2013-12-04
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Gez Mulvahil. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also have great pleasure in announcing in the Speaker’s Gallery heroes of yesterday. We have Hon. Marshall Perron, Hon Steve Hatton, Hon Barry Coulter, Hon Nick Dondas AM, Hon Eric Poole, Mr Rick Setter and Hon Mick Palmer may be coming very soon. Welcome, honourable past members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): May I place on the record that the whole House welcomes those honourable members. Madam Speaker, old politicians do not die; they do not bloody fade away either!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is an achievement of the Strong Society goal in the government’s Framing the Future blueprint, specifically the blueprint’s objectives relating to legislative reform in child protection and the reform of out of home care services. It is also a realisation of the blueprint’s goal of enhancing community safety through legislative reform that protects the rights of the most vulnerable.
The provision of a charter of rights to children and young people in out-of-home care is a simple but fundamental step towards a truly child focused out-of-home care system. This amendment is long overdue. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction remaining that does not provide children in out-of-home care a charter of rights. The 2010 board of inquiry, Growing them strong together, report noted that all children in out-of-home care would benefit from a charter that outlines what children and young people can expect from the people who look after and work with them while they are in care.
Recommendation 38 of that inquiry was that the Northern Territory develop such a charter. A charter has since been developed with the assistance of the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, CREATE Foundation, Foster Care NT, Anglicare, Strong Aboriginal Families, Together and the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner.
The rights outlined in the charter have been developed in consultation with children and young people in care. Those children and young people were asked about what the abstract concept of rights generally meant to them, and, in particular, what rights matter most to children who find themselves in care. Their words were used to help and develop the child friendly charter booklet that will be given to all children in care and used by case workers to explain why the rights contained in the booklet are so important.
The charter both states the rights and explains them in a way that resonates with the intended audience: children and young people in care. For example, the right to feel safe and be protected was described by one young child as meaning:
To children in care, the right to be listened to and say what you think and feel means that:
The charter also explains that rights come with responsibilities. Some responsibilities were expressed by children in the following ways:
On behalf of the Assembly, I thank the children and the young people who contributed to the development of the charter. They should be proud of their work on an important reform which will benefit other children for years to come.
The charter contains a list of useful contact numbers of organisations and services that exist to help children and young people in care. Most significantly, the contact details for the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner are provided in case a child or young person has a complaint that they feel is not being adequately addressed by their case worker or the system more generally.
This amendment will make it a legislative requirement that the charter be provided to children when they enter care, that the rights of the charter be explained to them, that the charter be published in a way that the Chief Executive Officer considers appropriate and that the Chief Executive Officer promote compliance with the charter within the Department of Children and Families. The charter will help to ensure that children in care know their rights and what they are entitled to expect from those who are responsible for their care. It will empower the voices of those who are often the most vulnerable and make the out-of-home care system more accountable and responsive to their needs.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School accompanied by Mrs Lynette Delaney and Miss Britt Webster. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your tour and your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a streamlined process for the approval of development projects that require both an amendment to the NT Planning Scheme and the issue of a development approval. As the Planning Act currently stands, these processes are required to be undertaken separately and sequentially, with the lodgement of a development application pending the finalisation of the related scheme amendment process. This arrangement can result in unnecessary delays and costs for both developers and the government.
The proposed amendment will provide for a single application and assessment process. While not suitable for all projects, it provides an additional approval pathway for a range of developments. Where suitable, it will reduce delays and costs while retaining a rigorous and accountable assessment process. Use of this new approval pathway will be voluntary and proponents will be able to use this process or the existing sequential pathway, if this is more suitable for their particular project.
The changes that will be brought about by this bill are consistent with the government’s proposed Framing the Future strategic goals of a balanced environment and a prosperous economy. It will result in changes consistent with objectives to streamline the NT Planning Scheme and to reduce delays and administrative requirements on business. It also retains an approval framework that will provide for sound decision-making and it will increase transparency, as the community will be aware of the particular development proposed for a site when considering an exhibited zoning change.
The background to this amendment is that under the Planning Act and the NT Planning Scheme, development consent is required for the subdivision of land, development and many types of land use. Where a development proposal is not permitted by the zoning of the land or particular provisions of the planning scheme, but is consistent with the planning intent for an area, then a planning scheme amendment will be required. Planning scheme amendment applications are subject to a rigorous assessment process that includes public exhibition, a reporting body hearing and final determination by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and can generally take up to nine months to be finalised.
It is only at this point, when the amendment is finalised, that the proponent can then lodge an application for approval of the actual development. This triggers a new development assessment process, again including general exhibition and an assessment by the consent authority. The statutory period under the act for the determination of such development applications is 12 weeks and it will often take between six to 10 weeks from application before a permit is issued. Where an appeal is involved or it is a particularly complex or large project, this period can be considerably longer. This can then result in an overall approval process, including rezoning and development consent, of over 12 months before a development permit is issued and construction can commence.
An example of this current process in action was evident in the Durack Heights development. This is a large project and, in 2010, a process of rezoning of the land was commenced, which took in the vicinity of 15 months to complete. Following the rezoning, development could not, however, proceed until the issue of a development permit for the first stages of the subdivision. Application for this could only be lodged at the completion of the rezoning stage and added a further three months to the time frame and an additional exhibition and referral process. Under the proposed concurrent application process, this development could have been assessed with a potential time saving of a minimum of three months and the avoidance of duplicate exhibition and referral processes.
This alternative pathway will not, however, be suitable for all projects, nor will developers always wish to use it. It is an additional option available to them for projects where detailed development plans or subdivision designs are available at the start of the approval process. Where projects have a greater lead time, which could be due to issues such as the consolidation of land parcels or market development, for example, then the standard sequential process is likely to be more suitable. There are, however, a range of important projects that can benefit considerably from a reduced approval time frame with increased certainty of the development outcome. This may include specific purpose construction projects and subdivision for both commercial and residential land release. It is these projects that the proposed amendment will provide a significant benefit for.
There is an additional range of projects for which, due to background studies and related approvals, a concurrent process may not significantly reduce the overall approval time frame. In such cases, it can still provide benefits to the community, proponent and the assessing agency by reducing the duplication of assessment and exhibition, providing an integrated process and clarity of outcome.
The concurrent pathway will provide for applicants to lodge a single application with one overall package of supporting information that is then subject to a single exhibition, referral and consultation process of 28 days. Following this, an integrated consideration process is then undertaken by the consent authority and a referral to the minister for determination of the scheme amendment component. The final development decision is still made by the consent authority and this decision determines the overall application.
In eliminating a dual application, exhibition and assessment process, this optional pathway will also have efficiency benefits for the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment in processing such applications. This will assist a continued shift in focus of the department to undertake the necessary strategic planning for the future development and growth of the Territory.
It is important to recognise that while the process has been streamlined and integrated, the bill proposes the retention of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment as the decision-maker in respect to planning scheme amendments, and the consent authority in respect to development. Refusal of either component of the application at any stage will result in the application lapsing. Appeal provisions in respect to the development component of this application have also been retained consistent with those that currently exist. This includes a right of appeal for the applicant against a development determination and third party appeal rights for particular classes of development, being those that may have a residential amenity impact.
I now turn to the draft bill before the Assembly to provide an outline of the steps of the concurrent application process as proposed. The lodgement of a concurrent application is subject to a mandatory pre-application meeting with an appointed planning advisor. This is necessary as a concurrent application is not suitable for all development proposals and does have inherent risks for an applicant. This risk is due to the requirement for full details of the development proposal to be provided up front, resulting in a greater cost at the start of the process. Where it is not certain that the land use change or development proposed is consistent with the planning scheme, then this may not be the appropriate pathway for that application.
The purpose of the meeting as defined in the bill is specifically to provide information and guidance on concurrent applications with the intent of assisting applicants to select the approval pathway most suitable to their project. Following this meeting, an application can then be lodged via a single application form with a single package of supporting information. An application is then subject to a preliminary assessment and a decision of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment to accept the application for exhibition.
A decision to support the application at this stage will result in a single exhibition period of 28 days for the overall application and a single referral of the application to relevant authorities. The minister can determine a longer exhibition period if considered warranted. The provision of notification in a local newspaper and signage on site of the availability of the proposal for exhibition is maintained consistent with current requirements of the act. The application can also be determined as a significant proposal at this time and is then subject to the requirements established in the act for such proposals.
This integrated exhibition will also benefit service agencies assessing infrastructure requirements and community members interested in making a submission. In both cases, this single integrated process means that only one submission is required instead of the dual process that now occurs, often with separate submissions on the scheme amendment and development proposals being made. It can also provide for a more effective process as interested parties have access to the full information on the land use changes and proposed development outcomes when reviewing the application and preparing comment.
Following completion of the exhibition of the proposal, the application is then referred to the consent authority for a preliminary determination of the likelihood of the application to be approved. This step ensures the determination of the planning scheme amendment that is then required to be made by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment is done so with awareness of the consent authority decision. This provides for an integrated approach to the decision process. After this initial consideration, the consent authority is then required to provide a full report to the minister on all aspects of this application, including its preliminary determination and the outcome of the submission and consultation process, and any other information it considers necessary.
The minister can then determine to approve the scheme amendment, and the application is returned to the consent authority for final determination. Alternatively, the minister can refuse the amendment as proposed, as a result of which the application lapses. The minister also has the option at this stage to alter the proposal and for it to be subject to re-exhibition. In this case, the application is subject to the assessment processes as if it were a new application.
The final determination of the consent authority either to refuse or approve the application will result in the determination notice requirements of the act being undertaken. Following resolution of any appeals that may arise and where the application was approved by the consent authority, a development permit can then be issued and development proceed. It is on the issue of the development permit that the scheme amendment is also brought into effect and the concurrent application fully determined.
Where the development application is refused by the consent authority, the application lapses at this point. That is, as a development permit is not issued for the development proposal, the planning scheme amendment does not take effect. As the final step, notice of approval of an application is then required to be placed in the newspaper consistent with the current act requirements for development approvals and planning scheme amendments.
I have outlined all key features of the draft bill and hope from this it is clear that the concurrent application process will provide an additional planning approval pathway that will provide a timely process for suitable applications and a range of benefits for applications and other interests.
In summary, this bill provides an additional approval pathway for an application that requires both a planning scheme amendment and a development approval that:
significantly reduces the time taken from application lodgement to issue of a development permit
reduces the resources required by government agencies in assessing such applications through eliminating a dual exhibition and reporting process and ensuring full details of the development are provided up front for referral authorities and the community
will retain the accountability, public notification and appeal rights associated with the development consent processes, as established in the act and valued by this government
is an additional and optional pathway for applicants to consider and use, where suitable, for their projects
can reduce the costs associated with significant development projects by reducing holding costs while the approval process is undertaken
ensures that decisions are based on sound planning principles and outcomes through the establishment of necessary matters to be considered for the determination of concurrent applications.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this is the first debate in which I have participated, be it a bill or otherwise, with my new portfolio responsibilities of child protection and children and families. I acknowledge the work done by the member for Nightcliff in this role since the election. It is a very important and critical role, as I am sure the minister opposite would agree.
The second reading speech delivered by the minister in the last sitting opened with:
We know from estimates that the number of vacancies within the agency numbered approximately 170. How the agency can look after the Territory’s most vulnerable children when there are so many staffing shortages, morale is at an all-time low and we have seen three ministers come through and lead this agency is alarming.
However, I have faith in the minister opposite as the individual from the government benches who can probably provide some leadership because I know him to be genuinely committed to this. His background as Attorney-General also brings strength to his role in what he will endeavour to deliver. However, it is not just about delivering; it is about the mess he has inherited from his predecessors and has now been brought in to clean up.
I turn to my comments on behalf of the opposition in relation to the proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill. This bill deals with a number of matters contained within the existing Care and Protection of Children Act and attempts to clarify their operation and application, the role of a child’s representative in the family matters jurisdiction, the welfare of children placed within the care of the Chief Executive of the Department of Children and Families, the procedures applying to the search of children and their belongings, and the responsibility of the Chief Executive for children in care.
While the opposition will not oppose this bill, it is necessary I draw to the attention of this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory the concerns we hold with choices the CLP government has made in drafting this legislation. Obviously we have consulted with stakeholders who inform the debate we bring to the House today.
I turn first to the representation of children in care and protection proceedings. I welcome the government’s commitment to implement Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to clarify the right of children to express their views in matters which involve them in Northern Territory law. So often in debates around child protection and related issues it is the voices of those vulnerable children which are absent.
It is true the Supreme Court, in a 2012 matter, made comments regarding the way in which the role of a child’s representative was conducted. However, those comments were not directed at the current wording of the act but, rather, at the way in which the role was conducted. It is for this reason I hold concerns with the government’s approach.
Firstly, in bringing forward these amendments, a current provision of the act which requires a child’s representative to explain their role to the child has been omitted. I would like the Attorney-General to address why that has been omitted. I would like the Attorney-General to address that question; there will be a few. Such an explanation is surely critical to the ability of a child to express his or her views, and for the legal practitioner to effectively carry out their role.
Secondly, despite a briefing indicating the quality of representation was of concern to the department, and the capacity within these amendments to make regulations for matters such as the criteria for appointment of a child’s representative and the standards they must meet, I have been informed there are no plans to develop or introduce such regulations. I would, therefore, like the Attorney-General to also address that matter regarding whether or not their intention is to introduce regulations.
The opposition is not alone in this concern. In its submission on this bill, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency – NAAJA – made the following comments. I will quote directly from them at length:
NAAJA is particularly concerned about the lack of guidelines and standards in relation to the representation of Aboriginal children, and I will quote from NAAJA’s submission:
Further to the submission put to the Attorney-General by NAAJA and CAALAS, including recommendations for amendments, NAAJA wrote to the Attorney-General on 22 November and provided me with a copy of that correspondence; they raised those concerns with him in that e-mail correspondence. I would like to hear the Attorney-General’s response in debate to the recommendations of this very key stakeholder group, or groups, why he has not adopted the recommendations they have proposed, and what responses he has provided to those legal advocates that have a key role in advocating for children.
It is worth noting at this point that not only has this government not established an Aboriginal childcare agency, or ACCA, as recommended by the board of inquiry, it has cut the funding of the Safe Aboriginal Families, Together, SAF,T organisation, to prevent that organisation from progressing the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency.
It would not surprise members of the House that at the recent ‘Family Matters’ conference supported by SAF,T and the relevant national body, the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency was the number one recommendation of those present. Regrettably, I was unable to attend that forum but I have had feedback from people who attended and know the Attorney-General was there at some point during the day.
Returning to the bill, the amendments go beyond the role of the child’s representative in court proceedings and seek to curtail the manner in which the role currently operates. It has been the practise of legal practitioners acting as child representatives to maintain contact with the matter and to monitor, albeit informally, the department’s adherence to requirements under the act, such as whether a care plan is put in place for their client. While this practise is potentially uncomfortable for the department, it has had the effect of safeguarding the interests of children once taken into care. I see nothing in these amendments to replace this level of independent oversight. This is another matter I would like the Attorney-General to respond to.
NAAJA, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service are concerned that the proposed changes do not met the intended aim of giving additional protection to vulnerable children as expressed by NAAJA and I quote:
Unfortunately, the Minister for Children and Families has decided to ignore this important advice from experts in the field. If that case has since changed, I look forward to hearing from the minister in this debate.
I turn now to the amendments dealing with search of young people. The bill seeks to clarify and streamline the search provisions so they are easier for authorised officers to administer. However, in so doing, the amendments remove important protections contained in the current act. In relation to searches, the current act provides:
Children being dealt with under the Youth Justice Act are given greater protection, with section 19 of that act providing that:
Why has this protection not been maintained for children in care, who have not done anything wrong? We know they need to be protected from self-harm or harm to others but, nevertheless, they have done nothing wrong.
While you might be interested in making things easier, the reason for the proposed changes I was given in the briefing is that this should not be at the expense of children who have experienced abuse or neglect.
Finally, I wish to comment on the provision relating to the investigation of harm or exploitation of children in care. The bill proposed to give to the CEO the power to acquire information from a range of people and bodies. It also sets out the CEO must provide information to the Children’s Commissioner where the allegations of abuse are upheld. These actions are in stark contrast to the course of action recommended by the board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory, which was:
In making this amendment, the CLP government is signalling its intention to dump yet another board of inquiry recommendation - recommendations which had been embraced by the former government. However, even more concerning is a demonstration of its approach to child protection; one of secrecy, and lack of oversight. We know one of the very early acts of the first Minister for Children and Families was to dump the external monitoring committee - an external and at arm’s length from government body. The role of this body was to monitor, without fear or favour, the implementation of the BOI and to uphold those recommendations which had been put in place to protect our most vulnerable. They are not committed to improving the system for vulnerable children; their commitment is making sure no one else can see it is not working.
As I said, the opposition does not oppose the bill; however, we have a number of concerns that the bill falls short in its robustness in guaranteeing minimum standards required for a child representative, noting that Aboriginal children make up the bulk of children in care in the Northern Territory. The opposition is deeply concerned about the apparent demise of safety and the failure to implement recommendation 4.2 of the board of inquiry, the abandonment of a very key recommendation which calls for the development of an Aboriginal childcare agency.
I thank the minister for availing his staff very early on in the piece for a briefing, for which I am grateful. While this bill is a good start, it falls short.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the bill, and I say that fairly clearly after some comments today. I thank the department for the briefing it gave me; I also received a briefing from the Children’s Commissioner. I take his advice very seriously, because he is a very competent person who has a long record in making sure we have child protection systems in the Northern Territory that do exactly that: protect children. I thank both the department and the Children’s Commissioner for their briefings.
I also appreciate the work the member for Nhulunbuy has done. I have not moved into the area she has, but I have some understanding of where she is coming from. I also understand that not all lawyers agree with the role being put forward for a legal representative for a child. There are some people who have a different point of view, but again, I am following the advice of the Children’s Commissioner.
I will not verbal him, but my understanding is that we are enabling a child to give evidence. There are some quotes in the minister’s second reading speech that talk about what is in the best interest of the child, and if that is allowing a child upwards of 10 years old to be at least given the opportunity to represent themselves in court; if that is in the child’s best interest, it should be done.
My understanding is that a judge will also be involved and will make decisions as to whether a child is mature enough to give an opinion that could be regarded as valid, if I can use that word. There are systems that do allow for judgments to be made when allowing a child to represent him or herself, and is an issue on which some people have a different point of view.
My understanding is that if a child can give evidence in court and that evidence is approved by a judge as being given by someone who knows what they are talking about, the voice of that child is a stronger representation and that evidence is more valuable when it comes to decisions that have to be made in court.
The other area, which is fairly straightforward and that these changes relate to, is clearly stated in the second reading speech and is something the Children’s Commissioner said is quite appropriate. It talks about the power of the Department of Children and Families to create inquiries in relation to children in care, just as for any other child. An allegation of abuse in care is a very different set of circumstances and warrants a separate provision. I will quote from the second reading it probably says it clearer than I can:
It then says:
That is a fairly commonsense change to the act, which does not need too much explanation. Talking to the Children’s Commissioner recently, he said it was a sensible move.
There have been many changes in the department and many CEOs. The present CEO, Jodeen Carney, is very competent and I hope she brings real changes to this very important area of government responsibility. When she was in parliament, regardless of whether I may have disagreed with her on other matters, I know she was passionate about the protection of children. She was instrumental in pushing for an inquiry into the protection of children in the Northern Territory. With this passion and understanding of the complexities of some of this legislation in regard to the protection of children, she will make an excellent CEO. We now have – we will debate that further – legislation coming forward which will allow the Children’s Commissioner to have his or her own legislation to give them separate powers not belonging to the department or within the act, as he is now: a combination of Dr Howard Bath, Jodeen Carney and the minister.
Minister, I have no doubt listening to your debates before that you are passionate about doing something for the welfare of people in the Northern Territory, and we are all that way. The member for Nhulunbuy is passionate, just as I do not believe anyone here would not be passionate about ensuring children are protected.
It is good you have an opposition to raise some serious matters for you to address. It is good we now have three people with the ability, because they are a member of parliament, a CEO or the Children’s Commissioner, to drive changes that will make some difference. If that does not happen, I will be very surprised, but the only way we will find out if that happens is to look at the results of these changes.
This is only a relatively small change; I am not saying it is not important, but the reality will be a reduction in the number of people required to be in care and a reduction in the number of cases of abuse of children. That will not happen overnight. It will be an ongoing job of government and everyone in parliament to ensure there are changes which make a difference. The proposed new bill for the Commissioner said – I am not debating it; I am saying we have the issue of the vulnerable child, and that word ‘vulnerable’ means we have a responsibility as adults to ensure that child is protected.
This legislation will hopefully go some way to making children less vulnerable and to ensuring the system works for the betterment of all children in the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Children and Families’ Care and Protection Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill.
I listened to the speeches by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy and the member for Nelson. What struck me, listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, is how quickly history can be rewritten at the convenience of the opposition. Accusing the current government of instability, of failing in the child protection space, is ultimate hypocrisy from anyone’s perspective. I recall the track record of the former Labor government in this space of caring for the children of the Northern Territory and implementing proper, good, safe practices in the child protection area. The allegation of failure must first be levelled at the former Labor government before any consideration can be given to our track record over the last 15 months.
I remind this parliament of where we have come from in child protection. Under 11 years of Labor, there were over half-a-dozen independent inquiries into the failure of the Northern Territory child protection system. It was a complete and utter shambles. Minister after minister was instated to try to fix this problem which was like a cancer; it would not go away. They were impotent when it came to addressing their own management of a system that was imploding repeatedly.
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy accuse us of all sorts of incompetence and mismanagement. However, in fact, we are doing very well. This amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act is yet another example of how we are just getting on with the job. After only 15 months, there are significant amendments to this bill before the House and there are more amendments that will come to this House in the very near future.
The former Labor government presided over a bill that was outdated and, in many ways, quite irrelevant. As the former minister for the Department of Children and Families, I quickly sought to start work on amending this entire act. I have no doubt that over the next 12 months we will see quite a lot of changes to this act. The Attorney-General has come into this position in recent times and he is continuing the work which I started, the member for Namatjira continued with and he has taken it on with gusto and …
Ms Walker: He has come in to clean up the mess.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … will continue to undertake this very important work. Regarding the interjections from the member for Nhulunbuy …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if I could ask you to pause, I draw members’ attention in the gallery of Years 8 and 9 students from Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre accompanied by Eleonore Simpson. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Regarding the interjections from the member for Nhulunbuy, I realise she is defensive. There is a long history of incompetence of the former Labor government. Yelling across the Chamber will never change that. It is in the history books, in those considerable documents which have been produced over the years, telling the story of how the former Labor government failed. Indeed, it has hit all aspects of the media. The Four Corners program, ‘Dangerous Territory’, run in November 2010, was an expos of how the Northern Territory government at the time ultimately failed a couple of children in the most dreadful way.
I strongly reject any accusations, at this point in time, that we have failed more than Labor or, indeed, failed at all. We have embraced the opportunity to make legislative changes that will improve the lives of children. There have been a few changes within the senior levels of staffing within the Department of Children and Families. We have had some extraordinary people come through, which is often part and parcel of living in the Territory. People come and go and we are hoping the current CEO remains where she is for quite some time and is able to see through some of these very positive changes we have in mind for the area of child protection.
What is also interesting is the conversation about the Aboriginal child advocacy service, SAF,T. This was a non-government organisation that started in the Territory with some gusto. There was a lot of enthusiasm around the establishment of this Aboriginal child advocacy service and there were very high expectations of what that organisation, which came to be known as SAF,T, would achieve.
This organisation has not produced anything. It never, despite over $1m worth of funding plus, and – I do not have the figures in front of me – a hell of a lot of investment from the Northern Territory government, provided a service to one child in the Northern Territory. It is an example of a non-government organisation that has failed.
I cannot tell you in this House exactly why it has failed, but it has. This government has to be fairly objective about these things if after almost two years and considerable funding an organisation does not achieve the outcomes stipulated in its contract.
We have to make some very difficult decisions, and one of those decisions we made on coming into government, through the mini-budget, was to reduce the funding for SAF,T. This was because we had some concerns about its governance, its ability to deliver and it has come about that those concerns were well founded.
However, I do not want to preside or rejoice over the inability of service providers to deliver. It is a sad thing. It is a very serious thing …
Ms Walker: It is tragic.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is tragic, I take up the interjection of the member for Nhulunbuy. It is not the responsibility of government to manage non-government organisations; they undertake to manage their own affairs. We provide the funding, the support, the guidelines, ongoing monitoring and sometimes assistance, but it is ultimately their responsibility. I also take up the criticisms that were conveyed, by the member for Nhulunbuy, from NAAJA and CAALAS. These two organisations are very consistent critics of this government. The roll-out of our alcohol mandatory treatment program across the Northern Territory has been highly scrutinised and, indeed, critiqued by NAAJA and CAALAS. I would not expect them to treat any other aspect of the operation of this government any differently.
I feel their views are tainted and sometimes prejudiced by their political affiliations to the Labor Party.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a previous member of this parliament, Hon Noel Padgham, and her family members. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Elferink: A declaration of interest, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, definitely a conflict of interest, but a very welcome conflict of interest.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was part way through my speech addressing the Minister for Children and Families’ Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill.
The member for Nhulunbuy discussed in parliament earlier today how NAAJA and CAALAS were quite critical of this legislation. I was in the middle of describing that NAAJA and CAALAS tend to be regular critics of this new government. They have been very critical of the alcohol mandatory treatment program we have rolled out over the last 15 months. It is no surprise they have critiqued the government, once again, on its intention to reform the child protection legislation of the Northern Territory. Because of that, I take their criticisms with a grain of salt. They have strong political affiliations with the Labor Party; that is fairly well known. They are friends of the opposition and are generally not friends of us. Having said that, we welcome the process of consultation, the feedback and robust debate, whether it is debating child protection, alcohol mandatory treatment or any matter before this parliament.
What the minister has brought forward is an improvement to the Care and Protection of Children Act. When I was the shadow spokesperson for child protection, it was something which was raised with me – improving or expanding the representation of children within the child protection system. I was approached by two solicitors who have given a significant part of their lives to work within the child protection system representing families and children affected by allegations of child abuse and neglect. A great concern of theirs was that there were gaps in the system, that some children, through their age and circumstances, were entitled to representation and others were not. There were some inconsistencies in the Northern Territory’s approach and children were being affected by this.
Looking back at the second reading speech of the Minister for Children and Families, this amendment changes the model to one of direct representation for children who have maturity and understanding to provide instructions to their lawyer. A legal representative of a child who has maturity and understanding to provide instructions must act on those instructions. It empowers children to have a say in the process they have been forced to engage in. Being heard, even though an official or professional considers one is wrong, is a necessary aspect of justice. The right to a hearing in a decision-making process may, of itself, fulfil a psychological need, regardless of the practical conclusion reached.
This legislation before us is improving on the former government’s legislation. As I said in the first part of my speech, the opposition, the former Labor government, dropped the ball when it came to child protection.
Ms Fyles: You dropped the ball, not us. What about Chapter 6, the board of inquiry?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They dropped the ball when it came to protecting the most vulnerable people in our community; for 11 years, they failed in this space. I hear the interjections from the member for Nightcliff, who was not around during that time so she is reasonably safe, although she was an advisor to the minister for Child Protection, so should bear some of the responsibility for the inept and systematic failure of Labor to look after our children. As I said before, many reports attest to the failure of Labor; the Little Children are Sacred report, the Growing them strong, together report, several Ombudsman’s reports, the State of Denial. There was also another report that covered an audit on the intake system – numerous documents stating the inadequacy of Labor in addressing these very serious social problems in our community.
We are 15 months into government, and I applaud the Minister for Children and Families for bringing on these amendments. I know he has a number more to make to this piece of legislation, improving the system for our children. He is a committed minister; he has embraced the job in a very short period of time. He is running with it, like we have never seen, like we never saw the Labor Party run with it. They passed the ball more frequently than us and it was one disaster after another. I applaud the minister and absolutely support the reforms he is making in child protection.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I wish to give the minister support for the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill. To support what my colleague said; this man is extraordinary. I am sorry I took the seat of Macdonnell from him after eight years, but it had to be done. He is fantastic in every area of running his portfolios in this government. He has taken over from me and is running with it. He has been given the torch. I was given the torch by my colleague, the Minister for Health, and the minister has now received the torch from me and we have not stopped. We have not stopped running to make sure it is about children. When we came into government and took over this portfolio, the children were hidden; we could not see the children for the bureaucracy. They had no voice. What this bill allows for is the legal representative to make sure they understand the child, community, family – the extended family as well as the parents. It gives mature children a voice and is an important part of this legislation that we as a government have looked at.
It is about the voice of that adolescent or the mature child, and it is really important for children to be vocal, to have their say as to how their representative informs the court system about what they are doing, about their family structures and their community structures. This government, since it came into power, has been focused on making sure this is the area we looked at because we are talking about children. The Chief Minister has come out very early in the piece on this area, saying these are the most vulnerable children in the Northern Territory. I know the minister is doing lots of other things in this area to make sure we, as people who have children in care, take responsibility for our actions as parents and we, as a family and as a community, take responsibility for our children.
They are the future generations of the Northern Territory. They are our future, and we have to ensure we are at all times focused on how we get these children back to their families. While they are in our care, and as we work towards getting these children back into their communities and their families, we must ensure there is a chance for them to voice their opinions if they are not properly represented. We must understand that representatives of these children must have a relationship with these children. They must be connected to these children, and understand and know them; they have to know where they come from, their parents, their community and put all of that into context in its entirety. There is not a piece that does not match the other piece. You cannot take just a mum and dad without taking the extended family and the community.
The minister knows and understands all of that. For eight years, he worked as a local member in that area, understanding families and communities. He has worked as a police officer, so he knows exactly where he is coming from. He understands there are mums and dads with problems, communities with problems and this is why children get caught in this net that allows us, as a government, to become their carers. The focus of this government is the focus we need.
As I said, when we came into this area, we had to search for the child. Where is the child, where is this poor bugger? We could not find the child; we could not see the children. That is why, as a former minister, I support this bill, the focus of this government and the direction we are taking.
I thank you, minister, for bringing forward this bill, ensuring the voices of these mature children are heard and that the legal representative and the child really do have a relationship with one another.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, this is the one topic that truly drives people’s emotions. We are talking about kids, so let us not fool ourselves in this space.
I listened to this debate and I thought to myself, what actually are our expectations here? What is child protection? What are we expecting from the child protection system? That question is a fundamentally important consideration as to what we are doing as a government, bearing in mind that this bill is quite specific about a particular thing we are trying to achieve.
The nature of this topic invites people to range far and wide, as they have done in this debate. However, if you think a government exclusively can fix issues of child sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect, I suspect you are placing the bar intolerably high. Government is in this domain because it must respond to protect the innocent people who are not being effectively protected by those they should be protected by, namely parents and family.
To say, ‘Oh, well, governments past and present have a solution for child protection problems,’ is not a wise thing to do. The process of getting involved in child protection is an end point. It sits over here and when the government steps in, through the Department of Children and Families, and says, ‘We have become aware of an issue of neglect, exploitation, sexual exploitation,’ or something of that nature, this is an end point. We are involving ourselves in something that has occurred; it is, in essence, a policing action. If you think about a person who is unlawfully killed by another person, the police respond and step in, run an investigation and try to clean up the mess. That is what a child protection intervention essentially is.
The first question I asked myself when I became the minister is that if that is a policing action, a response to something that has been done, surely the question is: what do we do a week, month, year or lifetime before we intervene? That develops a bunch of issues that need to be addressed.
There are a number of forces at work in the area of child neglect. The most obvious and present one is the failure of parents, in particular, to do their job in relation to children.
The people who set the standard of what a parent should do are the community. The community has a standard which is reflected by people being elected to this place and passing legislation to deal with issues of child neglect, and we then turn to professionals and say, ‘We need your help in trying to intervene in this’.
Do not think for one second that a legislative instrument in this House will cure the spiritual cancer, if not the moral cancer, that is child abuse and neglect. It is a response, and that is something I ask all members to be mindful of; even the response from government will always be imperfect by its very nature, and the reason that occurs is manifold again.
