonomy it delivers. However, there are some serious deficits in the model and most of them can be addressed with the input of a centralised function. I ask you to look at that; schools will be using their savings and running into deficits, and will be significantly out of pocket if this is not addressed. There are a number of areas.
Question Time was interesting today when the opposition posed questions about a number of issues in education. One I was very interested in was early childhood. I acknowledge the member for Wanguri and the Territory Labor opposition team, which have been doing an enormous amount of work with the staff, stakeholders, constituents and unions to make sure that Labor’s policy on education is well and truly crafted, is new and bold, and adds value to what is the most precious resource we have in the Northern Territory: our children.
That area dovetails into the Opposition Leader’s early childhood policy. Early childhood is very much a feature of Labor’s policy development and position should we be judged worthy to gain government in the Northern Territory. The minister did not give us much detail of the early childhood issue and we have been searching for more evidence. There is not a lot the CLP is offering in this space. I will try to contextualise this into an example from Tennant Creek.
Let us talk about Tennant Creek Primary School. Anecdotally and from evidence from our health service providers and educators in Tennant Creek, we think there are about 400 children under four years of age. I have spoken in this House about the larger demographic and the fact that there are about 8000 Aboriginal children turning five in 2017-18 across the Territory. However, in Tennant Creek we think – and you could support us with this research – there are around 400 kids under four. We are talking about the zero to four years age group.
Last year it was interesting that 20 kids were identified, in an empirical sense, that we can name who did not get a preschool placement. They consequently turned five and are now in the formal years at Tennant Creek Primary School. The teachers there are great; we are very lucky because they are very experienced, mature teachers with lots of experience under their belts from down south and in the Territory. We are seeing a trend that the kids who did not get the preschool placements are suffering serious adjustment issues in the main school in Transition. That should not surprise anybody with an education background.
It is an issue not only in program delivery, but in regard to infrastructure. I acknowledge that the Chief Minister, in Budget 2015-16, spoke in the House about a number of initiatives. One of those was the new preschool and early childhood learning centre in Alice Springs. One was in his electorate and the other in his home town of Alice Springs. Tennant Creek is now facing the same challenges. However, I suggest, based on anecdotal evidence, that we have higher support needs than there will be in Alice Springs, with all the support services Alice Springs can combine in early childhood growth and development.
Tennant Creek is becoming a hot spot in how we will cater for the early childhood cohort. It was great to run into a senior executive from Education in a supermarket because we talked about this issue. He talked about some of the investment going into Tennant Creek in the infrastructure side of the primary school. That is great; I welcome and support that. I have spoken to the principal about it and attended a council meeting where it was discussed. It is good news.
However, the real priority is to look at infrastructure and service provision. When we look at this cohort of children coming through into the early years, we cannot deny the fact that a large percentage of these kids will have what I define as high support needs – behavioural and emotional – let alone some with more serious cognitive deficits that will be realised through issues such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
We know the realities and challenges of our town and community. The teachers will talk about behaviour support and management as an extreme priority. There is infrastructure that is failing that purpose. We need consumables as well, and we will need to look at staff. The numbers that need to be planned for is a resourcing issue that cannot be addressed easily.
That is essentially a micro-example of the Northern Territory and one of the reasons Labor policy has focused on the early childhood area, where we also request the current government, with its access to significant resources in finalising a Budget Cabinet process, to come into this House and tell us about the initiatives that are in place, of course, without revealing any of the budget secrets around the protocols of budget, budget week, the leaks and all the razzamatazz that goes on.
It is a clear story. Once again, I welcome any government officials, particularly ministers, to Tennant Creek and the Barkly. You can visit and see the infrastructure plans around the stimulus package. You can also talk to teachers and hear their real concerns about professionals who understand and are planning for the cohort coming through.
If I had the resource of government what would it equate to? It equates to looking at our early childhood infrastructure and services such as the Tennant Creek childcare centre, the Tennant Creek Preschool, the service land, the precinct that can support infrastructure development and a concept that will deliver for a high-support-needs cohort which needs to be stabilised, managed and prepared for those early years and the consequent primary school, middle school and senior secondary school. Essentially the concept is about generational change. There are many people across the Territory who are very frustrated. I have just been dealing with a constituent issue in Tennant Creek. There have been young girls on the street late at night vandalising shopfronts. The community gets really upset, with good reason. Then the allegations and accusations take away from progressing initiatives to deal with it. Essentially it will not be a short story; this will be a long story about generational change.
The opposition spokesperson, the member for Wanguri, talked about Families as First Teachers. I was privileged to be at a Families as First Teachers Day – a big community celebration including all the regional stakeholders – at Ali Curung last month. It was amazing to see everybody together under one roof telling their stories, sharing their resources, with their kids being part of that. It was orchestrated by the Families as First Teachers program. That is an example of a program that is making a difference and initiating this generational change.
First, most of the parents are under 25 years of age – higher than the national average. They will be the first to tell you that most have very limited parenting skills. Second, we have this incredible demographic of young children who are coming through. Unless we start to address the issue with a philosophy of generational change, we will risk another lost generation.
In the area of child protection, the member for Port Darwin challenged and made some very valid points. It is not good though to use the rhetoric of abandoned generations. We need to be applying our precious and limited resources to the realms of parents, kids and extended families across the Northern Territory. We need to be more creative and take on new ideas. We must focus on the early childhood sector.
There is the story for Tennant Creek. I know that staff and the new principal are all working hard together. There is a story about an infrastructure requirement that has been delivered across the Northern Territory, the exact concept that we needed in the previous budgets. It would be great to hear an announcement for Tennant Creek. We will continue to lobby.
It is far more than just my words today when we talk about the reality of what the teachers, school support staff, administrators and parent body are dealing with. This is now becoming critical in trying to hold this together.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is great to talk about one of the underlying opportunities for growth, development and stability to realise the prosperity and great future of the Northern Territory.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I also am happy to speak on this education motion. It is great to hear people who have spent a lot of time in classrooms speaking on this motion. I am sure we share many similar experiences dealing with students, helping young minds learn and watching generations of Northern Territorians come into self-confidence and receive an education that sets them up. It is always great to talk to the kids years later and see what they have done and where they are.
As other teachers in the room will relate, one of the proudest moments is when one of your former students becomes a teacher and says that part of the reason they became a teacher was because they thought you were a great teacher and you inspired them.
It is great being a teacher for several years and seeing kids who are now in their mid or late 20s and have families of their own. I always find myself remembering those kids as the 14-year-old I first taught. They come up and say, ‘Hello, Mr Barrett’, and I say, ‘For goodness sake, you are 30, you can call me Nathan’. They tell me that they now have a couple of kids and I am always surprised because I remember them as being 14. No matter how old they are, I always think they are far too young for that.
As a person who has loved education and been a teacher, I look at what is happening now in the education space and am very pleased with the work the Minister for Education and the department has been doing.
I spend a lot of time in the schools in my electorate, where I feel at home. They are very welcoming and I often have great interactions with them. It is interesting that on the odd occasion when I return to schools where I have been part of the staff in the past they do not mind throwing me a whiteboard marker and saying, ‘Go on, Nath, see if you can teach them a maths concept’ or some such thing. ‘Let us do some trigonometry today with Mr Barrett.’ It is always great to be back in the classroom doing that.
This CLP government has put through reforms such as the independent public schools idea and the single line budgeting. I have spent a lot of time talking to the principals in my electorate about how they feel regarding what has happened in their schools and how these changes have affected them. I will be honest; there were teething problems in relation to that.
On the whole, it allowed three schools in Palmerston – Woodroffe Primary School, Rosebery Middle School and Palmerston Senior College – to form something they are calling ConnectED. I sat down with those principals early on and said, ‘Do you know what private schools do really well? They do the transitions well.’ Because they often run on a single campus with a lot more year levels in one space, they are very good at getting solid visibility from Transition all the way to Year 12. They are very good at focusing their students at a very young age on thinking, ‘When I am in Year 7, I would like to be a part of that team. When I am in Year 9 I would like to be part of what happens there. When I am in Year 10 I would like to go on that trip the Year 10s go on. When I am in Year 12 I would like to be part of the group that does that.’ That is because they have leadership structures that run from the Year 12s all the way back to Transition. You might have Year 12s mentoring Year 9s as leaders of middle school. You might have Year 9s mentoring Year 6s in the primary school and then the Year 6s spending time with the little kids in Transition.
I talked to the schools about these connections and the loss they experience when kids from many different schools meld together when they come to middle school. It is often hard to get through that first six months when they have them in a new class setting because at the end of the day the students are trying to find themselves.
One of the great things about ConnectEd is that it starts to bridge these gaps. These systems the Minister for Education has put in place allow closer collaboration between different areas of these schools where they are not just following the same national curriculum guidelines but starting to think about things like aligning house colours or house names across schools in Palmerston. Then they can always have a point of contact and know they are in that house. When kids move from one campus to another, they are moving with a group of people they have a tribe relationship with.
One of the great things in education is the study into understanding how kids operate. One of the ways kids operate in regard to the tribe idea is that you can form the kids into these loose groups which tend to form strong connections. They can help, advise and work with each other through problems, and together have greater success than any individual would have. It is then healthy competition which fosters an understanding of the importance of different people within that group and what they can bring to a team situation, where they do not have to be the one who is best at maths or English or is a sports star, but together they can provide solutions to problems from different angles. Gee, wouldn’t that be nice if we could do that in parliament?
I am very excited about this ConnectEd strategy. One of the first things I did was look at units that served in World War II in the Darwin area. I found those units through an historian by the name of Tom Lewis. He and I worked to get those units together and present them and their military colours as school houses. Units from the Army, Navy and Air Force were attached to house groups, which tracks right through to Year 12. It means they have the ability to look back at what these units did, their mottoes and catchphrases, and build that into their house ethos. As those houses move from Transition to Year 12, the strength of continuity should track all the way through.
I like that ConnectEd has taken that on. It has a board across all three schools to look at ways to foster changing leadership structures so house leaders in all campuses are working together on what is good for the students across those campuses. That is revolutionary thinking for the public school sector. It is out-of-the-box innovation. I like that it takes advantage of what naturally makes kids more comfortable and stronger in a group, brings it to the fore and uses it to help their educational outcomes.
I am looking forward to seeing the result of the first few years of this and how it tracks through. I like nothing more than going to schools and talking to students and teachers. Much of the things the Labor Party members talk about, particularly those who have not spent very much time in schools, is how unhappy school communities and teachers are. In the schools in my community, I do not run into unhappy students or teachers. Sometimes I find, in talking to principals, they have various issues that we work through at a department level, but they are not generally at a strategic policy level, as is discussed in this place.
In this connectivity that runs between Transition to Year 12, there are other synergies that can be brought for boards. For example, rather than having three separate boards, which spreads the talent pool very thinly, we could have a very good board over a group of schools that looks strategically at the whole setting.
That would not be possible had it not been for the reforms the Education minister has introduced or the work done and funds spent in education to ensure the schools could work the reforms best in future.
The funny thing about education is it has a way of reinventing the wheel every few years. Someone comes up with another great idea to restructure the way something should be delivered, so teachers have to rewrite all their programs and content, and essentially redo what they have been doing. What I like about these new systems is they give the schools autonomy so they do not have to change something that is working.
You will find in education that there is probably not a system that works for every school. What I like about the reforms that have been introduced into the education system is that they finally acknowledge that. That is something this government has introduced. We acknowledge that something that will work at Woodroffe Primary School will not work at Moulden Primary School, so those schools have the flexibility to take hold of the programs that are getting results and implement them across the school rather than all working off exactly the same program, whether it works or not. There are people who are defining and refining our programs that will work in their context. It gives schools the flexibility to do what they need to.
I spend a lot of time at my schools and look at them from an infrastructure point of view. There is a lot of infrastructure work happening in Palmerston at the moment, and that is not being lost on the schools. Rosebery Middle School and Rosebery Primary School are full. They often have more students than they can handle. They are bursting at the seams and often run out of classrooms. I am glad this government recognises that and that school infrastructure growth is encouraged and paid for, and those kids have classrooms that are ready to go.
It is interesting in education when you look at the number of students in a classroom and the delivery of education. Often it comes down to how and what programs are being run in a school and how the teachers are implementing them. If you give teachers the space to implement the plan they are comfortable teaching and they know works in their school, the motivation and the reward is there for them to know they are teaching something that will work. That is what I believe is making the difference in Palmerston at the moment. Teachers know they have the flexibility to teach something they know is working. We have very good teachers.
To say that these teachers are unhappy, that everything is going to the wall and there is a big crisis is very unfair.
As Minister for Young Territorians I take the time to look at how kids are going. Having spent a lot of time around kids in my life you get to know the tenor and culture of different schools. You also get to know the culture of different cohorts of students and how they are tracking. I am always impressed by the quality of the students I run into, because they are engaged and learning.
Recently I was at Bakewell Primary School. Some of what it is doing in its accelerated groups is – I will not say mind-blowing or incredible, but Paul Nyhuis, the principal, is a very seasoned campaigner. He knows what he is doing and he is implementing some great programs. I have seen the results.
I get blown away when I go to my own kids’ assemblies. You listen to a kid reading and wonder how the heck that kid knew how to read it. I am sure I could not have done that when I was a kid. That comes down to the tenacity and quality of the teachers there, teaching the programs they want to teach because they know those programs work in their school context. That comes down to the leadership of the schools; it is in very good hands.
I will not hear the opposition talk down schools and the processes and programs this government has put in place. As a teacher I am very proud of the work that has occurred.
We fully fund preschools. We have the highest expenditure per student in the country, and so we should, because we probably have the highest percentage of students who need extra help because of our large Indigenous and remote populations of students. We also now have more young people on the autism spectrum and with Aspergers, attention deficit disorder or auditory processing issues, which I do not recall noticing when I was a kid, but noticed more prevalence of through my time as a teacher for nine-and-a-half years. We have better programs in place now for that than when I was a student or when I started teaching.
We have the highest percentage of students in the government school system, which puts a lot of stress on our system, but also means we can develop very good teachers. Often the teachers who come back from remote placements, even with a very short experience in regard to years, are mature in the way they teach classes and approach the programs they teach. It is great to watch them work.
The underlying assumption is that in 2012 everything in the education sector was fine and somehow this government has set about ruining it, but the work the Labor Party was doing in that space was really only putting more programs, money and staff into it, which was not converting into results. Our KPIs need to be results driven. We need to look at it and ask, ‘How are our students doing? Are they learning how to read and write? Are they learning maths? Are they learning social skills and how to interact appropriately? Are they learning how to access information and IT in an effective way that sets them up for work?’