I ask members of this House and people listening to this debate to picture a conversation between a childcare worker who has received a complaint that a child is potentially the subject of sexual exploitation. The childcare worker knocks on the door, is invited in, speaks to the parent, and then says to the parent, ‘We have this complaint’. The parent then says, ‘Yes, I have been sexually exploiting my child for the last five years’.
Of course that is nonsense. People will lie, not only about sexual exploitation but their failings as parents. Who here wants to say, ‘I am failing as a parent’? I do not want to; I often feel guilty that I feel I am. However, the idea of failing as a parent is one of the yardsticks society measures people by in terms of them being a success or a failure.
Imagine an environment where childcare workers have people consistently lying to them, because those people are lying to themselves; if they are not lying to themselves and carry some real and criminal guilt in relation to how they conduct themselves with their children, they will not tell the childcare workers. When I came to the department, I was extremely mindful of the fact the department will make mistakes because the information they have to work with is often very limited and sometimes dishonestly presented. When we say to childcare workers, ‘Why did you screw that up, why did you make a mistake here?’, it is because they are trying to make plans to fix up a policing response around innocent people when they are being lied to.
Of course they will make mistakes; they have to second guess things. They have to try to develop an understanding of an environment based on limited or no information at all other than the physical observations they can make.
What we do as a government, as a legislature, is when we buy into these arguments – the death of Deborah Melville is a good example – it engenders a fear response from the government. We saw it from members opposite and I suffer a little from that fear response in the sense of there being some political pressure where it can get really nasty, so the minister and the government have to make a conscious decision, and this is the decision I have made.
I have said to the workers throughout the Northern Territory, wherever I have been, I expect mistakes will occur. It is unavoidable in the circumstances in which they operate as workers. Nevertheless, I expect them to do what they have to do, based on the judgment they have available and, so long as the decision is in good faith, they will have the support of the minister and the government to continue what they are doing. I will even go one step further: take reasonable and considered risks in the pursuit of protecting children and your minister will stand in front of any camera and say, ‘I defend that choice’, because nothing chokes a bureaucracy more than ministerial fear and imprecise direction. If the minister has no faith in the CEO, and that cascades all the way down to the final level of responsibility of the child protection worker, it falls upon them as they are the one who has contact with the child.
All of a sudden, rules are created, guidelines and laws are developed, Children’s Commissioners and all types of bureaucracies are created to ensure all these dreadful mistakes do not happen again. Somewhere in that mix, something important was forgotten: the kids.
As a minister of the Crown, as the minister for child protection, I acutely feel the weight of duty that falls upon my shoulders. However, I will not create an environment where people are suffocated and prevented from doing their job out of fear of reprisals inside the departmental arena. I expect the child protection workers of the Northern Territory to take calculated risks, to make judgment calls based on their experience and armed with good faith. If they do that, they will enjoy the protection of this government, and I will champion their cause. If they make mistakes, I would rather see a person err in the pursuit of a proper outcome than fail to act for fear of reprisal from the system. That is the expectation I have; unless a person is grossly negligent or criminal in their conduct, they will enjoy my support; just act in good faith.
I want child protection workers to step into that environment as though it was their first day out of university, with that much passion and enthusiasm. I want those workers to think they can change the world, because people who believe they can change the world are much more likely to do so than those who are consistently looking over their shoulders and living in an environment of bureaucratic fear. It will not happen.
That is a general statement of intent and principle from me, because I believe it is important that child protection workers have it on the record that is what their government and minister believe.
Having made those observations, I will turn to the bill in more detail. Once again, this is not a massive change in law; this bill deals with a small component of a system which struggles to deal with a big problem in our community. This bill turns its attention to something you and I would expect if we had capacity – when I use the term ‘capacity’, I use it in its legal sense – to make decisions.
Unfortunately, in the current child protection environment with the legislation as it stands, the case officer or the representative of the child in court is not required, in any substantial or legislative way, to have a lawyer/client relationship. There are other examples of this type of legislation in our system; one example is animal welfare legislation because, of course, an animal does not quite understand the difficulties and nuances of a courtroom. Of course, children are not animals. When we say ‘children’, we are talking about people who are under the age of 18 years of age. There is, quite conceivably, a class of those children who are able to understand what is happening to them and what is being said about them. Surely, their voices should be heard when it comes to an application concerning an outcome that will affect them for the rest of their lives. That is the thrust of the bill before us.
This bill intends to say to a court, and a lawyer representing a child in a matter of this nature, that we recognise that life sucks, that you have found yourself in this environment as the result of other people’s failings. The duties that should have been extended to you as a matter of right have not been, in many instances, extended to you at all, in cases of neglect, and actively deprived, in cases of sexual exploitation or abuse. Of course, a person who has the capacity to understand what is happening to them, what is being said about them, should have a right to have their voice heard.
This legislative instrument no longer places the lawyer in the position of an animal welfare lawyer. The lawyer is now placed in the position of having a lawyer/client relationship with the child and effectively means we are creating what is called a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary is a person who is bound by the rules of common law and equity, which assumes a relationship of trust.
That trust is almost exclusively a one way street; that is, the relationship between the lawyer and the client has to be of such a nature that it is the client who enjoys the benefits of the trust of that relationship. An example of this is the law of lawyer/client privilege; it is entirely a one way street. A lawyer may never breach the confidentiality of a client; however, the client can breach a confidentiality any time they like, in terms of their relationship with their lawyer. It is because it is about the client and not the lawyer, and that is the intent of this piece of legislation. It is about the child and not the lawyer, and that is what we are trying to achieve.
We are saying to the practitioners in this area, ‘You now have a relationship which is a lawyer/client relationship’. That implies a level of duty which is long established in law, both here in Australia and other countries around the world, and that duty is carried by those lawyers who represent their clients. The fiduciary relationship is of such a nature that it is a relationship of complete trust and is applied according to law. A lawyer who does not maintain their fiduciary relationship will find themselves neglectful in their duty to the point where a court would rule against them if there was ever an issue raised about them breaching a fiduciary relationship. Bearing that in mind, the NAAJA and CAALAS submissions read by the shadow minister are largely defunct. The reason I say these are defunct is the shadow minister would have us impose a bunch of guidelines and regulatory instruments that would intrude onto that fiduciary relationship.
These matters are as individual as fingerprints when they come before a court. One of the great risks we engage in when we cast our fishing net into the future with a legislative instrument is that we are trying to simply capture one species of fish. It has been my experience that the more technical and detailed a legislative instrument is made, the tighter the weave of that fishing net, the more likely you pick up unintended species all the way through, and it is unintended consequences I wish to avoid. Therefore, I am satisfied the existence of a fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client is sufficient to protect the interests of the client, and it has long since been established. I do not like being excessively prescriptive and if we, as a community, are going to trust lawyers to do their job, we have to trust the fact that the expectations around the lawyer/client relationship will be maintained by those lawyers, as they are trained to do in lawyering 101.
Having made that observation, there will be guidelines. The Law Society will be invited to draft those guidelines as it has done in other jurisdictions. I draw honourable members attention to the Law Society of New South Wales, which has produced, on behalf of the New South Wales government and available on an Internet site near you, the Representation Principles for Children’s Lawyers, third edition, September 2007.
In that document, you will find a number of references to the issues we are raising today: I quote from page 7 of the document:
There is some rocket science for you:
In other words, the child is at the core of these instructions, as the child is at the core of this legislative instrument.
I intended to table through normal processes – but nothing prevents me, as I understand it, doing it here – the Children’s Commissioner’s Annual Report 2012-13. It was to be a deemed paper, but I can table it here, and that is there for all members to see. It will probably find its way on to a deemed papers list anyhow.
I want to specifically address some issues raised by members opposite, particularly in relation to notifications. If you look at page 51 of the Children’s Commissioner’s report – I realise that no member will have seen this, so I do not accuse anybody of anything. For the edification of members of this House, on page 51 there is a chart showing the number of notifications, investigations and substantiations of abuse and neglect 2008-09 to 2012-13. Ghastly as it is, the number of notifications spike sharply, and the last 12 months are no exception.
I also note the number of investigations is slightly down on the last financial year and the number of substantiations has fallen substantially in the last financial year. We have more notifications coming through the front door, an equal number of investigations and a fall in substantiations.
I also draw honourable members attention to the graph on page 42. On that graph, you will notice there has been no sharp increase in the number of notifications by categories from schools, health organisations and non-professional organisations. There has been a slight increase in others, but the one area where notifications have absolutely skyrocketed over the last two years, from 1500 to 3500, is in the activities of the police.
The reason we are seeing notifications go up is that authorities are now looking. The police are obeying the law which says if you run into these circumstances, you are obliged to report it, which is what the police do. It is also that the nature of what is being reported is changing over time, and, thank the Good Lord, the number of sexual reports is coming down sharply. What is pronounced is not so much abuse, but neglect. Whilst neglect is not good, I would rather have to deal and cope with those sorts of issues than the rape of a child on a regular basis.
I draw honourable members attention to that report and will make sure there are sufficient copies circulated in the next few days.
I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter, but in relation to suggestions made by the members opposite, particularly the shadow minister in this area, I do not want to become prescriptive in this space. I want to leave the practitioners with sufficient room to make judgment calls, which I will trust them to make, and I hope the courts will appreciate that; I am sure the practitioners will appreciate that. Through their integrity, I am satisfied the people who operate in this field, the lawyers and the practitioners, will not take advantage of the liberties we are providing them to become slack or callous in the way they approach their work. Rather, they will take it as an opportunity to approach their work with a new level of enthusiasm, knowing they will be profoundly well supported by a government that trusts them to make the right decisions for themselves, the system and, most importantly, clients.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes and supports this bill. I have met with the Children’s Commissioner on one occasion since becoming shadow minister for this important area of responsibility, Child Protection and Children and Families. As a hard-working and dedicated public servant, he expressed to me no political bias, nor would I expect it and nor would he. He is supportive of this bill, as are members on this side. Anything that protects our vulnerable children – those who are at risk, who suffer, sadly, neglect or abuse – it is our responsibility as members of this House to ensure we have the best legislation in place to meet the needs of those children.
As I did in the last bill we discussed around amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act, I go to the opening statement of the second reading from the minister which says:
That is fair enough, but I ask the government why, since they have been the government, they have successfully wound back reforms implemented under the former government and the very robust board of inquiry report, Growing them strong, together? I have the two volumes on my desk, put together by eminent professionals in this area: the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, Dr Rob Roseby and Professor Muriel Bamblett AM.
If the minister wants to open his second reading speech by talking about being accountable, transparent and subject to ongoing review and scrutiny, it begs the question as to why they sacked the external monitoring committee. The committee, at arms-length and independent from government, was providing that level of scrutiny. I am not convinced the minister can guarantee that scrutiny and being held to account when they so blatantly remove those instruments set up to have that level of scrutiny and review in place. I find that incredibly disappointing.
I was unable to attend the forum held at Charles Darwin University on Thursday 14 November. It was coordinated by SNAICC and the theme of the forum was Family Matters: Kids safe in culture, not in care. One of the aims of the board of inquiry was to be able to deliver that. I am sure I will be accused of selectively quoting by the minister, but given I was unable to attend – I heard it attracted some media attention – the commissioner sent me his speaking notes from that event when I requested them. He spoke about a number of the demands around the care and protection of children and his own role, but he makes reference in his speech notes as to why there are fewer children placed into kinship or foster care. In part, he answered that question he posed himself with this sentence:
I find those remarks very concerning. While I said that members of the opposition support the Children’s Commissioner Bill, we have to recognise that our child protection system is in complete crisis; this legislation does nothing to address the fact that with child abuse reports rocketing up, child abuse investigations are plummeting down. These are facts.
This legislation does nothing to help the organisations that help abused or neglected children retrieve the funding the CLP has taken away from them. This legislation does nothing to stop the rivers of grog that so often lead to child abuse and neglect, to prevent children, effectively, being subject to alcohol abuse before they are even born through foetal alcohol syndrome, to stop the CLP from cutting child protection funding, and this legislation does nothing to stop child abuse. We can give the commissioner all the powers in the world under the statutory authority he holds, but unless the government and the minister are prepared to address the crisis in the agency in child protection, this legislation will not count for a great deal.
There are organisations which are simply not able to support abused children as a result of the CLP’s decision to slash their funding, starting with the mini-budget last year. It is as though this minister, with the swipe of a pen, quickly slashes funding for organisations dealing with these abused children so he can get back to tinkering with legislation and the legal peculiarities.
Let us look at the crisis in child protection. Let us start with the shuffling of three ministers in 15 months and the Office of Children and Families, which, under the recommendation of the BoI, was a stand-alone agency, being placed into Education under the CLP government and then taken back out again. It was put in Education because the CLP decided to ignore the board of inquiry’s recommendation it should be a stand-alone department. They said that having Education and Child Protection in the same department would be complementary, according to the CLP; they then changed their mind and agreed it should be a stand-alone agency. They sacked the CEO, appointed a new one, sacked her, and then gave it to a former CLP member of this House, the member for Araluen.
I welcomed the appointment of the member for Araluen. I am sure she has inherited something of a mess, but I know her passion and her commitment to this. I cannot help but think, however, if under the former Labor government we had appointed a number of former Labor members, we would have been under the hammer from members opposite. The fifth floor is just about to give in under the weight of former CLP members and cronies who are now working up there.
Mr Conlan: I think Lynne just cracked a joke!
Ms WALKER: I know the members opposite find child protection a hilarious matter; good luck to them.
Let us look at what this dysfunction and chaos has caused. Child protection notifications are up by 25%. In the first year of the CLP government, the number of child abuse notifications increased dramatically from 7960 to 9967. That is an increase of 2007, or 25%, in just one year.
The CLP’s response has been to dramatically decrease the number of child abuse investigations that are finalised, down from 4257 to 3558. This is a decrease of 699 child abuse investigations, or 16%, in one year. Abuse and notifications are up 25%, but investigations are down 16%.
The CLP has gone from investigating 53% of child abuse cases to 35%. The numbers just do not stack up and indicate quite clearly that children are slipping through the cracks.
The County Liberal Party is culpable, both for the increase in notifications and the decrease in investigations. All the experts told the County Liberal Party that reopening the rivers of grog would lead to increased child abuse, but the CLP ignored them. Child protection staff have walked out on the CLP in droves; we know from estimates that 171 staff have left. Every report of child abuse or neglect deserves the full attention of the government, but there are simply not enough staff to properly investigate child abuse in the Northern Territory.
The CLP failures are not only hurting children; they are costing money. The department’s annual report shows, on page 21, the number of children in care dropped last year from 820 to 748, but the cost of caring for these children has ballooned from $70m to $85m. I see the minister nodding his head.
There are fewer children costing more money, because under the CLP, foster carers have walked away. They are now paying enormous sums to private providers to care for children. Why are foster carers walking away? There are fewer children in care, but the cost is blowing out. We have had 171 staff leave, child abuse notifications are up, investigations are down – fewer children in care, but it is costing us more and this bill, sadly, will do nothing to address any of this.
What does the CLP do? It raises the current provisions relating to the Children’s Commissioner and places them in stand-alone legislation. However, like the decision to put the department in with Education, it could well be changed back. In six months, we might even see a bill transferring everything back. I hope not. However, who knows with these members opposite.
What else does it do? In making the move to stand-alone legislation, it fails to transfer the principles set out in the current act; perhaps the minister can address this when he wraps up the debate. While all functions under the act are currently guided by principles relating to the importance of family and culture, particularly for Aboriginal children, these principles do not apply in this legislation. We have all heard the Chief Minister’s comments regarding forced adoption, and some people wonder if we are seeing the first moves in that direction. The amendments also confirm the CLP’s rejection of the board of inquiry findings and recommendations and remove references to the monitoring of the BoI. This function is replaced with a completely meaningless statement about promoting well-informed public discussion of child protection issues.
That must have been what the Chief Minister was doing with his well-informed comments about forced adoptions. I wonder if the member for Namatjira agrees with this. No doubt she will be making a contribution to this debate. Finally, I will comment on the new responsibility given to the Children’s Commissioner under this bill, and that is the responsibility to review the Care and Protection of Children Act every three years. That is good, but it is a substantial role. It is a very important function, and, given its significance, what additional resourcing has been provided to the Children’s Commissioner to conduct this three-yearly review? Are there resources that will be made available? Is it a requirement he or she will have to do it within existing resources, cobble it together from the information you get along the way? Seriously, minister!
We do not believe the CLP government is serious about improving the child protection system, far from it. We look to the Growing them strong, together report and the incredibly important recommendations that came from Chapter 6, titled ‘Enhancing the service system to support families in the Northern Territory’. We look for the recommendations, of which there are five, and recommendation 6.1 probably spells it out:
Unless the CLP government is serious about embracing these recommendations, about going to the heart of what is going on in families with children at risk – parents who struggle to fulfil their parenting responsibilities need that support. We need these preventative measures and there is no clear evidence that commitment exists from the CLP government.
I have talked previously about the lack of support for safety and the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency. These are critical issues. Unless the CLP can demonstrate it is committed to the independent report in two volumes, then I fear that making a real difference to children’s lives in the Northern Territory will not progress much beyond putting together legislation. It is important legislation, but it is not all about having the legislation in place. It is also about having those preventative measures in place, supporting and funding them so those children and families who are at risk have measures to support them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this bill and welcome this from the government. I also supported the Children’s Commissioner being given a separate role from the Ombudsman when he was given the duties before us today, with some expansion of those roles.
He previously came under the Care and Protection of Children Act. There was a lot of discussion in this House about that, and there was a certain element of politics in relation to the role of the then Ombudsman and whether some of her role was being eroded by the move of the then government to take some of her responsibilities and place them in the hands of the Children’s Commissioner.
You may have heard the member for Greatorex talk about some of the investigations that occurred at that time – reports – and one of those was a report from the Ombudsman; the Ombudsman claimed she could not finish that report. I might be wrong, but I think the Children’s Commissioner also produced a report at the same time. There were several things happening, and at that time it was getting a little confusing as to what was really happening and how much, unfortunately, political agendas were getting in the way of the clash of roles between the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner when that role was part of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
We have moved on from there. We now have a clear role for the Children’s Commissioner. As was said in the second reading speech, the government is now transferring the Children’s Commissioner to a stand-alone act, which creates an opportunity for construction of specific underlying principles more suited to the Children’s Commisioner’s role.
I was given a briefing by the department and the Children’s Commissioner and, once again, I think the Territory is very lucky to have such a person as our Children’s Commissioner. We have a man who is absolute in his convictions about caring for children and doing the best thing, not only for vulnerable children, but children in general. It is funny; we do not call him the vulnerable Children’s Commissioner, we call him the Children’s Commissioner and that is important. We understand – and in the years I have known him – he has carried this role diligently and thoroughly, but also with a passion I think is part of the man.
I will comment on a number of things from the briefing, from reading the act and the second reading. The member for Nhulunbuy raised an issue, which I raised with the Children’s Commissioner. Where does the line occur between a child who is not born and when it is born and if that child’s health has been affected by the actions of the mother or another person? I refer specifically to alcohol, because we know of foetal alcohol syndrome, and smoking, especially heavy smoking. We know the information is that people who smoke – I believe the size of a baby’s head can be smaller. What would happen if a child was injured due to a violent act by a partner or another person on a woman having a baby?
Is it only a vulnerable child once it is born? If so, if that child is born with some physiological damage caused by maltreatment, is it regarded as something the Children’s Commissioner can look at? I know that is a very big question, but the second reading speech states:
If something happens to a child before it is born which stops them from reaching their full potential, is the Children’s Commission entitled to look at it? It is a fairly big question, but over recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis placed on encouraging pregnant women not to drink or smoke. The information is already available. We know if you do these things, especially to excess, it could have some implications on the health of that child.
I raise that as an issue. The issue could be expanded if you were looking at some of the matters raised in New South Wales in regard to Zoe’s Law. At the moment, I am not raising that as part of this debate, because it raises a range of other issues. The issue I am raising is the responsibility of somebody in caring for an unborn child, and what responsibility is placed on that person if the child is born with something that stops them reaching their full potential. What would the role of the Children’s Commissioner be, because that is what I am relating this to?
I also note that part of the Children’s Commissioner’s role will be:
That is good, but I imagine this Children’s Commissioner will be more than that.
The member for Port Darwin said this is not just a rigid set of rules. We are dealing with human beings from particular circumstances, and it may be the Children’s Commissioner can use his role to promote the change we need in our society to reduce the chances of children being vulnerable.
I find it difficult sometimes when I listen to the debate over alcohol and locking people up or doing this and that; we are getting tougher on crime, but there is not a lot of debate about the causes or what we are doing to reduce it.
I told the Minister for Education, one of the problems with the cuts to education is, in some cases, we are taking people out of certain positions because of the reduction in staff, not necessarily teachers, but people who may have a job caring for vulnerable children at school. I have always believed we need to spend more time with early intervention and encouraging young people who do not have those parenting skills. If we can spend more money at the beginning, we have a better chance of them not coming out the other end in prison or in domestic violence situations. If we can reduce poverty in our society, encourage employment instead of welfare, have fewer people in overcrowded houses – which is not an easy issue even with all the money the federal government spends.
Some of the things we are talking about today go back to the situation of neglect at home – families that are affected by alcohol, drugs and overcrowding. They are not the only ones. Six or seven years ago, I visited a therapeutic prison in Ohio. If I had known the minister was going to America recently, I would have asked him to go to West Central therapeutic facility in Marysville, Ohio and look at the program they have. I was fortunate enough to sit with six men; each one of those men said the reason they were in prison was because they got into drugs and alcohol early – a mixture of the two at times – and were from broken families or their parents were not at home.
When we are dealing with child protection, for most there is a reason why children are in the situation. It would be good to have more debate on how we can turn that around and get that early intervention to stop this occurring.
I see the role of the Children’s Commissioner as being an advocate for governments – not just the Territory government but the federal government – to look at ways, programs and approaches which may work and support those approaches that do. I would hate to see the Children’s Commissioner as – I do not believe he will – someone who ticks the boxes and that is it. He has a much broader role.
I also note, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, and the minister said in his second reading speech, he will be able to review the act. He is definitely the person who could fulfil that task because of his experience and background. He can also conduct investigations on his own motions. That is good because he needs to have the flexibility to conduct investigations freely, whether it is of a complaint from someone or whether he believes he should look at a matter individually.
I also note what came out of the briefing with the Children’s Commissioner: he can look at things informally. That is an excellent part of the act. Instead of having formal deliberations which may cost money and have representations from various groups, he can set up informal discussions to try to solve some of the issues before him. That is a good idea.
He has the option of tabling a report to the Legislative Assembly if it is in the public interest. He may or may not waive that requirement – I hope I have that right – it will be up to him. There were issues in relation to the previous Ombudsman’s report which was tabled in parliament. There were some concerns about that report having too much information in it which would have enabled people who were close to the matters recorded in it to identify those people. One has to be very careful when dealing with those matters.
I sum up what the minister said in his second reading speech:
As I said, it is good the government has put this together in a way that deals with the legal side but also deals with the practical side. It also allows the commissioner to be more than just a person fulfilling a legal role that is set out in this act. He is a person who will promote the importance of looking after children, of stable families and some of the things that are needed if we are ever to get on top of this issue. It is complicated when you start to say, ‘What are the reasons for child neglect?’
I mentioned some things, but they will not be applicable to everybody. When I spoke to those men in Ohio, I realised if you have a broken family and have no support base at home, and you are offered drugs or alcohol by people at an early age, you can nearly guarantee you will be in prison. I know the minister is doing some great stuff with people in prison and I know he is dedicated to trying to turn things around, but it is this intervention that is really important.
Mr Elferink: I will tell you what I am thinking afterwards, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I think someone like Howard Bath is the right person to promote and encourage governments to look at schemes that will hopefully, in the long run, mean he will not do himself out of a job, but he may have less work to do than he has at present.
I thank the government for introducing this legislation, and I support it.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I again thank honourable members for their contributions; I want to place a couple of things on the record though. The shadow minister made a couple of assertions that are just wrong. I want to make sure she is aware of it so she does not accidentally repeat those assertions again. She said there were fewer foster carers. The number of foster carers, from June to October this year, grew 3% to 383. That is a 13% increase since June 2012. I will take it on face value that was an error on this occasion, but now the shadow minister has been informed, I am sure she will not repeat that error.
The second component is the comments about kids being held in out-of-home care, which made a reference to the budgetary expenditure in that space. I can inform honourable members that in June 2013 we had 179 and on 31 October it was 174. However, the overall number of kids in foster care was, in June 2012, 231 and to 31 October 2013 – the most recent set of numbers I can lay my hands on – it was 266. You will see increases across the board. There were certainly increases in purchased home care as well, but there were increases across the board. We do not have fewer kids in care; we have more kids in care. Since the last days of the Labor government, we have about 100 more.
I feel a bit conflicted about this, because more kids in care means more families are failing; that is the truth of it. I pick up on comments from the Children’s Commissioner where he is a bit at odds with many other players in the field. I went to the SNAICC conference not that long ago and I listened to what they had to say. Their idea of taking kids away was they were not for it at all; it was a last resort. Listen to what the Children’s Commissioner has to say. He says because we are walking around on cultural egg shells; we are not being assertive enough. Even the experts on the field are of divergent views. There is a lot of other stuff that also washes through in this space, so who do I trust if the experts cannot agree?
Mr Tollner: Yourself, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection; all I can do is trust the judgment I and the Cabinet have in this space. Taking more kids into care is both a triumph and tragedy, depending on which way you look at it. I do not blame anybody because this ghastly situation, as I said in the last debate we had, is a result of a complex collapse; however, the last thing we can afford to do is pump out misinformation in this space.
I pick up on the shadow minister’s comments in relation to the budget blowout when it comes to out-of-home care services. I can assure the shadow minister I have become very aware of that since taking over the role, and I am looking at it very closely indeed. Some announcements may well be made in the not so distant future in relation to that expenditure. It concerns me there was essentially a $13m overspend for that out-of-home care service. Watch this space in terms of how we respond.
I listened very carefully to the shadow minister, but I did miss part of it. I do not know whether she was supporting it or not. I suspect that she was not opposing …
Ms Walker: We said we fully supported it.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, you fully support it; all I can do is respond to your comments with: with friends like you, who really needs enemies? The tirade that followed your support demonstrates you either do not have the courage of your convictions in supporting this or you see this as an opportunity to grab a little traction and mileage so you can go on the attack. That is fine, you go on the attack. That is what you do and it is what politicians do. I am mindful of the other question I have and which I posed earlier: what do I do and who do I listen to?
I went to that SNAICC conference recently and the second last question posed to me was: will you support an ACA? My response to that was, ‘No, I will not. Not in the first instance, not until I can be convinced that such an organisation will have beneficial results for the children of the Northern Territory.’
The other recommendations from the board of inquiry that we have seen followed up led to the creation of SAF,T. We heard the concerns of the Minister for Health about the inability of SAF,T to come even close to what was expected of it.
It is not about the bureaucracy. The moment we start worrying about the bureaucracy, we have lost sight of the children. When I became the minister for this portfolio, I made it clear that my focus will remain strictly in that space.
As far as I am concerned, and so it is clear for the record and anybody to hear, I will apply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This means I will not enter into debates about Aboriginality, gender, race, religion or anything else like that until such time as I am satisfied that the first tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is protected. Issues of cultural significance and privacy take a back seat to safety, security, sustenance and a sustainable environment. That will remain my priority the whole way through this area.
The fact we have a Children’s Commissioner demonstrates that the former government thought it was necessary to create one to be seen to be doing something in an area it was struggling in; I believe it was struggling because it is a tough area. We will struggle in this area, as a government, because if we were to intervene at such a level as to be able to stop these kids being neglected and abused, we would be intervening to a level where we would be institutionalising thousands and thousands of kids. Is that the solution? Will that make for better outcomes for these kids? Historically, and I have said this publicly before, governments make bloody awful parents.
Ms Fyles: That’s Kon’s line.
Mr Vatskalis: My line.
Mr ELFERINK: Is it? Well, they do! In that case, the member for Casuarina and I are of one mind. Historically, governments make shocking parents. Is the solution any better than the problem?
I understand that the opposition has to get some traction against the government, and this will always be a soft area of assault. It is a mixed bag of mixed emotions, and the traction you can get is that we are talking about kids. One of the problems the shadow minister had was having a prepared speech. In relation to addressing the increase in the number of notifications, I drew her attention in the last speech to the graph on the recently tabled Children Commissioner’s report, which demonstrated police activity in this area had been the primary driver for increased reporting. It is on page 42 of the report, and if she had listened to what I said the last time, she would have been fully aware of the fact the increase in reporting was almost exclusively attributable to the police, particularly in the last two years. In the 2010-11 year, police made 1500 notifications, and by the year 2012-13, they were making 3500 notifications. That means and explains – because the police are acting with an abundance of caution – by the time you get to page 51, you will see notifications have gone up; however, investigations have come down slightly and substantiations have fallen substantially. The substantiation fall is something we should take heart from and celebrate as a community.
I welcome the support of honourable members and look forward to the Children’s Commissioner being a separate organ. He is, ultimately, in his function, a police officer, policing the police so to speak, but he is there with good intent and has demonstrated himself to be, in the body of Dr Howard Bath, a fellow of great integrity. I thank him for his service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Other than that, I also point out I have given notice today of the charter of rights, which will be another step in the amendment and refinement of the legislation which protects children. I finish with this observation: this is a mess; it has always been a mess, and it will continue to be a mess because that is the nature of the ghastly outcomes the children, not only in the Northern Territory but in other jurisdictions and throughout the world, have had to live with for centuries, if not millennia. It will not be fixed overnight, but we will endeavour in our limited capacity to do our best for kids into the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 November 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, members on this side do not support this bill. It is incredibly difficult for us to understand what the urgency is on this bill. We do not believe there are grounds for urgency, other than the political expediency of the CLP endeavouring to meet election commitments and keep certain members on their side happy.
This bill was introduced last Wednesday; even then we tried to delay debate and defer the bill on urgency to enable, as you would expect, adequate consultation to occur. The minister, as you would expect, offered briefings to those of us who sought them. As the shadow minister, I sent an e-mail to the minister’s office at 4.14 pm on Wednesday, 27 November, to which I never received a reply. I was not in Darwin on Friday; I was home on a matter of urgency. Urgency seems to be the order of the day for the government, whether it is trying to force through legislation associated with local government or close the fourth largest community in the Northern Territory. They are quite happy to be doing business on urgency.
I sought a briefing but I never received a response from the minister. that is disappointing and tells me they are not particularly interested. I did receive a briefing, thanks only to the member for Nelson with whom I had a few conversations over the weekend. As a result, I was able to sit in on a briefing, at which the member for Barkly joined me, on Monday afternoon in the member for Nelson’s office. To be honest with you, there was not a great deal the public servants could do to convince us this is good legislation. I acknowledge the efforts they put in as hard-working public servants, but the reality is the bill we are dealing with is more about politics than good policy.
It is a shame that only one week after this bill was introduced, I am on the floor of the House feeling ill-prepared when I have to discuss legislation that is my shadow responsibility. Like all members on this side who have shadow responsibilities, I take those responsibilities seriously, particularly when it comes to bills and legislation because it is important. However, the reality is, as the shadow, I simply have not had the opportunity to canvass stakeholder views as I would normally like to do. I have managed to make a few calls, send a few e-mails and have received a few responses, but it is woefully inadequate preparation before coming into this House. I do not believe the minister can clearly state or demonstrate wide stakeholder support on his side of the House to say this is good legislation.
I acknowledge the hard work the member for Nelson has done. He has graciously and generously shared with me some of the things he has turned up during his contact with stakeholders over the last week. Essentially, I am not able to talk as extensively on this bill as I would have liked to on the strength of feedback I have had from stakeholders, other than those I have spoken with. They agree with members on this side that this is rushed legislation. It is poorly thought through, it is not democratic and there are elements of this bill that give extraordinary powers to the minister.
We do not oppose progressive improvement and strengthening of local government across the Territory. In fact, that was the intent of Labor’s reforms around local government in 2008 when we were in government. These were considerable reforms that were implemented and reforms we knew would have to be reviewed, examined and watched closely to see how they were bedded down. That is what led us to address the issue of financial sustainability across the shires and their ability to deliver local government services across the bush.