We have that approach because the Country Liberal Party understands that it is business that drives employment, not education. That is very important to get across in this debate. If you study the Industrial Revolution you will find it was industry that generated jobs, then those jobs generated a level of education commensurate with them. It was not the other way around. It was not that everyone decided to become very educated and then, out of the blue, all these jobs materialised. There are countries where economic studies have been done which showed that when you spend too much time and effort on education and not enough on business you end up with many people who are highly educated but did not have jobs. There are people with multiple degrees driving taxis because even though they became a highly-educated population, there was still not work or opportunities available for people. This is why we need to bring our higher education and VET system into line with what jobs these kids will be doing and the next set of industry jobs that will be available in the Territory.
Strategically we need to be thinking 20 years in advance. We need to be thinking about what we, as a government, can do in the education space while looking at the industry space and making sure our kids are ready to access those jobs and have a chance of being at the forefront of where the economy goes in the next instance.
The Minister for Education provided a detailed address which outlined the many achievements for this government, and what is amazing is that it all happened in three-and-a-half years. What the opposition cannot deny is that this government – for all of its strengths and weaknesses, which I am sure the opposition could and does point out – is that we have instigated some pretty big reforms. I pay tribute to Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and the Education minister, for the reforms he has initiated in the education sector, which have brought better results. He has been able to do that in three-and-a-half years, which has led to setting up education with a much better structure for the future. I see that happening now in the schools in my electorate through the ConnectEd program in the Palmerston schools.
There were more students achieving A+ merit, the best NTCET results and the highest number of Indigenous students completing the NTCET in 2015. There were 27 Indigenous Year 12 students who obtained their NTCET in 2015 after completing their studies in their remote home communities. The reforms of this government are starting to show in our NAPLAN studies. Preparing students for a future in trade, in 2015 1894 students received a Statement of Attainment for one or more units of VET.
Madam Speaker, this government is focused on education and preparing kids for business that will come in the next 20 years of the Northern Territory. I commend the Education minister for this motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to bring this motion to the House. We introduced this as a motion, and I recognise that the member for Wanguri suggested it was more like a statement and it was done this way so the opposition could not have time to respond. You might note that we adjourned it yesterday and brought it back today. I welcome that because it has allowed more people in the Chamber to provide input to this important debate.
What has frustrated me more than anything is the approach that Labor and the unions take to our education system, especially in the last three-and-a-half years. Education has gone through massive reforms. It is no accident it has gone through that because, as a government minister, I will not apologise for pushing hard. I was not happy with the results in many areas of education. Whilst we have always had good schools and have been well resourced with good teachers, I thought there was no real focus on improving results.
The previous Labor government’s focus was, ‘If there is a problem, just throw some more cash at it’. There was no real strategic focus on improving educational outcomes.
My frustration during this reform process was that we were constantly being attacked by the unions and Labor. They must be slightly embarrassed given that it is evident the results are improving. As I have said a couple of times this week in answering questions, if the results are going backwards shoot me and get me out of here, but there is proof things are getting better. I will not say everything is rosy in every school across the Northern Territory. For goodness’ sake, I get news flashes every day. I am sure the previous Minister for Education, and Education ministers before that, would get news flashes with incidents that schools deal with every day.
I take my hat off to the teachers who deal with Territorians’ children. Some of the things they get up to, quite frankly, disgust me at times. I do not want to take away from the good students, but we have some horrors. Teachers and principals have to deal with that every day. Many of these are society and community problems that are brought into our schools. I am not saying that everything is beautiful and rosy and look at life through rose-coloured glasses; however, I am frustrated at the continual attack on public education in the Northern Territory when it is not deserved. These guys have worked damn hard in a hard environment.
I am the one who has driven that change, along with this government, and rightly so. The course and the base have been reset and I know the decisions we have made in the last few years are the right decisions to put us on a far better course than where we were heading. It is time we praised them and stopped trashing them.
This government has undertaken a reform agenda to build an education system for the future. We have built the foundations of a system that is designed to perform to a high standard, meet and exceed the expectations of parents, compete internationally and support the social and economic future of the Northern Territory.
In 2012 this government inherited a very top-heavy, central bureaucracy in a school system where everyone had been trying their best, but was delivering a wide variety of programs and initiatives that were not connected. There was no involvement in the improvement of student outcomes. In fact, there was not enough focus on the performance of the system, the results being achieved or the quality and standards of programs being delivered in our schools.
Our reviews into Indigenous education and middle schools have found that although there had been significant increases in funding, the system was struggling. I have tried to work out an analogy for this and I can only imagine a tap that is connected to a hose that is full of cracks and holes and a little trickle comes out of the end. The only thing the former Labor government could do was turn the tap up more, putting more money into the system. But there were so many cracks and holes and such a scatter-gun approach that no more was coming out of end; it was not getting better.
We have not been afraid to take some hard decisions. We have taken a strategic approach to resource allocation by ending what is not working and reorientating the system based on evidence. To stop wastage and ensure we have an efficient system, the government is focusing on building high performance in our system as well as implementing strategies for those schools and students who need additional support to succeed.
Global school budgets use a needs-based funding approach to ensure schools get the level of funding needed to meet the needs of their students. Many people might argue that is what Gonski set out to achieve. The problem is that Gonski became a banner, something easy to run with. I guarantee most people flying the flag of Gonski had never taken the time to read the report and look at what the impacts would have been for the Northern Territory; they might understand why we baulked at signing up to Gonski in the context of the Northern Territory.
Global school budgets have given the authority and flexibility to schools to provide programs that are relevant and meaningful for their students, including the discretion to employ staff with a range of skills and professional expertise. As well as teachers, schools may, at their discretion, employ staff with other expertise, such as VET trainers and counsellors. This is happening now.
The introduction of independent public schools is another strategy which ensures that high-performing schools can earn autonomy for greater decision-making at the local level. I agree with my Australian government counterpart, Senator Hon Simon Birmingham, the federal minister for Education. While funding is important, how we use funding is more important. The Australian government has given us a funding model that allows us the flexibility and autonomy to make the right decisions for our system and focus on what matters: autonomy for schools, especially those performing well; excellent teaching: a high-quality learning program; and, of course, engagement with parents.
We have also cemented a high-level partnership, working closely with the Australian government on a long-term reform plan to improve outcomes for our Indigenous students and improve rates of attendance. That is a struggle and has been for a long time – you guys know as do we – and we are trying to deal with it.
A commitment to using evidence to determine what works is at the heart of this government’s strategy to build a high-performing system. We have said that results are beginning to show that this strategy is paying dividends with an increase in government school enrolments and improvements in our NAPLAN and Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results.
I will talk about international education in connection with building a first-class education system, about which I ran out of time yesterday. Expanding our excellent education services into this market was a huge untapped opportunity until this government turned its attention to it. In December 2015 there were over 2100 enrolments by full-fee-paying international students in the Northern Territory on a student visa. This represents a 14% increase on the previous year and a 39% increase over the past two years. This compares to the national growth of only 10%. Nationally, international student numbers are growing by 10%, and in the Northern Territory in the last two years, 39% and 14% respectively.
The member for Barkly said we did not talk much about early childhood education and care in the questions that I was asked today. To be fair, three minutes is difficult for unpacking an entire package. But there was some misinformation today. Yes, there is a new strategy but there is money behind it. The member for Wanguri needs to understand that there is real, new money behind this strategy.
I also pick up what the member for Barkly said about carrying the absent teacher salaries in the global school budgets. He needs to understand that the global school budget does include historical relief teacher funding. A level of absenteeism is expected and is funded, and can be managed within the budgets allocated. Should absenteeism be exceptional and unexpected, then schools can apply for funding under the exceptional circumstances framework. For example, in Week 10 of Term 1 more than $700 000 was paid in funding to 10 schools in exceptional circumstances. Where the need is there the funding is available. We back it up, member for Barkly.
Long leave types including workers compensation, long service leave, remote study leave and parental leave are all centrally funded and do not affect global school budgets.
The other thing we should talk about – and I did touch on it – is early childhood education and care. The Northern Territory government recognises the importance of providing quality early years education for young Territorians from birth to eight years through a continued investment in early childhood education and care to ensure we provide the best possible start for all children.
The Northern Territory government is one of the only jurisdictions in the country providing free preschool education for all children, at a cost of about $38m per year. All Indigenous children living in remote and very remote communities in the Northern Territory can access preschool from the age of three years. Since 2014 we have fully funded, with Commonwealth assistance, a 15-hours-a-week preschool program in all government preschools.
We continue to provide $5.9m to subsidise the cost of long day care and family day care services for Territory families so they also have access to quality early childhood education care and services.
The Northern Territory is implementing a targeted approach to increasing the quality of education and care services across the Northern Territory through a partial reassessment process. This approach has seen 17 services lift their quality ratings, which is good news for parents and children who use those services.
We continue to provide scholarships to increase the skills and knowledge of our childhood educators, expanding the Families as First Teachers program to 11 additional remote and very remote sites, which is bringing the total to 32 sites by 2017. The Families as First Teachers program is driving generational change and assisting in building resilient families in remote and very remote communities in the Northern Territory. In Semester 2 of 2015, 1316 children and 1404 parents and carers participated in the program’s early learning activities. That is an increase of 15% and 31% respectively from 2014. These are major changes.
The Northern Territory government also recognises that improving outcomes for Territory children requires a whole-of-government approach. The Department of Education is working with agencies, including the Department of Health and the Department of Children and Families, as well as the Australian government, non-government organisations and families, to achieve this, and we are seeing good results. Are we there yet? No, we have a long way to go but we are coming off an extremely low base that was overseen by nearly 12 years of Labor government.
The member for Nelson raised Taminmin and Girraween schools. I can remember sitting on a bus for nearly two hours each way going to and from school, so I have sympathy. The bus service is under continued review. It is always being reviewed as new subdivisions open up, or as parents move into different areas and you are provided with feedback. Education and the Department of Transport are always looking at reviewing those bus services. Like the member for Nelson, I believe we have a good bus service in the Northern Territory.
I go back to international education for a second. Education is now the Territory’s ninth biggest export industry, which created $55m to the economy in 2014-15. Through the Department of Education we have established an English language centre in Dili, Timor-Leste, in partnership with the Timor-Leste Secretariat of State for Vocational Training Employment and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The English language centre is a three-year investment and is a key part of the expansion of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre’s transitional educational footprint. The program will expose Timor-Leste citizens to the Australian education sector and, through the technologies and education practices employed, will provide a platform to leverage future international education opportunities and deliver the Territory a ready pool of capable seasonal workers.
There have been 26 students participating in the English language program in Dili who will all graduate this year. I look forward to that graduation. I also acknowledge their hard work in making such an achievement that will open economic opportunities for them and their families. With the first-ever federal minister for international education appointed in 2015, and a national strategy for international education due to be launched in 2016, the Northern Territory is well positioned to build on these initiatives and our success to date.
International education is a fantastic opportunity for the Northern Territory to showcase high-quality education facilities, engage with Asian markets through the education sector and build deep and long-lasting relationships with our near neighbours. We will continue to develop and strengthen new and existing partnerships with the Asian region so the Territory is truly seen as Australia’s gateway to Asia and Asia’s gateway to Australia.
The government has transformed the Northern Territory education system with a new contemporary Education Act, greater school autonomy that is well supported and a strong eye to measuring and monitoring school achievement and system performance to enable evidence-based decisions and strengthen program delivery.
Schools are setting the bar higher and focusing on supporting middle- and high-achieving students to aim higher and improve achievement to advance the whole system along with them. It is all about getting the balance right.
Regular attendance for all students, especially in our remote schools, remains our biggest challenge going forward, and I acknowledge that. For young people to be successful they need to attend school regularly. We understand that a range of factors can impact on the desire and ability of young people to attend school. However, through a whole-of-government approach and strong community support we can improve student attendance and close the gap for Indigenous students. This will remain a key focus of this government, in partnership with the Australian government and communities throughout the Northern Territory.
We have seen gains in NAPLAN and the number of students completing an NTCET. We will remain focused on continuing to improve NAPLAN results and the number of students completing Year 12.
Indigenous student achievement remains low compared to non-Indigenous students. Government’s 10-year Indigenous education strategy is implementing a range of evidence-based initiatives from early childhood through to employment pathways aimed at closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
Everywhere I go, at every school I visit across the Territory, I find passionate and committed teachers and principals, and skilled and dedicated support staff. I speak to volunteer school council members and chairpersons, who are all selfless and steadfast in their commitment to making their school the very best it can be. I thank these committed people for embracing the reform agenda in education that is being delivered by this government.
I am very proud of our schools for taking up the challenge with both hands to lift the bar for the benefit of young Territorians, for implementing Direct Instruction in 19 remote schools to give Indigenous students the best opportunity to fully particulate in the 21st century economy, for achieving the best Year 12 results we have ever seen in the Northern Territory and breaking our own records year upon year, and for lifting the average ATAR score for Year 12 students in Territory government and non-government schools from 61 marks to 65 marks in a single year, in 2015.
This government has a comprehensive reform agenda and has continued to make a positive impact and deliver promising results. We have set ourselves ambitious targets internationally and we continue to stretch ourselves in order to achieve real improvements and outcomes for our children and to close that gap. We recognise that there is still much to do but we aim high. We want more Territory children.
I acknowledge the member for Nelson’s comments with regard to the bus travel in his community. We are reviewing this request.
I place on the record that I am disappointed that Labor is once again resorting to scare tactics to cover for its lack of policy. The member for Wanguri and her colleagues will be pleasantly surprised with the budget when it is released in May this year. It is concerning that Labor has not addressed the most fundamental business of schools and has shown no understanding of teaching and learning reform and the importance of improved outcomes for our children.
Madam Speaker, in addition, I share that I am very excited to officially launch our early childhood strategy Great Start, Great Future in the near future and look forward to outlining funding packages that will accompany this strategy. This government is now well advanced on the journey to transform education in the Northern Territory. We will continue to focus on what works and getting the most out of the reforms and initiatives this government has put so much effort into creating. We will continue to invest in our children and our economic and social future. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPERS
Members’ Travel Reports
Members’ Travel Reports
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table members’ travel reports received from the Leader of the Opposition dated 20 April 2016; the member for Daly, received on 19 April 2016; and member for Nhulunbuy, received on 21 April 2016.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Committee of Members’ Interests Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee Report on Speaking a Language Other than English
Standing Orders Committee Report on Speaking a Language Other than English
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 200 I table the report and the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of April 2016 on the matter of speaking in a language other than English.
Publish Paper – Standing Orders
Committee Report on Speaking a
Language Other than English
Committee Report on Speaking a
Language Other than English
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Adopt Report – Standing Orders
Committee Report on Speaking a
Language Other than English
Committee Report on Speaking a
Language Other than English
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The Standing Orders Committee report arises from a reference from the Assembly originating from a motion by the member for Stuart which was debated during the March sittings. The motion was subsequently amended by the member for Goyder and further amended by me, resulting in the committee giving consideration to formalising a process for the use of a language other than English in the Chamber.
The Standing Orders Committee was requested to inquire into the best procedure to allow members to speak any language other than English in debate, and with recommendations report back to the Assembly no later than the sitting week commencing Tuesday 19 April 2016.
I am pleased to report that the committee has considered the matter at length and brings to the Assembly a recommendation which will be a significant improvement to the existing arrangements where leave of the Chair is given on an ad hoc basis.
The proposed procedure will permit the business of the Assembly being transacted in language other than English where a member provides a translation of the words spoken prior to the language other than English being used, and provides a written transcript both in English and the other language.
The committee took the view that the approach is a significant improvement on the existing arrangements where members are allowed to speak in any language other than English by leave of the Chair of the Assembly and are not formally required to provide a subsequent translation or interpretation, resulting in some instances, but not others, where the translation is recorded. The new approach will ensure that the member speaks English prior to speaking in any other language to explain what the member is about to say in the other language.
The committee was pleased to be given this important reference and to ensure that the Assembly accommodates the diversity of a rich tradition of languages now being spoken in the community being also spoken in the Chamber when pertinent.
Madam Speaker, I commend the committee’s report and its recommendation to the Assembly.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To clarify, the committee agreed that the member would speak in English, then at the same time as speaking in another language they would table a copy of that speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is right. That is all circulated.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the report to the parliament. This is an important debate. I have a slightly dissenting opinion of the report – only slightly, a bit like the lawyers saying is it an ‘and’, ‘must’ or ‘shall’. I will get to that in a minute.
As I have said previously, I have been to Northern Canada where different languages are used. The language used there is predominantly the language of the people. In the case of Nunavut it is Inuktitut, but French and English are also spoken. They have a set-up as we do, but around the panels they will have a number of interpreters who are immediately interpreting what is said in the language. You can put on earphones and listen to the debate.
The problem for the interpreters is that sometimes the people speaking jump between English and Inuktitut. This means that the next interpreter has to break into an interpretation back from English to Inuktitut for those listening who speak the other language. It is an interesting set-up if you proceed down that path. Obviously that would be very costly and the occasions people want to speak in their own language would be few.
It is important that people are allowed to speak in their own language. This change to standing orders allows people to hear what is being said in English and then in the language of the speaker. That means that you know what the debate is about but you are also allowing the person to speak in their own language, which is good.
My understanding is that if you do that you only have the same amount of time as normal. One of the issues I had – this is where my dissent to the report comes in – is that what has been approved by the majority of people in this report is that we have included the word ‘and’. The word ‘and’ here means that the person making this speech in their own language has to do two things now, both make a speech in English and provide a written copy of the speech. That seems like duplication. I am not sure whether with that ‘and’ in it that someone can make the speech in their own language and just give a written report. I am not sure whether that goes against the original intent of what we were trying to do.
Be that as it may, my concern is now that a person who wants to speak in their language will have to first speak in English, then in their own language, and provide a written report. As Hansard will report exactly what has been spoken in English, there would be no necessity to have a written statement at the same time. Vice versa, if the person handed the Clerk the English version of what was being said prior to the speech and it was handed out, we would all understand what the person was saying. The advantage of that is the person could then speak for a longer period.
To me, that ‘and’ has to some extent complicated something that should be simpler. I decided to raise that because whilst people might just think it was an ‘and’ and an ‘or’, the ‘or’ makes the process more efficient, gives the speaker an opportunity to speak for longer, whereas the ‘and’ will limit the time that person can speak and doubles up on the requirement to have a written statement, which will be done by Hansard anyway.
I thank the committee for looking at this. At least it puts something in our standing orders in relation to the use of another language, which is important.
This House has to reflect the people who live in the Northern Territory, and many people in the Territory speak different languages. Many of those languages are spoken by quite small groups of people, but at least we are recognising those languages and, to some extent, encouraging their use.
My wife’s language is Batjamalh. When she passes from this earth, Batjamalh will just be found in a book and will not be spoken. She does not speak it much because she was brought up at Daly River where they moved from Batjamalh language to Ngan'gikurunggurr and English.
Emmi is a language that is spoken in the area around the mouth of the Daly River. That language is 99.9% dead. It will be picked up in an ethnobotany book my wife and her relations have just completed with Glenn Wightman. I am using that as an example of why languages are fading away as older people pass away. However, there are areas of strong language. The member for Nhulunbuy would know that her area is very strong in language. I can tell when she is pronouncing various people’s names, areas and towns that she has had some training in the letter ‘U’. She tells us how to pronounce Nhulunbuy. We should be sensitive to the way names are pronounced and try to pronounce them correctly.
I always laugh at Malak because it is supposed to be pronounced ‘Muluk’ – named after the Malak Malak people. The best man at my wedding was a Malak Malak man. However, I digress.
Madam Speaker, recognising languages in this parliament also encourages those languages. It tells people that we respect those languages. It is important, as a parliament, that we do that.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the report of the 20 April 2016 meeting of the Standing Orders Committee on the matter of breastfeeding and proxy votes.
MOTION
Publish Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Publish Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
MOTION
Note Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Note Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report on Breastfeeding and Proxy Votes
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee report arises from a request received by the committee from the member for Drysdale, asking the Assembly to accommodate breastfeeding mothers during divisions in the Chamber.
The report I tabled today contains a proposal for two new standing orders for consideration, and hopefully, adoption by the Assembly.
The Standing Orders Committee considered the matters of infants and breastfeeding on a number of occasions during the 9th Assembly, when the committee reported to the Assembly in June 2003, and was of the opinion that it was available for the Speaker, at any time, to rule that if a member was required to be in the Chamber it was in order for that member, if necessary, to bring an infant into the Chamber to be breastfed. This flexibility remains the situation in the Northern Territory; however, it has never been tested.
Voting by proxy is a different matter to nursing a child in the Chamber. The member for Drysdale requested that the committee give consideration to the matter of proxy votes. The committee has determined to recommended a new step-by-step procedure for proxy voting which will not offend the requirements of voting in the Assembly under the Self-Government Act, and to also recommend a revision of standing orders about strangers on the floor of the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, the proposals are contained in the report, and I commend the recommendations to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Northern Territory Planning Scheme
Northern Territory Planning Scheme
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter proposing a discussion of the following definite matter of public importance:
- The Northern Territory Planning Scheme should reflect the NT Planning Act objective ‘to plan for, and provide controls for, the orderly use and development of land’. In keeping with that objective the Planning Commission dual occupancy proposal of rezoning single dwelling to allow dual occupancy of minimum lot sizes ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 should be immediately withdrawn.
- Further, the NT Planning Commission should also recognise the legitimacy of rural living and not urbanise the Darwin rural area. The proposed sub-regional Litchfield plan does not reflect the aspirations of rural residents, does not address the challenges of the rural area and has no sustainable planning principles.
The letter is signed by the member for Karama.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank members of the Assembly for their support of discussion of this definite matter of public importance.
One of the privileges I have had in my life was to be born and raised in Darwin. I spent quite a few of my adult years living and working elsewhere – Melbourne and Hong Kong, for example – but I always knew I would come home, particularly when I was ready to have and raise children.
I love our tropical environment and our lifestyle. I love the openness and freedoms of our children being able to run around and play in our suburban blocks. Some people have pools and some do not. I was lucky enough to grow up in Nightcliff where we had one of the first swimming pools in the suburb. As a mother of three children – having raised an additional one as well – we have never had a pool. We had a really big lawn where the kids had the plastic out on the lawn, the water hoses, the sprinklers, the trampolines – a lot of running around and a lot of fun.
I cannot understand any justification whatsoever in the dying months of the government for a proposal to dramatically tear up our lifestyle of tropical, leafy, abundant gardens and single dwelling blocks ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 and above. Why would a government, with just four months until a general election, have a Planning Commission issue a proposal – that, quite frankly, hardly anyone knew existed – to rezone single dwelling blocks to allow dual occupancy?
There is a bit of jargon in that, so I will break it down. Under the proposal for lots, suburban household blocks ranging in size from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 will be rezoned to dual occupancy. That means if you own a block of land in your suburb that is larger than 800 m2, if this goes ahead – and all it would require is a report from the Planning Commission to the Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Fong Lim, to say, ‘Do it’, and he would sign it off; it does not come to parliament to go through the rigours of debate by people elected to represent people across the areas of the Territory. There is one public meeting required, with notice; that is it. It would mean that everyone sitting on 800 m2 of land or larger could say, ‘I am carving my land in half, down to 400 m2 blocks side by side’. Frankly, to get a house on that block, the setbacks – we have no detail of what they would look like – would not be 3 m. There would not be enough room for it. Picture it!
There is nothing wrong with people who choose to live in highly densified suburbs. I try to break this down and explain to people there will be subdivisions in Palmerston which will literally have roof to roof abutting the dividing boundary fence. That is what it looks like – no room for trees, a back yard or garden. If you have a pool it will be a pretty small one; it will be a plunge pool.
One of the things we love about Darwin – it moves me every time I fly home when I look out the window – is trees. You can hardly see the roofs of the houses. When you look out across Darwin you see the green of the trees.
If the landowner chooses, the proposal would change having to go through a process of talking to their neighbour and arguing their case to the Development Consent Authority, and they would have the right to split their property down to 400 m2. It would only be a conversation between them and their builder.
I note the Minister for Lands and Planning has not led any public discussion on this. He has left it to the government’s handpicked and appointed Planning Commission, headed by their Liberal mate from down south, Gary Nairn. He has left the running to Gary, to take that rap.
They say it is ‘a proposal for a variety of minimum lot sizes ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 that is being considered’ and that ‘for dual occupancy policy to be included in the Planning Scheme the minister must further publicly exhibit the proposal for an additional 28 days’. The deadline for submissions is just a couple of weeks away. I have done some calculations and this is well before the caretaker period where you are able to sign off, member for Fong Lim. You have squeezed it into your window before the caretaker period so you can you sign it off.
I asked the minister in Question Time today a very specific question regarding how many lots of 800 m2 across the Territory have the potential for dual occupancy if it is signed off. Then I asked the minister how many lots of 900 m2, 950 m2 and 1000 m2 had that potential.
The public has every right to the answer because this is under active consideration by your Planning Commission. If you have the answer, please table it in this MPI debate or publicly release it.
Mr Tollner: It is publicly released. Are you all there?
Ms LAWRIE: Point to the site. I pick up on the interjection. Is it accessible on your website?
Mr Tollner: It is accessible. It has every house.
Ms LAWRIE: It does not have the calculations I am asking about, minister.
If it is so easy and so accessible, I am sure the minister, in his response, will tell us how to get that data. How many lots of 800 m2, 900 m2, 950 m2 and 1000 m2 have the potential for subdivision for dual occupancy?
I thank residents of Fannie Bay for bringing this proposal by the Planning Commission to my attention. They e-mailed members of parliament. I did not know it was happening. I confess that I do not peruse the Planning Commission website every week.
I would have thought a proposal of this magnitude would be announced by the government of the day for consideration. Instead, it was the Planning Commission.
I recognise a submission – I have approval to talk about these submissions – from Beau and Lindsay of Fannie Bay to Mr Nairn on this proposal of dual occupancy and zoned single dwelling. I will quote some excerpts from it because I am conscious of only having 30 minutes. ‘The following loss of amenity and social disruption will result from dividing single dwelling blocks into dual occupancy with a minimum of 400 m2 lots:
We are currently in a phase of negative population growth which is impacting on federal government funding. Many of these families have three or four generations living here.
There would also be pressure on existing infrastructure such as power, water, and storm water run-off, especially in the older suburbs that are already overtaxed in this infrastructure.
Traffic congestion and clogging up narrow streets with additional cars.
The increased use of power by forcing people to air condition because tropical architecture cannot work without air circulation which is not possible without space.’
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The members for Fong Lim and Sanderson are laughing, but this is a submission from a resident. Show some dignity. ‘Just in case the commission has forgotten we live in the tropics, we are currently experiencing our hottest Wet Season on record. Houses are built to withstand cyclones. In most cases this means they are built of concrete and steel which absorbs the heat. If you combine that with a loss of vegetation, Darwin will end up like a furnace.’
It goes on to talk about some of the population comparisons in a Deloitte report, Building the Lucky Country, but they point out that they are comparing Darwin to Sydney and Melbourne. We have a population of about 80 000, compared to populations of four or five million.
I urge honourable members to read the submission that was sent to all members by Beau and Lindsay. It is excellent and totally captures why the Planning Commission needs to withdraw its dual occupancy proposal.
I will also quote from Gail and Jurgen of Fannie Bay. It is an excellent submission. It points out that the proposal disregards the principles and objectives of the key Northern Territory land use policies. It points out that the objective is to plan for and provide a framework of controls for the orderly use and development of the land, to be achieved by minimising adverse impacts, ensuring, as far as possible, that planning reflects the wishes and needs of the community, through appropriate public consultation, and fair and open decision making and review processes.
It goes on to refer to the government’s 2015 NT Compact Urban Growth policy. It points out that the dual occupancy proposal would promote densification, not around activity centres and along transport corridors as NT land use policies say it should, but throughout single-dwelling suburbs. This would have a serious, adverse impact on those suburbs, changing the existing character altogether. Dual occupancy does not reflect the wishes and needs of the community, and the proposal was not made after appropriate public consultation.
I point out that as a former Lands and Planning minister I am very aware the Labor government consulted with the community on the issue of dual occupancy. As a result of those consultations, dual occupancy in the Planning Scheme provides for someone to go through a process. If you want to subdivide your block of land under dual occupancy in the scheme, you have to talk to your neighbours. If your neighbours do not agree, you go before the Development Consent Authority and the proposal is tested. Issues such as amenity, traffic congestion – all the natural issues that are to be discussed regarding changes to planning rights – are thrashed out at the Development Consent Authority.