We have an exhaustive report from Deloitte, an independent consultancy, that informed government of the current status of our shire reforms in terms of financial sustainability. There is much to be taken out of this report to inform future policy on how we go forward. I do not think the minister is the slightest bit interested in what the Deloitte report contains or what may inform future policy and decisions made about the future of local government. I am not just talking about shires, but about municipal councils as well.
In 2012, having commissioned that report and made it publicly available, we also announced our action as government to address the concerns about the role of local boards and how we could better connect local communities to their shires in terms of decision-making, work priorities and shire administration. We also announced, around that time, in July 2012, we would provide a review of shire boundaries, prior to the 2016 local government elections. We announced the formation of a task force then minister Malarndirri McCarthy had appointed to review the shires. I cannot exactly recall the terms of reference, but it was a broad review with key stakeholders, including certain expertise to look at, ‘Where to next?’ with local government and the next steps for shires.
We envisaged that a process around that review would include the consideration of community recommendations that led to the formation of those 2008 shire boundaries and, within that, internal ward arrangements. We would also hear the views of existing councils, elected councillors, affected communities and key stakeholders who were involved in our local government advisory board. We had done all of these things, to a point, and the current government has simply thrown them out the window.
We would ensure we had a very sound understanding of the costs and benefits of boundary changes, the opportunities and risks, especially to taxpayers who largely underwrite the operations of our shires while they progressively build their financial sustainability. In this body of work around financial sustainability, in relation to this bill on urgency, that element is missing entirely.
Effectively, what we have here is something of a top down intervention by this government, which seems to be entirely at odds with giving a voice to communities, given the consultation process earlier this year, the formation of the Regional Governance Working Group and the review of regional governance. The Regional Governance Working Group has not been engaged in this process. It has not met since June, so what we see here is what you get when you have three Local Government ministers with different ideas about how they want to do things. As we know, the current Local Government minister is very happy to plough through things on urgency, without consultation, to meet what are essentially election, and very political, commitments.
We have a bill before us that provides for unilateral action by the minister to take control of councils, rid himself of elected councillors, take control of assets, including cash assets, and unilaterally establish new council boundaries in town or the bush over most of the remaining period of this government. That prospect is frightening.
There is potentially a huge body of work involved in disassembling the shires. Who will do that work? How will the shires be assisted to disassemble assets, share liabilities, review funding agreements with the Commonwealth and other funding bodies, as well as allocate grant funds for roads and other assets?
None of these questions have been answered, and I do not believe the shires have been consulted on any of them, which is interesting. The shires have not been consulted in this process, which is such an insult to the third tier of government in the Northern Territory – the failure to recognise the progress our shires have made since 2008 and failure to give credit to elected councillors – I know from the observations I have made in my electorate, the many discussions I have had around the Territory with CEOs, mayors, presidents and councillors, where they are available, about the growth in confidence and governance and making a real difference in their communities in delivering municipal services on the ground.
In parliamentary debate last week, the Attorney-General noted that the Henderson Labor government introduced local government transition legislation, including the use of restructuring orders in 2007, which was debated on urgency. However, let us be very clear about the differences between then and now when we are talking about bills on urgency. In 2007, the entire Northern Territory knew that government was embarking on major reform to build a strong system of local government in the bush to improve service delivery and redress the dysfunction – that dysfunction was very real – found in too many of the small community government councils at the time.
That was announced at the LGANT annual conference in 2006. In early 2007, the then Labor government established an overarching and independent local government advisory board to guide and advise government on procedural issues, including transitional arrangements and the use of restructuring orders as part of the transition arrangements. The overarching board included LGANT, the Local Government Managers association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Cattlemen’s Association, the Australian Services Union, the Minerals Council, the land council and the Australian government.
The then Labor government also established a number of transitional committees to advise the board and government on boundary issues, the determination of communities of interest and representation arrangements for elections for the new shire councils. The restructuring arrangements embodied in that legislation were envisaged as tools for the orderly development of the new shire councils. The then Labor government – when I say ‘we’, it was just before my entry into this House – were amalgamating small councils – many of them struggling - into new shires and joining and strengthening resources, rather than pulling apart and separating council resources and assets as is proposed now.
The 2007-08 process was supported by LGANT in the lead up to a new Local Government Act and the first elections for the new shire councils. Restructuring orders were not envisaged as a tool to remove elected members from office. The primary purpose of these orders was to ensure the orderly development of the new local government bodies and, in particular, the orderly transfer of assets.
Asset stripping from the former councils was a key risk identified by the local government sector, so arrangements were put in place to ensure the orderly management of the transfer of assets, many publicly-funded. This was a time when the control of assets, including cash, was a key issue. During that transition period, the discovery was made as shires inherited community government council legacies of decades. I am not saying it was all community government councils, but in too many of them the assets could not be located, or assets were located, such as plant equipment and motor vehicles, but were not functioning.
At that time, we were working in a situation where just a year before the Department of Local Government had assessed that of 56 councils – 30 community government councils, 23 association councils and the three ORIC councils – 50% of them were either high risk or dysfunctional. This is why we went down the path of local government reform during that period. We all know it was not an easy journey, but five years down the road we have maturing shires that have largely dealt with the legacy issues they inherited from the many former community government councils: poor asset controls, rundown assets and very poor financial management and records.
Our transition arrangements were brought in on urgency to enable the July 2008 establishment of the new shires to take effect off the back of local government elections. We were paving the way, with the support of LGANT, for the election of new shires – a smooth transition, not the unilateral sacking of councils. It is important to highlight it was quite different to this occasion. The then opposition was offered a full briefing on the bill two weeks before it was brought to the Assembly, not one week and then you do not receive a response from the minister when you request a briefing.
It is clear many people in the local government sector, including elected members, have little knowledge of the intent of this bill and its potential consequences. Indeed, shire councillors and the local government sector only became aware of the change in direction and proposed intervention when the minister mentioned it at the LGANT conference in Alice Springs a few weeks ago. However, that was really only for people who were there or who relayed the message.
The President of the East Arnhem Shire Council, who I have spoken with in the last couple of days, advised me the council met last Thursday, a day after the bill was introduced on urgency. Officers from the Department of Local Government and Regions addressed councillors and staff about changes to boundaries and how that process might work. No one is objecting to a review of boundaries, not at all, but at no point during that briefing were they advised a bill on urgency had come before the House. It is a very different thing to offering an information session. I wonder, knowing the hard-working public servants based in my electorate, if those officers knew a bill had been introduced on urgency. Most definitely, there was no talk of that when the East Arnhem Shire Council met last Thursday.
The council has since written to the Chief Minister and has given me a copy of that letter. I will read it; it is brief. It is from Banambi Wunungmurra, president of East Arnhem Shire:
I doubt the Chief Minister or the Local Government minister have seen that letter; it only came through yesterday. This is what happens when you have things pushed through on urgency without proper consultation. To not consult with the third tier of government, the shires, even the municipals, is disgraceful.
This sector had been working, until the announcement came through at LGANT that local government reform was progressing along the lines outlined by the second CLP Local Government minister since the change of government, the member for Namatjira. She had a different way of looking at and managing these reforms. In a media release on 12 August 2013, reporting the results of a 25-member regional governance working group and government response, she said:
That was the way the former Local Government minister did business. She is no longer in Cabinet. We have a new Local Government minister who, clearly with the full blessing of the Chief Minister and colleagues in Cabinet, is happy to throw the commitment to go to stage two out of the window, which was to have commenced in January. They have hit the fast forward button, ignored all warning signs, not bothered with any consultation, and here we are with a bill on urgency that will pass all stages today.
The member for Namatjira had to propose the time line presenting stage two of the reforms, including financial sustainability and viability, to Cabinet by January of 2014, with any further changes following that process. The government’s overview of its review of regional governance said in one line that it would ‘continue to look at possible boundary adjustments’.
The final consultation report records there was a common preference for smaller councils. It goes on to say:
Also:
It goes on to say:
That was in June of this year. The review panel got it and the member for Namatjira got it while she was the Minister for Local Government. But sensible, fully-costed and orderly change is not what is likely here with the extraordinary powers being given to the current minister to enable him to follow his own agenda, in partnership with the member for Daly who seeks the first boundary changes associated with his electorate. There is nothing wrong with boundary changes, but in the face of such limited consultation and planning, the warning bells are going off for us.
The local government sector had every reason to believe, with the member for Namatjira as the Local Government minister, it could have anticipated – indeed expected – an orderly development process. However, here we are today with a bill on urgency which gives the new minister extraordinary powers and no process to appeal decisions he or she makes.
The debate on urgency is all about convenience for the minister for Local Government and, quite frankly, is an abuse of parliamentary process. It is clear that passage of the bill on urgency has one intent. It clears the way for the minister and the Chief Minister to rush through the establishment of a new local government authority in the Wadeye region. Chief Minister Giles has said, ‘We are very keen to get that going by 1 January 2014’.
We understand the people of Wadeye and surrounding communities, and perhaps in other parts of the Territory – we know Maningrida and Groote Eylandt have been mooted about their aspirations for their own local government bodies. Where does the removal, in this first instance around Wadeye, of this part of the population from the existing Victoria Daly Shire leave other small communities like Timber Creek and Yarralin, which depend on a strong and viable local government body to deliver services to them?
What will be the downstream effects of this decision for those smaller communities in the northern part of the electorate of Stuart? Where will it leave the community of Nauiyu? I do not think it will not be part of this new regional council. What confidence can the people of Wadeye and Peppimenarti have that they will be supported by a financially sustainable new council and not simply handed a financial lemon?
I wonder if the member for Stuart has consulted with her constituents, who will be outside of this new boundary change, about what it will mean for them? I have no doubt that since entering Cabinet much of her time has been sucked up in Darwin. Perhaps she has not had the opportunity to travel to her communities to talk face-to-face with people. That is the only way you can find out what these boundary changes mean for the remainder of the Victoria Daly Shire, not to mention people who are employed through the Victoria Daly Shire. What about the financial sustainability of other councils, which may well find their own financial support declining in order to support a new council?
We have heard the minister flag a new regional council at Groote Eylandt, but to the best of my understanding that is not what they wanted or were aspiring to, but rather a regional authority. How will that process work should that progress? The last thing we want to see is Groote Eylandters with a lemon dropped into their lap. I thank the minister for approaching me prior to the commencement of this second reading debate to offer me a seat on any one of these transition committees. I have told him if the opportunity arises in the East Arnhem shire, should Groote Eylandt choose to progress its aspiration for a regional authority, I would welcome the opportunity to be part of that transition committee and to observe how those processes unfold.
What will happen to the cash reserves of councils that come under the gaze of the minister? How will he determine the share of cash reserves built up by hard-working shire staff and councillors that he may want to appropriate to a new council? What about the impact on shire business plans, built on cash flow and business projections that may no longer be relevant? Will the affected shires be compensated for the work done in good faith and in line with the expected directions of the government? How will they be supported in adjusting to the new ministerial world order? What guarantee do we have there will not be another Cabinet reshuffle – some may welcome that – with another Local Government minister who might have another view of doing business?
Where is the independent review and scrutiny of the minister’s reform proposals? The minister said last week that a transition committee would be established for the Wadeye region and the department’s planning included consideration of applying the same de-amalgamation methodology that was adopted in Queensland. That included publication of Treasury analysis of the cost of de-amalgamation. Can the minister commit today to that simple step as part of his plans? Territorians and taxpayers have a right to know what this will cost them. We ask the minister to table the Treasury analysis: the financial modelling that demonstrates the establishment of the new regional council at Wadeye is sustainable, viable and will not in any way impact negatively upon the remaining communities of the Victoria Daly Shire that fall outside of these boundary changes.
We have had three ministers for Local Government in just over 15 months, all with their own view of how reform will proceed. Who might be in the chair next year, next sittings? Where is the capacity for appeal and review of ministerial decisions, especially on the acquisition of assets? Quite clearly, this legislation is poorly thought out; it is an off-the-shelf solution and is not a well-thought-out or tailored plan for local government development, which is a very important third tier of government in the Territory. It does not support in any way, particularly being introduced on urgency, a sound, open or considered review process. Far from it; it is a licence to dismantle councils and erect new ones at the whim of the minister. I find that frightening.
We oppose the bill and call on the government to talk to LGANT, shires and councils, their employees, their democratically elected members and come up with a new process that is open and accountable: a process that will lead to informed decisions, especially on future cost and viability, and one that continues to build a strong and financially sound system of local government in the bush.
I reiterate that we oppose this bill. I know the member for Nelson is introducing some amendments. I will be interested to hear what reception those amendments get from the minister; I doubt they will be accepted. From an opposition perspective, while I appreciate the efforts of the member for Nelson, it becomes a moot point for the opposition, amendments or otherwise, because we cannot support this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank other members who have spoken on this, but I seem to recall they got thumped on the urgency debate last week, so I am not sure why that keeps coming up. Anyway, I will pick up on a couple of points.
Firstly, we were talking about what the minister will do with the cash reserves, equipment, etcetera that might be held by councils he is splitting up. I have a couple of examples of what happened under the previous restructuring. Palumpa had its own store; many of the locals would spend a lot of time doing paintings and so forth and selling them so they could build their own store. The council took it off them, plus all the profit. They finally got that back in February this year, and I have been told they made a profit for the first time since they got it back. However, Victoria Daly Shire pocketed a lot of the profits from that shop for the last four years, so do not talk to us about cash reserves and so forth.
With equipment, Nauiyu community had its own civil works area. That equipment has disappeared. It is gone under the new shires that the opposition introduced. So for them to say we are not answering these questions is rubbish.
In the last couple of days, some ALP operatives have been ringing many of the CEOs, trying to cause trouble with these sorts of things and spreading their usual lies. I am glad to see many of the CEOs see through that rubbish.
Going back to the minister’s speech, I reiterate why we are doing this. He said:
Consultation was conducted on that basis. It was called an election; an election that you also got thumped at, on local government. That was good consultation, as far as I can tell.
Another point made by the minister is how we will make these changes:
That is what this legislation is all about: to introduce these restructuring orders. When they talk about giving powers to the minister, I remind them that in 2008 the current opposition had the same powers. There were 660 councillors and 500 were removed by the previous government. These sorts of things seem to be forgotten.
We have, in this act, the ability to create transitional advisory committees which will look after the apportioning of the assets, liabilities, etcetera. These are points from the minister’s second reading speech.
I received an e-mail today, which is a copy of a letter written by Tony Tapsell, the CEO of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory; I will read a couple of things from it. These points are in regard to an e-mail from the member for Nelson about the restructuring of local government which was sent to many of the CEOs. The e-mail from Tony Tapsell says:
It seems the Labor Party was trying to do that too.
I am just reading what I have here. The other statement says:
That is interesting! LGANT does not seem to have too much of a problem.
The provisions of the bill were discussed with the Local Government Association in Queensland. The officers advised me the provisions are very similar to the powers the minister has in that state. At the end, it says:
As far as I can see, there is nothing here that creates any problems, but I am quite happy to table those documents. If I do not, I am sure the minister will in his response.
The point I am making is there has been plenty of consultation ..
Ms Walker: No, there has not.
Mr HIGGINS: There may not be in your electorate, but I get out in mine and consult with the people. An election is a pretty good consultation. I see many similarities in this between local government and the federal carbon tax. The previous federal government lost the election; that, as far as I can see, was a statement by the people to say they do not want a carbon tax, but the Labor Party wanted to fight it all the way. It seems to be the same with local government; they had an election, they were thumped, why do they not support this bill? Why do they not recognise the people of the Territory have spoken? They want their voice back; give it to them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be speaking on the carbon tax, but I might emit a bit. I had baked beans at the caf under the West Lane car park this morning, so you never know.
Member for Daly, as much as I like your speeches, we are talking about this bill. This bill did not go to any council until it was brought into parliament last Wednesday. There might have been discussions in general, and I know the feedback from councils at the last LGANT meeting was pretty dismal, but this is the crux of the matter, this piece of paper, and is what this debate is about.
Thank you for the copy of the letter from Tony Tapsell. Unfortunately, he did not bother to send it to me, but I did not write ‘LGANT would want to make a fuss’. I wrote that LGANT should do something about it; if that is a fuss, fair enough. As for ‘fairly emotive’, sometimes you have to drive an issue you consider important with a bit of emotion, otherwise it is boring as hens’ teeth.
This issue requires some passion and, unfortunately, you can see by the state of the House, Madam Speaker, this government could not care two hoots about local government. I look around and stare at the faces – I cannot see the faces – and what I see reflects what they think about the importance of local government and this bill. That is a shame, because for too long, local government has been put down by governments above it. It is time our government showed some support and concern about governance.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry for interrupting, member for Nelson, but he raises a good point. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, it is a difficult debate to progress. I was looking at the minister when the member for Nhulunbuy was speaking and I believe he finds it boring because he has made his mind up and anything I say today is a waste of time. We could probably be outside enjoying life. Unfortunately, the reality is this is a House of debate. You presented legislation which some think is seriously faulty. That does not mean we do not agree there should be some legislation in place for restructuring councils. However, we have great concerns about the manner in which this has been introduced and the lack of consultation with those people who are directly affected. With those two points; the government should stop and rethink where it is going. If the minister thinks an e-mail from Tony Tapsell, which says, ‘That gives me great comfort’ – this is the media release that came out today from the Local Government Association:
Clear as crystal. You have not consulted with the main body of government that will be affected by these changes.
This bill is being rushed through to achieve a political goal, not a local government role. It is not really about a government that is a true believer in local government, of people they represent or democracy. This bill has confused local government people because they have not had sufficient time to properly debate or look at other options regarding this bill. You just had to hear this LGANT media release that came from Damien Ryan at lunchtime today.
Why is such important legislation being rammed through parliament without proper scrutiny? The minister is deliberately avoiding scrutiny of this bill. Scrutiny means it goes to all those who are affected, you wait until they give you some feedback and then, hopefully, if the legislation needs to be adjusted you take that on board. I thought that was the role of the minister for Local Government. He has a role, a duty, to talk to members of local government in the Northern Territory, not give them one week to comment. Much of that work has been done by people who are not part of government.
I had to send e-mails out about the bills; I asked for comment. I sent out some other e-mails about what is happening and mentioned possible amendments to improve the bill. Has the government done any of that? No, they just expect this to go through.
After searching through the second reading speech, there seem to be three key points the minister is trying to make. Firstly, he said the government met with more than 100 Indigenous Territorians who told the meeting of the Chief Minister, me, the local member, Gary Higgins and others that they want their own council, and that is what government is giving them. He later said:
If I am right, that happened three weeks ago. The minister has listened to the people – all 100 of them – and by that unanimous decision, we have decided to give them a new council. The population of the Victoria Daly is about 8000. You call that unanimous? I would have expected a long-term approach to this, not three weeks, not 100 people. You could have looked at a plebiscite asking people in the area if they agree. As I said, a plebiscite or a referendum is no good unless you inform people of the issues.
On top of that, you have no idea if the breaking up of the Victoria Daly Shire will be viable, so we have decided to go ahead with this council, regardless of whether it is viable. Will you go ahead with this council if it is not viable? If someone asks about it – if you find out after you eventually fulfil the promise the previous minister for Local Government made that there would be a review of the viability of all local government councils and we would then look at boundaries. If you are not going to agree with that promise or break that promise, can you tell me what will happen if and when you take that section of the Victoria Daly Shire out of the Victoria Daly Shire and you find it is not viable or you have to pour millions of dollars into it? Will you say no, or is it just blind Freddy going down the path of, ‘Well, we made a promise and no matter what it will cost we will stick with our promises’? That is dumb.
I did not realise getting a new council was so easy. You just say to the minister, ‘Look, I have 50 people here, we need a new council and at the next election, we will support you’. You say, ‘Great idea’. That is silly, and when you come back and say, ‘We made a promise to give people a better voice in their local government’, why have you not let the local authorities, just approved by this parliament, have a chance to be established first? See how that goes in giving people a better voice. I would have thought you would say, ‘Let’s allow 12 months of operating under that system and see how it goes’.
The key here was not changing boundaries, not so much viability – because we know local government is on its bare bones, you only have to read the Deloitte inquiry – it was giving people a better voice. I have spoken before and said places like Nauiyu, Barunga and Beswick have been screaming out for ages that they have not had enough of a voice in these big, new local governments, and you have introduced local authorities. I do not know whether they are even set up, so why are you going down this extra path, before you find out whether they are working or not? You have said they will operate in the Victoria Daly Shire; you are now going to chop a bit out of the Victoria Daly Shire. Do some of those local authorities no longer exist? Have they become a waste of time because you have a smaller council? I do not know. This is a mess.
The second issue in what we are discussing today – I am taking this from your second reading speech – is this new amendment an amendment to the Local Government Act? There is good reason to change the act if restructuring is to occur; that is natural. It seems no one saw this bill until last Wednesday, including local government. No one was able to make meaningful comment as they did not have time to digest it. Could you say, for instance, if councils were given enough time to take it to their meetings so all members could have a say?
Most councils would prefer to take important legislation like this to a meeting which includes members of the public. Most councils have a meeting on a set day, maybe the second, third or fourth Thursday of the month. Did you give councils enough time to take this legislation, which is legislation that affects them, to one of their meetings?
I know the answer, but I have to ask you. You have avoided proper process, which is not about slowing things down, it is about making sure those who live in and work within local government have a chance to express an educated opinion before this law is passed. I refer back to LGANT’s media release. What is annoying – you will hammer the idea this is a big hurry – is you will not concede that if you do things too quickly, you are liable to make a mistake because you have not consulted.
Minister, you know one of my main concerns – this was raised at the briefing – is section 10C (1), (d) and (f). I will read from the bill to make it clear. This is under the restructuring order:
If you read further, it says:
And it goes on.
Looking at the local government de-amalgamation implementation regulations brought out this year which are now current and in process where full councils in Queensland are being de-amalgamated, there is no mention of sacking mayors and councillors, so why do we need it in the NT?
Our bill is weak. Compare it with the Queensland regulations. The Queensland bill simply introduces regulations to the Local Government Act which allow for de-amalgamation of full councils that are specified. That is the purpose of the bill.
Ours has a clause which says ‘restructuring orders’. The world ‘restructuring’ has not been defined, but in the dictionary it says, ‘to give a new structure to, rebuild, or rearrange’, whereas ‘de-amalgamation’ simply means reversal of a previous amalgamation.
The question is, why did we not call this ‘de-amalgamation’? It is clear, precise and exact about what you are doing. Restructuring can mean anything; it can mean you can restructure Palmerston and Darwin councils. You might say, ‘It has nothing to do with that’.
The bill does not say you cannot use those powers. This bill is not exclusive to local government shires being restructured; these are broad powers. You said, ‘We are not going to use them for that; I am not a quasi-dictator’, so why are they in here? Why do you need them? As they are written, they could be applied to anything you decide needs restructuring. If you want Douglas Daly or Coomalie to join Litchfield, whether it is a good idea or not, you could sack all councillors, restructure it and join them all together. You do not need to do that, but this power enables you to.
This bill is open ended in which councils the minister can apply a restructuring order to and what type of restructuring he can enforce, including the sacking of mayors and councillors. This gives the minister power far beyond what is needed to deal with any proposed de-amalgamations in the Territory.
To quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
Not shires, ‘local government as appropriate’. That is a very broad statement. ‘Appropriate’ could mean anything – just what you feel like, just like the heading, ‘desirable’. That is a very broad brush to be applying.
The minister said during the urgency debate:
The minister already has power under section 224 to sack councillors, but only if something is amiss: there is a reason for the sacking and due process which follows. Under section 224, we know why you do it and there is a reason for it. With this bill, we have a law under which the minister can sack councillors for not doing anything wrong. The minister just has to say it was desirable and necessary for restructuring. We do not have any idea what restructuring or restructuring orders mean.
Where is the principle of natural justice? The minister can sack a duly elected local government person. Surely natural justice or procedural fairness must apply, but this bill is silent on that. If a councillor has been accused of doing something wrong, at least they can state their case under section 224 as to why they should not be sacked. In this case, they have not done anything wrong, but the minister can sack them and they have no right to appeal or object. That is unfair and undemocratic.
It has also been said that this bill will help councils having to pay for the cost of by-elections because of resignations. With this bill, they can just get the minister to appoint a replacement. That is an electoral matter and should be dealt with in an amendment to the definition of general election in the Local Government Act. I would be happy to put forward some options – one of those is in this amendment – and appointment by a minister is not one of them. For instance, if Victoria Daly Shire is finding it too expensive for two by-elections, change the act to allow councils to carry out their own elections. That could be amended. At present, all elections are run by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and I understand it is a very expensive process. Why can the council not run elections themselves, or use the system of recount that happens in Tasmania? I quote from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website:
They use proportional representation, something I raised about 10 years ago with LGANT to promote and we now have it in the Northern Territory. We use the same process. Tasmania has the method of replacing people where there is a casual vacancy.
I am putting forward an amendment to the bill today which would allow that to happen without the minister appointing people. That is not your role. These councils have been elected democratically by the people and it is not your role to step in. While you have a role to play in ensuring the Local Government Act is operating correctly, we do not need Big Brother to step in where it is someone else’s responsibility.
I gather the other reason – this is not clear from reading your second reading speech – you want to bring these powers in is because the Victoria Daly Shire sees a possible general election. If you use the Queensland de-amalgamation regulations, you will find they have a document regarding the methodology required. I will see if I have the right name; it is called the De-amalgamation Transfer Methodology. These are the guidelines for councils in Queensland to operate so all know the timetable. For instance, between October and December this year, there will be elections held for new councils at a date to be determined by the minister. There will be a changeover day, and on 1 January 2014 the term of mayor and councillors for each new council commences. They have an election for both councils.
My understanding of the reason you have these clauses is because Victoria Daly does not want a full election. Victoria Daly did not ask to be split; some people from another group in another council are saying it wants to split. That new council should pay for Victoria Daly’s election or, if the government is putting money into this new council, it should set some aside for specific elections. If you have two elections on the same date, you will get a new council for the old part of Victoria Daly Shire and will have, at the same time, a council for the new portion of the Victoria Daly Shire. You do not need to sack anyone because all councillors automatically retire at the time of the new election. That is how it is done in Queensland, and how it would be done normally.
You might say the previous government did a similar thing. I did not agree with the previous government’s approach of appointing CEOs and not having elected members for the first six months or so, and I do not agree it is necessary. I would love an explanation of why you cannot live without those two clauses.
Some people in LGANT believe the government will only use the bill in relation to proposed de-amalgamation of some councils, but there is nothing in this amendment to say that. There are hints in the second reading speech, but nobody has a definition of restructuring orders or restructuring. It is not in the act and not in the amendment.
A number of council mayors definitely do not support what you are doing. Call the mayor of Katherine; pop outside, call her and ask what she thinks. I will not say what she thought; I might get pulled up by the Speaker again. She thinks it is rubbish. The West Arnhem Shire mayor came into my office and he was absolutely fuming. There was no consultation, he did not agree with it and thought government did not care; that is the feeling you get from government. I rang Allan McKay from Litchfield Council and he did not agree. The member for Nhulunbuy has mentioned East Arnhem Shire as well. These are four big councils that do not agree …
Ms Walker: I forgot to mention MacDonnell Shire; they do not agree.
Mr WOOD: MacDonnell wants to stay a shire, not a region.
There is one other group of people we keep forgetting and that is the people who expect to be able to elect their local representative as a basic political right. Minister, you might say this is not what you are talking about, but this amendment could be used any way any minister wants, and that is what concerns me. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia is a signatory to, says, under Article 25:
One of the privileges bestowed on new citizens when they attend a citizenship ceremony is the right to vote and elect Australia’s governments, which include ours. In the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, section 6 which gives us legislative power says:
Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia stated, when deciding whether a law was validly made:
There is no doubt taking away the rights of people to vote for their representatives in local government and sacking councillors and mayors without good reason does not reflect good government. I would support most of this bill if these two clauses were removed. The Queensland regulations are able to provide certainty in the de-amalgamation process without sacking anybody, so it should be taken out of the legislation.
The minister will tell me this can only be used when restructuring, but does not define restructuring. The intention might be to use it only in certain circumstances, but the clauses in the bill could be used anywhere, anytime, as long as the circumstances come under the term ‘restructuring’. The changes can be made without having these undemocratic clauses, if only the minister wished to do it.
What is happening today is what I call the third part of this government’s approach to this bill, rushing it through parliament which avoids normal scrutiny. The minister, in his second reading speech, made these statements:
…
I have never asked for that. I thought we would come back by February for the next sittings when I asked for some time to have a look at it. The minister went on to say:
He also said:
Hang on! You just passed the local authorities bill; you have already done something. The minister then went on to say:
This bill is flawed and anyone who supports this bill, with the two clauses in it, is against the democratic principles that make us a free nation. Being an Australian gives us the right to freely elect someone from our community to represent us, whether federal, Territory or local government …
Mr Tollner: Think about that statement.
Mr WOOD: I will, because you changed the clauses. Our local government may be regarded by some as minor and insignificant, as I believe the minister thinks, and there will be those who say it is only local government, so what does it matter whether the minister has the right to sack the elected representatives? If he is doing it for a good reason, who cares? It is the end that justifies the means. We, as the members of this parliament, have a duty to protect the democratic rights of our citizens, whether they live at Lajamanu, Larrimah or Larrakeyah, to use a Tim Fischer expression.
From the footy club to the federal government, we pride ourselves on having the right to vote someone in or out. To some, this may be a small and insignificant piece of legislation, with even smaller or more insignificant clauses within it, but that does not matter. It eats away at our freedom. As Martin Luther King once said:
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Barkly. In summing up, I understand the minister will say, ‘No, this is not what it is about’, but he has never given an explanation as to why those two clauses need to be in the bill, why he cannot operate by amending parts of the Local Government Act. As I am putting forward, there is a way for him to overcome the issues the Victoria Daly Shire have put to him. We should not be making legislation based on the concerns of just one shire. This legislation applies to all local government shires, all municipalities – I am not sure if there are any community government councils anymore – as well as the unincorporated areas.
The minister has total power to sack anyone under the banner of restructuring, if he thinks it is desirable or necessary, and there is no appeal; he can just do it. The minister should give local government time to look at this bill. He may laugh at that and say, ‘Well, I do not care what you say, it is irrelevant and I am passing it’. That reflects arrogance towards the processes. It is about putting political goals ahead of the people. It is showing a lack of due diligence that governments will decide to make new councils without the promise the member for Namatjira made when she was minister. This promise was there would be a second review, which would look at the viability of all councils, and after that review they would look at the boundaries.
I thought that was a sensible suggestion. The government had already introduced local authorities and we have not even had a chance to have them set up. I do not think they are set up. Why do we not give them a 12 month set up time before we make any decisions? That could be done before we go down the path of making new councils. Why do we not wait for the report of the response to that review?
I have never said I am against boundary changes. I have never said I am against having other councils. In fact, I am the one who said the councils are too big and that is why they have lost their community focus. I would be a fool to say I support a council breaking away from another council if those councils were found to be unviable. In the end, the money that will prop up an unviable council comes from the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. If government makes a decision based purely on a political promise and disregard whether a council will be viable or not, it is a dereliction of its duty to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. Surely we can be cleverer than that. The previous minister for Local Government set up a good process which would at least achieve an orderly approach to this issue.
I am extremely disappointed that the minister for Local Government, from what I have heard, does not appear to want to accept these amendments. I hope a bolt of lightning hits him, like on the road to Damascus, and he says, ‘I can still achieve all the things I want to without introducing something which is totally undemocratic and unnecessary’.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present
Mr WOOD: As someone who I hope supports the correct processes, I ask the minister to withhold this legislation until the February sittings. I ask you, as someone who is passionate about the importance of local government and does not want to see legislation go through that is faulty and could come back to bite local government, to listen to what the Local Government Association has said today. I will repeat it:
That says it all. They are asking for consultation on this bill, as am I. If you get the consultation, you get the support of local government. If you ram this through today, do not expect local government to give you the support you need. It would be better if we all went together supporting what you are trying to do. This process is the wrong way to go about achieving positive changes in local government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the passage of this legislation. I am a very privileged Territorian to have lived in the bush for more than half my life. The people of the bush have certainly provided me, my family and my children with an education we could not get anywhere else. I chose to avoid bureaucracy. I chose to live on cattle stations and outstations. I eventually drifted back to town, and when I arrived back into the more organised bureaucracy of communities, I took a real interest in the community government council. It was quite celebrated across the bush in those days that, when it came to money, the community government council was strapped for cash. They were running out of money, and what were we going to do? We will ask the government for more money. I found that to be a very interesting approach. What I see today is the minister taking a major retrograde step heading back into that same ideology. That is the risk because of flawed legislation and a flawed process.