Nowhere in any intent was there ever an idea by the Labor government to have dual occupancy changes on 800 m2 to 1000 m2 as a matter of right, let alone the idea that it is something sensible to do to our city.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning, when consideration about dual occupancy was occurring, the member for Port Darwin indicated across the Chamber that he wanted to have a conversation with me. So I left my chair and stood at the side of the Chamber. He said to me, ‘Letting you know on dual occupancy – do 1000 m2 as a right and you will get no argument from our side. I will make sure because I need to subdivide my block of 1000 m2.’ For privacy’s sake, I will not give the reason he said he had to do it.
I have no evidence of that conversation because I do not tape members of parliament when they talk to me, but it occurred. My concern is why is this happening? I believe it is happening because the member for Port Darwin is ensuring that before a change of government, dual occupancy for 1000 m2 occurs.
My request is to go through a spot rezoning application, member for Port Darwin; do not inflict this on the community. Please, CLP government, withdraw and ensure the Planning Commission withdraws this proposal. Do no sign off on this, member for Fong Lim, before you exit parliament. Do not make a decision that will impact on so many people’s lives and the very fabric of our lifestyle in Darwin.
I have not even touched on the impact of 800 m2 on the regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs because, quite frankly, I believe you are going after 1000 m2 based on that conversation years ago. That is my deep concern. I could never be proven right or wrong until it is too late, quite frankly.
The Property Council, which represents developers, has pointed out its issues. In its submission, which I thank it for providing to me, it has indicated that 800 m2 is not appropriate. It has said that if dual occupancy is adopted a minimum lot size of 900 m2, 950 m2 or 1000 m2 is generally considered more suitable. It recognises that design controls would need to include appropriate set-backs, landscaping, parking requirements, infrastructure requirements, storm water provision and the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding locality.
It said that the The proposed amendment to provide an exemption for dual occupancy developments from the standard 3 m separation is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing single dwelling character of the locality. The proposed amendment to provide for reduced set-backs for dual occupancy developments is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing single dwelling character of the locality. This is particularly relevant for set-backs from the front boundary. The capacity of existing infrastructure and the impact of dual occupancy developments on traffic and privacy are major concerns. Many of the existing neighbourhoods that will be affected by this change do not have the soft and hard infrastructure needed to support this intensification. The various levels of government and service authorities must have adequate plans to ensure the required soft and hard infrastructure can be provided when it is required.
This word is critical, ‘before’ dual occupancy is adopted.
I will repeat that. This is from the Property Council. ‘Many of the existing neighbourhoods that will be affected by this change do not have the soft and hard infrastructure needed to support this intensification. The various levels of government and service authorities must have adequate plans to ensure the required soft and hard infrastructure can be provided when it is required before dual occupancy is adopted.’
The residents who took the time to write these submissions are saying not to do this; withdraw the proposal to fundamentally alter our tropical lifestyle by providing for dual occupancy. We will see the carve-up of suburban blocks. If dual occupancy is down to 800 m2 then we will see single blocks of 400 m2. Equally, no one wants to see 1000 m2 subdivided, by right, down to 500 m2 blocks simply because the member for Fong Lim can have his Planning Commission recommend it to him and can sign it off before a Territory election.
You have no mandate to do this, CLP government; you did not go to the 2012 Territory election espousing dual occupancy. You did not say that you would even consider this. If my memory serves correctly, you campaigned against dual occupancy when it was discussed under a previous Labor government. That government listened to the community and did not proceed with it as a right. The requirement is to talk to your neighbours and go through the existing Development Consent Authority process to test a request on dual occupancy, when you can argue that it would not affect amenity or cause traffic congestion.
Do not tear up the fabric of our society because of greed. You have no right to do that – none at all. I have no doubt that this CLP government will go after me as they have gone after me. I will not say what the member for Port Darwin said about me outside of this Chamber. I am already spending a fortune on lawyers fighting you and your grubby government and your behaviour. I will not start a defamation fight as well. I know what he said to me that day. When I saw this I saw it for what it is: pure greed. Do not do this to our city on your way out.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, what a waste of time the member for Karama is – a complete and absolute, utter waste of time. She keeps us sitting to discuss an issue that she, by her own admission, has done no research on – zero.
I held this document up during her speech and I asked, ‘Have you seen this?’ But no, she has not seen it. It is a discussion paper that was issued publicly in March 2016 by the Planning Commission. She has not bothered to go online to see what the Planning Commission has said. Instead she came into the House and decided to make an issue when no issue exists, simply because she loves the sound of her own voice.
What an utter time waster the member for Karama is. She asked silly questions in Question Time about 800 m2 blocks in the Territory. Anybody with an interest in this would have looked at this document, which has been circulated publically; it is there for everybody to see. It answers that question very succinctly on page three. She cannot be bothered to even look at what is publically available.
She asked a silly question in Question Time about dual occupancy, and we find that she was the minister when the Labor government looked at dual occupancy. They went through a public consultation process, which is supposedly all right, but this government cannot do that is the argument being put to us by the member for Karama. ‘Do not consult; do not talk to anyone.’ You did not bother looking at what the Planning Commission has issued and you have no clue where this originated. You just came in here defaming people and causing a lot of grief. For what?
You are a hollow drum, member for Karama. There is nothing beyond the end of your nose, is there? You cannot see what is right in front of you. The fact of the matter is, on the opening page of this document there is a statement from the Planning Commissioner. He said:
- The Northern Territory Planning Commission has recently undertaken extensive community consultation to develop a range of land use plans, including Area Plans for Darwin’s Inner and Mid-Suburbs; the Holtze locality; land use plans for Alice Springs and Katherine; a Sub-Regional plan for the Litchfield area and the overarching Darwin Regional Land Use Plan.
Throughout this consultation, the concepts of ‘dual occupancy’ and the subdivision of Single Dwelling (SD) lots have been raised by many residents in the community.
Most other Australian jurisdictions have policies relating to dual occupancy, which generally refers to the ability to develop a second dwelling on what has previously been a single residential lot.
I commend the Planning Commission. I have asked the Planning Commission to start consulting with Territorians. I want it to consult deeply by turning up to town hall meetings and sitting on street corners, but I have also asked it to go even further and employ market researchers so we can get an understanding of what people want.
Your arguments are not there, member for Karama. You are a hollow drum. You are fighting against a storm that does not exist. You are Chicken Little. You are worried about the sky falling in ...
Mr Wood: Be careful about the chickens.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry about the chicken slur.
Ms Lawrie: Then do not sign off.
Mr TOLLNER: You are a waste of time. I do not even have a proposal from the Planning Commission yet. What do I have to sign off on? This shows your lack of an argument. You are appalling.
I commend the Planning Commission for consulting. Something I have found worrying though is the view that just because the Planning Commission puts something in an area or a town plan or, in this case, raises dual occupancy, people are running around everywhere saying it is a fait accompli. It is not. The Planning Commission is simply doing its job, which is consulting with people and doing things like town and area plans.
I heard the member for Nelson say – it is one of the things that drives me a bit mad – ‘An extra 38 000 people will be living in the rural area’. In 50 years’ time that may well be the case, but no one is suggesting that the Planning Commission puts together an area plan, and you click your fingers and automatically there are another 38 000 people living in the rural area. It does not happen like that. Running around creating fear and confusion about what is genuinely an effort to consult and talk with people is wrong. It is madness.
Why do you not work with the Planning Commission? Why do you not at least visit its website and download some of its documents so when you come in here with a definite matter of public importance you have a clue what you are talking about. Or is it all too hard? You just love to hear the sound of your own voice whingeing and grizzling about something that ultimately does not affect you in any case. What a complete waste of time and space you are, member for Karama.
I do not see there is any point talking any further about this nonsense, Madam Speaker. I believe the member for Karama has overstepped her mark; her head has become too big for her ability. She ought to take some pill and get over herself. Until she does the most menial amount of research, do not come in here with stupid matters of public importance.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, that was an interesting contribution from our Planning minister, ‘No point speaking on this nonsense’. Well, this is far from nonsense. This is something our community is extremely concerned about. I thank the member for Karama for bringing this MPI to the House tonight.
This is something that can change the face of our city. Before we know it, it will have gone from the beautiful tropical city we love to something that looks like a southern capital city. We will lose our uniqueness, the reason people want to live and raise their families here.
I thank the minister’s office, which arranged an urgent briefing for me once we became aware of this issue. As the shadow minister, a number of concerns have been raised with me in that role.
Mr Tollner: The member for Karama could not do that. She did not want a briefing. She just decided to come in and spruik something she does not have a clue about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FYLES: Take your books and go home. You said it is nonsense; you have made your point
As the shadow minister, a number of concerned residents from across Darwin contacted me. A number of residents from my electorate also contacted me, most concerned about this proposal. One of their biggest concerns is that it seems to be a little benign planning document that has been released, with not many people aware of it. There is only a short time frame – only 30 days, and you can include school holidays and Easter in that time – for the process. There is strong community concern about this proposal and the time frame.
This matter of public importance is about protecting our lifestyle. This will change our tropical city. I was born in 1978, not immediately after Cyclone Tracy, but I remember growing up with a lack of vegetation. That quickly changed as Darwinites replanted and rebuilt our tropical city.
The Planning Commission’s proposal can make significant changes to our city. All the Planning Commission has to do is make a recommendation to the minister who, I understand, has to take 30 days and there has to be one public meeting – and that is it. Dual occupancy could change the face of our city forever.
There will not be any genuine consultation or representation from our community. If the minister was genuine about this, instead of coming in here and having a spray at the member for Karama he would undertake to bring it back to this parliament. We are all elected by our communities, which are concerned about this issue.
People would feel a lot more comfortable if they knew that this process would come back to parliament. But no, this process can be done in the dying days of this government relatively simply, without the genuine representation of our community. The community does not believe this is going through the normal processes. We believe the way the government is pushing this and the minister’s dismissive approach is disappointing.
This will have a huge impact on our community. The proposal means that any block of 800 m2 or larger can be divided in half for potentially two dwellings. Two families means more vehicles, more people. Where will those children go to school? Where will those people park their cars? Where will those people go for recreation or sport? We are already seeing planning issues, particularly in our older northern suburbs, where there is traffic congestion and our schools are full. In the electorate I represent we have already seen infill, and we will see more based around hubs. Our local primary school already has nearly 550 to 600 students and demountable buildings on-site. These are the issues we need to face.
This proposal would mean that blocks can be cut in half and two families can live on that block. The size of your suburb can be doubled in size without planning for any of the social impact or infrastructure. That is just one problem with the proposal.
The current status of the Planning Commission’s proposal for dual occupancy is that a very short time frame for public consultation has been established by the government, something that I have mentioned, as has the member for Karama. They are putting up options of rezoning blocks from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 in size.
The Planning Commissioner and the department will provide advice to a minister we do not trust. He has already told us that cash opens his doors. After tonight’s contribution to debate I do not think Territorians will have any more trust in the Minister for Lands and Planning.
The government may make a decision to make amendments to the Planning Scheme. If so, the amendment will be issued to the public for a 28-day statutory time frame. The minister will make a final decision; it will not come back to this House or go back to our community.
It would have been helpful if rather than having a spray the minister could have talked us through the process from there. There are a number of questions which remain unanswered. Is there still a DCA process for individuals wanting to pursue subdivision of their land? Is there still a process for community members, who potentially could have a neighbouring block split in half for dual occupancy? What involvement do they have as neighbours? It will impact on their lives.
This is an emotive issue; our homes are probably the biggest asset we will ever own. It is where we choose to raise our children and make our lives. There are some serious questions in the timing of these documents. Why is this coming up now, after the preparation of the Darwin inner and mid-suburbs land use plans? The minister will say this is part of the Darwin inner and mid-suburbs land use plans.
The Planning Commissioner has issued a discussion paper. When they were making those plans an issue was raised that residents would prefer dual occupancy. I quote from page two of the Planning Commission’s proposal:
- In most cases, people would prefer dual occupancy to higher densities, such as Zones MD or MR that allow for multiple dwellings from 2 to 4 levels.
In what frame was that question asked? I responded to the Planning Commission’s survey. I am pretty sure it was their survey; it said it ran one. I took part in quite a detailed phone survey about my community in my home.
I would like to know the context of those questions, because if one was, ‘Do you want dual occupancy or a high rise unit tower?’, then I can tell you how I would respond. But if you had asked me if I could choose to leave my suburb and the planning process the way it is, that would be my number one response.
I question the timing of this announcement, after we have completed the inner and mid-suburbs plans, which are meant to be the master plans for our suburbs. You are adding this whole new layer about which we do not have that information in those plans.
This has raised community concern. I have mentioned the number of people who have contacted me and I acknowledge the people in the gallery tonight, which is wonderful. We are debating an issue that is at the heart of Territorians.
The Planning Commission issued a media release, which the member for Karama referenced, which raised questions. The media release said the proposed amendment to provide an exemption for dual occupancy developments from the standard 3 m separation is not appropriate as it would clearly alter the existing SD character of the locality.
It went on to say, ‘We believe that reduced set-backs for dual occupancy are also not appropriate as it would alter the existing SD character. This is relevant for set-backs for the front boundary. One of the major concerns we have is the capacity of existing infrastructure and the impact of dual occupancy developments on traffic and privacy.’
That was the Planning Commission’s recent media release. It is true. I represent one of the older Darwin suburbs where we have numerous blocks – I think all of the blocks in Nightcliff – which would be larger than 900 m2. Most of the Rapid Creek blocks would be 700 m2 to 800 m2. This proposal would impact greatly on a suburb that is already facing congestion. Trying to leave the suburb in the morning, down Nightcliff Road traffic banks up right back to Chapman Road. Doubling the number of vehicles in that suburb is a factor that is looked at when an application goes through the normal planning process, but this proposal does not allow for that.
Some of the feedback from residents is that this would allow changes in direct contradiction to the planning principles of the Northern Territory Planning Commission’s inner suburbs and mid-suburbs area plans. The stated objective for residential areas is to limit the impact of new single-dwelling development on the established neighbourhood character. The area plans did not identify a need for subdivision of the SD lots to cater for the expected population growth. In the wake of that, why are we seeing this proposal?
We already have a system where somebody on a large SD block can apply, through the process, to have it rezoned for dual occupancy. That proposal allows time for the community to provide feedback. It also allows time for agencies, such as Power and Water and the City of Darwin, to provide comment. What formal process do they have through this scheme to provide comment and feedback?
I watch very closely for rezonings in my suburb. We check the website every week and make a decision whether to let people in our community know about a rezoning. If it something simple like a shed then we tend not to, but if it is a more significant rezoning we letterbox residents nearby. We do not give them a view; we just let them know this is happening in their neighbourhood because if you do not drive or walk a certain way, you might not be aware that two doors down at the back they are applying for a rezoning. You will be aware when something is built on the property and they are looking into your yard, you have less water pressure or there are more cars on your street.
Where in this process does the community provide feedback, something that is so vitally important? The City of Darwin provides feedback, as do schools in some situations. We have strong concerns that this new change will bypass normal processes.
I spoke about the concerns regarding the framing of the questions and in what context they were asked: dual occupancy versus multiple dwelling, or leaving the blocks for single dwellings.
There are concerns about the lot size. It would be good to ask the minister a question, but he has gone home ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please sit down. Honourable member, please withdraw that comment.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I referenced that he had a spray and left us to our devices …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is obviously making a reference in the conversation and I ask that she withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: She did not reference leaving the House. She has withdrawn it; it is all right.
Ms FYLES: It is okay; I withdraw.
The Planning Scheme currently specifies a minimum lot size of 450 m2 in zone SD for greenfield areas. Potentially we will have blocks of 400 m2 in our existing areas, which is below the size for a greenfield site. That raises an important issue.
In my community there is high-density living down to blocks – I think there is one block in my electorate that is 1500 m2 or 1600 m2, so it is pretty big, a beautiful block ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms FYLES: No, I have told you my stories about being rural, member for Nelson. It did not work out. For four days when I was in high school I went to Howards Springs when mum and dad went away. But I love to visit my friends there.
We have huge variations, but people know what they are buying. If you choose to live in Sunset Cove near Woolworths, you choose the lifestyle of a very small block with lovely parks across the road. You would have a relatively small property to maintain but access to two huge parks, one with playground equipment. That is one type of living, but it was established as such; traditional blocks were not carved up to achieve it. You could also live in a unit with no outside maintenance.
This will impact people who have chosen to live on a large block with lots of space. The member for Karama spoke about her memories. I am creating memories for my children. We have space and vegetation around us, and lawn for the children to run on. We are fortunate to have a swimming pool.
This is pushing a type of living into an area that might not be designed for it. I have a number of questions I would have liked to ask the minister, but as I am running out of time I will outline Territory Labor’s current position. This was something Labor looked at and consulted on when in government, but it did not pursue rezoning residential properties as a result.
Our current position is that we do not support the proposal to zone properties ranging from 800 m2 to 1000 m2 as dual occupancy. Territory Labor believes that the current system provides adequate checks and balances for property owners to rezone their property if they choose. The current system requires for a subdivision to go through – I spoke about those technical aspects.
Territory Labor believes rezoning all properties over a certain size as dual occupancy will significantly change the residential landscapes of Darwin, particularly the inner northern suburbs, out to Palmerston and across our regional towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
We believe there are alternative solutions to urban infill, for example, redevelopment of Berrimah Farm-type sites, and we strongly support the rural area remaining rural. We do not support the urbanisation of the rural area.
Madam Speaker, I am out of time, but I believe I have outlined our position and the reason this is a bad proposal. I support this very important motion in the House tonight.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, listening to the debate I thought it is funny how some debates that have been pretty broad-ranging – on education and the nitty-gritty stuff we need to debate in this House – have had to come from this side of the House. That is a shame because planning is an important issues and affects everyone.
I take up a couple of points made by the member for Nightcliff. The government putting some broad principles over single dwelling lots that enables them to be subdivided concerns me. Someone in the rural area mentioned that that could double the number of blocks in Noonamah Ridge. Wouldn’t that be interesting? Most of those blocks will be single dwelling.
What concerns me is if you allow this type of development, who will pay for the upgrades? I could take it one step before that. Has the Planning Commission done a proper study of traffic, power, water and sewerage infrastructure, and environmental and social impact? That is exactly what it has not done in the rural area. It has taken this broad-brush approach and said, ‘We will urbanise large areas of the rural area’.
In the areas the government is looking to change, the people who subdivide become developers. For instance, if there are 100 blocks in the Stuart Park area and people would like to subdivide their block, that is 100 developers. Who will pay for the upgrade in infrastructure? I will not pay for it. When a normal development occurs the developer includes it in the cost of the land. Is there an infrastructure development levy in the Darwin region? I do not know. There is one in the rural area but that is only for roads and drainage. If someone subdivides, do they have to pay $20 000 for a possible increase in the water and $20 000 for an increase in the sewerage, because some of these suburbs are very old? Do they have to pay $20 000 for an upgrade of the power system for new transformers? Do we have to widen some roads? The cumulative effect has to be taken into account.
Not only that, the social and environmental impacts must be taken into account: the more hardstand you have, the more run-off you have. Will storm water drains be able to take it? With 100 more houses on 100 blocks, that is 100 more roofs where water will run off into storm water drains.
What are the social impacts? The city area does not have as many kids as the rural area. But say it has three people per house, there will be 300 more people living in that area. What is the impact on the schools, the traffic, the shopping centres, the childcare centres and all those normal things we need? Has that been looked at before we start making decisions about allowing people to cut blocks, or will we say cut them and then let us look at the problems later?
That is part of what is happening in the rural area. The Planning Commission has issued plans which include what they call activity centres. Before I go on to that I will take up what the minister said. ‘We are looking 30 or 40 years away; what does it matter?’ Of course it matters.
If you rezone land now, that is final; it will be developed as urban land when it does not need to be. The issue we have in the rural area is – and I do not know why the minister was laughing – the Planning Commission’s plans talk about enough new dwellings in an area – 3100 one-acre blocks, something we oppose – which will have at least 20 000 people if you work on four people per house.
They want to put over 1000 people in Howard Springs, 3000 in Coolalinga, 5000 in Humpty Doo and 10 000 in Berry Springs. Show me the traffic, infrastructure, environmental and social impact studies first.
Take Howard Springs, a small district centre that has some land, none of which is government land; it is almost all private. They did not doorknock anyone’s house and ask if they minded if they put a flyer in their gate to show that their land would possibly be urban.
I took this little document around, which I put together because the government’s document did not give enough detail for people to know what was happening. I made sure that as many people as possible whose blocks of lands would be affected read this. One person cannot reach everyone. There is nothing biased in this, it just explains to them that their block might be urban or could be a large rural block, because they were not told that.
If you take Howard Springs, it says that we will have 310 blocks, I think, some of which will have flats and some single dwellings. Some will be 4000 m2 blocks. There is a lagoon next door. Do you know what they say? ‘It will be adapted.’ I love the word ‘adapted’. You cannot have suburbs next to a lagoon; you have to turn it into a pool or an ornamental lake, such as in parts of Palmerston, which then cost a fortune to look after. We will ‘adapt’ it.
The problem is that Whitewood Road has heaps of traffic on it already. You will put over 300 dwellings there? Two cars per dwelling is pretty normal, two trips a day. That is 1200 trips of vehicles a day on Whitewood Road. Has anyone done studies on that? No. Has anyone looked at what the effect on the lagoon would be if we fill up all the land near the Howard Springs shops with houses? The more hardstand, bitumen and roofs, the less water that will go into the environment. What effect will it have on the schools? I have said that Howard Springs is a small school – it might be good.
Were all these things discussed before this was issued? Yes, they did have some workshops. I like workshops, they are okay. But the people were asked three guiding questions. What do you think are the main constraints and challenges for land use planning in your rural activity centre? First of all, people have trouble understanding what an activity centre is – it beats me. What community facilities, and where, need to be planned to support growth over the next 20 or 30 years? How do you think rural activity centres should be developed to accommodate some population growth while protecting established lifestyle?
That is fine, those questions can be asked, but some people wondered why it was limited to those questions. Why were questions about things like smaller blocks not asked?
The government also issued a document done by McGregor Tan Research last year. It said that most people support activity centres, but expanded to about 500 m to 800 m outside the existing shops. What people found – and they would not have obtained it from these documents that were given out – was in the case of Humpty Doo the activity centre is 6.2 km long, nothing like the survey said. How is that reflected in what people said? In the case of Coolalinga and Freds Pass, it says it is 7.2 km long and Berry Springs is just as long at 7 km. That is not reflective of what was in the survey. Nobody has asked for a 7 km activity centre. The survey asked how far out people would prefer it to be and 51% said within 400 m to 800 m, and the worst was up to 1.5 km. That was not reflected in this document.
The other concern I have is that things we did not ask for have been pushed onto us. We have said to both this and the previous governments that we do not want blocks smaller than 1 ha. I have a couple of petitions – 2000 people signed a petition in two weeks – saying that 1 ha should be the smallest. What is a cunning way to get around that? The Planning Commission said, ‘We will have two versions of Rural Residential; one will be inside the activity centres and one will be outside. Outside the activity centres will be 1 ha and inside the activity centres it will be 4000 m2 or one acre.’ This is exactly what we do not want. What did they then do? They expanded the activity centres to 6.2 km, 7.2 km and 7 km to fill with Rural Residential one-acre blocks. What a con!
People are supportive of some development around the activity centres, but it has not happened. What is a laugh in all of this is that over the last 20 years – we say this will happen in ages to come – they have tried to change the zones, but have not used the existing zones they already have. There is residential, single-dwelling and even higher-density land in Humpty Doo district centre now.
Ex-minister, the land you approved at Humpty Doo, against the advice of the DCA, sits there barren.
Mr Chandler: It is undeveloped.
Mr WOOD: That is right, a nice planning word – undeveloped land, because it cannot be developed. It was a mistake to develop that land. It was out of place and the advice was to not develop it. There is land in Freds Pass district centre and Berry Springs which you could develop.
One of the arguments the Planning Commission puts forward is people want to retire in the rural area. I know they do. I am not saying they should not have smaller blocks, but you put them in the village, not spread them out for 6.2 km. If we need more villages, let us build more so you keep the concept of village rural as just that. You do not turn the village into another version of Palmerston. That is exactly what is happening with this.
My concern is that we have not built facilities for aged care. The government keeps saying we need facilities for people who want to get off their block. Why has it not helped by opening up the land it owns for someone to build a retirement village? I asked this and the previous governments to look at it; they ummed and ahed and said, ‘There are surveys’. I see people leaving the rural area to go down south all the time. People I have known for many years packed up and went. That is partly because we do not have rural facilities. There are rural people who have gone to Pearl or Tiwi, which is nice but it is not their area. They have left the area they know because governments have failed to provide them with the facilities to stay in the rural area.
If they blame me for saying people want to get off the blocks, I agree. I am not saying they should not. Your response is 3100 one-acre blocks. Give us a break! That is 3100 people retiring on one-acre blocks, and an excuse to get around the minimum lot size.
The argument will be there is not enough water in the ground. If you have a 1 ha block, you have to have town water. You can do something with that. A one-acre block, I guarantee, will wipe out all the vegetation except for one-and-a-half trees, will crowd people in and will not be rural. It will be like the last block left in Nightcliff, a large suburban block. If you drive along the Arnhem Highway to Humpty Doo Tavern, you will notice that most of that country is native vegetation …
Mr Chandler: Could not see it for the signs.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We are working on the signs, minister.
In this last minute, thank you, if we allow that to turn into one-acre blocks all that bush will go and you will lose the very heart of what we are talking about.
I still have problems with people who make decisions not understanding the rural mentality, which is about living in the bush with a horse, an ATV and chooks, enjoying the quiet, private life – whatever. It is something special and a great way to bring up kids. We need to give people that opportunity, not preserve what is happening now – urbanising us and leaving little spots. We want that expanded and you are taking it up with urbanising the rural area.
You need to build Weddell and leave the rest as the CLP meant it to be – villages, district centres and rural. That is what was promised in 2010. Please keep your promise ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr CHANDLER (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, in adding a little to this debate this evening I might have a different approach to this. I welcome this MPI because to me it clearly demonstrates democracy working. That is important.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning there were some pretty tough decisions made. There were even decisions I had to make that I would not have made if circumstances were not as they were when we first came into government.
There is a level of hypocrisy that has occurred during this debate, however. If we were to pretend for one moment that when we inherited government everything the previous government had done was perfect, we would be lying to ourselves. The truth is not everything the previous government did with regard to planning was perfect. I would say that much of the cost of living in Darwin was due to the lack of decisions by the former government, particularly around land release. If Weddell was so important, why did they not get on and do it instead of not releasing land, which forced the price of blocks of land across the Northern Territory right above what the average person could …
Ms Lawrie: Palmerston East.
Mr CHANDLER: Let us talk about Palmerston East. I can tell you that three-and-a-half years ago a block of land in Bellamack was $300 000. With changes to the Planning Scheme over the years, we have been able to provide blocks of land in Palmerston, in Zuccoli, which recently were on the market for about $120 000 to $130 000, albeit smaller blocks of land. We will always have an argument here because not everyone will agree with certain approaches governments might take.
Let us go back to where we started and what we inherited from the previous government. In Palmerston an average block of land was selling for about $300 000. It was atrocious that the first homebuyer, the average punter, had to spend $300 000 on a block of dirt, before they laid one brick, in a place like the Northern Territory that has as much land as it does. Who do we have to blame for that? The former Labor government and its failure to release land.
We came to government on the promise we would work on ways to reduce the cost of living. As the newly-appointed Minister for Lands and Planning, I knew we had to have a different approach to releasing land in the Northern Territory. We needed to bring down the cost of land in the Northern Territory. The only way to do that, given the high cost of developing Weddell – and they talk about Weddell as if it was a done deal but I was shocked on coming into government and realising the lack of planning that had been done on Weddell.
With all the paraphernalia there was I thought I could pick up a plan that said, ‘This is the road map, all the surveying is done; there are the maps, the subdivisions; parks and blocks of land are designed; everything is ready to go.’ Guess what? No, it was not. I found, as the incoming Minister for Lands and Planning. that they were future plans; it was all talk and vision. The vision is fine; I still think Weddell will happen at some stage in the near future. The reality was all the planning had not been done. I was left scratching my head, with the little hair I have left, wondering how land could be released quickly, knowing that it would probably be a couple of years just to get Weddell up and running. I do not have the figures at hand, but the earlier cost projections for that were many tens of millions of dollars.