In this House of debate, I always look for the alternative position to put forward. Without a doubt, the member for Nelson would be the most experienced person in this House in relation to local government. The member for Nelson is a well-researched local member and has put a very clear alternative to government. It is a pragmatic suggestion that could save a world of pain. Let us face it, when the community government councils had to be reformed it was a painful and ongoing exercise.
The previous Labor government had more stages in that reform, but the member for Daly takes great delight in reminding us the previous Labor government was thumped in the bush over this issue. It is ironic that the member for Daly uses that story because it goes back to how that election was won and what I have defined in this House as the CLP’s toxic election strategy in relation to shires. It was the expectation strategy formed in the bush, the expectation the shires were to be scrapped, the old community government councils were coming back and the low loaders would come over the horizon carrying the graders, tippers, Toyotas and civil construction gear of that era back into each of these small jurisdictions. There are people in the Barkly electorate still waiting for that. That is how effective that toxic shire strategy was.
We saw an element of rationalism enter the debate and a series of new CLP Local Government ministers trying to manage this. The member for Daly spoke about Nauiyu and all the civil construction gear that disappeared. It did not disappear; it was part of this challenging and painful major reform that represented the change on the national scene and the Territory scene in the third tier of government at the local government level.
When I looked at this, I looked for a clear alternative. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, the spokesperson for Local Government from the opposition, who also guided me through the legislation. I then took an interest in what the member for Nelson put forward, a pragmatic opportunity to do this in not only a democratic sense but a rational and commonsense approach to ensure we do not put any expectation in people’s minds that will impact not only on the operation of the new model, but on the operation of all shires that surround it. Let us face it, this is a big place and the people I represent in the Barkly are most interested in where this sits.
The first question is, why Victoria Daly? Why one shire? The answer would be, ‘We have to start somewhere’. However, it is ironic the member for Daly, the great defender of this amendment, will be first. I believe Groote Eylandt and Maningrida will be next. What about MacDonnell and Daly? There is a synergy in possible boundaries there. Victoria Daly and MacDonnell, MacDonnell and Barkly; we will then talk about Roper Gulf and Barkly, East Arnhem and West Arnhem. As the member for Nelson pointed out, taking Maningrida from any shire is a major logistical component that will have a residual effect on the operations, sustainability and financial viability of those around it.
I decided to put it to the Nick Calacouras test. Nick Calacouras was a former NT News journo. He taught me as a minister, and I coined the phrase ‘the Nick Calachorus test’. What is it, why is it different from the previous, and how much does it cost?
The minister’s answer was, ‘Just trust me, it will be all okay’. I get a bit nervous in this House because I am starting to sense there are many CLP members in government who are not taking an interest in what the leadership team is doing. I find it to be an environment that is rather frightening, regarding the leadership team of the CLP having private meetings with an ideology of, ‘Do not worry about that, this other mob are not really interested. They are not really going to kick up a fuss. We will just jam it through.’ That concerns me because we have many members from the bush here. When we start to see these boundary changes and new powers of hire and fire we will receive a considerable backlash from other areas of the Territory. This minister may be setting himself up to fail.
What is it, minister? It is a boundary change. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, we do not have a problem with boundary changes. However, my learning from the member of Nelson is if you start to push out or squeeze boundaries, that reverberates and has big impacts on everybody else. That is of concern. There is an alternative: the independent boundary commission. That is a great, logical suggestion. It would examine this legislative instrument, do the research and present it back to government. Then we could all debate it, including the members for Arnhem, Namatjira, Stuart and Arafura. We could look at what those experts say. That is a very pragmatic element of this debate, a very good opportunity for the minister to take on board and make sure we get this right.
The other part of the Nick Calacouras test is: why it is different from the previous? It is different from the previous? We are talking about the major reform in 2007 and 2008 of the old community government council landscape into shires. It is different from that because this is a knee-jerk reaction based on politics to satisfy an election promise from the member for Daly. Why is the hot potato suddenly in the Victoria Daly Shire? The toxic shire CLP election campaign created expectations across the Territory. The words ‘scrapping of shires’ still reverberate around the whole of the Territory. It is not just Victoria Daly we are talking about; it is everybody else as well.
Why is this different? It is radically different because this is bad policy reflecting bad politics. It is not being done on any thorough research or conducted in a democratic sense. It is just being done to satisfy a certain group of people in the Territory who are making waves. The local member has the first jump. There is then some talk of phase two next, but no real detail around that. I do not think this government knows where it is really going with the planned changes to Victoria Daly. I ask myself, what is the pressure point here? Why, suddenly, in the last parliamentary sittings of 2013? I have formed the opinion there is a fire sale going on. Expectations have been raised because the member for Daly has been spruiking these changes to the constituency.
When I say a fire sale, I reflect on what happened in Tennant Creek when the major reform from the old community government landscape to the new environment of the shires was taking place. A municipal council started to garnish assets and push them to one side to keep them out of the model. We saw the debacle over the Juno Horse Centre which went on for months and months. We saw attempts to purchase the CEO’s house, the community council administrative centre, and it had to be stopped. This is a pressure point the minister is feeling
I had the privilege to work with the Victoria Daly Shire on road contracts. That was the whole ambition of government, in terms of financial sustainability: to build work into those shires, get local people jobs and do the work on country. The Victoria Daly Shire had some really good contract work, with significant civil capacity. Those road gangs were leading the field with that shire reform in the Northern Territory. I would suggest, with a considerable civil capacity and the value of those assets, there must be some serious jostling now and concern about how that will be dealt with, in what is a knee-jerk reaction. The immediate response is to start pushing around boundaries, setting up a new council and working out who gets what, how this works and what goes forward from there later down the track. Reflecting on what I saw happen in Tennant Creek, there could be some serious pressure points in this situation. That does not reflect good process. It does not reflect the passing of good legislation in this House. It reflects, once again, a debacle and the potential to create a serious legacy for government.
We go to the third point of the Nick Calacouras test and that is: how much will it cost? We interrogated the CLP government in estimates this year and there is a budget appropriation of $6.2m to scrap the shires. That was articulated very clearly. I have been using that $6.2m and the $5m for paperwork on the Palmerston hospital, as well as the $9m the Chief Minister made a withdrawal on and then deposited into the Chief Minister’s department account. I have been aggregating these figures to show the people in the Barkly there are serious savings that can be made with the CLP budget when they preach doom and gloom and why we are not seeing much happening around the Barkly after a four-year record infrastructure investment.
There is $6.2m budgeted to scrap the shires. How much will be spent to scrap the Victoria Daly Shire? How much is budgeted to scrap the West Arnhem Shire and excise Maningrida? How much will be spent on the Groote Eylandt model? The answer is pretty logical: we do not know. We know there is a figure of $6.2m appropriated to scrap the shires. Now, the member for Daly has the first cab off the rank; he has his mitts into that $6.2m first of all. He will start to see the appropriation of money into scrapping the Victoria Daly Shire, creating a new shire – not quite sure of the viability, not quite sure of the financial sustainability of either of those models because the research has not been done. This legislative instrument is quite clear; it provides the minister with the power to scrap the shires. As we have heard in this debate, there has been no thorough research to back this up.
I thank the departmental officials for the briefing I was able to attend. It was very clear in that briefing there was certain tension around the politics of this. The public officials are very professional and hard-working diligent public servants who are implementing government policy. There was definitely that tone of politics that could not be denied, but I did get some good notes. I was able to learn and I really enjoy those opportunities to learn from experts in the public sector. When we are talking about the separation of these shires, we are talking about grant programs, staff, assets, housing, changing names and changing electoral boundaries. That is a very brief summary of what needs to be done. There is an enormous amount of work and understanding needed because it is not just the Victoria Daly that will incur these changes, it will be all surrounding shires. It will be the new council or whatever it will be called. When you get down to just changing the logos, you see the costs escalate considerably. There is $6.2m worth of taxpayers’ money allocated to scrap the shires, and I ask the minister to give us a breakdown in his wrap of how much of that $6.2m the member for Daly has garnished to be first cab off the rank and scrap the Victoria Daly Shire.
The member for Nelson also talked about an independent boundary commission. That is a very pragmatic opportunity for the minister to put the brakes on, get an initiative up and running and bring real evidence back to the Territory taxpayer about what the changes will bring. Having said that, I commend the Chief Minister for creating the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. The work of that committee, the research and valuable information that will be brought back to government, has demonstrated to me how important and effective that process can be within the parliamentary system. It is a great opportunity and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for nominating me as one of the members, along with my colleague, the member for Casuarina, as deputy chair. It is a process of real learning. It is determining the facts. It will provide government with solid policy advice.
The member for Nelson, who is very experienced in this area, has proposed an independent boundary commission. He has even given the minister a suggested line-up of people who should be on it. This would be worthwhile before we go down the road of appropriating $6.2m and find ourselves backed into a corner with no way out.
I have talked about the multiplier effect in shifting boundaries. Financial sustainability is really important. It has been talked about and is a major concern. I will go back to what has been quoted previously in this debate. The previous CLP minister, minister Anderson, is quoted, reporting the CLP government response to 25 members at a regional governance working group:
It is a two-step process. The minister was very clear and very wise because she could see that this needed to be researched thoroughly and needed to be a two-stage process. The research of sustainability and the multiplier effect as to how it will relate to all the shires within the Territory needs to be done before we go down this road fraught with potential and real trouble, not only with finance, but also social impact. The community government council model not only had a two-world approach in my opinion – the joke was, ‘What happens when you run out of money? You just put your hand out and ask the government for more.’ It also had elements of real exploitation, and when I talk about this area, I reflect back on the member for Braitling and his discussion around local government when he was the first CLP minister and spoke about cultural empowerment.
I have always thought I understood the concept, but how do we deliver that? The previous Labor government took that element on and was looking at pragmatic ways to deliver more empowerment in a cross-cultural context. I had input into that debate; I was very vocal with what I had learnt over many years in the bush and what I had seen in development of the shire model.
However, the minister has not spoken about any of the cultural factors in what will happen. If an area of the Victoria Daly is annexed off and concentrates on Wadeye, for instance, tell me how it will be different for a community government council? How will it be different in the outcomes it will provide? Talk about cultural empowerment for that area of the Northern Territory, and we can then apply those principles to all the other shires which will be very interested in what is taking place.
It can work in a positive context. It should work through good policy based on research; however, this is a fast-track, a knee-jerk reaction. It is pure politics on the west coast of the Northern Territory by one of the protagonists of the ‘scrap the shires’ policy who has an element of the constituency, which numbers in the thousands, that has applied pressure to break away and get out of this model. I ask why? To become empowered. As the minister said, it is a democracy. ‘I am giving people their rights. They have spoken and I will deliver.’ That is okay for a small section on the west coast, but where will it apply to the rest of us? Where will it be honest, open and accountable, and where will it be equal? We do not really know.
I would like to hear how the minister will appropriate that cash. I am interested in where the minister is heading once he gains the power to hire and fire, once he has the tools to fast-track these local government changes and acquires the tools to deal with what is quite challenging in the bush where we have a turnover in councillors, necessary by-elections, and we need to continue to empower people through education and awareness. The tools the minister has will be readily available in cost cutting exercises and quick fixes, but, unfortunately, lacking accountability and transparency, they relate to ministerial appointments. This happens to be the flavour of the CLP and it is not new.
I lived under the CLP for 27 years, but this smacks of jobs for the boys, ministerial appointments – appoint the mates. This one further concerns me, as these tools will be able to avoid the true democratic processes, cut corners, avoid the by-elections and allow the minister to make those changes.
It will be interesting to hear the wrap. I will say one last time: there is an alternative; the member for Nelson has suggested a serious alternative. It might take slightly more time, but it could save the Territory taxpayer, save the Victoria Daly Shire, and save a great deal of grief on the west coast of the Northern Territory should things go horribly wrong from very poor legislation being rushed through this House as a knee-jerk reaction to political promises made by the Country Liberal Party.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of this place who have contributed to the debate. Some parts of the debate were quite hysterical and lacking in any type of reason.
This bill enables this government to deliver on our promises. I will say it again: this bill enables this government to deliver on our promises. It is enabling legislation in that it does not make changes to any councils, but it gives me the power I need to make orders as necessary.
The government was elected on the promise to review and reform Labor’s system of shires, and that is what we will do. I have heard the scare campaign which has been going on, from the member for Nelson in particular, and in general from the Labor Party that has exaggerated and distorted the purpose of this legislation.
The member for Nelson has been trying to frustrate this process for the last couple of weeks. He has jumped in with a motion for local government and last night tried to pull a swiftie in the parliament to get something up. He has had a great rant about bumping this on to a committee and getting another group involved. What the member for Nelson is saying, fundamentally, is we have to disregard the commitments we have given to the people of the Northern Territory, abdicate our responsibility as a government, and go to some chicken farmer’s committee he wants to set up. This guy is bizarre!
We were elected to govern, and that is exactly what we will do. We will not abdicate our responsibilities to other committees. It is a disgraceful example of causing concern and aggravation for absolutely no reason apart from base political motives. That is exactly what this is about: the member for Nelson trying to cause concern and anxiety.
The member for Daly made note of a letter which was sent by Tony Tapsell to LGANT members around the Territory. I will read the entire letter onto the record:
Mr Wood: What date was it written?
Mr TOLLNER: It was written today.
Mr Wood: No, it was not.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, yesterday, Tuesday December 3, at about this time.
We have the member for Nelson crowing on about all the harm we will cause. You would swear I had stolen his children and sold them into slavery. This is the reaction he has.
It is absolutely disgraceful that the member for Nelson and Labor are trying to frustrate this proposal. This government has a mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to reform local government and anybody who thinks it does not was not around at the last election. The fact is, we were elected by the people of the Northern Territory to make changes, and that is exactly what we will do.
Rather than frustrate the process, I have made a major concession to the members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy. They seem to think I will be some sort of an Adolf Hitler, Mussolini or some other dictator and will have free rein to run around and change the Territory as I see fit. The concession is that I have offered the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson positions on the transitional committees. These are practical committees that will do something for the good of the Territory. The members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy can provide real solutions and support as members of these committees. One would expect they would be somewhat grateful for that offer, but all I hear from this other side is reasons to stop the entire process.
I can tell you right now, the government is not stopping this process. We have made promises to the Northern Territory community, we have made promises to Territorians, and we intend to deliver on those promises, as terrible as you guys might think it is.
The powers are only to be used for restructuring local government and the powers will only be used for restructuring local government. It has been mentioned today that this bill could affect the City of Darwin. Our review of local government is focused on the shires; however, we have included broad powers to reform local government to respond to all facts that may be presented in the review.
For example, the City of Darwin, on 22 November, wrote to me asking it be considered as part of the review, as did the City of Palmerston a couple of weeks ago. I am proud that this government is moving forward with the reforms to local government. We will have regional councils as we promised we would. We will have confidence in the regional councils with the improved involvement of local people. The local authorities will be operating by the end of June next year, and in some places they may well be operating much sooner. The regional councils will include local authorities in their decision-making, and the future is looking bright at last. As I said earlier, there is still some work to do. We are not rushing the changes, we are listening to what people say.
This bill is being passed on urgency to give me the necessary powers, but that is so I can get things happening. This bill is not in itself a restructure of local government, and I wish people on the other side could understand that. We know that people in the Daly area want a new council; we know that absolutely, we have looked into the possibility and are planning to make that happen. After this legislation commences, I will establish a prospective council for the Daly area. I will also appoint an acting CEO to get the ball rolling. The acting CEO will have the benefit of advice from the transition committee, which I hope will include the member for Nelson. The role of the transition committee will be to advise on transitional arrangements, key planning strategies, continuity of service delivery during the transition period and the establishment of local authorities in consultation. Through a restructuring order, I will also be able to address what will happen to vacancies that occur in council membership during the restructuring process for the Victoria Daly area.
It may not be sensible to have by-elections when there is a restructure in progress. Some of the people will have to vote for a new council in the next few months, and in the case of a council-wide by-election for mayor, the winning candidate may be from the territory of the new council, which will result in a further by-election for that position. I will also make sure that one of the first things the prospective council must do is have its website provide regular updates on its progress.
There is much to be done in planning a new council. We need to look at boundaries, financial management, human resources, administration, service delivery and accommodation.
Mr Wood: Viability.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a big job and will be progressed over the next six months. We anticipate the fully-fledged new council will commence on 1 July 2014.
I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson to do with viability. It is fair to say that most councils in the Northern Territory have not been financially viable for at least the last 30 years of their operations. All of a sudden, there is an enormous expectation this government will instantly make them financially viable. There has to be some work done with councils on their revenue raising capacity; that is one of the areas the department and I are making inquiries about. However, all of a sudden this is the only thing that seems to concern members on the other side, particularly the member for Nelson. It has worked for 30 years where they have been financially unviable, but for some reason, as the minister, I have to snap my fingers, wave a wand and magically make these councils financially viable. It takes a bit more work than that, member for Nelson.
In the meantime, we are considering whether there is any other need for restructuring. In making those deliberations, we need to consider the financial sustainability of new councils and councils generally. We will see what we can do to help councils raise their revenue. Councils provide valuable services that need to be paid for by someone. This legislation is about flexibility; it provides full flexibility so we can do what needs to be done. It does give me wide powers, but those powers are necessary. It may well be I do not need to exercise many of those powers, or exercise them very often, but we need the flexibility.
The legislation will also ensure that where by-laws currently exist they continue to apply if there is restructuring. People will know if they have by-laws now, they will have by-laws after any restructuring. Down the track, it will be up to councils to keep, extend, change or revoke any by-laws they have inherited.
This bill enables the government to deliver on our promises, something the opposition and the Independent member have scant regard for. Those promises are to review and reform local government and fix up the mess Labor made in this area.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:
1) the bill be referred to a select committee, to be called the Select Committee on the Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill, for inquiry and report, including consideration of other possible models for achieving the objects of the bill
2) the members of the committee shall be two members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Government Whip, one member nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Opposition Whip and Mr Wood
3) the committee shall report to the Assembly by 18 February 2014
4) The committee may elect a deputy chair of the committee, who may act as the chair when the chair is absent from a meeting or there is no chair of the committee
5) A quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee
6) this resolution shall have effect notwithstanding any contrary provision of the standing orders.
I am moving this motion to allow adequate time for proper discussion amongst all local governments and the community so they can give a considered response. The minister quoted an e-mail from Tony Tapsell, but today’s media release clearly states local government wanted a full and comprehensive consultation about this issue and has not received it. This select committee will give it an opportunity.
The minister tried to denigrate what is normal parliamentary process: a select committee to look at various issues that come before this parliament. To call it a chook committee shows a disregard for the processes we are allowed to ask for in this parliament. It is not doing something for the sake of doing it. I am asking for this to give a far more considered response.
The minister has spoken about his reasons but not about the lack of consultation with local government. This bill only came forward last Wednesday. We have a response from LGANT saying it wanted comprehensive consultation and has not had a chance for that. This gives it a chance to have it by delaying it for a small period, bringing it back in February, which is in the middle of the Wet Season. There will not be a huge amount of work done in remote communities once the rains come. It gives those councils a chance to look at it.
If Mr Tapsell, the CEO, believes I was making a big fuss about something, they will tell us Gerry Wood was talking through his hat and making a big fuss. If they believe I was too emotive, the local governments will say Gerry Wood is too emotional about it and what he is saying is irrational hogwash. This gives affected people a chance. There are two lots of people affected by these changes: the councils, the elected members …
Mr Tollner: Who is affected by this? This is enabling legislation. You do not understand what you are talking about. You are talking about a bill to change local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: As you can hear from those interjections, you have someone who does not understand there are repercussions in this bill. Whether they are intentional or not does not matter; the bill, to me, does not have the safeguards it should to protect the rights of elected members to hold a job without being sacked by a minister for no other reason than restructuring. It can be done differently, and I put this to the minister. Those options are what I hope a select committee could look at to see whether we could do it without enforcing or having those sections in the act which allow the minister to sack councillors or nominate who he wants. It is an important issue.
The other side of it which is forgotten is that people elect those local members. You now have a law which allows the minister to step in, not because the council has done something wrong but because the minister has not found a way of making these changes without using the hammer instead of using his brain. This could be done by amendments to the act which would satisfy the Victoria Daly Shire. We should not be basing this just on the problems of the Victoria Daly Shire. We should be …
Mr Tollner: I am not.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you are. I was just talking to the Victoria Daly Shire. You mentioned this issue and it has been mentioned to me at the briefings. You mentioned that Victoria Daly Shire had problems with having two by-elections and the mayoral by-election. What I was saying to you is you could use the Queensland model which this select committee could look at and consider whether it is a useful source to go ahead with possible changes to this bill.
What annoys me is the minister regards this as ‘love it or leave it’, because they made a promise and how dare you stand up and query the legislation? How dare you oppose? We should just sit here like a bunch of dummies. No. Our job is to look at your legislation and see whether it would work. I am not against the possibility of restructuring councils. This is the same old argument. Every time, you throw the cheap lines back, ‘You oppose the reforms’, and all that sort of stuff. No, I do not. In this, I see you have some dangerous clauses you may not use. I am not accusing you of being Adolf Hitler, but I am saying you could have improved this bill so it did not include those clauses. You could make amendments to the Local Government Act, especially around casual vacancies which I am putting forward as a possibility today, which will allow a council to run to a certain date.
They are the options a select committee could look at. I have asked that the select committee be small, specifically so it can get on with the job and do it quickly. Not much will be done around Christmas and the new year, not even from the department’s point of view, which would give you about six weeks to come to the next sittings of parliament with a review of the legislation, something that is not uncommon in other places with a unicameral system. You keep saying, ‘Oh, you will just oppose us and you are stopping us going ahead with our promises’. Your promises are your promises. This is the parliament, and the parliament has a right to at least see what the effect of your promises would be. You are showing us legislation which needs more scrutiny, and I am not the only one saying that. As Damien Ryan said:
People forget that.
I am supporting what LGANT wants. It wants time to consult about this, and a select committee – which is not some chook farmer’s association annual meeting – is a way of doing it within the parameters of parliament. It is using our parliamentary system to look at legislation to see if it is good.
I do not oppose the restructuring. However, the minister has brought forward some legislation which to me is suspect because he is in a hurry to do it and did not show it to anyone before he introduced it. You make us a bit suspicious as to why you would do that with such an important phase of the changes to local government.
You would think you would ensure each piece of legislation that comes here has the backing of local government and that members had a chance to find out for themselves whether it had support from the community. We have not had that chance, and when I send letters and emails to local government people, all I receive from the local government association is that I have made a fuss and am fairly emotive. I was fairly emotive when the previous government tried to amalgamate Litchfield shire, and who was dead quiet on it? The local government association. Who stood outside the local government association with tape across their mouth, asking whose side the local government association was on?
I do not think things have changed too much in the local government association. When it comes to the crunch, it wants to make sure it is still sweet with the government but, unfortunately, I do not think they stick up for all their members, as they did not with Litchfield. I ask them if they are doing it with West Arnhem? Are they doing it with Katherine or East Arnhem? I am not sure.
They need to check with their members first and tell them what is in this legislation. This committee would give parliament an opportunity to report to the minister about whether this legislation is good, whether my opinion on the legislation …
Mr Tollner: A committee of one.
Mr WOOD: No, it is a normal parliamentary committee, not something like the energy committee. It is a select committee. These are short lived committees that look at legislation, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. To denigrate that kind of committee – the Queensland parliament does it all the time. I do not know if we have ever done it; we have tried once before and once today. There is nothing wrong with trying that. When you laugh at that, you just say, ‘Parliament is a waste of time, pass it through. We are on the way to doing something.’ That is a bad way to treat this parliament.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the opposition in support of the motion brought by the member for Nelson. Clearly, we have a government which, apart from having broken just about every election promise it made, is not interested in transparency or being held accountable. What we see here is a bill before the House on urgency. They have created the urgency themselves. It is entirely to do with political expediency; there has not been consultation with stakeholders. We know the member for Daly has a vested interest in getting this through. His political neck is on the line, but due process has not been followed. There is no demonstrated need for urgency. There has not been consultation, there is nothing in this bill or in what the minister has said that…
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has the wrong speech notes in front of her. She is referring to the urgency motion that was dealt with last week. This is a select committee motion, which is completely different.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Member for Nhulunbuy, continue.
Ms WALKER: I believe I have some latitude within this motion. The professor of procedureology over there will do anything to shut people down.
There needs to be a process. If it is a committee, we welcome that. We know members opposite would do everything to avoid scrutiny, transparency and accountability. This bill needs to be referred to a committee. We look at what Queensland is doing with the very accountable and transparent process it has. It is not apparent here at all and we fully support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Eviction of NT Badminton
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the minister for Sport and the CLP government for:
1) evicting NT Badminton from Sports House without providing an alternative single venue accommodation solution that is acceptable to NT Badminton
2) disregarding the proposal from NT Badminton to allocate funds in the May 2014 budget for construction of a multipurpose facility for badminton, judo and table tennis at Marrara
3) ignoring NT Badminton and the many thousands of Territorians who have signed a petition supporting NT Badminton and their proposal.
The CLP government decision to forcibly remove the Northern Territory Badminton Association from NT Sports House in Fannie Bay has been handled terribly by this incompetent CLP government. This is not surprising; in 15 months of governing, the CLP has shown Territorians they are bad policy makers, bad decision-makers and have no regard for appropriate process.
We have seen this government, time and time again, not consider the full impact of its decisions before they are rammed through and they make Territorians suffer the consequences. They refuse to consult before or after they makes decisions. Because of the CLP’s decisions, we see families suffering unprecedented increases in the cost of living in the Territory, with increases to power, water and sewerage. We see cuts in education and to teacher numbers in our schools. We have seen the abuse of parliamentary process with the CLP ramming through legislation without proper consultation with stakeholders and the community.
It has been no surprise that the closure of Sports House has been handled so appallingly by this CLP government. I can guarantee, if Labor was in government, the tenants at Sports House would not have been left high and dry; we would not have deserted them. The difference between the CLP and Labor is that on this side of the House, we actually care about people. We believe decisions should be made with the best interests of those affected at heart. We make it our business to consult. Instead, we have a CLP government that refuses to assist the tenants at Sports House in any meaningful way and has no regard to the proper processes that should have been involved with this decision. This was from day one. When it came to making the decision, the CLP completely mishandled announcing to tenants they were to be evicted. I was told by various – now former – tenants that they received an e-mail stating they were being kicked out, followed by an apology e-mail saying it was a mistake. A few days later, they received the same e-mail informing them they had to move out.
The NT Badminton Association was informed of the decision of your department, Sports minister, and was given six months’ notice, from May 20. The CLP offered no immediate assistance in finding a new appropriate facility; it offered no assistance with relocation. Part of the mishandling of this issue is the CLP’s complete disregard for badminton. Let us face it, if it was AFLNT at Sports House, do you think the CLP would have made no attempt to relocate them? If it was NT Rugby League at Sports House, would the CLP have deserted them? I do not think so.
I value all sports in the Northern Territory, as do my colleagues on this side of the House. They all have a role to play in creating and adding to the great lifestyle we have in the Territory. The CLP has shown it does not share my respect and appreciation of all Northern Territory sporting organisations. The NT Badminton Association is a peak body for badminton in the Northern Territory. It is affiliated with Badminton Australia and is responsible for the promotion and development of the sport in the Northern Territory. It provides coaching for juniors, hosts regional and international competitions, and promotes badminton as a sport for Territorians. Under normal circumstances, they would also participate in the Arafura Games, which is an important sporting competition that engages our Asian neighbours for whom badminton is a hugely popular sport. I am absolutely shocked at the lack of respect shown to badminton. Governments govern for all Territorians, not just a select few. We have to be realistic that not everyone wants to play AFL, basketball, netball or rugby league. When it comes to recreation, not everyone will be interested in racing be it car, horse or greyhound racing. These areas currently have a huge amount of government financial assistance.
In sport and recreation, we must provide alternatives, and that is where badminton fits in. It is a very popular sport with a great following in Darwin and has enormous health benefits for its participants. It is a well-established sport in the Territory with a proud history, and players and volunteers who have been involved in the sport for many decades. The CLP’s failure to properly relocate NT badminton has shown their disregard for this sport.
This decision by the CLP has been about one thing only: dollar signs; the CLP loves to put dollar signs before people. In this instance, it was so hell-bent on the financial prospects of the Sports House site, it forgot about the tenants, who should first be relocated appropriately.
In March this year, when rumours were rife that the tenants of Sports House were being evicted with nowhere to go, instead of responding with an emphasis that tenants would be looked after, the CLP government issued a media release titled Identifying Sites for Housing Development. It featured a small paragraph about the tenants, but was dominated with plans for redevelopment.
Why is it always the cart before the horse with the CLP government? They are more interested in selling off land for development than providing adequate facilities to a valued, strong and vibrant sporting body. They are hastily forcing the NT Badminton Association to leave Sports House for the sole purpose of demolishing it to make way for high rise development. To do this without finding adequate replacement facilities is heartless and opportunistic. As the member for Nelson openly said, and I agree, this government has its priorities wrong. They need to organise replacement facilities first, then worry about demolishing Sports House and selling off the land.
In Question Time today, we discovered how the minister really feels about badminton. When asked about the near 12 000 signature petition on the issue, the minister questioned NT Badminton’s integrity in collecting signatures by saying:
The minister will no doubt address the petition further in his response this evening, but you cannot help but get the impression he will be ignoring the petition started by the NT Badminton Association. The petition asked the government to defer the eviction of badminton from the Sports House facility. The petition also asked the government to agree to allocate funds to facilitate construction of the new multipurpose facility for badminton, table tennis and judo at Marrara.
One thing certain about NT Badminton is they have not taken this appalling decision by the CLP government lying down. It is rare these days to see groups of everyday passionate and constructive activists, and that is what members of NT badminton have been. They have taken to the streets and raised awareness of this issue with phenomenal speed. Like a well-oiled machine, they have been present everywhere, campaigning to save their sport; they have been proactive.
NT Badminton provided the minister with a detailed and well-thought-out proposal for a new facility to house badminton, table tennis, judo and gymnastics at Marrara. In addition, it proposed the NT government allocate funding in the May 2014 budget for this facility. This proposal provides adequate facilities for several sports and, most importantly, provides them with certainty. According to NT Badminton, the proposal presents two options for the facility. Option one is a fully air-conditioned facility with a sprung wooden floor. This is the more expensive option at $9.6m. Option two is a cheaper option that would use more natural airflow and a cheaper flooring option, which would cost $6.8m. I have heard the land at Sports House could be sold for between $10m and $13m. One would think there would be some funds to accommodate such a proposal.
I know the minister will say he is not interested in the proposal because of the sums he has for cost per participant. He said in Question Time:
Firstly, I say to the minister for Sport, it is four sports not three, as you stated in response to my question. Those sports are badminton, judo, table tennis and gymnastics. There must be some middle ground here. I hope you detail the cost per participant of all sport and recreation organisations for us to make a fair comparison, not just a select few in your argument.
What the CLP has done is offer NT Badminton a five-year lease on commercial property in Woolner, with the cost of the lease shared equally between NT Badminton and the Northern Territory government. This will work out to be $82 500, a sum that is simply not possible for this group. I am not sure why the CLP thought this was a viable or even fair option. I am happy to be corrected by the minister, but I understand no such commercial arrangement exists with any other sporting group in the Northern Territory. Why would the minister put something on the table that would lead to their financial ruin? Why will the minister not provide them with an appropriate facility at a peppercorn rent, like other sports? If he does not, he will destroy NT Badminton forever, which has been around for 30 to 40 years.
I understand NT Badminton has said there is even a possibility of the hall being dismantled and assembled on a different site. The condition of the hall is sound, unlike the rest of the Sports House building. I welcome the minister’s response on this as a possibility.
The only other thing the minister has done is to tell NT Badminton to look at using community halls again, to which they have responded:
The CLP government has been completely heartless and unjustified in its hastiness to shift NT Badminton without an alternative facility. This side of the House recognises the need for sports like badminton to thrive. We recognise the contribution sports like badminton make to the Northern Territory. We also recognise the contribution that badminton makes to our beloved Arafura Games and hopefully will do in the future should the CLP ever decide to bring it back. Nearly 12 000 petitioners are demanding the CLP and the minister reconsider and show themselves to be a rational, compassionate and respectful government. One of the petitioners is, in fact, the Treasurer.
The NT Badminton Association has been treated with complete disrespect, given little notice, no help and no viable alternative. It has resorted to doing the government’s work for them in putting together a proposal. It was the NT Badminton Association which consulted stakeholders and reached out to the badminton community in preparing its proposal for an alternative facility.
NT Badminton is a force to be reckoned with, and it deserves our respect. I urge the CLP to recognise and respect that over 12 000 signatories have supported a petition asking for their pleas to be heard and NT Badminton’s proposal to be considered; I understand this petition has the largest number of signatories on record. I urge the CLP to simply listen. I urge the CLP and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing to assist the NT Badminton Association in relocating, and to commit to a fully funded multipurpose facility that will save the sport of badminton.
I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Sport, Recreation and Racing): Mr Deputy Speaker, NT Badminton’s biggest problem is it has the member for Johnston in its corner.
After all the hoo-hah, all he can give them is 12 minutes – $10m equates to 12 minutes in the House. Unbelievable!
The answer is categorically, no. The government will not be providing $6.8m or $9.8m for a stand-alone facility for badminton, judo and table tennis. You can put that on the record right now. It ain’t going to happen! It strikes me as rather alarming that the member for Johnson, if he had a bag of money and had $10m, would be allocating this sort of money for such a facility.
Let us look at where some of this money could be spent across the Northern Territory. We could upgrade and seal 15 km of one of our outback highways, it could be the Tanami, Central Arnhem Road, the Plenty or the Buntine Highway, or it could be 25 dwellings for affordable housing. We could extend and seal the Outback Way from the current end to Harts Range. We could construct two boat ramps at the standard end of the Elizabeth River and a boat ramp into Palmerston. There could be further sealing of the inner loop of the Mereenie Loop on the Red Centre Way, which has been on the books for a long time. There could be a state-of-the-art fire and emergency command centre. We could have five cyclone shelters or 30 km of urban cycle paths. That money could be spent on these urgent infrastructure projects, but what is alarming is if there was the money – there is not, thanks to the $5.5bn debt we are tracking to – a magic bag of money, they are priorities I would see as helping all of us in electorates that need such infrastructure. I know the member for Sanderson would have a long list and what he would do with $10m as the Minister for Infrastructure.
There are other facilities around the Darwin area that the Northern Territory government has provided, built and owns that would suit badminton. The sport, unfortunately, is not big enough to warrant a $ $9.8m commitment. It has around 160 registered members, followed by around 80 social players. I commend badminton for their efforts; there is no doubt they are very passionate about what they are doing, they are very committed to the sport and are very keen to see it continue. It is not the Northern Territory government that will kill off badminton, as alluded to by the opposition. Badminton has been provided with options, and for a sport that size, there are more than enough facilities around the Darwin and Palmerston area for it to continue as it is.
Let us look at some of the numbers. Touch Football NT has 3200 players. Football Federation NT has 3200 registered members. Netball NT has 2800 members, Tennis NT has 2800 members and Baseball NT has 745.
Ms Fyles: They have a home.
Mr CONLAN: Of course they do. Look at the numbers, member for Nightcliff.
It is incredible; it is staggering. For the amount of registered participants, it just does not stack up to spend $9.8m. Let us look at some of the recent history of Sports House.
In March 2013, the Northern Territory government announced that Sports House land had been identified for rezoning for future housing redevelopment, something that is critical in the Top End. In fact, across the Northern Territory, there is a real housing shortage. Sports House has had major infrastructure failings and has reached the end of its economic life. It is 30 years old; it is well past its use by date. Since then, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing has been assisting the non-government organisations that have occupied the space on the ground floor at Sports House to identify alternative accommodation. Contrary to what has been alleged in the Chamber this evening, the department of Sport and Recreation, along with me, have worked overtime to provide solutions to those tenants.
The Royal Lifesaving Society of the Northern Territory has moved into Ethos House. Touch Football NT has moved to Ethos House at Casuarina. Swimming NT has moved to Casuarina pool and Football Federation NT to the Italian Club. They are still working on negotiations with Darwin Sub Aqua Club, but it is hoped it might move to the Ski Club. Darwin radio club has sourced other options and is looking to move to Knuckey Lagoon recreation reserve and triathlon to Ethos House in Casuarina. With the assistance of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, we were able to negotiate an extension for badminton at Sports House until 31 March 2014.
The question put to me during Question Time this morning was:
Speak of the devil!
Let us look at some of that question. The eviction has in fact been deferred until 31 March. I will not be allocating funding to the tune of $9.6m towards a new facility. As for an ‘ignorant and cold hearted decision’, the place is well past its use-by date, has become a health and safety hazard and has been earmarked for much needed housing in the Northern Territory. I will not be reconsidering the decision. I hope the Northern Territory Badminton Association will reconsider its decision and accept one or more of the offers provided. It is frightening to think the member for Johnston would commit such an enormous amount of money for such a project.
We did not, as suggested, reject or disregard the proposal as the motion suggested. The department has met with NT Badminton on at least seven occasions since the letter in May. Badminton members have also had meetings with me and my office on a number of other occasions, and we have also met with them after hours at weekends. We have been bending over backwards to assist them in their sport.
The petition signed by many thousands of Territorians who support NT Badminton and their proposal reads:
I have not ignored the petition; in fact, I have not even seen it. I am waiting for it to be tabled. However, in response, I am aware of the passion of the members. The passion and commitment the Northern Territory Badminton Association have for this sport is not in question or doubt. This has never been in dispute.
I note an online comment regarding the petition. It says, ‘Today at the markets, it was more like harassment getting people to sign. If you pressure people to sign, it is not a true petition.’ The member for Johnston said 12 000 Territorians have signed this petition. I would be very interested to see if they are all Territorians.
Mr Vowles: Irrelevant.
Mr CONLAN: It is very relevant. You said in this House this morning that 12 000 Territorians have signed this petition. I would like to see whether or not 12 000 Territorians are indeed supportive of a $10m badminton facility for 200 members. I would be very interested to see if that is actually the case.
Let us go to point one:
The Palmerston Recreation Centre has existing anchor points for badminton. There is room for up to eight courts and it is already used by badminton on Tuesday evenings. In 2012, it was used for the Under 19 Australian Championships. The current facility is not being used for national championships, and the Palmerston Recreation Centre is the centre badminton used to host this national championship. The department has offered to assist in discussions with the operator, YMCA and Palmerston City Council to free up weeknight time slots. Community halls located on school grounds were another option for them. Nightcliff Middle School time slots are also available weekday evenings, Dripstone Middle School time slots are available weekday evenings, Sanderson Middle School is available Monday, Tuesday and Friday after 6.00 pm, Darwin High School and Casuarina Senior College.
The Northern Territory Badminton Association proposal identifies 24 venues around Darwin and Palmerston as possible alternatives. All 24 venues were rejected by the association for various reasons, the common theme being the alternative had only four courts, whereas Sports House has five. Three of the 24 were considered by NT Badminton to have some pros, and 21 venues had nothing good about them, according to the NTBA.
I have offered the assistance of Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing staff in negotiations between Badminton NT and the relevant facilities. This has also been rejected. They were offered assistance through the department, but it was also rejected. Badminton NT’s sole purpose and focus has been to obtain a single venue location, and to that end, the department offered consideration of two commercial sites. One, despite being noted in their proposal as unacceptable, was eventually deemed acceptable.
A Woolner property was offered with government assistance of $82 500 to match, dollar-for-dollar, the commercial rent. This has been rejected outright as too expensive without any thought to who would pay for hiring fees, maintenance and outgoings on their proposed new facility. Marrara Indoor Stadium, for example, is currently available for hire at $99 per hour. Assuming NT Badminton play, let us say, conservatively, 25 hours per week 50 weeks a year, the rental fee for a similar facility is to the tune of about $123 000. This is not the only option the sport has been provided with. I have listed numerous options at minimal cost to continue the sport.
Let us look at the new facility. We have declined the NT Badminton request to government to construct a multiuse hall at an estimated cost of between $6.8m to $9.6m. The proposal recommends a building bigger than Marrara Indoor Stadium to accommodate 410 participants across three sports – badminton, judo and table tennis – and would free up space within the current Marrara hall for gymnastics. While admirable in its intentions, there is no dispute that we cannot consider such a development at a cost in excess of $22 000 per participant to be a sound use of government money for the badminton participation rate. It does not stack up, particularly with a debt tracking towards $5.5bn from the member for Johnston and his former Treasurer, the current Opposition Leader, the member for Karama.
It is not an option to allocate funds from the sale of Sports House to construct the new venue either. We need to reduce debt and allocate monies to areas that will assist the greatest possible number of Territorians, simple as that. An amount of $10m can assist a greater number of Territorians.
NT Badminton is not offering to assist with the construction in any way. The sport has enjoyed rent free accommodation for over 30 years. Badminton is a small but vocal sport, and I commend and congratulate the association on its campaign. They have been very vocal and I earlier recognised the passion of its membership of approximately 200, but it is worth noting that numerous sports have much greater participation and, accordingly, place greater demands on the Northern Territory government: sports such as touch football, which has 3200 members; Tennis NT, 2800 members; rugby league, 2100; and basketball, 2000. There are even less high-profile sports such as triathlon with 462 members and calisthenics with 348. We also have to make note of the Sport Voucher Scheme, the success of that program and the take-up by some sports. For basketball there have been 810 redemptions, athletics, 178; surf lifesaving, 18; judo, 71 and badminton just two.
While it is not a direct reflection of the sport, it supports the case the demand for government expenditure is greater elsewhere. Badminton can save their own sport by reconsidering and accepting one of the several options put to it over many months of hard work by the Northern Territory government. We will not be building a $10m or $6.8m facility for badminton. As I said, that money can be spent better for a greater number of Territorians, not just in sport but on infrastructure across the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson’s pool in the rural area is an example; forget about the pool, let us put it there. I do not know how many lots of $10m dollars you think we have; we do not have any, in fact. However, if we had one, would you rather see the pool in the rural area or a facility for 200 participants?
What about Freds Pass Show society? Would you rather see the money spent there for a greater number of Territorians or allocated for a badminton facility for 200 people? Member for Johnston, in your own electorate, $10m would help with flood mitigation works at Rapid Creek. It would go a long way towards that, but you would rather see the money spent in this area; I wonder if your electorate is aware of that. The member for Johnston once, apparently, played cricket. Have you told the many cricket clubs around the Northern Territory that you are willing to hand over $10m for badminton when participation in cricket is already a couple of thousand? I wonder if they are aware of that. Forget about new equipment, the badly needed upgrades and even the picket fence around the Marrara cricket ground. The member for Johnston wants $10m spent on a stand-alone facility for a sport of 200 people.
All we have to do is put this bloke into context once again. Here is a guy who travelled to Alice Springs to watch the cricket and all he had to say on his tweet at kenvowles@kenvowles – that is his address – was:
Ms Fyles: We are talking about badminton.
Mr CONLAN: Let us have a look at the member for Nightcliff. What is the feeling around your local Nightcliff sports ground about this? How do your constituents feel about the Nightcliff Football Club handing over $10m to badminton? Do you both really think this is an appropriate and fair allocation of government funds? Do you really think it is? Palmerston Magpies cannot afford the upkeep of its $10.2m facility in Palmerston. Member for Johnston, I am not sure if you have told them you intend to give $10m to a sport of 200 registered players. It is very interesting to hear the …
Mr Vowles: You are a grub!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Johnston withdraw that comment, please?
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, I withdraw that comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I used that Twitter comment to go to the heart of the member’s character, but I think he is doing a pretty good job of that himself, as he does here in parliament on a regular basis. The point is you both have electorates that require a huge amount of expenditure, whether it is on infrastructure, sporting facilities or whatever it may be; we have talked about Rapid Creek and the like. To suggest this is where you would like to see the money spent, I find extraordinary. There is a huge amount of demand across the Northern Territory for money of this magnitude, but you two are falling for the popularity contest. You have been sucked in and are now beating this drum to generate $10m from the Northern Territory government to build a stand-alone facility for badminton. That is what is really scary. I look at the member for Nelson, who has two big projects in his electorate he would like to see. One is the swimming pool and the other is Freds Pass. I guess you guys have to look at yourselves as to where you really want that money spent.
The two sports thrown into the mix are judo and table tennis. When I spoke to judo and table tennis, they said they struggle a bit during the Wet and they are unable to use air conditioning. While they would love to move into a new gold plated facility, the future of the sport is not going to rest on whether they receive a multipurpose facility. Their priority is a part-time development officer. When I spoke to judo, they said they have around 30 on the waiting list and the sport will not cease to exist if they do not move to a new facility.
They could not host national championships in the new facility because three mats are required. If they were to do it, they would probably need to hire the convention centre. They would like a more permanent mat or to see the sport grow south towards Palmerston. It is worth noting they have 80 juniors and the estimate is that about 71 have taken up the Sport Voucher. You can see where the greater need is.
We were able to spend money of this magnitude for a greater number of Territorians. To the members for Johnston and Nightcliff, if you want to save badminton, I urge the sport to agree to one of the many options that have been presented to it over a number of months. The government has done what it can and it is now squarely in the hands of NT Badminton to help themselves to save the sport. The NT government will continue to assist or provide staff and support where necessary, but the future of badminton is in the hands of badminton.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight to add my support to this motion. I am speaking in support of the sport of badminton in the Northern Territory. The CLP government, and particularly the minister for Sport, should be condemned for:
Badminton is being forcibly removed after 30 years at Sports House in Fannie Bay. In 1983, the then CLP government recognised that badminton had outgrown school halls and that to survive and develop it needed a home, hence its allocation to Sports House. Since then, the sport has gone from strength to strength, from a small handful of players participating one to two times a week at a social level to approximately 240 players participating in the seven day, 50 weeks a year program. The Northern Territory has male and female players from 8 to 80 and has run national and international tournaments in Darwin and Alice Springs. Our junior and senior players have represented the Northern Territory at national championships throughout Australia, and these players regularly participate in tournaments around the country.
Like many sports, badminton is more than a sport for its members; it is an important part of their lives. Not only is it a physical activity, but it is an opportunity to participate and come together as a group. It supports these people through physical activity, mental health and keeps them fit and healthy; it is their life. It was only a couple of months ago one of my constituents shared with me her joy at having recently participated in an interstate tournament.
There is the social enjoyment and the fitness. This sport means a lot to these people and your ignorance of that as the Sports minister is disappointing. Badminton is a particularly popular sport and has players across a huge age range. Young children can learn to play it and develop good skills, through to people well into their 60s, 70s and even 80s. In the Territory, where our lifestyle is based around physical activity, it is great to have the opportunity to participate in a sport that is inside. Although it is very warm in the hall, it is still out of the direct sun, which allows the sport to be played during the day, suiting many of our senior players. This needs to be recognised. It is important for us to have sport options for all members of our community so we can benefit from the social and health benefits. It is fantastic to have a sport that can be played across all ages and something for our climate that, although still warm in the non-air-conditioned centre, offers opportunity for physical activity during the day. If you were any kind of Sports minister, you would be looking at how you can help this sport grow and develop.
Mr Tollner: That is what he said he is doing.
Ms FYLES: I was hoping you, Deputy Chief Minister, might be a little more open because you have signed the petition. We know the minister for Sport is against it.
Since 1992, badminton has been an Olympic sport with five events, and, in the singles particularly, it demands excellent fitness. Players require aerobic stamina, agility, explosive strength, speed and precision. It is a technical sport requiring good motor coordination and the development of racket movement.
I witnessed this firsthand when I took the time to visit the sport at Sports House with my colleagues, the members for Karama and Johnston. I witnessed the energy of those players; those players were fit and healthy. Badminton is particularly popular with our Asian neighbours and was an Arafura Games sport, except your government axed those games. Earlier today, we saw representatives of badminton present my parliamentary colleagues with a petition of nearly 12 000 signatures. How can you ignore that? That is 12 000 signatures supporting the sport of badminton. Not every one of those people wants to play, but they recognise these people should have the opportunity to play their sport. I was appalled in Question Time by your dismissal of and arrogance towards this petition. Minister for Sport, I quote you from Question Time this morning:
This sport has rallied hard. It is not about whether or not they are Territorians. Twelve thousand people recognise that Territorians should have the opportunity to play this sport. I have seen them collecting signatures at my local market on Sundays, and people signing are passing on their support and disbelief at your government’s actions in being so dismissive. At the recent NT Badminton Association AGM, the members passed a motion which states that:
The NT Badminton Association is asking for something that is afforded to other sporting organisations in the Northern Territory. Badminton has shown passion and persistence on this issue and I applaud them for that. It is a shame our minister for Sport cannot show the same. They have shown determination in the face of this government’s heartless priorities that put selling off land before the future longevity of an important Territory sporting organisation. I urge the CLP government to match the commitment shown by the sport of badminton.
I understand the Deputy Chief Minister, as I alluded to earlier, has signed the petition and I urge him to look towards it, in the face of his minister for Sport’s ignorance and dismissiveness. You have the opportunity, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister. You can put badminton into your budget Cabinet early next year and fund this facility. This would be building on something at Marrara.
I was only talking to the previous CLP member for Nightcliff earlier today, Hon Steve Hatton. He spoke to me about Marrara and its master plan. It is a shame that your government cannot build on that. Labor invested with netball courts and squash courts and it would be fantastic to see a multipurpose facility that could suit badminton. There have been other sports spoken of, and if you had any foresight, you would think of what you could do with another multipurpose hall. However, you seem to be knocking this out, and that is the most appalling thing.
What the sport is proposing is very reasonable. There are two options, one not even air-conditioned, that will also house judo and table tennis, which are squeezed into the current hall shared with gymnastics. I did gymnastics as a young child, some 30 years ago when it first moved from Sports House to Marrara. It is in the same facility today. Allowing these sports to expand would be fantastic. It is the government’s role to invest in sports. I know we have had the minister for Sport stand here and rant and rave at us about all the other things that $10m can be spent on. Amounts of $6m and $9m are two proposals, but there must be options to work within it. It is government’s role to invest in sports and their communities.
The lack of assistance for NT Badminton is so wrong. They were notified by a letter from government that they must move and were given six months from the date of the letter in May. Initially, they were offered no assistance in finding a new, appropriate facility. The badminton shed is not part of the Sports House building that is condemned. The front half of Sports House is, but the back half is perfectly usable. My colleague, the member for Nelson, has said the shed could be taken down. It is disappointing the government is so dead set against this without any serious consideration. The Sport minister has bungled this.
I can now read from a recent letter sent to the minister for Sport by the NT Badminton Association. It is important it is on the public record. Tonight, the minister had a real spray about the fact they seemed very unreasonable, not working with solutions, and that is unfair. The badminton association has looked at the options and they do not work for them. Renting the shed at Woolner would cost them $82 500 per annum; they do not have that capital. The sport made it quite clear that they have outgrown moving around school halls, which is what they did in the 1970s and 1980s. It is disappointing to see the minister has no foresight as minister for Sport. As I understand, you have not worked well with the sport on this issue.
I question the haste to sell off the land at Fannie Bay. That land will generate in the order of $10m to $13m; surely, some of that can be used towards supporting badminton. I congratulate NT Badminton on collecting 12 000 petitioners, a huge amount, but this government just laughs at petitions. They laughed at the emergency department nurses and at teachers. It is appalling that the minister for Sport can be so arrogant and dismissive. Was it $300 000 spent on the Alice Springs Golf Club? I would be interested to know what would happend if this was in Alice Springs.
I offer my personal congratulations – I know some of the badminton volunteers are here tonight in the gallery. They have done a huge amount of work; they have given up their weekends and worked hard to put their sport on the map. They have done a lot of the work where the government should have supported them. That is the most appalling thing about this, the lack of support from the government and the minister for Sport. This is something I have never seen before. The minister can axe the Arafura Games and just laugh at sports.
My colleagues, when in government, received proposals and had to help out sports, but they did it because that is the role of government. The sport has done a lot of work looking at plans and preparations, and that needs to be acknowledged. The minister has been quite dismissive of them, making out they have dismissed all the options Sport and Recreation have put forward, and that is not fair. What they are fighting for is not too much to ask. The plight and unfairness of this government’s treatment of NT Badminton is best summed up by one of their volunteers in their media release earlier today. Monica Beadman said:
I have witnessed that. People think it is unfair. It is your role to support our sports and work with them.
Mr Tollner: That is what we are doing.
Ms FYLES: You say you are doing that, but we cannot see it. There is no evidence of it ...
Mr Conlan: I just spent 25 minutes telling you what we have been doing.
Ms FYLES: I heard 25 minutes of where $10m should be spent. This should not be an argument about comparing ...
Mr Conlan: Take the cloth out of your ears.
Mr Tollner: You were not listening.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 51: no interruption. I ask that the member for Nightcliff be allowed to make her remarks without the interruptions from the members for Greatorex and Fong Lim.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was about to mention that. Can people please refer to Standing Order 51 and ensure they abide by it. Thank you. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your support. We have members of this sport in the gallery tonight and what they are witnessing from your government is appalling. This is what we see in this parliament. If it is not your way, it is no way, and that is appalling. You need to take stock; you need to look at this situation, minister for Sport, because you can solve it. Where is your initiative? Why are you not in budget Cabinet fighting for sport? You have just dismissed it and thrown silly comments like $10m for the Nightcliff sports oval. It should not be about that. Territorians do not pit their sports against each other; they just ask their government to step up. The breaking down and costing per participant is unfair.
It is our role as parliamentarians, and your role as government, to work through things. Government is not easy, but you should not be coming back to cost per participant and coming up with measly numbers of 200. Badminton has put forward many options; you are offering no room to work with them. To build another facility could be a fantastic opportunity to add to Marrara sports complex. As I said earlier, the previous CLP member for Nightcliff, Steve Hatton, spoke of the master plan for Marrara and all the sports that could be housed there. This could be taken as an opportunity. I know it is not ideal timing for the Treasurer, but this could go to budget Cabinet with some initiative to show you are leaders.
You have no shame. You will not meet with them and consult properly. Something we constantly hear about on this side of the House is the need to consult with our community. From what I have seen, the minister for Sport has lacked in that area, laughing at the nearly 12 000 people who signed the petition. Twelve thousand people is a huge number and I admire them; that is nearly three of our electorates and is some percentage of the Territory population. However, we have a minister for Sport who just laughs. Whether it is the 74 emergency department nurses or nearly 12 000 people who are showing their support for badminton, it is appalling. I spoke earlier about the $300 000 for the Alice Springs Golf Club. I would like to see, minister for Sport, what the breakdown per participant there was and how much it costs to join the Alice Springs Golf Club.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Ms FYLES: What badminton is offering is a physical activity to our seniors. However, thanks to you and your government’s price hike rises …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, Standing Order 51! Would you like to read it, as you are being so vocal? Thank you, member for Nightcliff, you can now continue.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We saw $300 000 given to the Alice Springs Golf Club, which costs many thousands of dollars, I am assuming, to join, yet this is a sport that gets our seniors out of their homes doing something physically active, enjoying each other’s company.
I am appalled at this minister for Sport’s arrogance. You are pitting sports against sports. It should not be that way; it should be about every Territorian, every sport taken on merit and getting the opportunity.
The squash facility has been built at Marrara and squash is going from strength to strength; it is expanding. Life. Be In It used that facility. There are opportunities but, instead, we have a Sport minister who has thrown it out. I find it a little disappointing that you pulled up figures of other sports and were pitting them against each other, breaking them down by the number of participants per sport. Have you looked at the touch football and triathlon facilities? It is quite easy to play touch footy; you can play it on the Esplanade.
It is about your role as Sport minister, and finding facilities and supporting Territorians in their sporting endeavours. That is something you just do not get. It is unfair to pit sport against sport.
To the badminton people who are here today, we will not give up. I am urging the Deputy Chief Minister to take this up; your Sport minister is obviously not competent. Deputy Chief Minister, I urge you to take up this cause. You signed that petition; it must mean something to you. You are a long-term Territorian, passionate about your sport. I have heard about your endeavours on the basketball court. Can you imagine if your basketball courts were removed, and the previous Labor government had not stepped up and built that new facility at Marrara? I am urging you, as Deputy Chief Minister, since your Sport minister is so incompetent, to take this forward. Can you take this into budget Cabinet and fight for the sport of badminton? I and my colleagues will not give up on this.
We have seen your government laugh at 12 000 signatures, but NT Badminton will keep up the fight. Minister for Sport, you are appalling! You will be known as the minister for Sport who canned the Arafura Games, and I hope you do not let badminton down.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for bringing forward this motion. It is an important motion, as badminton needs to be supported. It was in that light that I was happy to sign that petition, and I do not back down from signing that petition. I support the badminton people in finding a solution for their needs.
Sport has played a great part in my life. I have often said to people it is probably the only discipline I have had and, without sport, I would probably be locked up in gaol rather than this parliament! Having said that, any type of sport deserves support and I am happy to support the badminton association in finding a meaningful solution. However, to take it to that next step and suggest a $6m or $10m investment in badminton – I would love to support that kind of investment. Unfortunately, it is not possible in current circumstances, as the member for Nightcliff said.
Sport is one of the great disciplines I have been involved in. From an early age, I played a lot of cricket as well. In fact, I played against the member for Johnston. I played a season for Nightcliff and I am happy to say I got him out a couple of times. The circumstances are probably not worth boasting about because both incidents were exactly the same. I thought I was reasonably quick, but for a bloke of the member for Johnston’s talent, they were like basketballs coming at him, and each time I had him caught on the boundary as he square cut the ball. I do not think it went more than four feet from the ground the whole way. Whilst I might have claimed the wicket of the member for Johnston on a couple of occasions, it would have been over the fence both times had he not…
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. We are talking about badminton. It is great to hear about Dave’s sporting career …
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Standing Order 113 is for Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: We were talking about sport, money, judo, table tennis, badminton and a range of other things. I did not think reliving a past sporting moment would be such an inappropriate thing; anyhow, I digress. Needless to say, the member for Johnston was a far greater cricketer than I could ever dream of being. I used to think I was pretty quick, but a bloke with an eye like the member for Johnston, I was not. I have played a range of sports all over the Territory and all over Australia. I have played rugby union, cricket, basketball, eight ball – I think they call that a sport – and a range of other things. I am very supportive of the discipline, the fitness and the health benefits that can be derived from playing sport as well as the team building, the camaraderie and the friendships you gain.
When I was a young bloke, I did make a representative side in cricket. I was going to boarding school at the time, St Peters in Brisbane. I was pretty chuffed about making this team. My dad turned up to the school and as a reward for making the side he gave me a cricket bat, three stumps and one of those rubber balls that came in a plastic bag from Kmart. I was pretty upset by that, I have to be honest; I might have shed a couple of tears at the time. I was about 13 years old; all the other blokes in my team had Gray-Nicolls cricket bats, spikes, all the good gear, and I was very upset about the fact that, on making a representative team, somebody bought me a cricket bat from Kmart.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. We know it is all about Dave but this is actually about badminton.
MR TOLLNER: Maybe the Opposition Leader should clean her ears out and listen to this because it does have relevance.
I was quite upset by what I saw as a big slight. I shed a tear and my dad looked at me. We were simple country people and he was genuinely concerned. He said, ‘What is wrong?’ I said, ‘Oh, look, dad, I wanted a Gray-Nicolls cricket bat’. A Gray-Nicolls cricket bat cost $120 at the time and what he bought you could buy at Kmart for $5 or $6. Dad said, ‘Look, David, at times in your life, you have to understand you cannot always get what you want’.
Mr Wood: That sounds like a country and western song.
Mr TOLLNER: It is actually the Rolling Stones, You Can’t Always Get What You Want.
I was very upset. He asked, ‘Do you know what it cost to send you to boarding school at St Peter’s Lutheran College? …
Ms Walker: So, in short, this is the answer to badminton: you can’t always get what you want?
Mr TOLLNER: That is exactly right. We were not poor at all; my parents could afford to send me to boarding school, but we were by no means rich. They pretty well mortgaged the house to send me off to school. When I look back on it, I was taught a valuable lesson. I could not have the Gray-Nicolls cricket bat because I was going to boarding school, something very few kids from my little town had the ability to do. I did not appreciate it at the time, but I do now. I would love to be in a position where we could commit $6m, $10m, $5m, $3m to badminton, but at this point in time, we have some extraneous circumstances that are limiting government spending. As the member for Nightcliff says, it is unfortunate.
One of the small items is that we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt. That does not mean much when you say quickly …
Ms Walker: How did I know that that was coming …
Ms Fyles: What about the $10m from the sale of the land, Dave?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, what about the $10m? I am getting to that – $5.5bn in debt this financial year. This financial year, we have a budget deficit of $1.1bn …
Ms Lawrie: No, it’s not …
Mr TOLLNER: … bequeathed to us by the one over there in purple saying, ‘No, it’s not’. The reality is we are spending $1.1bn more than we receive in revenue. I do not know if there are any alarm bells ringing over there, but there certainly are here on this side of the House.
We are having to make some dreadful decisions. I would rather have not had to sell the land, but guess what? The mob over the other side, who throw money around like it is confetti, do not seem to care that we have to try to cut spending this financial year by $1.1bn to live within our means. That is the context we have this debate in; that is the nub of it. It is fine for you guys to say, ‘Just ignore that. Give badminton a few million dollars. It is nothing in the scheme of things.’ You are probably right.
Ms Fyles: The money for the Alice Springs Golf Club.
Mr TOLLNER: Pull up the Alice Springs Golf Club. Alice Springs Golf Club members pay $1500 a year in membership. Anybody who turns up to play – I have been there and had a game on the golf course. I actually do not think it is that good. It is like a pinball machine. You hit your golf ball and see the damn thing bouncing all around the rocks.
Mr Conlan: That is because you keep hitting it in the rough.
Mr TOLLNER: Evidently, I am hitting it in the wrong direction, but in any case, it costs you $80 to play nine holes.
Ms Fyles: It is great for those who can afford it.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right; it is great for those who can afford it, that is my point. An amount of $4.5m was spent by the previous government on the Darwin Basketball Association. The Darwin Basketball Association committed $600 000 of its money to that. On top of that, every player pays around $100 a season to be a member and on top of that, they pay $12 every time they turn up. A team of 10 is paying $120 for a game. That is two teams, $240 per game for 40 minutes. Somewhere along the line, someone pays, and I do not think that point gets across to those opposite. It is either the participants or the taxpayer. Taxpayers’ money does not seem to concern those opposite. It is like a magic pudding, something you can be digging from and throwing money everywhere.
We had the discussion today about the AMS: a $60m blowout for nothing, we get nothing for it. The computer system at Power and Water was a $45m cost blowout; we get nothing for that. It is just dead money – disappeared. The interest payments on this year’s level of debt – that does not matter. We are paying $1.1bn more than we will receive this year. The financial dunderheads over there do not care about that; everybody should be able to get whatever they want, any time they want, no holds barred. You are financially irresponsible suggesting the government should fork out between $6m and $10m ...
Ms Fyles: You will not even look at it.
Mr TOLLNER: We cannot look at it; that is my point and you do not seem to get it. I want to help badminton. I want to ensure the sport continues and grows, but you cannot pull your socks up when you have none on. We have no money; the can is empty, we do not have $10m to throw at anyone. Why do you think we are selling the land? We need the money. We need to pay down your debt; we need to start living within our means. Badminton misses out.
Ms Fyles: Dump their home, and they miss out.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, maybe. We are desperately trying to find a solution. I want to find a solution, but there are more solutions than coughing up $6m or $10m. That is what this is all about. You have to be responsible. You cannot sit over there in opposition knowing full well we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt you guys created. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn. We are living beyond our means, but you want us to continue throwing money around.