The idea was to look at some of the infill sites around Darwin that were appropriately zoned, had the services provided already and could be developed quickly. That was one of the first things we did.
We then started to look at the Planning Scheme, and not everyone agreed. Everyone has a different view when it comes to planning, and I found that out really quickly.
In the perfect world I say that a great urban block would be 800 m2 to 1000 m2. I would love to think that we could have houses built like they once were. One of the first houses I lived in on the RAAF Base had louvres on both sides, and was a beautiful home.
In the first few years in the Air Force I was a shift worker and had to sleep during the day. We did not have air conditioning; I relied on the breezes that flowed through that home. You could not build a home like that today on a 400 m2 block with another so close; that will not work.
But when looking at things like the cost of living and giving young couples the ability to buy a block for the first time, I had to work on a plan to reduce the cost of land, so I looked at how we might amend the Planning Scheme in certain areas.
We also had to look at providing choice, which is essential in a developing jurisdiction such as the Northern Territory. Not everyone wants to live in a tower block in the CBD, or on an 800 m2 to 1000 m2 block of land in the suburbs, or a 20-, 40- or 50-acre block in the rural area – with all due respect to those who live in the rural area.
I thought our Planning Scheme was too restrictive, so to provide more choice we provided some more flexibility in the Planning Scheme.
I welcome this MPI tonight because we sometimes rush ahead of ourselves and think things are a done deal. That is not the case. When I looked at dual occupancy in zone SD the first thing that came to mind was that this was a discussion paper by the Planning Commission. One thing this government introduced was a Planning Commission. Gary Nairn does an amazing job at consulting. I know that Gerry and the Planning Commissioner are often at odds, but the facts speak for themselves. I know how much time these guys spend negotiating, liaising and talking to the general public to seek their feedback.
Conversely, many people in the rural area want development. They spoke to me, particularly when I was the Lands and Planning minister. They were frustrated at the lack of ability to develop areas such as their own blocks of land in the rural areas with the approach that was taken by the member for Nelson and those who are now in opposition, and the previous government. I said, ‘You need to speak to the member for Nelson’. Their words to me were, ‘It is no good speaking to Gerry because we know what his position is on planning and the development of the rural area’. I said, ‘I have listened to Gerry and he wants things to remain in certain areas and allow development in others’. But they said it would be no good speaking to him. Unfortunately, the member for Nelson can walk into a Chamber like this and say he spoke to thousands of people who are all against development, but he does not recognise that there are probably thousands of people who want development.
It gets back to the point that the role of Minister for Lands and Planning – I am sure the member for Karama is pragmatic enough to appreciate that as she was the Minister for Lands and Planning, as was the member for Barkly, Mr McCarthy – is one of the most difficult positions to have because no one will ever agree with everything you do. Developers you have said no to will be upset and when you have approved developments there will be people who are upset. You can never – like politics itself – make everybody happy all of the time when it comes to development. But you can try to address some of the concerns of society and present the best planning you possibly can.
I always get a bit frustrated in that we all live in properties today because at some point someone made the decision to develop that area. Even the member for Nightcliff …
Ms Fyles: A peanut farm.
Mr CHANDLER: Peanuts, potatoes and other things were grown in areas like Nightcliff. Even the member for Nelson must admit that 100 years or so ago the block of land he lives on was a virgin piece of the Territory that was not subdivided. I could go back to my grandfather who had 40 acres in Coburg and ran cows. I would love to have 40 acres in Coburg today; it might be a different story. The truth is that as cities develop you need to have a robust planning scheme in place.
When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning, I was frustrated, from time to time, with the opposition’s approach to me on what it said was lack of consultation with the community. I went back and did a bit of research. There were many times I extended the time frame for public submissions and consultation. I learned at the same time that there were many examples of the former Labor government not doing any more than the statutory requirement. In most cases it was 28 days and they pushed something through. There were many times in my few years as the Minister for Lands and Planning where we extended the public consultation before we made a decision one way or another.
You did not hear about the many times we did not approve developments, because most times the developer did not run off to the media and complain that we had not approved a development. They looked at other developments to work on.
The area of lands and planning will never make everyone happy. As a former Minister for Lands and Planning, after coming to government in the Territory, I thought it was atrocious that, especially for young homebuyers, the price for a block of land in Bellamack was $300 000, and it was the result of the lack of planning by the Labor government.
The member for Nelson raised some other issues about consultation, planning and whether developers have to pay for infrastructure. That is how it works today. If someone goes through the process and applies to build on a block of land, and Power and Water says the transformers might need upgrading in the area, who pays? It is not the government, it is the developer. The Department of Transport might say some road improvements are needed at that intersection because of that block of land. Who pays? It is not the government; it is the developer. I assume in the future, before a development is approved, the developer will be made aware of their responsibility for upgrades to a system. That would not change.
I welcome this tonight because it is a clear planning process we have in place, which the member for Karama can get the Chamber to debate as a matter of public importance. We should talk about this more.
I go back to the Planning Commission’s discussion paper document, which is not signed off. The Planning Commission is consulting with the community to get feedback before a recommendation is made to the minister to make a decision. That will be the current Minister for Lands and Planning, Mr Dave Tollner.
This is a wonderful opportunity to talk about planning tonight, but it is important we get some of these things on the record. Why did we make some of the decisions we made in the last few years in regard to planning in the Northern Territory? I reiterate the points. Not everyone will agree with a government’s approach to planning in every aspect. Society is full of different people with different wants, wishes and needs. Again, not everyone wants to live in a tall building in the CBD, nor do they want an 800 m2 block of land or a 40-acre block down the track. What they want is flexibility in the Planning Scheme so they can live in an environment that suits their purposes.
Everyone wants to talk about a worse-case scenario. I do not think you will get a worse-case scenario if this is introduced because you will never get everybody taking up the offer of dual occupancy; you might have one or two people in a street. You might get entire streets that band together and say they do not want to do this because they love their street, so nobody there will take advantage of this opportunity. I do not believe you will get a 100% take-up on this. It is foolish to think that will ever happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we need a Planning Scheme that is robust enough to allow some flexibility to give Territorians what they want and need, which is flexibility and a government which will ensure that our blocks of land do not become too expensive, which is what we had under the previous Labor government.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In doing so, I will mention Pasta in the Park, which first occurred in 1988 in Ken Waters Park adjoining Keith Lane. I remember attending the first event. That park is in behind the Fannie Bay shops where the Super Pizza shop is.
Since then, the Italian Festival Association was reformed to deliver a much sought-after festival for the Darwin community to showcase the pride and spirit of Italian culture. More recently it held two biennual festivals on 18 May 2013 and 9 May 2015. It is gearing up for the next festival in May 2017. This festival has been attended by more than 20 000 people each year. I do not think there were 20 000 the first year, in 1988.
The committee consists of 11 volunteers who are all of Italian descent. They rely on volunteers from the wider community to assist on festival day. There are up to 250 volunteers from all walks of life and backgrounds, under the guidance of a professional volunteer coordinator.
It works in good relationships and reputations to request sponsorship from local Italian businesses, corporations with an Italian affiliation and government. The IFA, the Italian Festival Association, includes local talent in the festival’s entertainment program and employs local businesses to provide festival services, instantly raising awareness of the festival within different networks, not necessarily Italian. It communicates its upcoming festivals to its interstate counterparts, which has strengthened the relationship between Darwin and interstate Italian dignitaries and performers, and hence has drawn them to the festival. This includes some of the Italian Consulate officials and the Italian Ambassador to Australia. It also collects donations at the festival for a chosen charity.
Post-festival, the committee holds a thank you ceremony with an Italian dinner. The volunteers are formally thanked and charity organisations receive their cheques on that evening. A separate event is held for the sponsors, donors and stakeholders.
Last Monday night, 19 April, in Melbourne, IFA’s Darwin Italian Festival was recognised as the 2015 Public Event of the Year in Australia. It was nominated by the Darwin-based Associated Advertising and Promotions, which was employed as the event manager for the 2015 festival, and last night took the Meetings & Events Australia national award. The MEA Industry Awards recognise excellence and best practice in meetings and events in the industry.
The IFA, I am advised, is humble and proud to be acknowledged for its signature event as it further enhances its ethos of the pursuit of high standards in event delivery and organisation. Further, this victory confirms that IFA is staging an event that is on par with the Northern Territory’s interstate counterparts, and in this instance has put Darwin in the forefront of the nation. I congratulate all those involved.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take a moment to mention the Palmerston Probus club. The club, for which I am the patron, held its annual general meeting on 17 March 2016. At the meeting a new committee was elected for the coming year and the old committee was farewelled.
I take this opportunity to thank and commend the outgoing committee members on their wonderful term this past year and warmly welcome and congratulate the incoming committee. In particular, I mention the following people: Ray Grimshaw, the outgoing president after serving two years in the position; Dot Chapman, the outgoing vice president and cinema theatre group chair who is now the club’s new president – congratulations to you, Dot; Marilyn Roberts, who will remain the club’s secretary and is the incoming gardening club officer; Ron Pearse, who will again serve as treasurer; Ann Harding, who is the outgoing attendance welcome officer and who will continue to be the welfare officer; June Roos, who will remain the singing group liaison and was also elected the cinema theatre group chair; Christine Ilic, who will remain the newsletter editor and is also elected to two new roles as the incoming vice president and club photographer; Shirley Collins, who will continue to serve as the dining group chair; Anne Chapman, who has been elected to the new position of assistant secretary; Iris Bond, who was elected as the attendance welcome officer; and Gerard Maguire, who has been elected to the new position of Facebook coordinator.
Another exciting development with the Palmerston Combined Probus club is that on 15 March they took part in a meeting of all four Territory Probus clubs in Emerald Springs, which serves as a midpoint for the Probus clubs of Darwin, Charles Darwin, Katherine and Palmerston. The clubs enjoyed a fine lunch and were entertained by Alan Mitchell with some yarns from his early days as a Northern Territory police officer in some of the more remote settlements of the Territory. The event was a great success and the clubs are hoping to have similar meet-ups on a more regular basis.
I have nothing but praise for Probus as an organisation, in particular the Palmerston Combined Probus club for being so active and promoting healthy minds and active bodies in Palmerston.
Unfortunately, I do not often make it to Probus club meetings, but when I do I enjoy spending time with everyone. They are a very important part of our Palmerston community.
The Palmerston fun run was held on 17 April. I was involved in the Cazalys Palmy 5 Fun Run/Walk which was held at the water park. I thank all the organisers and volunteers who helped make the run a smashing success. It was a very hot day, but the Palmerston spirit was high and more than a few people took advantage of the water park’s water slides and the big bucket after the race.
The run was very well attended with around 400 runners of all ages, which is a huge increase from the inaugural run held last year. I was joined by my colleagues, ministers Barrett and Chandler and the federal member, Natasha Griggs, in providing bacon and egg sandwiches to all the run participants. Although I was unable to attend due to illness, I thank the volunteers who turned up in droves to cook and serve the bacon and egg sandwiches. They included Nathan and Emily Fanning; Hollie Garlepp; Kim Davey; Ben Dawson; Ben Hosking, the Country Liberals candidate for Drysdale; Murray McAllister; Bob and Suzanne Cavanagh; Bob and Wendy Flanagan; and Mary Cunningham.
I also thank Athletics NT which organised the event, in particular John Bowden and Richard Welsh. It is great to see an event which supports a healthy Palmerston so well attended. I look forward to being involved in next year’s Palmy 5 km fun run.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, transport infrastructure is a high priority for the Northern Territory government and roads are of great importance to business, industry and community in the Northern Territory. We all know that without reliable roads, efficient ports, good rail services and effective logistics infrastructure we cannot sustain business activity, attract new investment or expand our industries, which are all essential for growing the Territory’s economy.
The focus of this government is to unlock the potential of the Northern Territory by developing and maintaining a road network which supports job creation and economic development and growth. Transport infrastructure is a key driver of economic development and has been specifically identified by the agricultural, resource, tourism and transport industries as requiring investment to improve industry performance and growth. Both government and industry need to invest in improving our basic infrastructure to expand and maintain high standards for our road, port and rail networks.
The Country Liberals government has made a record infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory. In 2015-16 we are investing more than $1.5bn in infrastructure across the Territory. All of these projects have supported the development of northern Australia. They create real jobs and opportunities for local contractors and small businesses, which means Territorians receive better services.
The Department of Transport’s 2015-16 overall program is $664.2m, which includes roads and other transport assets. A number of significant projects have been awarded this financial year, including: the $25m project to complete the sealing of the Mereenie inner loop; $40m for the Roper and Wilton Bridges; $4.5m for the Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive intersection upgrade; and the $57m allocated to Palmerston road upgrades. This is to address the rapid growth and development in Palmerston and it is great to see how that is currently unfolding.
The government is investing over $57m in upgrading the Palmerston road network. This is on top of the current $88m duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive. Works in Palmerston include upgrading Roystonea Avenue, upgrading Lambrick Avenue to Owston Avenue, the duplication of Temple Terrace and upgrading the Roystonea Avenue and Temple Terrace intersection.
Future tender opportunities across the Territory include the Litchfield Park Road and Lower Finniss River crossing upgrade, Darwin urban landscaping projects, Vanderlin Drive duplication, Outback Way sections along the Plenty Highway, Gimbat Road upgrade to Kambolgie Creek, and more.
The NT government is partnering with the Australian government to deliver many vital projects which will continue to support the shared vision of developing the north. The Country Liberals government recognises that transport access is an economic enabler, increases transport connectivity and creates jobs.
The Country Liberals government has been working hard behind the scenes to get the Territory moving forward. Budget 2015-16 provided a $1m investment into a feasibility study for a potential new rail project linking Tennant Creek to Mount Isa. Linking northern and eastern markets will provide incentives to explorers and producers to invest in the NT, creating jobs and driving money into the future.
I can also see the day where we have a rail network that extends into Western Australia and along the Ord River system. You can imagine that kind of rail network and what opportunities that could provide.
Future transport projects are also being planned and design consultancy has been awarded for the design of the Melville Island road upgrades to support the timber export industry. A design consultancy tender closed for the upgrade of the Adelaide River floodplain study on the Arnhem Highway. This is just a snapshot; a lot more is happening in this space.
I also thank the Department of Transport for its work, especially the roads division. I understand this can be a thankless task sometimes; however, I know you recognise the difference you are making to the Territory, as do I.