Ms Fyles: You throw it at the sports you like, but the sports you do not like, you do not worry.
Mr TOLLNER: You sit there and crow about this. You are the reason Moody’s is looking at downgrading our credit rating. Does none of this worry you? Does $5.5bn worth of debt not bother you? There are 230 000 people in the Northern Territory and we are wearing debt of $5.5bn. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn, but you want to give $10m to badminton. Why? Because it is a sport. We care about them, we want to nurture and grow them, and we want to see them grow into the future, but if you think we have $10m to throw at them, think again; we do not. We are cutting spending, not increasing it; that is the point. You talk about supporting the Alice Springs Golf Club with $300 000, when they have as many members as they do all paying $1500. That is a fair whack they are generating themselves. Similarly, basketball put up $600 000 to have its courts built; admittedly, government chipped in $4.5m at the time, pre-Delia, pre the Opposition Leader, when a bit of money could probably be spent. Times have changed. Basketball put up $600 000 of its own money. Members pay $100 a season membership plus $12 a game. Goodness me, people at basketball are paying ...
Ms Fyles: They are not asking for it for free. Participants pay, just like basketball.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. They pay $27 a year, full stop.
I 100% support the minister for Sport because he is looking for options.
Ms Fyles: No, he is not.
Mr TOLLNER: He is, he just listed them: school halls, Marrara Indoor Stadium, Palmerston stadium, warehouses in Winnellie. It is not as if we turned a blind eye and said, ‘Forget that. We do not need them.’ He is going out of his way trying to find a solution. He is coming to me saying we might need to help subsidise some of the rents in some of these places; that is what he is doing. Do you think I am in a mood to say yes, given the fact we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt and a $1.1bn budget deficit? It is not easy to say we can afford another $85 000 a year to subsidise the rent for sport.
As I said from the outset, I support sport. I want to see more Territory kids playing sport; I want to see more Territorians playing sport, being fit, active, healthy, networking and the like. It is very healthy to get involved in sport. That is why we support and promote sport in government ...
Mr Elferink: We have a minister for it.
Mr TOLLNER: That is why we have a minister for it, and he is doing a damn fine job. I take offence at the comments that have been made about the minister for Sport. Unless he tells it exactly the way it is, you guys do not listen. You twist, contort and cant the words he uses. He has told you in black and white that in no way known are we spending $10m on building a purpose-built facility at this point in time for badminton. Why? Because you cannot pull your socks up when you have none on. The cupboard is bare. If you want to know why the cupboard is bare, look at the girl in purple sitting in front of you ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 21. Referring to the Leader of the Opposition as a little girl is offensive.
Mr Tollner: I did not say ‘little girl’. She is a girl; I did not call her boy or anything like that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, she should be referred to as either the Opposition Leader or the member for Karama.
Ms Fyles: Can he withdraw the comment?
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, all right. I apologise. If she does not want to be called a girl, I will call her the member for Karama. Anyhow, we all know who is responsible for the mess we are in. I love the way you guys operate. It is totally responsible to hand over a $3m block of land for 20 years to your union mates, ‘Oh, no, they are a good community organisation, not for profit’. No, where do the profits go? The profits all go into the coffers of the Labor Party, but that was a responsible decision just the day before the election, five minutes before caretaker mode, ‘We will hive that one off, we have money to go everywhere’. The Treasurer, the Opposition Leader now, had just produced her pre-election fiscal outlook which clearly showed we were heading for $5.5bn debt. It clearly showed it in her own numbers. She published it, it is out there for the world to see. You predicted a $5.5bn debt, but you still hand over a $3m block of land for 20 years for zero rent. That is the financial responsibility of the Labor Party. How pathetic!
And how pathetic it is that you come in here with an ask of $10m, rather than trying to find a solution. A solution is what I want, what the minister for Sport wants and, I am sure, is what the people who play badminton want. That is what we are looking for, bearing in mind we do not have $10m to throw around, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was interested in the minister’s statement; his sad country and western song about how deprived he was of a cricket bat. The rest of it was starting to make me weep, it was such a sad story. What if he gets there and he could not get a bat – what was the brand again?
Mr Tollner: Gray-Nicolls.
Mr WOOD: I could not afford one of those either. I never hit the ball enough to warrant having one of those. What he forgets is the Badminton NT Association already had a bat, and you have taken it away. You did not have a bat in the first place as you could not afford it. They did. What they have and were given by the government was a facility to play badminton, and they have had it for 30 years ...
Mr Tollner: For perpetuity.
Mr WOOD: Just let me continue. This motion does not talk about $6m or $10m, the members have spoken about it …
Mr Conlan: It mentions the proposal, Gerry, which is…
Mr WOOD: Hang on, I am giving my point of view on this matter. There can be solutions found, and I do put some blame back on the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment because its decision, to some extent, has put the minister for Sport in a difficult situation. This is after the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment made a decision to sell the block of land. He has then copped, ‘Well, where will badminton go?’, and a few other clubs, most of them sporting clubs. We need to look at what solutions are available that will allow badminton to have its own facility that may not cost $6m or $10m. The minister for Sport did not answer the question the member for Nightcliff raised – I was going to raise it as well – about the cost of relocating the building.
I recently met the manager of Norbuilt and he has a long history of building in the Northern Territory, especially with major projects out bush. He built the new squash courts for Darwin at Marrara. I asked him to pop out and look at the building there. I asked if it could be moved and he said yes. He said it will have to be demolished anyway, that is what the government wants to do with it. When the government is looking at the cost of a new building, they cannot include the cost of demolition because that cost would be there regardless of whether this building was relocated or not. He said the building can be relocated.
I was at the meeting the other night. It would have been good for you to be there too; it was during sittings. I went to that meeting, and badminton people are not a fierce looking lot. They do smell and sweat a bit after a game, but I do not think that is enough to put you off going to a meeting. They are certainly passionate about their sport. I do not agree with this playing one sport off the other, whether I want a swimming pool or not. These people have come to parliament with a 12 000-plus name petition, and that is one of the great advantages of living in a democracy. They have put their point of view that they would like a purpose-built facility. This was provided for them by the government, until now.
I think we can, the badminton community and, if other people are interested too, try to look at ways of giving them that facility that may not just be a matter of, ‘Government, we want some money’. It may be we can get a partnership. We often talk about public private partnerships in this place. We have had them here before, but this would be on a smaller scale. If we were able to relocate the shed there, we would need a couple of things. We would need a concrete floor. We need someone to build a concrete floor. This is not much more than a shed. It has a shower, toilet and change rooms attached to it, some lighting – although they provide their own lighting – and it would need cladding. That is all it has got at the moment. There is a thing going around – I do not know who made the statement, it might have been the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. He said, on 27 November:
I do not know whether he was referring directly to the shed behind, but it does not have any asbestos and it does not have air conditioning. It is a pretty basic shed, but it would nearly withstand a nuclear explosion, at least the steel frame would.
There is an opportunity for the minister for Sport, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment – he has made a decision to sell this land. I asked a question in parliament recently about why he could not delay that because part of the petition is asking for a deferment. Minister, you do have other parcels of land, so the question is, why can you not – I will read the first part of the petition:
Minister, I do not know how many blocks of land you have identified for housing. If you take the point of view of the minister for Sport you say, ‘We need to sell this land to make money,’ well, there are other blocks of land. I presume you are not going to sell them all in one big hit.
So there is an opportunity; one is to defer the decision. I know they have made a decision to allow them there until part way through next year. I would think there is no big rush to get rid of Sports House, considering you have other parcels of land.
Even if you do sell it, regardless of what the minister for Sport is saying, a small proportion, at least, of that money should go as recognition you are moving a club from its home. Lands and Planning has made a decision that it wants the land for housing. The decision was made by government 30 years ago that this would be the home of badminton. Surely there is some responsibility you could take in the form of using some of the revenue you raise from the sale of that land to put into a proposal that may be able to cost, not $6m or $10m, but may add to a contribution from the private sector.
I even spoke to the gentleman from Norbuild. I am not trying to say he would do it, but I know people like him are the sort of people who, if you sat down with them, may be able to contribute, at a reasonable price, some of the building of a facility at Marrara using the existing framework.
Sometimes we have to engage ourselves in working together. I will give you an example of how things have happened at Freds Pass. The minister spoke about Freds Pass before. There are two big sheds there and the minister for, I think it was Infrastructure at the time, required, as part of the redevelopment of the waterfront, two very large sheds that were originally part of – fertiliser may have been stored in them or iron ore when it was loaded there. There were two enormous sheds. The minister knew those sheds had to be demolished, so, at no cost to Freds Pass, the minister enabled them to be pulled down and taken to Freds Pass. They were erected at Freds Pass at a subsidised cost by certain people. Those people volunteered their time and effort to sandblast the steel and get it painted. There are two very large sheds out there that would now last for a very long time.
One is used at the markets; the intention was for it to be an indoor sporting facility. The other is used for indoor equestrian, which can be used night and day, and in wet weather. There is an example of people getting together and being able to do something much more cheaply than if the government did it. The government would probably want all sorts of plans and everything. I am not saying you will not need some plans. You will certainly need some engineering plans and building approval. But if you get together with people and say, ‘We have 12 000 signatures. We have a group of people who are Territorians – there might not be a huge number of them, but they are worthy of support.’
If we could get a committee together, and have the minister for Infrastructure on it as well – he will have his contacts. I am sure if you went around at this stage of the development of Darwin, not forgetting that the Treasurer the other day was espousing how booming the economy of the Northern Territory is – if it is booming that much, which is mainly construction, I am sure we can find some people in the construction business who could help out.
I know INPEX has probably got more requests for donations than you can poke a stick at, but there are other big companies in the Northern Territory, like Leighton, JKC, ConocoPhillips, Halikos and some of the concrete companies which might get involved, some of the people involved in metal, the same for cladding.
I support this motion not because it will spend $6m or $10m, and I understand where you are coming from. You could do it cheaper and I use Freds Pass as an example. It can be done cheaper and we need to work together. I will ask the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment if we can get some money from the sale. The member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer says, ‘We don’t have any money’. I could always ask where the $11m to move NTOEC came from. I thought we were broke and the Open Education Centre does not need to move, but we have found $11m to move it, plus money to move the Music School, put a new driveway in at Sanderson and send other people to Harbour View. You have money when you need it; you do not have money when you do not want to spend it.
We have a wonderful group of people here who represent a good cross-section, in some cases older Darwin, some people new to Darwin and some young people. The advantage – I am speaking without any proof – if you take the facility to Marrara you will open up badminton for more people to see because lots of people go to Marrara for all kinds of sport. If you put it next to a facility where you have basketball, judo, gymnastics, table tennis, netball or athletics right next door, you have other facilities – squash across the road – then it may be a good way of promoting the sport.
In this debate we have not said it is one of a number of sports suitable for people who like to be active but do not want to be wiped out in the process. It is not rugby union, not Aussie rules, it is a more genteel sport but one where you can keep fit. It is also a good sport for improving your mental health, and older people are encouraged to be active. It is not just the physical activity, it is good for one’s mental health as well, and it is important we recognise that when trying to support these things.
I congratulate the NT Badminton Association for the effort. If I had the member for Blain here – we reckon we have the highest number of signatures on any petition, the TIO petition – but I do not reckon that matters too much. To have 12 000 people sign a petition says people are concerned about this small but important group of people who enjoy their sport and would like it to continue but, because of a government decision, they are losing their home.
I hope after all this argy-bargy tonight perhaps some of the ministers might get together and work with the Badminton Association. I will talk to some of the people I know, like the boss of Norbuild, and see what he can arrange. He will have plenty of contacts and it might be, if we can put some plans together and the government defers the decision to move badminton from Sports House, we may come up with an answer and a solution to satisfy everybody.
I support the motion. I have not said I support the $6m to $10m quoted because we can come up with something which shows the government is responsible. It does not necessarily have a lot of money, but at the same time it needs to contribute. Let us see if we can get some private participation to make this a win-win situation for all sides so the Badminton Association can continue and grow and be the great sport it is. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I like lateral thinking. The member for Nelson has demonstrated some lateral thinking. I will not commit the government to anything, but if that suggestion could be brought forward to the Northern Territory government it would be something the government could look at.
Unfortunately, on every occasion I have spoken to people from the Badminton NT Association, there was, basically, a presentation of a fait accompli. The argument consistently went: the asset the thing stands on will cover the cost of building a new $6m or $10m facility. What they are still arguing in that case is you have to forgo that asset. So, it is still a loss and a future debt, because if you cash up that asset, it comes off a deficit for this year and, ultimately, the debt situation we are facing.
We have to be a responsible government. I do not want to diminish the people who play badminton, but government is about having to make decisions, and we cannot continue to sustain the $5.5bn debt we were heading to. It just cannot be done. So, when badminton members came to me and said, ‘This is the way it has to be, and all you have to do is give away the asset’ – they are arguing still, ‘Give us a $10m donation’. It just cannot be done.
I heard the member for Nelson say during the debate there is this other potential option. Okay, if that is the case, then bring that to government. I say to the NT Badminton Association, bring that to government. I have not heard that at this stage, despite the fact I visited the site and spoke to any number of those badminton players. All I have been delivered is, ‘All you have to do is spend between $6m and $10m’. That is it, that is the offer.
The minister and the department have made overtures and efforts to relocate badminton. We have made an offer to go part of the way to covering the costs of a shed in Woolner, but that was not acceptable because it was too expensive. Well, if it is expensive for the people of badminton, a $10m grant, whether it is a handover of an asset or in cash, is expensive for the people of the Northern Territory. When, in government, you are presented with ‘this is the way it has to be or nothing at all’, then that is the way you respond.
If Badminton NT was to come back and say, ‘We think we have located a site. We think we can find a way to move the shed on site at the moment. We think we have found a way to cover the ongoing costs of electrical, water, etcetera, of that relocated shed’ – bring that to government, then government will look at it, and perhaps there is a result. I like that sort of lateral thinking. Lateral thinking has been absent.
I cannot justify, as a person who tries to be personally financially responsible in his own home because I know the importance of financial responsibility, being financially irresponsible. I listen to the members of the Labor Party opposite. In Question Time today alone, they would have spent $100m. ‘You have to bail out Rio’, we have to do all sorts of things …
Ms Lawrie: Bail out Rio? Who on earth is asking you to bail out Rio?
Mr ELFERINK: ‘You have to spend lots of money on Rio.’ You do not put a figure on it. We have to spend all this money on Education and on badminton. There was $100m or thereabouts spent in Question Time in one hour.
That is the way these people spend money. That is why we are in this situation! This is the frustrating thing. I would love to say yes every time, but I understand the reality that sometimes you just have to say no. I do not like saying no. I take no grim pleasure out of it, but that is the situation we are in: a $5.5bn debt. This is something we have to live with.
I would absolutely love to be able to start government with a clean slate every time. But you do not, you inherit the debt you have been given, and you have to be able to manage it.
I heard the former Treasurer saying ‘rubbish’. When there is a Moody’s downgrade looming, it is not rubbish, it is real, it is coming, and it is because of the legacy we have been left. ‘But you cannot put money in front of people.’ That was the solution in other countries we have seen in the last few years and they cannot support any sports anymore because they are too busy paying off their debt.
We are spending hundreds of thousands every day in interest alone, paying off debt we are carrying. When I say hundreds of thousands, it is in the order of about $600 000 or $700 000 every day, paying off debt. The answer is, ‘Oh, well, it will only cost $10m or $6m’. I get frustrated at that approach. If there was another solution offered, such as the member for Nelson offered, and that solution came from badminton and they were able to demonstrate how it would be done, I am sure it would get a more benevolent hearing.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I have met with them! This is the point, and you sit there and say I will not meet with them. I have visited the site. I have looked at the site. I am getting extremely frustrated with a Labor opposition, which has, in government, taken us to the point where we have to start saying no to the solution, and they say it is our fault. It is frustrating to have to say no to the good people who play badminton and are interested in that sport. If we do not say no to them, and do not say no to somebody else, it will not be long before our debt goes to $6bn or $7bn. Where does it stop? Where is the threshold? They say we are the meanies because we have the audacity to say, ‘Hang on, slow down’.
I ask the people in badminton to look at the Woolner option. There might be a way the extra $82 000 can be found. If you bring some other options to the table that will not cost millions of dollars – because the unavoidable problem we have is we are stuck with a debt and we have to try to deal with it. That is the bottom line. Is it about money? Yes, it is because money is about people and that is utterly misunderstood on that side of the House. It costs money to run health systems, police officers, court systems, schools, to run all sorts of things. It just costs. Members complain about the cost of living. There is a cost of governance and it is about people, because without money you cannot do anything for people at all, whether it is in the area of sport, health, law and order, public safety or education. That is the reality. It is a cold, hard reality and it is unfortunate we have taken on that responsibility, a responsibility that was shirked and avoided by the members opposite because they did not want to face up to it.
That is the challenge we have, so I ask badminton to start suggesting some ideas that will not cost millions of dollars. If you do that, there might be some further space. I know the minister and his department have made numerous efforts to try to bring out other solutions. I urge badminton to go think about those solutions. If the price tag is in the millions it will not happen.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The fact the motion is even in parliament is disappointing. It shows there has been no political will from the government to work through solutions to the eviction with the badminton association. This has been brought about by a government decision. That is where this started, the CLP government decided it would evict badminton from Sports House and took a hands-off approach after that.
Badminton made several attempts to meet with the minster and he would not meet with them. They were getting the blocked door syndrome that we hear about so often from a range of organisations. They say, ‘We just cannot get to the minister’. What they get is, ‘Talk to the department,’ and the department says, ‘Well, we cannot help you’.
Mr Conlan: She is misleading the House.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw, ‘misleading the House’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you please withdraw ‘misleading the House’. Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Badminton repeatedly tried to meet with the minister. He kept passing the buck to the department. The department was not coming up with a solution. They had one meeting with the minister and it was passed to the department again. It is not uncommon, as we hear time and time again from any organisation, as well as businesses, trying to get some political traction and will to resolve an issue. I repeat, this issue did not arise through the actions of badminton. This issue arose because the CLP government decided to sell Sports House. The CLP, in government, wants to sell Sports House. The Labor Party, in government, wanted to sell Sports House. We took very different approaches. The approach we were taking was to work through, detail by detail, all of the user groups in Sports House, including the facilities attached, such as badminton, and working out how on earth they could be accommodated elsewhere when they did not have the financial capacity to come up with a solution on their own.
If you are truly going to support sport, as we heard in the lengthy self-indulgent speech from the Treasurer, you have a responsibility in government to work through the issues in detail and come up with the options. That did not happen. They received a letter of eviction, first and foremost. After the letter of eviction, I have seen an organisation come together and gather a range of interim solutions, as well as a more permanent option, which is a multiuser facility at Marrara.
The debates covered a bit of both in the Chamber tonight. The interim solutions included the department sending them to look at school halls; the minister included that in his comments. Badminton is saying, ‘We have grown past the days of popping into school halls’. They used to do that a long time ago. Badminton has also said how deeply disappointed they are in the attitude of this government because they know they were committed to a new purpose built facility when the Katherine floods hit. The government of the day came to them and said, ‘We cannot help you with that commitment any more. We have to go back on that commitment because of the Katherine floods.’ As a sport, they said they understood.
They never lost the ultimate hope of a proper facility. They used the opportunity to look at what would be a more reasonable multiuser facility, co-existing with other sports that also need facilities to grow. The costs per person, which are the figures the minister for Sport is using, do not truly reflect what it would be. He is not taking into account gymnastics and table tennis. If you want to put a dollar amount on this, you would need to look at the cost benefit analysis of keeping Territorians healthy, fit and out of our health system. There are huge cost benefits in that. That does not enter the debate for our Sport minister; he does not seem to care.
We heard the member for Nelson talk about the redevelopment of equestrian facilities at Freds Pass with the move of the shed from the industrial area to cater for the waterfront development. That came about because there was the political will to find a solution for equestrian facilities at Freds Pass. You heard the suggestions from the member for Nelson about how you could do it. We heard a rant and rave from the Treasurer about the need to be fiscally responsible, yet he continues to ignore the fact the sale of Sports House will yield significant income for the government. We have not heard a definitive figure from the government, but it would be in the range of about $13m. The sport is asking the government to work with them for an interim facility. They cannot afford to go it alone; other sports are not expected to go it alone. They are not asking for something that other sports are not enjoying. They are asking for more support from the government in an interim facility and to work with the government on a multiuser facility from the proceeds of the sale of Sports House, where they currently are.
Darwin is recognised for its fantastic sporting facilities at Marrara. These were developed over successive governments because we recognise the importance of sport to the fabric of our society and the health of Territorians. It is always tough to find funding, there is no doubt about that. I had to find funding to support sports throughout my time as Sport minister and as Treasurer. You cannot shirk your responsibility; you need to find the political will. You need to sit down, nut through it, and make an effort. What has been lacking from the minister is effort; you have a very dismissive attitude towards the needs of sports in the Top End. I do not question your commitment to sporting needs in Central Australia, and it has been good to see your commitment to those sporting needs. You have signed off on very lucrative deals to bring one game of soccer a year to Central Australia. Every game they play will be in Central Australia. They will never grace the Top End, you could not be that gracious. You have signed off as many deals as you can around sports in Central Australia.
Good on you, but we have a community here which enjoys sport and is looking for commitment and political will to find a reasonable outcome to accommodate their sporting needs because you are evicting them from their current home. You have a responsibility there.
As for the nonsense I heard from the Treasurer of, ‘We would like to but can’t because of the debt,’ I point that out in the last 12 months the CLP has spent $84m in new policy initiatives. It is in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report if you want to look it up. There are $84m of decisions you have taken, CLP, to spend somewhere because you want to.
During Question Time today we heard the Chief Minister talk about the memorandum of understanding with the Tiwi Islands and the land there. Predictions are – they are certainly not negated by the government – there has already been a $1m down payment and, in total, it will be around $3.5m for the government to purchase 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands. My point is that where you have the political will, you spend the money. You have spent $84m in new initiatives. Many Territorians, when asked if they can work out what the government has spent $84m on in just 12 months, cannot answer. They say, ‘You are kidding me. We know about the $300 000 for the golf club, but where on earth did they spend $84m in the last 12 months?’ New initiatives.
We have a sport saying, ‘It was your decision to evict us. Work with us more constructively instead of being dismissive of our needs.’ They cannot afford the proposal for interim accommodation at Woolner. They have been up front with that, and they are asking you to work with them on a better outcome because other sports have had a relationship with successive governments, both CLP and ALP, that has been more constructive in finding resolutions to their concerns.
There were some disingenuous contributions to debate by the Treasurer. He pointed out that basketball put money into a facility, a debt to government that ultimately had to be waived. If you introduce information into this debate, try to be honest about it.
The Treasurer said we are in dire financial circumstances and so cannot do anything. He would like to but cannot. That is nonsense. Under his watch, debt is increasing by $1bn a year. Labor delivered an operating surplus of about $165m, according to the Auditor-General’s audited accounts of the 2011-12 financial year, the last financial year under Labor. The debt was $1.8bn and under the CLP we have seen increased revenue from the GST. The GST has increased by several hundred million dollars. That is in your own Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, if you want to read that figure. At the same time, you are on your spending spree to the tune of $84m in 2012-13, just one financial year.
Governments always get to choose their priorities in these matters. It is not unreasonable for a sport to say, ‘We have been in a location for a long time using the facilities. Help us find some interim facilities and use some of the profits from the sale of our location to reinvest into a multiuser facility at Marrara which will enhance not only our sport, but others as well.’ They have not said, ‘We want our own facility; we want it to be the Rolls Royce and everyone else can go he.’ They have looked, generously, at a multiuser facility at Marrara from the profits of the sale of Sports House.
It boils down to political will, and that is what we have not seen. It is a hallmark of the way this minister goes about his business. You are the minister for all sports, regardless of where they play their sport in the Northern Territory. Take that responsibility far more seriously. Roll up your sleeves, find the political will, and work more constructively and proactively with badminton.
Mr Conlan: Find $10m.
Ms LAWRIE: You sit there chanting, ‘find $10m’, which shows you are not listening to any of the constructive suggestions that have come forth in this debate. It is so disappointing to hear, and it does not fill us with much hope. I hope some of your colleagues understand that Territorians, regardless of where they live, should be accommodated in their need to have appropriate facilities in which to play their sport. Badminton has every right to a facility in the Top End.
Mr Conlan: Shadow minister for Central Australia, God forbid!
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: no interruption.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to point that out to the member for Greatorex. If you could keep it down, thank you.
Mr Conlan: I am a lone voice over here at the moment.
‘
Ms LAWRIE: It is no one else’s fault, Matt, if you do not have your colleagues here.
The point I am making is where they want to help and put their effort, they do. Somewhere, they put $84m investment into something in the Northern Territory in just one year. There was a bit of a spending spree there. You are being helped out at the moment by a bit of an increase in the GST.
We do not know where we are at this point in the financial year, because the Treasurer has not handed down the mid-year report yet. That is due during these sittings, and I dare say it will be slipped in as late as possible tomorrow night, just as he slipped in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report before his Business statement late on the Thursday of the last sittings. It was that report that showed us the $84m spend. It showed us the $32m grab in tariff increases for Power and Water.
You will never hear from the Treasurer or the CLP that Labor managed to reduce debt by $582m. You will not hear that in the discourse because that does not suit what they want to peddle. You will not hear the debt was sitting at $1.8bn because that is not what they want to peddle. You will not get an understanding from them that it is the responsibility, in government, to govern for all Territorians, regardless of whether they happen to be in vogue or not.
Stop being dismissive of the needs of NT Badminton in the Top End. It is a worthy sport. It has a great cross-section of players. It provides us with healthy, fit, active Territorians who will increasingly not need to rely on the health system, which is where we get the bulk of our cost in government service delivery.
Find the political will. To date, you have had an arrogant and dismissive attitude and approach to this matter. From this debate, I hope at the very least you find a way of engaging with NT badminton, recognising the need for an interim answer to their needs because of the eviction. Generously open your mind, Sport minister, if that is possible, to the reality that every government provides support to sport infrastructure. Marrara is the location where we enhance and improve sport infrastructure. Through this term, you will be gaining significant funds of $13m from sport infrastructure, Sports House. Reinvesting some of that into a multiuser facility at Marrara is not an unreasonable request. It is not a simple ask; it is a reasonable request.
I was deeply disappointed to hear some of the debate today but I was not surprised. That is what we have become used to in here. I will remind you, where you have political will, you will find a solution to the needs of NT Badminton. I ask you to find the political will.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Johnston, for bringing forward this issue around badminton. As the local member for Fannie Bay, I have been working with the member for Johnston. He has been handling the sports related issues around the closure of Sports House, while I have been talking with local residents about the subsequent issues that come with that. The other minister who has been involved in this process has been the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, regarding what happens to that site, if and when NT Badminton leaves. I have been working with our hard-working shadow Sport minister, who is very passionate about the future of badminton, and we believe badminton should have a home in Darwin. They should be able to play their sport. This is, in many ways, a binary issue: does badminton have a home or not? We believe it should have a home, so the member for Johnston has been working very closely with badminton regarding those issues. It is important we put on the record during this debate our thoughts about the Sports House site. It is currently within a community purpose zone and some of the badminton players are also residents of the Fannie Bay area, so they would be aware of some of these issues. We believe it should remain for community purpose. The current government has flagged it will be rezoned for high-density residential development and sold.
It is not necessarily the best use of that land and government land should be used for its best purpose, not its best price. The community purpose of that land is important for the area of Fannie Bay. We have seen significant residential developments in Fannie Bay. We have seen a significant increase of density in the Fannie Bay area. We know Kurringal has been flagged for further density by both sides, so more people will be living there.
As you increase density in a local area, you have to make sure you have space that supports that density, community purpose land. Sports House serves a community purpose, and I have said this to local residents and the minister. There are community groups which call Sports House home which are yet to find new homes. Nothing should happen with the Sports House site until sporting groups like badminton are found new homes by the government.
That is the first step in the process. The second is that it is community purpose land and should remain for a community purpose. There are a variety of community needs the community purpose land could serve; growing a local seniors population is one and Southern Cross, which is next door, has expressed an interest in that land. Soon after the last election, when we were moved into opposition, I met with Southern Cross and I spoke with John Coleman, who at the time was the acting Chief of Staff for the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills. We arranged a meeting between Southern Cross and the then Chief Minister to explain that Southern Cross is a seniors group which would like to expand its services to the local Darwin region, provide therapeutic care and look after seniors who are living in their own homes. They were told that land would be available at some stage in the future, for a price. They would have to buy that land.
It is community purpose land for a community purpose. Southern Cross, despite having a community purpose mind, does not have access to the land. Let us also bear in mind that nothing should happen on that space until the people who use that space, like badminton, actually have a new home. Unfortunately, Southern Cross was told, ‘No, you have to come with a chequebook,’ and Southern Cross, being a not-for-profit community organisation, does not operate in that way. Government land should be used for its best purpose, not its best price.
The other community purpose that land could serve is its current purpose, which is organised sport. Sports House might be at the end of its useful life, as we have heard. Not all of Sports House is at the end of its useful life; parts of it are still quite functional. While parts of Sports House might be at the end of their useful life, that does not mean the land cannot be redeveloped and provide new public facilities for sport and recreation.
There is no reason why we need to ignore the current use of that land. It is currently community purpose land and it is serving a community purpose; badminton is a community purpose. They are using that land and there is no reason why, if we redevelop that site, we suddenly have to go to high-density residential housing in an area which is full of high-density residential housing. There is more housing going up all the time. There is no reason why that community purpose land cannot continue to serve a community purpose. I want to put on the public record another aspect of this debate. The main point of this debate today is that badminton should have a new home and we support badminton having a new home. We will keep working with badminton for that purpose. There are other consequences to that decision to move Sports House from the land it is on, with the changing nature of the land it is on from a community purpose to high-density residential housing. This is where we also have an issue with this government; a different minister is involved in that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table my correspondence with residents, the Planning Commission, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment and correspondence concerning the interests of Southern Cross, as neighbours.
Leave granted
Mr GUNNER: It is important, for the full context of this debate, to know it is about more than not having a home for badminton. It is about a cash grab of community purpose land. It is hasty, unseemly and does not serve the needs of local residents. Community purpose land should remain for a community purpose. It has been zoned for a community purpose for a reason. It recognises the high-density residential living around it. When more people live in an area, you provide more services to that area. That is the point of community purpose land.
We support badminton. We support their search for a new home, or the possible development of a new home on that site. We support them in their endeavours, but we also have concerns as to why they need to find a new home. The haste of this government to move them and vacate Sports House, knock it down and sell it – the reason we are having this debate is the other agenda to sell community purpose land in Fannie Bay for high-density residential housing.
I support the motion put forward by the member for Johnston and add those conditional concerns about the agenda and actions of the Country Liberal Party government.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions. I do not agree with pretty much all of what was said by the other side, apart from the member for Port Darwin in some of his comments. I highlight that we were expecting this substandard response from a failing and useless minister for Sport. He is bungling everything he touches.
You have a Chief Minister who is destroying a town like Gove, and we now have a minister for Sport who is destroying a sport like badminton in the Northern Territory. It is an absolute disgrace. He should be standing up for sports, not saying no. How about you take a leaf out of the member for Port Darwin’s book of consultation? The first thing to do is speak to them; I think you have met them once. I am happy for you to tell me otherwise, but you have met with NT Badminton on one occasion. Is that correct? The silence is deafening here.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution. He spoke some sense. There are not many things I and the member for Port Darwin agree on, but one is that when you can consult, you actually meet with people and visit the site. I doubt the minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Greatorex, has been to the facility. He said it has been condemned, but I can tell you, as can the members for Port Darwin, Nelson, Nightcliff and Karama, it has not. The badminton facility is a strong facility; it is a sound facility. That is why the member for Nelson was saying we should look at opportunities and options to pull it apart and build it somewhere else, because it is structurally sound. If you had been there, if you had gone and listened and spoken to the badminton people, they would have told you they have had reports that the structure of the facility is good. It is good to move.
Sports House is an old building. That is fine, but we need to separate those buildings to say the badminton facility is sound. It is amazing that all of a sudden this facility is being condemned and Lands and Planning wants to rezone it from community purpose to build multistorey apartment blocks and sell the land. It is very convenient for this government.
To talk about about debt, debt, debt – while I respect that the member for Fong Lim was talking up my cricket ability and his lack of ability, I respect he does know sport. He gets sport, he is a legend on the basketball court and he gets sport. That is what he is saying. However, to keep going on about the debt – Territorians are sick of the talk around debt, because they know it is not the true story. You keep talking about tracking to $5.5bn; it is not $5.5bn at all.
When you want to support something, you seem to find an enormous amount of money. Out of nowhere, you found $10.5m to resurface the track at Hidden Valley, $4m for the NRL deal with the Parramatta Eels, $300 000 for the minister’s golf club, a couple of hundred thousand dollars for the Adelaide United deal, and $300 000 for the Melbourne Demons contract. It seems, as the Leader of the Opposition said, whenever you need to find money, you find it. It is getting beyond a joke for everybody, especially us.
What the Leader of the Opposition has come up with is that when you do something, you need a new policy initiative; in one year, you found $84m for new policy initiatives. We are talking about $6.8m or $10m for a new facility for four sports. Badminton would have a home. This is a fantastic proposal.
The minister is a bit dodgy with me because I have been a sports adviser; I know my stuff on sport. The proposal that has come forward is a fantastic written proposal. To incorporate and grow other sports is a testament to the initial report NT badminton put forward. To allow gymnastics, judo and table tennis to grow, because they are at capacity, while incorporating their new facility is a fantastic proposal and something we need to look at. We always want participation levels of sports to grow, and that is why our side of the House, and the member for Nelson, have supported the ability for sports to grow their participation.
In this case, we are talking about NT Badminton’s survival. They do not want to go back 30 or 40 years. I will fight for a facility for them and to see their sport does not go backwards. I have seen sports go backward in the Northern Territory and they never return to the same strength.
During our time in government, we spent a lot of money on facilities. To highlight some of this, we have hockey and netball, the amount of money that went into TIO Stadium, the Palmerston Raiders football facilities, the Palmerston Magpies facilities. We had over $54m worth of commitments in Palmerston, because we were allowing sport and recreation opportunities to grow. As we grow in population, we allow more Territorians to participate.
When the member for Fong Lim came in, we thought he had a massive piece of paper with a signed cheque for $6.8m. Unfortunately, it did not happen.
The member for Nelson, all politics aside, speaks sense. Regardless of your political affiliation – I am glad you are on that side of the House, member for Fong Lim – the man speaks sense. That is why we took up the fight. When NT Badminton said the member for Nelson was assisting its fight, it was in pretty safe hands.
Let us work together because we can. We understand the importance of working with local groups to save their sport. This is opposite to the minister for Sport, who is trying to destroy sport, destroy participation rates, and not allow the sport to grow or have its facility. The minister for Sport is kicking them out. I do not understand it. If you want to kick people out, you need a plan for them. I have never been involved in a sporting organisation, or even as the advisor for Sport and Recreation, and come across people being offered commercial rents, a commercial lease, where you sign the lease. It is unheard of.
You saw what we did, and the minister was there with a big cheesy smile, opening the squash centre. There was no mention of who built it and who went through the deal. We, as a government, decided this sport needed to grow and continue in the Northern Territory. That is why, when in government, people believed we had the best interests of everybody in the Territory around sport, supporting sport and recreation ...
Mr Conlan: That is why you did so well in Central Australia.
Mr VOWLES: You can throw all the personal attacks you want at me, member for Greatorex. That is all I am asking. You just do your job, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr VOWLES: You do your job and I will not complain; that is all I am saying. You are the minister for Sport.
He sledged me about my Twitter account. I find it pretty creepy that he is following me for one. You must be one of the only followers of my Twitter account, and that freaks me out a bit. There are two or three, and I know one is my mum. I am a bit concerned by that, and I put on the record if the minister, or one of his highly-paid advisors upstairs, wants to get some transfer from CAAMA radio, I even gave the NT government a rap about what a great event the Chairman’s XI in Alice Springs was.
My colleagues and I will continue to fight and make sure there is a facility for NT Badminton. I did suggest a solution. You keep talking about what I would do, so I will suggest a solution on the record. I put forward that maybe the member for Port Darwin becomes the point of contact for NT Badminton and talks to them, along with …
Mr Elferink: I have just had a meeting with them.
Mr VOWLES: That is what I am saying. You have just consulted more than the Sport minister, so I thank you. My solution is, get together with the member for Port Darwin, the member for Nelson, me, and NT Badminton. Let us have a chat and find a solution to this problem. You do not want to be the Sport minister or the government that destroys badminton in the Northern Territory. The Assembly divided:
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion negatived
MOTION
Local Government Shire Restructuring
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am aware of the nature of the motion proposed as notice of it has been given. I note that almost precisely the same motion, in essence, is being argued outside of the GBD arrangement and is currently under debate. Can I seek some guidance from you in relation to the anticipation rule?
Madam SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: I believe it is 68.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you wish to speak to the point of order?
Mr WOOD: I also need clarification. I am not sure what bill the member for Port Darwin is referring to by saying that I may be anticipating, so if I could know what …
Mr ELFERINK: Essentially, there are two debates. There is one that is currently suspended to enable the GBD, which, under Standing Order 183, moves that the local government bill be referred to a committee. You have given notice for a motion, now in GBD, that says that local government stuff has to go to a committee. I am seeking guidance as to whether or not that offends the anticipation rule, which is designed to prevent repetition.
Mr WOOD: The debate we are having, which is on hold during GBD, is in relation to a specific bill which is about restructuring orders only. I am asking that it go to a select committee and I will be giving the reasons why. That is a fairly specific. This is much broader. It is about how local government will be restructured.
Madam SPEAKER: Across the Northern Territory, is that the intent of your motion?
Mr WOOD: It is.
Mr ELFERINK: I place myself in your hands, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I accept what you say and I hear what the Leader of Government Businesses has said. Proceed, but ensure what you are discussing does not impinge on the previous debate in regards to your motion to send the bill to a select committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that before any local government shires are restructured, and notwithstanding the rejection by the government of a boundary commission, which is the preferred and most sensible option, there should be an independent inquiry similar to the Deloittes inquiry to look at the viability of the new council and the viability of the remnant council. The results of that review should be made public. Any input from Treasury should be made public. If it is shown that the new council is not viable without more NT operation funding to prop it up, then the de-amalagamation should not go ahead.
Secondly, there should be public meetings or information sessions held at the main towns and outstations within the proposed new council, organised by an independent facilitator to explain what is being proposed and the arguments for and against the proposals.
Thirdly, there should be either a plebiscite or referendum within the proposed new council run by the NT Electoral Commission or LGANT to see if the residents agree to the proposal to break away from their existing council.
Fourthly, if there is agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing council’s elected members. Any changes will be made by the people on the election day where residents of both councils will elect their representatives. The model provided in the document De-amalgamation Transfer Methodology could provide a useful model.
Before any local government shires are restructured, and notwithstanding the rejection by the government of a boundary commission – which is still up for debate and is the most sensible option, but which the minister for Local Government has already said would be too expensive, a waste of time and all the usual things to avoid democracy – there should be an independent inquiry, similar to the Deloitte inquiry, to establish the viability of the new council as well as a remnant council. The results of that review should be made public. Any input from Treasury should be made public. If it is shown that the new council is not viable without more NT operational funding to prop it up, then the de-amalgamation should not go ahead.
That is the first part of that motion. I am concerned a political decision has been made and there will be a new council in the Victoria Daly district. I have nothing against the principle of that if it can be shown that people want it. However, we had a promise from the minister for Local Government. We have already had the debate about local authorities and local authorities are the first part of the reform. They are not yet tested, they have just been agreed to. I am not sure if those local authorities have any members yet or whether the nuts and bolts of how they will operate have been established. Has the funding been attributed by the government to enable people in those local authorities to be paid? What is the cost of administering those local authorities? Have the nuts and bolts been put in place in relation to local authorities?
The government says it has made this promise, it will reform local government and will give people a greater voice. I do not have a problem with that, but if you have the local authorities up and running, you would see how they are working before you go to the next path. Have they given people a better voice? What issues might need some adjustment in relation to the operation of these local authorities? We have gone straight to the next phase, which the then minister for Local Government said would be part of a review. I imagined the review would have two stages. The first stage would be to look at the viability of the councils. The Deloitte inquiry said our councils are basically not viable. The minister has said, ‘Well of course they are not viable. They have not been viable for 30 years. Of course we will have to put operational funding in there.’
We know councils rely on operational funding from the Northern Territory, but what the minister is missing in this debate is that one of the issues raised by Deloitte was the lack of ability for shires to raise money through rates. For instance, it works out that around 2% to 4% of income for the shires comes from rates; before we go down the path of cutting up councils, we should attack that issue.
The minister raised this issue and received some criticism from the Central Land Council. He said, ‘If the land councils want to charge rent on government facilities, they should pay rates’. I have some issues about the lease arrangements, but the point is the minister is aware local government is struggling to raise revenue through rates. It has not necessarily been as big an issue as it is now because the councils are bigger, with bigger responsibilities, and they need to raise more revenue. I have not heard anything from the government to say, ‘These are our proposals to increase the ability of councils to raise more revenue,’ apart from a comment in the paper.
I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about any positive action you are taking in enquiring how councils can raise money to be more viable. If you want to make councils viable in the Northern Territory without any changes, the government will have to put about $10m into operational funding to give councils a chance to deliver services in the shires.
I have not heard anything from the minister, and I hope in his response he can say where the government is in relation to putting something positive out about how local government can raise revenue through a rating system. Perhaps if he has some other idea – chook raffles and TattsLotto – he could let me know. This government is willing to break up the shires, change the boundaries, and has not done the very thing the then minister, Alison Anderson, promised would happen. Have you conducted a review to see whether you could answer some of the questions Deloitte raised in its review of local government funding?
There seems to be a void. We seem to be going down the path of, ‘We made a political promise, we are going ahead regardless’. When I ask if this new council will be viable, all I hear is, ‘No council is viable’. Surely you will not create another council that would increase debt? The minister has harped on about debt. If you construct another council, it means the council will require more operational funding to add to the total operational funding that already exists for local government. Is that not irresponsible? Have you not shown due diligence when it comes to whether your new council will be a bigger burden on the taxpayer? That is not fair and the government should not go down a path of saying, ‘Because of a political promise, we will give you a new council’. It seems anyone who asks about viability is told, ‘You don’t want to know about it and the councils are not viable anyway. That is it so don’t worry. We are the government, she’ll be fine.’
That is my first query. Where are the studies to show councils can improve viability, and what ideas is the government putting forward as a positive way of improving viability?
Secondly, there should be public meetings or information sessions. The minister said he will have transitional authorities, etcetera, but that is after the event so I will not discuss it; we can discuss that in another bill.
You issued a media release on 17 November; I do not know whether I am right or wrong there. However, only a few weeks ago, you said you had a meeting at Peppimenarti and you met about 20 clan groups and about 100 people. You need more than that to say you have the full backing of the community. You might have the full backing of the community and, if you have, good luck. However, you have not come back to this parliament and said 60% of people in the area support a breakaway council. Has there been a discussion among the greater population of the area? Have you discussed it with Elizabeth Downs? Have you had discussions at Woodycupaldiya, Emu Point or some of the outstations around Wadeye? Have there been any discussions about whether this is a good idea? Have there been information sessions? Have you put the pros and cons of having a new council before the people? I ask if that has happened because good governance, due diligence, requires you to do things in a certain way so, when you argue that people support local government, a breakaway council – whether it is Victoria Daly or anywhere else – you have the majority of people behind you.
I do not know whether you have that. I only have a statement that 100 people turned up at a meeting at Peppimenarti. Someone said to me the day of the meeting was the normal day many people turn up to Peppimenarti. I do not know if the club is open on that day, but it could be they turned up and you were all there the same day, had a bit of a powwow and they all said great idea, and patted one another on the back. The loud people got the vote and the ordinary people did not. I always repeat: is the lady under the mango tree ignored? Is she not part of the system? Is she run over by those who speak loudest or pat the politicians on the back and tell them how wonderful they are? Or is she just ignored? Local government is about the people in that shire, the residents, and they need to be part of these changes. If they are not, it is a top down, force down solution – I am not even sure it is a solution, but a concept – that has come because the government has made a promise. Sometimes, you may find the promises you make might not be the right thing. That is why I would test it.
I have also asked whether there should be a plebiscite or referendum. I am not expecting you to spend a fortune on referendums, but I gather you have $6.6m to achieve some of these amalgamations. I would have thought that is the sort of money you could use for elections, referendums or plebiscite. That is the sort of money you could use to get information out to the community. Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask. If you are going to say the majority of people are supporting this council, show us the figures that say that.
Please do not ram down my throat, ‘You are only bringing this up because you oppose amalgamation’. I support new councils if it can be proven they will be viable, or at least will not add to the public purse by being less viable than existing councils. I want to ensure the decision is made on the basis of good governance rather than good politics, because that is what the basis of local government should be. I am concerned that I hear a lot of smooth talk and spin, but I do not see much depth. The depth is: is the community really supportive of what you are doing? Not the noisy people, but the average Joe Blow. The only way you can tell is to put an independent facilitator in there. You are going to put transition committees in and they will have many people from within the department and local government. One of the concepts I was suggesting with the boundary commission is you have a group of people who are experts and at arm’s length from the government so when they go into the communities there is not a potentially biased meeting where people are trying to promote the government’s side or another side. They would be there as neutral observers to hear what people had to say about the issues in relation to the changes that had been put forward.
That would be the same with the public meetings and information sessions. You do not want, in some cases, the government department doing those sessions for something – for example, with the Victoria Daly Shire – they are supportive of. That means you do not want people coming from the department, because it is already pre-set, to some extent, that the government wants it and the department people are usually there to support what the government wants. You would need an independent person to facilitate those meetings.
The fourth part of this motion is if there is an agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing council’s elected members. Any changes will be made by the people on election day, where residents of both councils will elect their representatives. The de-amalgamation transfer methodology document provided a useful model. I understand what you said, Madam Speaker, about being wary of the bill we are going to debate. If the government is going to break up councils, it needs to do it in a way where there is no requirement to do anything to existing council members. The members need to simply finish their term, as they would if there was a general election. It is not a difficult thing to achieve, and it perhaps needs a bit more thought in regard to amending the Local Government Act. I hope the government does not act just because one council has a problem. We need to be looking at this as if we are dealing with the whole of local government in the Northern Territory.
The minister has said, even though we may still debate it, he does not support a boundary commission. He has said it would take too much time and cost too much money. He has already said we have $6.6m for this process. A lot of the issues I am talking about could be dealt with through a boundaries commission. You would have people from the electoral commission, finance, experienced people who have dealt with local government over the years and others. They would be similar to the people I recommended, a member of LGANT, as well as perhaps someone from the grants commission. That would realise most of what I am trying to achieve through the four sections of this motion.
I do not know why the government would be reluctant to set up a boundary commission. It was proposed when the previous government was in power. They also knocked it on the head. Do not ask me why! There was a Labor government in Queensland that set up a boundary commission and you now have a Liberal government setting up a process of de-amalgamation. Both of these processes allow for a much better course that could be regarded as being at arm’s length from the politicians and the department. It would allow local government to be assessed by a group of people regarded as independent. You would have an unbiased view of what people want. If the people of Victoria Daly, especially the section that would like to break away, say, ‘We want to break away,’ that is fine. If the government has done a viability study, which it promised, they could show the taxpayers of the Northern Territory that by having this extra council you are not adding to the debt. The debt has been spoken about this evening. They could also say, ‘I am a ratepayer’. Madam Speaker is a ratepayer.
Ratepayers in municipalities that do not receive operational funding sometimes get a little cheesed off if they do not get much funding yet the government is quite willing to prop up other councils that are unviable. That is fine; we are going to live with operational funding for a long time, but the equation that is not being debated is how local governments can raise more money on their own without first relying on the public. At Litchfield, 64% of money is out of rates. East Arnhem or West Arnhem is about 2% or 4%. There is a vast difference in the ability to raise money. It would be good to hear what options the minister has in regard to the rating of land.
He has spoken about the rating of Aboriginal land. Where will he get that power from? How will it actually work? A good part of the unrateable land in the shires is Aboriginal land. Unless they have leases through, for example, Northern Territory housing, there are very few other places they can raise their rates.
There are some deficiencies in what the government is putting forward. They may have answers, and I would love to hear what the minister has to say, but at the moment it seems we are going along on a wing and a prayer, and a political promise. That is not the way we should be moving forward with the reform of local government.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. It is a very lengthy motion, but we certainly get the gist of it. I understand that the member for Nelson is calling for an open and transparent process to ensure that where there are new councils or shires under a restructuring arrangement there be, if not a boundary commission, some sort of inquiry or process that explores if financial modelling has been done and that it be publicly available through Treasury, that there be open and transparent communication with whoever wants to be part of it and, of course, with those directly affected by changes, a plebiscite or referendum to ensure residents in the affected area agree to the proposal of the breakaway, and no changes to those who have been duly elected, except by an election process when the next election comes around.
This has arisen because of another matter we have before the House. We certainly support the motion because it introduces order. It ensures there is community engagement and transparency with the government’s plan to change boundaries to restructure existing shires or councils.
When the Labor government established the boundaries of the new shires in the lead up to 1 July 2008, we found it a very challenging exercise, given all factors that have to be considered. From the previous government – a one-pager here talks about what some of those considerations are. I will quote from this. Sorry, I cannot cite the source, but I would like to read from it:
It goes on to say:
They have to be key in this process, and we need to understand, as best we can consequences, impacts on services and service standards, the cost of operations, who pays, workforce development, local cultural issues, governance and electoral representation. We were, as the former government, aiming to build a strong and vibrant local government sector for the bush and unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory. This is very complex work, hence under Labor, there was the Local Government Advisory Board overseeing that work as well as our local transition committees, with over 300 Territorians contributing and working through the very practical issues and providing our local cultural pathway.
We never assumed we had it right with the very extensive reforms we had in place and recognising we needed to give the shires time to show their value. A big job for many shires – bigger than first suspected – was to clean up the legacy issues left behind by a very run down system of local government community government councils, which more than two decades of CLP government failed to address. They knew there was not the transparency or accountability and, ultimately, there was not the effective delivery of key services on the ground, hence a need for these reforms has been known of for some time.
The Deloitte report I referred to earlier today is an incredible and important body of work on the former government’s agenda. We were happy to prioritise that work at the request of LGANT. Through this consultancy work, there is a view of the financial sustainability of shires, and it should be referred to. I am surprised it is not sitting on the minister’s desk as a very thorough body of work that should be informing policy and the way forward. It has clearly demonstrated the very heavy demands on shires, the high expectations often imposed on shires and, ultimately, the source of funding for both financial viability and long-term sustainability.
That is why, fundamentally, we have to ensure these issues are addressed in any de-amalgamation work or establishment of new local government bodies, regional councils or whatever name we might give them. It is essential to ensure the ongoing viability and sustainability of any new entities, but it would also highlight consequences for the existing entities where there are boundary changes, creation of a new council – what does that mean for other communities within that boundary area post change?
We understand many of the existing shires have been contributing to an update of the Deloitte report. That work is showing that shires have worked hard to improve their financial position and work on those finance service delivery and management issues they have some level of control over. It is now time for the government to be much clearer on their role in supporting long-term financial sustainability of local government, certainly in the bush. I fear, as do other members on this side, their attention is now drifting to establishing new entities even before we have a good picture of what that will mean financially for the councils, affected communities and other levels of government.
What we learnt from our reform process was to ensure you have the capacity, including the department’s capacity, to embark on change before taking giant leaps, given the complex legal and social issues, let alone impacts on councils and their employees, as well as the people they serve.
The potential impact on services, disruption to services, impact on employees and, let us not forget, current elected councillors, and, over the past five years, the growth, the strength among those councillors, employees and shires – being labelled, as they were by the CLP when in opposition, as ‘toxic’ was incredibly unfair in dismissing the efforts, and leaps and bounds shires have made. There is nothing wrong with boundary changes, recognising, as somebody said to me during the first stage of the consultation process at the beginning of the year, that many of the issues people had were not with local government itself, but with other areas of service delivery that had landed in the lap of local government. Housing maintenance is probably one of the biggest ones.
We support the idea of Treasury analysis, and note this is absolutely essential to the Queensland model. With Queensland currently going through de-amalgamation processes, there are a number of things they cover off in here. This is the proposed Noosa de-amalgamation, which comes from the Queensland Boundaries Commissioner Report of November 2012. There is a section in here all about financial viability and sustainability, and the role of the Queensland Treasury Corporation in doing some financial modelling to arrive at an informed position around the financials, and of looking at boundaries and capacity within those changed boundaries to continue to be viable and deliver services. This is a very comprehensive document.
However, we see nothing like this from the new government in their proposals associated with reviewing boundaries. It basically covers all the things brought forward by the member for Nelson, such as the four key elements he has in this motion before the House today. It is about financial modelling, engaging and making sure you have a very clear evidence-based position from which to move and declare boundaries.
We do not accept any argument that such an analysis would cost too much money. That is simply unnecessary. I go back to Queensland, and within its own Department of Local Government Community Recovery and Resilience, it created a thorough de-amalgamation transfer methodology. I have seen nothing like this from the current government, which would support or inform proposed boundary changes. We should be seeing documents like this that have Victoria Daly Shire on the front and a proposal that maps out for everybody to see – incredibly transparent – the desire for the community of Wadeye to move to its own regional council and change of boundaries.
As I said, it is critically important this information is publically available. I have no doubt 100 or so people who attended a meeting in the region we have talked about were keen. However, what about the other residents and ratepayers outside that meeting of 100 people and understanding what the impacts would be for them?
It is reports such as this from Queensland which I have just shown which help to provide reassurance that ongoing costs have been properly accounted for, and also helped provide reassurance to residents of the new local government body that they are not having a financial lemon dropped in their lap. Likewise, there needs to be transparency around the impact of change on the future of the Northern Territory Local Government Operational Grants Program. It would also be essential to hear the views of the NT Local Government Grants Commission which understands, better than anyone, the complexities and issues relating to financing of local government in the Northern Territory.
Yes, we support the importance of informed decision-making by those people who are most effected – the residents of the affected area – and that such consultations should have an element of arm’s length from government. Yet, we know a meeting was held at Peppimenarti; I think that is where it was. Who was there? No doubt, some department of Local Government officials, but the Deputy Chief Minister, the Chief Minister, and the local member is not quite what I would describe as being at arm’s length from government. We need some independent advice to assist informed decision-making, and there needs to be a channel for feedback on proposals for change. Last time I looked on the Victoria Daly website, I did not see anything there about the government’s proposals for boundary changes. I do not see anything on the East Arnhem Shire website about the desire or aspiration of Groote Eylandt to have a separate regional council. Their desire and aspiration to do that is perfectly within their right. The fact there is no consultation, no channels through which to move that forward, is unforgiveable.
Given this government’s track record of preference for agreement making with a select few, we will not hold our breath that we might see something transparent in the near future.
We agree, on this side of the House, that in supporting this motion we need a better measure of the level of support there is for change among the affected residents. I know I have talked about this before, but the member for Nelson is very clear in this motion about the need for a plebiscite or referendum. We would be keen to explore options for better assessment of community support. That community support is critical. In that context, I note the Aboriginal Land Rights Act sets out a process for change to land council boundaries that include a plebiscite, as does the Queensland de-amalgamation process. These are options that should be seriously considered. It is about having a rigorous and transparent process in place into which people have an opportunity to have input. We support the general principle that if there is agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing councils elected members. Any changes should be made by the people on the election day where the residents of both councils will elect their representatives. It is a democratic process which should not only be respected but protected as well.
Local government is about grassroots democracy. That is the strength of local government and the strength of the three tiers of government. The people of a local government area need to connect to and own their elected representatives, and it is local people at the ballot box who should have the power to choose their elected members. Procedures already exist under the Local Government Act for action to be taken to remove a councillor from office in certain circumstances, whether that be through misdeed, illegal or corrupt behaviour or other such matters. This is why we also see codes of conduct for elected councillors. Those are the powers that should be employed to remove elected members from office, if that is required, not sacking by gazettal notice, using new unilateral powers for the minister.
One can only speculate how loud the howls of outrage would be if the government in Canberra was proposing such powers over the Northern Territory government. Sadly for the 15 minutes of my breath and that of the member for Nelson, I do not imagine there will be much support from the members opposite. We have become used to that. They are not particularly interested in accountability, transparency or consultation. That is a great shame. It is a great disservice to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly those in the third tier of government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, ain’t democracy grand. I support the Independent member for Nelson and the motion brought forward, in the essence of democracy, on a General Business Day, where the opposition and the Independent get to present real alternative policy to government. I support this motion and I support democracy. Essentially, when we talk about democracy, we talk about a parliament. While I will not regress to the Punic Wars to make my point about the Westminster System, I will talk about the parliament, because we all represent Territorians.
In this debate, I want the minister to visualise the linking of arms of the shire of MacDonnell, the Central Desert Shire, the Barkly Shire, the Roper Gulf Shire, the East Arnhem Shire, the West Arnhem shire, and we have not even come near the Victoria Daly shire. Let us say the Victoria Daly shire is the test case. For some mysterious reason, the Vic Daly Shire has been selected to be restructured.
The member’s motion is very pragmatic and is good advice to a government. The government is only the numbers in this parliament and if we truly reflect the parliament in representing all Territorians, then we will consider clear policy alternatives, not changing the policy, but considering additions to it. This is a particularly pragmatic addition to this major policy. So let us look at the Victoria Daly Shire, the test case, and use the honourable member’s motion to design the initiative that will support the government’s policy. It would be nice to know the Victoria Daly Shire gets it right. The minister is very confident in this House, announcing that the government has a mandate, it will govern for the people and they will essentially do whatever they like. The government does not have a mandate to get it wrong. The government has a mandate to get it right. It would be horrible to see that $6.2m, appropriated for scraping shires in the 2013-14 budget frittered away down the track when this government gets it wrong.
The Victoria Daly is the test case. The budget appropriation is there. The minister’s will is to restructure the shires and the motion stands. The motion is simply to take that very important step of gathering empirical evidence, researching and looking at what will really happen. When we talk about empirical evidence – 160 federal government grant programs? Can we really decide on 160 federal government grant programs in this parliament tonight? That is some serious cash and serious outcomes for the Northern Territory, particularly when we are looking at restructuring a local government model.
We have heard in the debate about the staff changes, the assets, housing, changes in names, logos, letterheads, administrative add-ons and to elected members. All these issues will need to be dealt with as a result of the changes proposed for the Victoria Daly Shire. If we take a step back, take a breath and allow this independent body to do the research and then the work, then when everybody else comes online, we will make sure we get it right. We have already heard in this House today that there are two more standing in line, and I can assure you the other shires will be coming online next.
If I change the paddock and rearrange my fence lines, then I create a serious change in the management of the stock inside that fence line. I do not want to risk destroying good pasture. I do not want to risk losing animals. I do not want to risk putting pressure on my water resources. I really want to make sure I get it right. It is very simple. It is not a huge political backflip. It is recognition of bipartisanship. It has come from the most experienced politician in this House, in relation to local government and local government authorities. It is very simple. It has the potential to deliver incredible efficiencies as the restructuring model by the new government, moves forward. That is all this debate is about. It is supported by the opposition, it is put forward by the Independent member for Nelson and it is asking for consideration from government.
I picked up on another matter in the House today about timing, climate, seasons and this time of the Territory calendar. Let us face it, that is a pretty important point because that time of year really is the time to wind back, take leave, recharge the batteries, re-energise and then bounce back out of the barrier for the race next year.
Minister, we ask you very honestly, in a spirit of bipartisanship, to be honest, open and accountable with all Territorians, all the constituents from all the shires and, for that matter, the municipalities across the Northern Territory that are looking at your legislation very closely.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. I thank him for sharing his learnings with me. I thank colleagues on this side for their contributions to the debate, and I hope this government will acknowledge the parliament and the governance for all people of the Northern Territory without a single mandate to possibly get it terribly wrong.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I say from the outset and I told the member for Nelson long ago, we will not be supporting this. He insists on bringing it into the House to blow his own trumpet, grandstand and all that stuff, and that is great.
Mr Wood: I do not have a department behind me.
Mr TOLLNER: No, that is right; you do not have a department behind you. I am fortunate, I do. I am not the brightest person and without a department behind me I would probably not be involved in this debate. In any case, the government will not be supporting this. As I said at the outset of the previous debate, we were elected, we have a mandate. We have told everybody what we are doing. We have consulted. I have noticed those opposite like to belittle us because of our consultations. There was a suggestion that 100 people at Peppimenarti turned up at the pub one day and we just happened to lob and did a straw poll around the room. If that is the view of members on the other side, that is fine. The reality is they came from all the major clan groups, they were representatives of those clan groups, and they were absolutely insistent.
As I said in the Chamber in other debates, I was quite surprised at the level of desire and some of the wishes. I would never have dreamed they wanted a headquarters in Peppimenarti. To me, it did not make a lot of sense, but when you say you will listen to the people it is important you do. Clearly, those on the other side do not care about it …
Mr McCarthy: If I was hunting a wallaby would you give me a .308.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I would insist on coming along with you, member for Barkly.
Madam Speaker, I understand what this is boiling down to. It is not so much about representation or giving people their voices from the other side, certainly not the member for Nelson, and it always comes back to this subject of financial viability and …
Ms Walker: And democracy.
Mr TOLLNER: You have a twisted view of democracy, member for Nhulunbuy. It is either your way or the highway. You seem to forget we have a mandate and people elected us on …
Ms Walker: You have a mandate to close down Gove.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us talk about closing down Gove. We know who gave the green light to Rio Tinto to close down Gove. It was not anyone on our side of the Chamber, but you want to go there? You want to show how irrelevant you are in your own electorate? In 2011, when you were part of the government benches, you had no clue your then Mines minister gave them the green light to shut down the refinery ...
Ms Walker: Oh, that is rubbish. I did not see a media release from you on that day.
Mr TOLLNER: When I was there, member for Nhulunbuy, talking to your constituents in the lead-up to the election about the energy problems Rio Tinto face, what were you saying? Absolutely nothing! Goodness me! Here is a person who has the audacity to talk about transparency, speaking up for your electorate, doing something for the electorate, but what have you done? Nothing! You have been an absolute disgrace; an embarrassment …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. I understand the member is sensitive about the lack of consultation in the local government bill and is allergic to the truth, but he might want to talk about the lack of consultation on the local government bill, which is the point of the current motion.
Madam SPEAKER: it is not a point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about how members on the other side decide to consult within their electorates. How pathetic to come into this joint and get a lecture from the member from Nhulunbuy on how to consult. Goodness me! She woke up the day after the election and went, ‘Oh, goodness me, our mine is in trouble. The refinery might close. Oh, it is all your fault, CLP.’ How pathetic! That is the member for Nhulunbuy’s great contribution in this joint.
Getting back to what I was saying, what has become apparent to me in these last few debates, or many debates – there are hours of diatribe from the member for Nelson – is it is not about representation or giving people their voices back. He is happy to suck that one and see. He will allow that to pass by. What really irks – I know it irks the other side – is the financial viability of councils in general.
As I said, I am not Einstein and I do not have all the answers. Since the dawn of time in the Northern Territory, local government has never been financially viable. It was not financially viable prior to Labor’s changes in 2006 or 2007 – whenever it was. They certainly were not viable after the changes. Yet, I am expected to show how councils will be financially viable. We never committed to that. We committed to giving people their voices back.
I am very keen to look at the financial viability of councils. It is a nut that I would like to crack. However, in light of history, I do not fancy my chances, particularly now because a big option has been taken away from us. The Northern Territory government, as I said in the previous debate, is staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt. This financial year we have a $1.1bn budget deficit. We are spending $1.1m every year that we do not have, that we have to borrow. The ability for government to provide even more money into local government is no longer there; it is not an option for us. Therefore, we have to think of different ways to make councils financially viable.