I will give a quick project update on the Palmerston hospital. Unlike the rhetoric from the opposition today, including the member for Karama, espousing the legacy the former Labor government left the Palmerston and rural area – a chicken fence – the current two-level, 116-bed hospital is well under way. I have some photos here but I will not show them. Works being carried out this week include the following: tie and stand column reo cages; place column shudders and close off ready for pouring; pour columns; tie reo bar to stair and lift shaft walls; pad footings poured to date is 277; columns poured to date is 240; and under slab electrical conduit works done, and the list goes on and on.
A number of subcontractors are on-site, including for environmental control, and this work will continue. I will not go through the entire list of work that is currently happening, but this will give you an idea of the current trade packages that have been awarded to local firms: bulk excavation and site clearing to Allan King & Sons; boundary fencing and gates, Totem Fencing; footings and columns to C and V Concrete; site survey and set-out works to Bennett and Bennett; quantity surveying services to QS Services; early works hydraulic services to Project Plumbing; tower crane, High Rise and Rigging; concrete supply, HB Concrete Darwin; reinforcement supply, OneSteel Darwin – they would be pretty happy with the hospital; site surveillance cameras, Intec NT; genset fuel supply, Mini Tankers; formwork, NT Proform Construction; reinforcement supply, OneSteel – the list goes on. That gives you an idea of some of the local companies which are involved in building what will be a fantastic hospital for Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area.
The construction time line is in place. Anyone who has an opportunity should get out and see how it is going ahead, or keep an eye on some of the updates we are providing through an advertising campaign to keep residents up to date.
People can clearly see infrastructure projects as they drive past them, like Tiger Brennan Driver, which is occurring at the moment. Because the hospital is off the road somewhat, people do not get to see how much work is happening at that site.
Mr Deputy Speaker, enough of the rhetoric and the jokes about holes in the ground. People can clearly see this government is getting on and building this hospital with the support of the federal government. They will see a hospital coming out of the ground and growing into the sky each day in the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory has an incarceration rate three times higher than any other jurisdiction in Australia with 84% of adult prisoners being Indigenous. All the evidence shows that prisoners who remain in regular contact with family and friends are less likely to reoffend.
When Labor committed to building the new prison complex, a bus service was one of the conditions of the prison’s construction. Indeed, a bus shelter has been built. Yet there is no bus service and no intention to have a bus service for prisoners, visitors the prison and staff.
This is an inhumane decision in contravention of recommendations of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report. This decision also breaches UN principles about the rights of prisoners to be visited by, or have correspondence with, family.
We have John Lawrence SC to thank for uncovering this scandal. He has exposed a situation whereby the Department of Correctional Services refused to implement best practice for its prisoners, and the Department of Transport’s newly-privatised bus service refused to provide a bus service for lack of passenger traffic.
What about the families and the individuals? Is there a role for government to step in where the private sector fails the public? Not for this government. Who can really afford the potentially $140 round-trip cab fare to the prison? It is cruel.
The minister points to data that shows recidivism rates have not changed in the Territory. I put it to the minister that if the Department of Correctional Services meets its targets for prisoners enrolled in formal education, in employment and in Sentenced to a Job, it might have different outcomes for prisoners regarding recidivism.
I urge the government to reverse its decision immediately and establish a bus route to the prison. There is no rational reason to further marginalise an already marginalised population within our community. There is no need to further punish the families of prisoners, including partners and children, with loss of contact with their loved ones. It is simply appalling that the Northern Territory government, through arrogance, refuses to provide that service when all the evidence shows it is needed.
While I am on my feet this evening I will also to talk about another extremely important issue in my community. Asbestos is widely known as being dangerous, and over the past many decades we have become aware of its potential hazards and have implemented a number of strategies to help reduce the hazard to the community. The Nightcliff foreshore area, running from the Casuarina Coastal Reserve right along Rapid Creek up to Nightcliff, has large amounts of asbestos embedded in the cliffs. It is a concerning issue which has been raised with me numerous times. For example, one e-mail I received said, ‘There is quite reasonable quantities for the kids to pick up and play with, eat, crumble, expose to the air, and potentially ingest into their airways, even their lungs. It is virtually impossible and frankly unreasonable for parents to know the difference when their kids are on the beach of what they are playing with. I know people say it is wet and it does not represent a danger to our health but loose fibres on a dry, windy day could mean the difference between life and death in 50 years’ time.’
It is a concerning issue about which I have been contacted by numerous residents. I have tried to raise it with the Northern Territory government and the City of Darwin. The area from the coastal reserve along the foreshore is generally the City of Darwin’s responsibility on the top of the cliffs, but as you come down the cliffs to the water mark it becomes more confusing whose responsibility it is.
I started correspondence on this subject on 6 July last year when I was contacted by members of the community who were concerned that some asbestos had been uncovered. I e-mailed the city council and the Northern Territory government. I received a response from minister Price, the Minister for Local Government and Community Services, acknowledging my letter. She had contacted the City of Darwin. The licensed asbestos contractors had attended the site and removed the asbestos, so there definitely was asbestos there at some point. That all took place in early July.
I then contacted council on 20 July as I felt that the asbestos was on top of the cliffs, and asked the mayor in my correspondence what ongoing measures were in place to ensure the situation is monitored, for loose asbestos to be continuously removed and to prevent further dumping grounds of asbestos being exposed to the public.
I received a response from the mayor and the City of Darwin staff talking about the asbestos register and officers meeting with WorkSafe NT. They also supplied me with copies of the asbestos register for that area, and I thank the City of Darwin for that information.
It is a very concerning issue, and as the local member I was not going to just accept that I had received some responses. I chased them up again through July and August regarding asbestos exposure at the time. I was concerned about the asbestos there and the plans by government and council to alleviate that danger.
After much correspondence, in December I wrote to both the member for Stuart and the Lord Mayor suggesting that we have an on-site briefing. One of the continuing themes was that the responsibility was between the City of Darwin and the Northern Territory government. I could not clearly understand who was responsible for what, who I should notify and how I should inform my community of this dangerous issue.
I wrote to them explaining that it was a significant concern for the residents and visitors to the area, and thanking them for the information to date. However, I wanted to request an on-site briefing. I quote from my letter:
- I would like to request an on-site briefing with both the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the City of Darwin. This is a contentious issue for many residents and visitors to the area and I suggest all parties meeting on-site near the pool where a detailed overview can be provided and a plan for future action discussed.
I recommended Tuesday 19 January, acknowledging we had the Christmas break. I received confirmation from the minister’s office and the mayor’s office that they would like to partake in that on-site briefing. Then the meeting was pushed to 29 January at 10 am, which suited all the parties.
I headed to the Nightcliff swimming pool car park with my electorate officer and we could not see anyone around. We phoned the minister’s office to find out the minister and the mayor were waiting in the minister’s conference room. I found it puzzling that an on-site briefing would take place in Parliament House, but I understand these things happen. I phoned them to find out what had happened and said, ‘We are at the pool’. They said, ‘We are in the conference room’. I said, ‘We will not be able to get to town and you will not be able to get here so let’s reschedule’. I tried to reschedule the meeting. My electorate officer suggested another time of 19 February around lunchtime, but I received this response, ‘As discussed on the phone at 3.45 pm on 9 February, minister Price was upset that the member for Nightcliff offered no apology or explanation for not attending the scheduled meeting at her ministerial office’.
She went on to say that there were various people there, I would not be getting a briefing, the environmental protection agency is leading a working group and I should contact them. Done, end of story. The people of Nightcliff will not get an explanation on this important issue. The minister needs to acknowledge – I am not sure how she thought an on-site briefing would take place in her ministerial office. It was annoying at the time. I had scheduled time out of my busy day to make that meeting, but I understand things happen.
I urge the minister to stop being childish. Give me, as the elected representative of my community, a briefing on this very important issue. Numerous people are still raising the issue with me. We have questions. How does the register work? How are the community and the public involved? How can the community have a plan going forward so we can be involved and provide that information at the coalface into the system and know we are protecting the community?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on minister Price to stop refusing a briefing to a local member and acknowledge this important issue. Provide a briefing so we can go forward and continue to work on this important issue.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not often that I give so much as an ounce of credence, or place importance on things the members opposite say in this place. Let us face it; the Labor opposition is only interested in talking down the NT and trying to score cheap political points as they do so. This is particularly true when members opposite speak about matters in my electorate of Katherine.
While some members opposite might visit my electorate from time to time, none of them live there and they represent nothing more than a short blip on the radar when they pass through. Therefore, they are not qualified to talk about matters in Katherine, especially when they refer to issues that affect local Katherine businesses.
I was dismayed to hear, once again, the member for Nightcliff in adjournment on Tuesday night this week talking down Katherine by cherry-picking feedback she claims to have received. Katherine is a vibrant, rock-solid community that stands at the epicentre of the Territory’s cattle, horticultural and Defence industries. The businesses there that support our local economy are resilient and their owners are committed individuals who, by and large, have strong attachments to the community and see the success of their businesses as a key component of the overall sturdiness of our economy and social fabric.
It behoves me to respond to the diatribe the member for Nightcliff spewed forth on Tuesday night in this place. The TBLs – or, as they are now called, POSIs, which stands for point of sale interventions – work. This is in stark contrast to Labor’s Banned Drinker Register, and, frankly, any other strategy that has been employed over decades to try to stem the prevalence of public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour, which was commonplace in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs a few short years ago.
Let me hark back to 2014. Katherine was overrun with drunks on our streets. You could not walk down the main street without being confronted or affronted by drunk people or their behaviour. Katherine was considered by many as a party town where one could easily get a drink, get drunk and have a merry old time at the expense of every other person using the public space.
Remember, all of you, in times past, walking down Katherine Terrace and having to step over a drunk asleep on the footpath, trying to do your shopping and being humbugged for your trolley, then abused when you did not hand it over with the $1 locked inside, and trying to pop into a bottle shop for a bottle of wine to have with dinner, and having to dodge arguing, fighting, spitting and swearing drunks.
In December 2014, as had already rolled out in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, TBLs were introduced. Police were at bottle shops, regulating the sale of liquor only to people who could convince those officers they would be drinking in a location that was not in breach of the existing 2 km rule or drinking in public places legislation.
I was in Katherine when that happened. It was like turning off a tap. Instantly the number of drunks on the streets diminished and almost completely dried up. I have not had to step over a drunk on the sidewalk, have not been bothered in the car park for my shopping trolley and have not had to dodge drunks fighting, swearing and arguing outside a bottle shop for in months. Almost every person in Katherine, residents and visitors alike, would have similar experiences to mine to share.
We never want to go back to the bad old days, do we? But the Labor Party has sworn and declared that if it wins government in August this year, it will scrap the TBLs and reintroduce the Banned Drinker Register. Labor, given the chance, will scrap the only alcohol policy in the Territory’s history that worked to reduce public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour in the public spaces of Katherine and other towns. Labor, given the chance, will take us back to the time when we had to step over sleeping drunks and dodge fights every time we did our shopping. Make no mistake, Labor’s policy stands for more drunks on the streets of Katherine, not fewer.
While I acknowledge that the introduction of TBLs has had an effect on some businesses, it is a very long bow to draw in suggesting it is the only reason. We all know that mining has taken a downturn. Frances Creek and Pine Creek closed down, as did Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron’s operations in the Roper/McArthur regions. This alone affected Katherine through job losses. I know a number of local Katherine people who lost their jobs when these mines closed down, just as I know people who used to work at Bootu Creek and now no longer have jobs there.
We also know that the cucumber green mottled mosaic virus severely affected the melon and other cucurbit crops in Katherine. Our melon production more than halved across the Territory and Katherine was the worst-affected area. This is money that did not flow into the local economy and support jobs. Fortunately, melon growers were allowed to replant at the end of February when the growing season started this year, so hopefully we will see that situation alleviated somewhat.
It is fair to say that there have been multiple influences on Katherine’s local economy. I have a great deal of sympathy for those businesses affected by this downturn and share their concerns. I do not like to see local businesses suffer any more than anyone else. That is why we have seen some significant injections of funding into Katherine in recent times in an effort by government to prop up what you could describe as a slower economy.
The last thing I will touch on is the challenge thrown down by the member for Nightcliff on Tuesday night when she asked me to produce numbers in relation to reduced crime in Katherine. I can show you this graph. It is a simple graph, based on statistics from the Attorney-General’s website, which clearly shows an overall trend prior to August 2012 of increasing total assaults and alcohol-related assaults under Labor. That refers to this portion of the graph, on the left-hand side.
If you continue to scan to the right, the trend of total assaults and alcohol-related assaults has taken a huge downswing. Assault rates in Katherine are now at their lowest level since at least 2008 when these statistics, in this form, were compiled. I seek leave to table a copy of this graph.
Leave granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE In addition we also know that hospital emergency department presentations are down. St John Ambulance is nowhere near as busy as prior to the introduction of TBLs.
A Labor government would see a return to the bad old days of increasing trend lines in assaults. In effect that means more women and children will be bashed and abused under a Labor government.
I have a message for the Labor candidate in Katherine: be very careful about openly adopting and promoting Labor’s policy of scrapping TBLs, and increasing assaults and abuse of women and children. If that happens, you will be complicit. You will also be walking a very thin line with the people of Katherine who recognise the significant differences that TBLs have made to our streets.
Katherine is a much better place for the introduction of TBLs. There have been some effects on businesses and I acknowledge that. However, I do not accept it is entirely to do with the TBLs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if we ever see a Labor government again, which I suppose one day we will, TBLs will be scrapped – I hope that does not happen – and we will see a return to the bad old days. I hope that I am not in politics to see it.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the adjournment debate this evening I will talk about three exceptionally wonderful, community-spirited and talented youths who have been raised and are still living in Karama. I acknowledge the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards which was recently held. Karama had three nominees in the Northern Territory Young Achievers and these three young Territorians are exceptionally beautiful, caring and talented young people. In no particular order I will talk about the nominees, two of whom won in their categories.
Alicia Kent is a fine young woman, aged 22, who volunteers with headspace, Shout Out!, Yeah and the City of Darwin Youth Advisory Group, and participated in the CEO Sleepout, raising money for homelessness.
Alicia initiated a midnight basketball donation drive collecting brand new socks, drink bottles and second-hand shoes for young people who could not afford them. She was successful in asking Coles to donate fruit for 80 people every Saturday for seven weeks. She is passionate about youth and mental health work and is currently undertaking a Diploma of Youth Work.
I have had the privilege of knowing Alicia since she was a very little possum. I know her parents, Andrew and Tina, well. She is part of a very loving family. Alicia just came back from spending time down south visiting her brother, Ben, in hospital after he underwent significant spinal surgery. She was there caring for him, came back to attend the awards and did us all incredibly proud in winning her category.
I have seen Alicia grow up into an exemplary person. She took the way she was raised, in the bosom of a family, to deeply care or, look out for and support others, and extended that into deeply caring for supporting and helping people in her community. She has been a driving force, as you have heard, in caring for young people in our society, particularly the disadvantaged.
I attended the midnight basketball grand final evening at Alicia’s invitation. It was such an inspirational event to see all of these kids – who would otherwise be on the streets at night – inside the air conditioned basketball arena having a massive time. The police supported it and it was a huge success.
Alicia is so passionate and looking forward to the next season of midnight basketball. I thank Alicia for continuing to inspire me as her local member for Karama. I am a huge fan of the work she does in our community and the support, love and care she shows everyone. Huge congratulations to Andrew and Tina, who I know would be so proud of their daughter.
The next person I recognise, who was also in the Somerville Community Service Award category, is Jarrod John Rollo from Karama. Jarrod John Rollo is just 15, but he is passionate about spreading cancer awareness throughout our local and wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Jarrod successfully organised his third Pink Rugby game, and with the assistance of generous companies and the Northern Territory National Rugby League he raised over $3000 for the Royal Darwin Hospital hospice. He is now looking to host a blue game for Beyondblue depression and anxiety, and a closing the gap game for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Jarrod hopes these will become a regular fixture.
Jarrod has the most adorable family and such a giving and gorgeous nature. He comes up with these brilliant ideas and has the drive and energy to make it happen. I am so incredibly proud of you, Jarrod. I have seen you growing up over many years. At just 15 you are kicking the most awesome goals to support people for such worthy causes. I look forward to seeing you. I saw your mum just before the awards ceremony and she was so pumped and excited to be attending the NT Young Achiever Awards and seeing your nomination. Jarrod, you have won the hearts of so many people with the work you do.
Keep kicking goals; go after the blue game and the closing the gap game. I stand staunchly in your corner, supporting you. Come see me and we will have a chat about anything I can do to help to find donations and support these awesome events you have planned. Keep going with that Pink Rugby game as it is a beautiful thing our rugby community does.
The third champion from Karama in the NT Young Achiever Awards evening was in the Zip Print Sports Award category, which went to our local megastar, Abby Cubillo. Abby is just 16, grew up in Karama and I have known her all her life.
She started playing basketball in 2007, has since played in five national championships and captained the Under 18 team in 2015. Abby was selected as the only NT representative in the Australian national Under 17 Sapphires team, competing in the 2016 FIBA Oceania qualifying tournament.
Her short-term goal is to settle into the Australian Institute of Sport and gain selection in the Australian Under 17 Sapphires team to compete in the 2016 world championships in Spain. Her long-term goal is to advance to the WNBL.
Abby is one of three incredibly talented sisters, raised by their mum, Teri, following the incredibly tragic death of their father due to cancer when they were young girls. Teri, you have done an amazing job. I wrote a support letter for the nomination of Mother of the Year.
Abby is a vibrant, dynamic, driven, energetic, talented basketballer. She is not your classic tall mountain of a basketballer, but she is a national star, home-grown, home-coached and home-encouraged. Congratulations, Abby, for taking out the Zip Print Sports Award at the NT Young Achiever Awards. It was great to see you on the back page of the NT News along with Freddy for the going away of the basketball representatives in the Territory.
Karama is a very close-knit community. The families look out for and support each other. Sometimes there are families who have barely enough brass razoos to rub together, but they manage to ensure their kids have the best possible life and opportunities. They appreciate that not everyone gets it easy in life. The stories and experiences of Alicia, Jarrod and Abby are representative of the beautiful kids who have grown up in Karama. I watched them grow into, in Alicia’s case, a magnificent young woman and in Jarrod’s case, a 15-year-old who has such a bright future. He has done so much at just 15 years of age to pull together three Pink Rugby games. He is not resting on his laurels; he is going after the blue game for depression and anxiety and the closing the gap game. He has such an amazing future ahead of him. He is so inspirational.
Abby, I am so proud of you, darling. May you keep playing stellar basketball. I saw the match write-ups when you were playing with the Sapphires and you were getting Best on Ground. They were writing so many amazing things about you. Getting into the AIS and back into the Sapphires, and going on to the world championships, you have incredible journeys ahead of you. I hope you make the WNBL. You are a star.
Congratulations to these three very worthy and talented local Karama people for their nominations, and to Alicia and Abby for taking out their categories. A big heartfelt thanks to their beautiful families for raising such amazing young Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I again place on the record, as shadow minister for Essential Services, this question: where on earth is the Power and Water Corporation annual report? I have brought this to the attention of this parliament three times during the last three sittings. We are now in April. Those annual reports should have been deemed tabled in this parliament last year. Power and Water Corporation had an opportunity to do that in the September, November and December sittings. We had sittings in February and March, and now it is April.
In one month the budget for the Northern Territory will be delivered. The financial figures provided by the Power and Water Corporation did not receive the stamp of approval from the Auditor-General in the Northern Territory Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. In that report the Auditor-General said there were problems and she was unable to form an opinion on the public non-financial corporation sector to do with the Power and Water Corporation. It also stated that there were inadequate books and records maintained, and there were concerns about property, plant, and equipment valuations.
I read directly from the letter provided by the Auditor-General in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement about the financial information of the Power and Water Corporation under the section ‘Disclaimer of opinion’:
- Because of the significance of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraphs, I have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the financial information attributable to the Corporation to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the balance sheet as at 30 June 2015, the comprehensive operating statement, the statement of changes in equity and the cash flow statement for the year then ended for the Public Non-Financial Corporation Sector.
Accordingly, I do not express an opinion on the Public Non-Financial Corporation Sector component of the Financial Report.
One must question what on earth is going on within the Power and Water Corporation if in April 2016 we are yet to see the annual report which should have been provided last year, and we are fast approaching the Territory’s budget, which the Treasurer will present in this Chamber next month. It makes you wonder if you can rely on the financial data and budget papers we will see about the Power and Water Corporation. How will that impact the rest of the Northern Territory’s figures?
Tonight I ask again. I look forward to seeing the deemed paper at the end of the night. I will look at it first thing in the morning to see whether the Power and Water Corporation report is finally in. I keep looking and waiting, and we are still waiting. We are in the April sittings, still awaiting the Power and Water Corporation annual report.
It is important to place that on the record. I hope we see that annual report sooner rather than later so we can have some confidence next month when we see the Territory budget presented.
It again raises serious questions about the structural separation process of the Power and Water Corporation. At the time when the government rammed through the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, as an opposition we made it very clear that we felt it was a rushed process; they had not done the work and they were simply not ready.
It is April now and we are fast approaching the Territory budget to be delivered in May by the Treasurer. We are yet to see an annual report and the financial information from the Power and Water Corporation.
It makes me feel, with absolute confirmation, that the government rushed structural separation. It was not ready and should have taken its time to do it properly. It does not leave much confidence in the process it followed when separating the corporations, when it is April 2016 and we are yet to see the annual report from last year with the final financial figures from the Power and Water Corporation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope we see the Power and Water Corporation annual report sooner rather than later.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge some of the many great things that have happened in my electorate. I will start by acknowledging a group of wonderful staff from the Health department at Gove, not just at Gove District Hospital but a couple of agencies which support health, including AOD.
I recently attended the Northern Territory Department of Health leadership and management development graduation ceremony which was held in Parliament House. I was not invited by the minister so I actually gate crashed the event. I did not suspect I would be turfed out, nor was I.
I was delighted that those people from Gove who were attending let me know that it was on. They knew I was in parliament when it occurred at the end of last sittings. They said, ‘Why do you not come along as it is a really special occasion?’
I was pleased to make it to that event and I acknowledge the following people on their achievements. Holly Oakley, who I have known since she was a schoolgirl, graduated in the Building our Leaders – First Line leadership and management development program. Congratulations to Holly who is a busy working mum and manages to squeeze in study as well.
The following people graduated in what was called Leading the Way – Middle Managers development program: Mary-Clare Arkcoll; Kimberley Armitage; Janine Bevis; Shane Flanigan; Justin Heath; David Outen; and Tracey Sheehan.
This was a real achievement for these guys. They are all very busy professionals who took on this 12-month course, which was quite demanding in the travel they were required to undertake, coming to Darwin for workshops and the out-of-session requirements associated with their study. They did this on top of their full-time work. They all told me what an amazing opportunity it was, how much they have learned from it and how it can only help them to do their jobs better.
I acknowledge the minister and the Department of Health for supporting these hard-working public servants who are serving the public in remote areas. Congratulations to them on their efforts.
Nhulunbuy Primary School recently announced its student leaders. Unfortunately, I was not in Nhulunbuy when their special school assembly was held, but I hear they all gave remarkable speeches with a good deal of confidence.
Congratulations to Nhulunbuy Primary School captains for 2016, Ned Pitkin and Levina Smith – I have known these kids since they were very little – and the school vice captains are Cooper Field and Flynn Asplin.
The SRC at Nhulunbuy Primary School for 2016 has taken on a unique approach by giving each member a focus area of responsibility on top of the usual duties of an SRC member. The 2016 SRC members are, with their special portfolio responsibilities: Shae Whitmore, who is education minister on SRC; Rhett O’Brien who is also the education minister; Tiana Inglis, the communications minister; Matthew Winter, who is also the communications minister; and serving as environment minister is Belle Birrell and Jordan Hay. Congratulations to those guys. Good luck in your roles. If you need any advice about responsibilities just give me a call and I will be happy to provide you with some advice.
At Nhulunbuy Primary School the house captains for 2016 have been announced. In the house of Daliwuy the captains are Noah Blundell and Kiyarnie Reynolds, and the vice captains are Tima Rosa and Charlotte Brundell. In Arnhem house the captains are Koby Douglas and Keisha Steward, and vice captains are Jackson Carr and Sienna Bunton. Wirrawuy house captains are Jett Pendel and Ella MacMahon, and vice captains are Rileigh Bartlett and Shacarl Gumbula. Mitchell house captains are Jacob Fitowski and Aimee Nolan, and vice captains are Brandon Fragiacomo and Emily Miller-Groen.
I will turn now to the Gove Barras swimming club, a fantastic club that has existed for years in Nhulunbuy. My kids were very keen swimmers a number of years ago. I acknowledge the achievements of the current squad at Gove Barras. Early in March a team of seven swimmers from Nhulunbuy competed in the 2016 Vorgee NT Open and Age Championships in Darwin. The swimmers who travelled from Nhulunbuy – and, I can assure you, at some cost – to compete with 127 other swimmers were Liam Arkcoll; Ciara Arkcoll; Lori McDonald; Tima Rosa; Hannah Fourie; and Tia Hutton.
Tia Hutton was selected to swim in the combined swimming championship squad representing the NT in Darwin in September. Congratulations and best of luck to Tia when September comes around.
The Gove Barras team achieved the highest percentage of personal best times at the meet, which is pretty remarkable for a little remote swimming club a long way from anywhere.
I also acknowledge the huge contribution that people like Trudy Guiney and Anna McDonald make as parents and coaches of these kids. I apologise if I have left out the names of other adult helpers who were key in taking the kids to this event.
I place on the record the results of the swimmers from Nhulunbuy. Liam Arkcoll came away with six medals, which is absolutely remarkable. This included the 50 m breast gold, 50 m free silver, 100 m free silver, 100 m breast silver, 50 m butterfly bronze and the 50 m back bronze.
Congratulations to Lauren Bridgfoot who came away with the 50 m breast bronze medal and the 100 m breast gold medal.
Tia Hutton came away with seven medals. It is a small wonder that she was selected for this swimming championship squad representing the NT in September. Tia won the 50 m free silver, 50 m butterfly silver, 100 m free silver, 200 m individual medley silver, 200 m free silver, 100 m free silver and the 100 m back silver. Well done, Tia, that is a remarkable achievement.
Congratulations also in the team events to Ciara, Tima, Tia and Lori who took out the medals for the bronze individual medley relay team and the bronze freestyle relay team. Well done to the Gove Barras swimming club for the hard work put into training and the huge cost that it takes to make it to these events. Well done to the adults who support you with your swimming.
In the last minutes I have left, I acknowledge the work of Palliative Care Northern Territory, particularly its President, Sandra Clyne, who is a resident of Alice Springs. She does this role in an entirely voluntary capacity and is frustrated to be receiving no response or joy from the current CLP government. She has made efforts to lobby the government, as the President of Palliative Care NT, to establish a dedicated, purpose-built palliative care unit on the campus of Alice Springs Hospital.
I will read a bit from the letter that Sandra sent to me when we first made contact in February:
- Dear Lynne, after unsuccessful lobbying to the CLP government, including the Chief Minister and the Minister for Health regarding the building of a hospice in Alice Springs, I am writing to you as the shadow minister for Health to inform you as to why a specific palliative care hospice is needed in Central Australia.
You may be aware that federal funding was granted for this project, originally obtained by Robyn Lambley when she was Health minister. She is an ongoing supporter for a dedicated stand-alone hospice and not a multipurpose facility, as the current government is now planning.
I am over that now. I realise that money is gone and it is not coming back, but I want to see it spent on a purpose-built facility that best meets and supports the needs of people living in Central Australia.
In this process there has been no consultation, and the minister and Chief Minister have made decisions about where the money will be spent. People like Sandra Clyne represent a fairly large constituency of people, including Indigenous people who have a vested interest in being consulted in this process and on why palliative care is so important.
As Sandra said to me, one of the top reasons for a specific palliative care unit is that patients and families come to palliative care with an expectation that all staff have an appropriate person-centred approach that values both patient and family as the unit of care. It needs to be a place where carers and families have access to facilities that connect them comfortably with their dying relative.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to produce a multipurpose facility is not the same as a dedicated palliative care unit. I know they are lobbying hard in Alice Springs. They are collecting hundreds of signatures around Central Australia to lobby the Health minister and the Chief Minister to stop this process and to consult, and deliver a purpose-built health facility that will best suit the needs and aspirations of people in Alice Springs.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016