I have been prepared to stick my head above the turret and suggest that maybe we should look at imposing rates on Aboriginal land, pastoral leases, and maybe some of these unincorporated areas that still exist in the Northern Territory. I know that is extraordinarily controversial. I have talked to LGANT, my colleagues and people around the community about this. It gets up people noses. If you talk to Indigenous Territorians about applying rates to Aboriginal land, they are not happy. If you talk to pastoralists about increasing rates on pastoral leases, they are not happy. If you talk to people who live in our rural areas in some of those unincorporated areas about paying rates, they are not happy. This is a tough nut to crack, and it is a nut that no government in the history of self-government, has been able to crack.
I have made some inquiries. I have talked to Senator Scullion and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister and asked them to investigate ways we may well be able to charge rates on Indigenous communities. I have raised the issue of pastoral leases. With pastoral leases, goodness me, these poor people have gone through the worst time ever since that deadbeat Gillard decided to cut off their lifeline and kill off the live cattle industry.
Here is old buggerlugs in the Northern Territory suggesting they pay a bit more in rates. I have talked to people in Dundee about paying rates. We will invoke the Darwin Rates Act on them and charge them rates. They have a rubbish dump there. They drive on roads, they demand services. I opened a bushfire brigade house for them, I opened a health clinic, but if you talk about rates, they are not happy. I am doing my bit in asking the questions. I would like a bit of constructive feedback from the other side. Where do you expect we will get the money? You know the Territory government is broke, you know the federal government is also broke, so where will the money come from? I would love to see one of you guys over there with the spine to stand up and tell it how it is, to stand up and say, ‘Where are we going to get money to put into local councils to make them financially viable?’ They were not financially viable before your changes, after your changes, and will not be financially viable after these changes. There you go, I have admitted it. I know that is the biggest problem. How do we make these councils viable? That is the issue the member for Nelson has, because it is something he always keeps coming back to. It is the same issue the member of Nhulunbuy raises, because it is what she keeps coming back to. The member for Barkly raised it. We keep coming back to it.
I challenge any one of the three of you to give us the solution. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us what your solution is to make councils viable, because at the moment, there is one solution. Wipe them out. Get rid of all those councils where they do not pay rates. Are you going to go out bush and say, ‘We have a view not to have local government here,’ because I think you made the point that one of the council’s rates are less than 3% or 4% …
Mr Wood: Well, Deloitte says …
MR TOLLNER: Deloitte says one of these councils is raising less than 3% or 4% of its earnings from rates. Tell us what your solution is. You can come in here, throw rocks and knives and carry on like idiots, but I challenge any one of you to tell us what your proposal is and take the flak, because you know there is flak.
Ms Walker: You are the government. Time and time again, you keep saying, ‘You find a solution’. You are government …
MR TOLLNER: I am taking it on. I have been to Canberra and spoken to the federal government about how we may rate Aboriginal land. I have talked to my colleagues about rating some of the pastoral leases. I have been into some of the unincorporated areas, talking about how well we may rate them. I do not hear any of you guys talking about that. Nothing at all, so either put up or shut up.
Mr McCarthy: There are 120 objections to deal with.
MR TOLLNER: There are objections everywhere to deal with. This is my point. I do not have to look far to find objections. Do not harp on about the financial viability of councils, because you had 11 years to fix the financial viability of councils and you did not. You keep referring to the Deloitte report that shows they are not financially viable, so you failed in that area when you were in government.
Mr McCarthy: The reform happened in 2007.
MR TOLLNER: Whatever, they are still not financially viable. They were not at any time on the Labor watch. They were not viable on the previous CLP watch; they have never been financially viable. The only financially viable ones are the municipals and possibly Litchfield.
Mr Wood: It is a municipal.
MR TOLLNER: It is a municipal, there you go.
I do not think any of the identified regional or remote councils, anywhere I know of, are viable. They do pay rates on pastoral leases here. It is interesting to listen to the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson talk about Queensland and say, ‘Well, in Queensland they are all paying rates’. Pastoralists in Queensland or Western Australia pay an enormous amount more than a pastoralist in the Northern Territory. I challenge any of you to run the idea you want to put rates on pastoralists, land councils or Aboriginal land and people in unincorporated areas.
Mr McCarthy: Start with the 120 objections to the Valuer-General.
Mr TOLLNER: You will not, because you lack the intestinal fortitude. You received 120 negative responses. Do not talk about the financial viability of councils when you have no solution. It is not something we promised. We promised, and let us be very clear about this, to give people their voices back. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what you are standing in the way of.
Every time you filibuster – member for Nelson, you have tried every little sneaky trick in the book to defer this. That is your right, you were elected. People in Nelson probably love you for that, Independent Labor member for Nelson. When have you ever supported this side of the House? When Labor was in government? No, you were sitting over here.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member asked me a question. Could I answer it? I supported the Pastoral Land Act.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot, member for Nelson. It is not a point of order, sit down.
Mr TOLLNER: The Pastoral Land Act – there you go, it took me by surprise. Did Labor support that? Wherever they go, you go, Gerry. They wander over here, you wander over here. The Independent Labor member for Nelson …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, direct your comments to the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I am, Madam Speaker. He is the Independent Labor member for Nelson. I remember him going to an election on bringing back open speed limits. What happened? He became the kingmaker, and they killed speed limits; there were no open speed limits. He did not want the prison moved. He went to an election saying the prison would not move. Bingo, he is the kingmaker. Guess what? Flip, bang, he is back there again. Now where is the prison? In his electorate. The government is about $1bn or more poorer, but he supported it. What else did he want? He demanded a swimming pool. Labor said no, but where does he sit? He is making excuses about why he could not have a swimming pool.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance to the topic. It is not about me, it is about reform to local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could keep your comments to the topic, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The member for Nelson should remember that; it is not about him. This is about local government and giving people their voices back. It is not a grandstanding opportunity for the member for Nelson to try to stuff up everything government is doing. It is not your show, member for Nelson. You sit there, high and mighty, banging on about democracy, but you continue to try to hold this place to ransom. To what end? That is my point. You never know what the member for Nelson stands for. Does he want open speed limits, or not? Does he want a prison, or not? Does he want a swimming pool or not? Does he want Howard Springs Reserve or not? It is flip, flop, flip, flop. I do not know how people can have any faith in the member for Nelson. He says, ‘I am upset about this, I am upset about that’, but he is really upset about the financial viability of councils. He has never provided any solution to that. He is happy enough to form another committee. He wants a plebiscite; he wants government to spend money everywhere. I do not know whether you listen, member for Nelson. We are staring down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt unless we change our ways. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn; we are spending more than what we get in. That is alarming, but every time you guys open your mouths, you are encouraging us to spend more and go further into debt.
Mr Giles: How much money have they spent today?
Mr TOLLNER: Who would know? The crazy member for Nhulunbuy wants us to take on a further $3.5bn of debt to prop up Rio.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that offensive. I am not crazy and I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you withdraw that comment, please?
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker. Draw your own conclusions. The member for Nhulunbuy wants us to go a further $3.5bn into the red to prop up Rio Tinto. Is there any sort of financial responsibility to orphan these people on the other side. How pathetic!
Mr TOLLNER: We are not supporting this motion and we will not be supporting the other crazy motion you have put up in order to slow the passage of a bill which the government wants to get through reasonably quickly. If you think you can hold us to ransom, think again. We are not the Labor Party.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the Labor Party is pleased to hear that. You might have a mandate but that is no excuse for doing things the wrong way. All we have asked is that you do things in a certain manner. It is not grandstanding; it ensuring people in local government areas are asked what they want to do. That is not grandstanding; it is just inquiring whether you are doing your job properly. Mandates are not an excuse for doing things any way you want and avoiding democratic processes.
The previous minister promised a review into the viability of councils. That is what we are asking for – to look at what methods could be used to improve the viability of councils. You promised the review, where is it? There are important issues and you say I do not have the guts to say what should happen. I went to a meeting at Marrakai and asked that the council become part of Litchfield Council so I know what it is like to be told to ‘ – off’ by a hostile crowd. I took it, and it was probably my baptism of fire in local government and politics in general. They did not want to have a bar of it and I had to cop it. I have tried to push for local government reform in areas I have lived in.
It is not an easy issue but you are the government and have contacts with the federal government. I do not have those contacts. You promised a review and that is what this is about. It is also about democratic processes to ensure your mandate is carried out in a proper manner. We do not mind if your mandate says you want more local government. We say if that is your mandate, do it the right way.
It is not grandstanding; it is our job as members of parliament to ensure the government does the right thing. If that is a problem for you, run your government solo. Yes, solo, similar to a dictator because that is what dictators do. They do not worry about processes, they just say the way it is ...
Mr Tollner: We are using exactly the same processes as Labor.
Mr WOOD: By not agreeing to this, you are not agreeing to a plebiscite. You are not agreeing to information nights. I ask that this motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, in addressing the House on this motion, I will keep my comments short. We have just had a debate in similar terms in this House during the general business day component. We now return to the matters involving government and we have a Standing Order 183 motion to be dealt with. I understand what the member is attempting to do, but what the member needs to recall is the majority of the House last week voted to enable this to be passed on urgency for the reasons given by the Treasurer and minister for Local Government.
The operational effect of the motion brought by the member for Nelson would defeat the purpose of the urgency motion agreed to by the majority of this House last week, when notice was given of the bill currently under debate. As a consequence, I do not see any purpose in pursuing the matter, because it would have the practical effect of overriding the urgency motion supported by this House. I understand the member for Nelson’s desire to have this matter delayed and that is a matter for him, along with the House, to deal with. It has already been dealt with. However, the processes of this House enable him to bring such a motion to members’ attention. The matter has now been thoroughly debated. It will not be supported by government and I have little more to add to that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from all speakers. I take up what the member for Port Darwin said about urgency and the government. The bill has not gone through yet but it has been moved today on urgency. This may not be a requirement if it had been introduced into parliament at the previous sittings and we could have spoken to local government. Local government might not have put out this media release saying they would like a full consultation if they had a chance to see the bill between the October and November sittings, but that did not happen.
The government pushed this forward very quickly. There was no opportunity for anyone to have any real input into whether this bill was fine by local government, if there were any issues that could have been raised by local government and whether the legislation was sound. That is not such a terribly undemocratic process and that is the normal process we have in this House. When you say, ‘I would like that process to not be rushed through,’ you get a hammering from the minister for Local Government, saying, ‘We have a mandate’.
That seems to be an excuse for any sort of behaviour, so I would expect a lot of urgency debates to go through here because the government says they have a mandate. They believe the parliament is a bit of a nuisance, debating important issues is irrelevant, the member for Nelson is grandstanding and what else can we find out? ‘He supported open speed limits at election. Oh, we will drag anything else into the debate.’ They will not stick to the real issue, which is the lack of adequate time for this important bill to be discussed thoroughly by local government and the community. All I have done is ask that it go to a select committee so there is an opportunity for those concerns to be addressed.
It is sad the minister can just ramble on, try to move this debate in all other directions and avoid the real issue LGANT has raised, which I have also raised it. LGANT believes there should have been full consultation in relation to this bill. You can say I am the grandstander, I am showing off, whatever you want to say, I do not care. I am standing up for what are good local government principles. A community has the right to elect its representatives and not see those representatives sacked because a minister feels like it and uses the overriding excuse of a mandate or that it is desirable or necessary for restructuring.
If we do not stand up for making legislation that has some principles in it, rather than designing it to simply push through government mandates, we are definitely going down the wrong path. By sending it to a select committee, which would not be very long, we would have a chance to deal with some of the issues LGANT, the community and other members of parliament have concerns about. That is what it was about. It is obvious. From day one, even when discussing the previous motion, I knew the minster was not interested in a debate. He would rather put down anyone who opposed the bill and rubbish them because he has a mandate and this parliament is irrelevant. It makes it very sad when you hope we will have a reasonable debate, we will be giving constructive criticism to government and they might actually take some of it on board and reassess their legislation. It is obvious this is no more than a sounding board for the government. From what you hear of the minister, no matter whether it is wrong or right, good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, as long as they have a mandate, they will do it. It is a very sad day for our parliament, for politics and the democratic process we expect from this parliament. It is also a very sad day for the democratic processes that should be protected in local government. I move that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
In committee:
Clause 1
Mr WOOD: Before we move that, could I ask one or two generic questions about the bill, Mr Chair?
Mr CHAIR: I will limit that to two, seeing you have given me the choice.
Mr WOOD: I should have said one to 20. I missed an opportunity there.
Minister, in relation to circulation of this bill, who did you send this bill to for comment? Did you receive any feedback on this bill?
Mr TOLLNER: No.
Mr WOOD: That is what I expected. Thank you. I can move on now, my question has been answered.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr WOOD: I have one amendment and one query in this section and because my query, in alphabetical order, will come after general election, I will do the amendment first.
I move amendment 13.1 in my name that the definition of ‘general election’ after paragraph (b) - the words ‘general election’ are in the definitions in the Local Government Act. Presently, the act says the meaning of general election is:
The new definition is:
That is important because it also refers to a clause in the local government bill in relation to casual vacancies. For instance, clause 86 on by-elections – I will ensure I do not go backwards here. Section 39(5) on casual vacancies says:
My understanding is there is a concern that there are two vacancies at Victoria Daly Shire which would normally have to be filled now, but Victoria Daly Shire is concerned that would be a waste of money if a general election is required as part of the restructuring. To get around that, if one uses the same section in the act:
there is no general election coming up, but there will be a general election if this amendment is accepted. You will have a third definition of general election which will state it also means an election that is held under a restructuring order made in relation to the council. That would allow a council like Victoria Daly to use the normal processes councils are allowed to use in a particular circumstance relating to a restructuring order where they have a casual vacancy. This is a commonsense amendment that would reduce the need for – as we will discuss further – a clause which allows the minister to sack councillors or mayors, or appoint them.
It is a simple change, but it would allow the democratic processes to occur. One of the important issues in this bill is the minister making the decisions. Here the council is making the decisions. We are debating a local government act, and local government should be the centre of what we are doing. This takes away the power of local government to make its own decisions under its own act – these are the changes proposed later – and handing that power to the minister. It should not be in the hands of the minister; it should be in the hands of the local council. That is what this amendment will help do.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, we will not agree to this change as it reduces flexibility somewhat. In the case of splitting the Victoria Daly in two, my understanding is this would require a general election for both new councils, where the transition committee may recommend other measures. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, but we are trying to maintain some flexibility in this system and will not be supporting that change.
Mr WOOD: I find that very disappointing. I know my desk is looking like the member for Port Darwin’s. The minister knocked the Queensland view. Queensland is doing, more or less, exactly as we are doing. It is breaking four councils into eight. They have brought together a transfer methodology which is nice and clear and sets out the key dates. I get the impression, when the minister said it would reduce his flexibility, they do not have a program.
Am I right, minister? You decided a few weeks ago you would allow the Victoria Daly Shire to be broken up, but you do not have a program. If I look at the key dates for what the Queensland government is doing – it introduced a set of regulations, the Local Government (De-amalgamation Implementation) Regulation 2013, was enacted on 11 April. Transfer managers were appointed on 12 April. The Local Government Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal was to decide the remuneration category for new councillors and councils, and that was decided on 1 September. During October to December, elections for new councils will be held at a date to be determined. On 31 December, the terms of the councils will end. The changeover day is to be 1 January. On 1 January, the term of mayor and council for each new council would commence.
Are you saying you do not want the two councils to have a general election or you do not have a program to allow you to make this amendment work? Are you saying it will take more than 12 months to do what you are doing?
Mr TOLLNER: I am saying, member for Nelson, I will await the advice from the transitional committee. I will not lock myself into one situation. Horses for courses, we are trying to maintain flexibility. I will not support this amendment.
Mr WOOD: You are going down a path of elections without …
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, do not put words in my mouth. What I said to you was I am not supporting this.
Mr WOOD: I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you for an explanation. I was asking a question and you are pre-empting it. You do not have a specific path for your program of restructuring for this council set out anywhere.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I do not have a path lined up for anyone. I am waiting to hear from people. I am waiting to receive information from the ground. That is why these bills are being put through on urgency, because we want to start mapping out the way forward. To do that, I want to maintain maximum flexibility in the approach and I do not want to be corralled onto one single path, as you put it.
Mr WOOD: Why do we need to change it? Why do we need things liking sacking councillors and appointing them? Is that you making a decision which is not needed? You have obviously put that into the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: We are trying to keep our options open.
Mr WOOD: I have another question on this section. I understand what the minister is saying. It is disappointing he is not supporting this change, because it really says he does not want that section of the bill to be removed. If he was to pass this, he would not need that. Could I ask for definitions? What is restructuring and what is a restructuring order?
Mr TOLLNER: They have the meaning they have in the 2007 act.
Mr WOOD: I do not have the 2007 act in front of me. Could you tell us what that is, please?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know whether it is defined but I certainly know that people have not had a problem understanding it. I can organise a briefing for you at some stage, with some lawyers, and you can determine it then?
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister, but this is the stage where we question the government on its legislation. You make a statement in clause 10C, which is pretty important in relation to …
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I think we have the usual dictionary definition.
Mr WOOD: That usual dictionary definition – which I did explain today – is very broad. De-amalgamation means to reverse amalgamation, and that is clear, simple. Restructuring could mean anything from, for example, you would like more councillors on Darwin City Council. It could be applied in any way and anyhow, but you have said many times this is to do with the shires. Is it just a broad statement that allows you, at any time – if you think something fits within the gamut of restructuring of any council in the Northern Territory – the ability, if needed, to sack a councillor and appoint someone you would like?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not pre-empting anything that might come up in the changes to councils. In that regard, I do not want to limit what authority I have, as the minister as we go through this process. Like I said earlier, we are focused on the regional and remote councils, but I have interest from Darwin City Council, which may want some changes, along with Palmerston council.
I do not want to pre-empt what others might want and I do not want to be locked in to a position where I might find others want to do other things. The whole point is to be reactive to people’s wishes and desires and react in a timely manner. Understandably, the authorities placed with me under this bill are very broad. I know people on the other side are seeing problems everywhere, dictatorships and goodness knows what else, but we are very interested in working with people to achieve their wishes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I appreciate that. Once you put something into a bill that is not specific to what you are trying to apply it to, there is no guarantee it will not be applied much further than the original intention, regardless of what you put in a second reading speech.
Mr TOLLNER: I have just received a definition. Restructuring orders: an instrument to introduce changes that relate to the regional governance review.
Mr WOOD: Can I find that in the bill?
Mr TOLLNER: No.
Mr WOOD: It is not an official definition within the legislation?
Mr TOLLNER: You will now find it in Hansard.
Mr WOOD: Hansard will not stand up in court. You have a definition here …
Mr TOLLNER: It might, because if courts get down to the nitty gritty, they will read Hansard and try to find out what the intentions of the parliament were.
Mr WOOD: Why was it not in the second reading speech? That is the most important part.
Mr TOLLNER: My learned colleague has informed me the second reading speech is most important. You are right, it is not in the bill. I should have mentioned it in the second reading speech. I had no idea you would want a definition of something like that, otherwise I would have incorporated it the speech. Before you say you did not know about it, because you did not see the bill, I accept that. It is not in there, but you have been given a definition.
Mr WOOD: That is pretty poor when you come to a legal document. As someone who reads these bills and uses definitions, if someone asks me what a restructuring order is, I will give them your phone number, because it should be in the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: No, as I said earlier, it is the ordinary dictionary definition, and that will be found. You will not have to make phone calls to me.
Mr WOOD. It might be found, but it is in this act in bold. Therefore it needs a definition, because it says under 10C (1):
If that is not defined, please do not blame me for saying the world is yours.
Mr TOLLNER: You will find the words ‘restructuring’ and ‘order’ in any dictionary.
Mr WOOD: I can use a dictionary, but this is the bill. If you introduce something which requires a definition, surely that should be part of the bill. That is obviously not going to happen. I see that as a great example of why this should have been given more time.
Mr TOLLNER: With due respect, the words ‘the’ ‘there’ and ‘notwithstanding’ do not appear as definitions in this bill, but most people have a pretty good idea of what those words mean. If they do not, they can go to a dictionary, look them up and find a general meaning for them. One would expect they could do the same with ‘restructuring’ and ‘order’, member for Nelson. I do not know why you get hung up on something like that.
Mr CHAIR: I am not going to let these questions go around in circles.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 13.2 standing in my name. I will deal with the two at the same time. This is asking the government to omit clause 10C(1)(d) and (f) :
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know at this stage, member for Nelson. It is a short answer, but I do not know what will happen in the future. For that reason, we are very keen to maintain maximum flexibility and those authorities are provided. You talk about draconian, this is no different to Labor’s 2007 legislation to do exactly the same thing, which they rushed through on urgency. There are some slight differences and I will read through them. Clause 10C(1)(d) says:
The similar areas in the 2007 legislation were section 28A(i) and (j):
There was a power to terminate the term of office of any council member. This included the principal member, member for Nelson. In that regard, there is little difference to what was in the 2007 bill.
Your concerns with clause 10C(f), which says:
This was reflected in the 2007 legislation under clause 28A(m):
Mr WOOD: Thank you. This will come as a rude shock to you, but I am not a member of the Labor Party. What they did then does not mean I agree with it. We are dealing with a bill today which continues to need scrutiny. I do not believe it is an appropriate power for you to have. If anybody has to remove someone from the council or put a new person in, it should be the local government, even if I do not agree with the methodology. It should not be you.
There is a section about continuing local government councillors in the regulations in de-amalgamations. It does not say anything. It just says councillors’ terms end on the changeover day. I am not sure where that information came from, but this is the de-amalgamation regulation. I do not think you are correct there. Minister, why have you put (d) in?
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, you have to understand that councils have the ability to rack up debt which goes on our account. We need to be able to control that in some regard. We have the power to create councils and to abolish them. When it comes to spending our money, it is entirely appropriate we have some checks and balances in place to determine how that money is spent.
Mr WOOD: Minister, can you tell me what section 224 of the Local Government Act says? I hope I got it right. It is either 222 or 242. I am working without the piece of paper.
Mr TOLLNER: You would like it read?
Mr WOOD: Is that the one on …
Mr TOLLNER: It says in section 224(1):
What is your point?
Mr WOOD: That is the section that allows you to get rid of a council or councillors?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is right; it is already there. I am asking why is it here?
Mr TOLLNER: Why should it not be here?
Mr WOOD: Because you already have it for malpractice. This is not for malpractice. Why is it a requirement of a restructuring order?
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly, that part of the act is for misbehaviour; this is about restructuring.
Mr WOOD: Why do you need it?
Mr TOLLNER: To restructure.
Mr WOOD: To restructure what? For what part of restructuring do you need to sack members of a council, when I have already said you do not need to go down this path? As the Queensland legislation showed, members of a council finish the day the election is called.
Mr TOLLNER: When they no longer represent the people in that new council boundary, they may have to be removed and other people found. It is a transitional phase.
Mr WOOD: That is exactly what the Queensland government does not do. It makes sure the two councils have general elections. You do not get into that complication. You have two new elections. One is for the remnant of the council and one is for the new council. That way, you do not have to sack anyone.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, election money is coming out of their budgets. You harp on about financial sustainability, but these councils and the transitional committees might not deem it necessary to hold an election immediately to get new members on the council. My point is, resources are limited and things may well be different to Queensland. I understand Queensland is another state; it has a different system. Unlike here, I imagine local government is not necessarily as unsustainable financially in Queensland. Our pot is bare in the Northern Territory government. I cannot imagine the Australian government kicking the can because a council wants to split up in the Northern Territory. In some cases, we have to make do with what we have. I am not necessarily suggesting we will even use this authority, but it well may be that a recommendation comes through from a transitional committee.
Mr WOOD: A point of clarification. Is it true $6m is set aside for this process? If so, surely that is money that would be used for holding elections?
Mr CHAIR: I do not think that question relates to the clause.
Mr WOOD: Well, it does.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. There is money there and we ultimately have to determine how it is best spent. If you want to run around having general elections, holding plebiscites, that may suit your purposes, but it may not suit the purposes of others.
Mr WOOD: It is not about my purposes. If democracy is just something that comes down to dollars and cents all the time, we can make an argument for scrapping a lot of things. Are we not failing ourselves if we want to retain a fair, democratic process of electing our representatives and we wipe that simply because it could cost too much money and replace it with this clause 10C(d)? We are showing we cannot come up with a better option than the one we have here.
Mr TOLLNER: This is about democracy. This is about giving people their voices back. This is about allowing people to have their say and falling in with their wishes. That cannot, in our case, cost a lot of money because we do not have a lot of money to throw at these things. I am not suggesting we undermine democracy or anything of that nature. This is all about democracy, listening to people on the ground and getting to a place where they want to be as quickly as possible, with minimal cost and disruption. In some cases, we will have to cut a few corners to do that, but the end goal is the people will have their say. Their voices will be heard and I want to make this as smooth a transition as possible, with the least disruption. I find it entirely appropriate that the minister has the powers to do these things, if that is what people want.
Mr WOOD: We have never had the chance to take this piece of legislation out to discover what people want, so that is not really relevant. It goes back to the very heart of the issue I had. While you might be able to relate your concerns to a particular shire council, this section does not define that. It is very broad and can apply to anything. It is not only to hurry the process for the Victoria Daly Shire because it is what the people want – when you read this section, it does not say that. It is saying the minister may make a restructuring order considered necessary and desirable to facilitate restructuring the system of local government. That is the whole of local government, not just the Victoria Daly Shire, including an order to suspend from office.
The way it is written may not be the way you say it will be applied, but you may not be the minister forever and someone else may use this any way they wish. Am I reasonable to say this could be used far beyond what you are saying it should be used for?
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as printed, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr TOLLNER (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Assembly with detail on what is a multimillion dollar scandal involving the Northern Territory government’s troubled asset management system, or AMS as it is commonly referred to. I will update members on bungling by the former Labor Territory government, which has many parallels to Queensland’s Health payroll scandal. It is a scandal that has cost Territory families more than $50m, and the bill is expected to grow. I will also inform members of the House what the Adam Giles Country Liberals government is doing about it, including improving the management of ICT across government.
Since AMS transferred to my portfolio of Corporate and Information Services on 7 October, I have asked my department to get to the truth of the former Labor government’s botched AMS project and provide me with a detailed briefing on the system and the mammoth challenges the Territory is faced with. To be frank, it is a diabolical mess, overseen by the current Leader of the Opposition.
As I said, to date more than $50m taxpayers’ dollars have been spent on a system that is still plagued with problems, requires significant manual data entry, needs expensive fly-in fly-out interstate resources to keep it going and struggles to manage the Territory’s assets effectively.
To understand how the former Labor government got Territorians into this position, you need to start at the beginning. In 2006, the former Labor government approved a proposal to replace nine older legacy ICT systems with a new modern asset management system. Managing the Territory’s assets is serious business, and something this scandal proves was beyond the previous Labor government. Government has assets of around $10.8bn, over $8bn of which is fixed assets held in AMS.
Nobody would argue that a robust and effective ICT system is needed for this task. A replacement system was estimated to cost $7.2m in total and deliver savings after five years by replacing the nine older systems and the cost of operating them. In December 2007, a request for tender was put to market by the former Labor government for a commercial off-the-shelf replacement system in what is referred to in the IT industry as the Tier 2 category. Tier 2 is the middle ground in terms of ICT systems, a reasonable system for a reasonable price. To use a motor vehicle analogy, Tier 2 is the Toyota Hilux option and a sensible, affordable way to go.
Unfortunately, when tenders closed in 2008, no suitable tenders were received from Tier 2 suppliers. Three compliant tenders were received from premium Tier 1 suppliers, which presented high end, high cost options. To use another vehicle analogy, we went to market for a Toyota Hilux and received tenders for three different luxury motor cars.
This is where the first fundamental mistake was made by the former Labor government. Rather than being smart and stopping to consider whether the tender process would deliver an affordable solution, one that was within an acceptable cost envelope, the then Labor government proceeded to recklessly push ahead. Fujitsu had tendered the ‘Rolls Royce’ of ICT systems, a German product used extensively in major enterprises known as SAP. Despite the fact there was no SAP expertise available within the Northern Territory to support this project, a contract was signed by the former Labor government with Fujitsu on 31 March 2009. At this point in time, the value of the contract to Fujitsu to deliver the SAP system had already escalated from the $7.2m starting point to nearly $14.8m. The alarm bells were ringing but they were being ignored by the then Labor administration. As you will see later, while $14.8m is more than double the initial estimate, it is still a far cry from what the former Labor government has cost Territory families to date to deliver a system that can only be described as a wreck.
Once work commenced with Fujitsu, the situation turned from bad to worse. Fujitsu has failed its role as the contracted systems integrator for AMS. I need to be somewhat circumspect in this area as the Territory is currently reserving its rights and could possibly seek legal remedy for the failings of Fujitsu. Having said this, the failings are numerous and significant. The problems started from day one with project delays in the very first phase.
Fujitsu was to arrive on site in Darwin to commence work within six weeks of the contract being signed. The team arrived late. The project manager arrived even later and only lasted about six weeks. This was just the start of resourcing problems and high-level turnover of skilled resources that would plague the project over the next few years and send costs spiralling out of control. There were delays in delivery of every phase of this project.
The first major output Fujitsu was required to produce was a series of blueprints to document the processes the new system would use to manage the Territory’s assets. This work was planned to take 10 weeks; it took a whole year. This delay occurred due to the poor quality of work produced by Fujitsu, which needed repeated rework to meet an acceptable standard.
The first drafts of these technical system blueprints that were so important to getting the system right were absolutely terrible. They contained numerous errors, failed to address our business requirements for an asset system, contained spelling mistakes, and were, in some places, simply incomplete. In many places, they were obviously cut and pasted from another Fujitsu client and still had the name of the other company in the documents. This blueprint phase also required Fujitsu to produce a number of key technical documents that would be crucial to the process of building and implementing the AMS. Many of these were not done.
It was at the completion of this blueprint phase that the second and probably most serious blunder was made by the former Labor government. The contract with Fujitsu contained a provision that allowed a window of opportunity for the former Labor government to disengage Fujitsu as the system integrator at the completion of the blueprint phase and engage a new supplier to deliver AMS.
At this point, Fujitsu had struggled to deliver the critical system blueprints and extensive technical system documentation, and resourcing issues continued to create major problems. You will also recall my earlier statement that the original request for tender was for a commercial off-the-shelf system. By this point, it had become apparent that two major system components would instead require customised solutions to be built. The spatial data – GIS as it is commonly referred to – component and the mobility component, enabling the AMS system to be accessed via hand-held devices, as you would expect from a modern ICT system, could not be delivered from the core SAP software.
To this day, the GIS and mobility components remain undelivered and are outstanding actions on Fujitsu. Despite all this and despite having a contractual opportunity to get out, despite the advice from independent ICT experts that the lowest risk option was to appoint another systems integrator – one experienced with SAP – the then Labor government recommitted Territorians to Fujitsu as their system integrator. With absolute disregard for the millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being put at risk, it irresponsibly soldiered on.
What came next was nearly two years where the actual AMS was being built prior to it being rolled out across government agencies in April 2012. During this phase of building and testing the new system, things continued to go wrong, and the scandalous waste of taxpayers’ dollars continued to grow.
Turnover of Fujitsu resources continued to be a problem during this period. In fact, over the life of this project, Fujitsu has had more than 11 different project managers and at least 100 different specialist contractor resources working on the AMS. This high level of turnover and absence of key Fujitsu personnel at various times created a huge challenge and resulted in very little handover and skills transfer to NT public servants working in the team, despite this being a condition of Fujitsu’s contract.
The system development continued to experience delay after delay. Fujitsu’s contract required them to deliver the system to final preparation stage in around nine months, yet it took over a year-and-a-half. Significant problems were identified during this system development phase, many of which remain outstanding and unresolved to this day. The interface between AMS and the government accounting system, or GAS, is one critical example. With more than $8bn in fixed assets held in AMS and with the system used to manage every capital works project, it is a crucial function of the system to get the right accounting treatment of our assets.
It simply does not work properly and the Labor members opposite are responsible for that. Applying the correct accounting treatment to assets and getting reliable financial data out of AMS and into GAS is a daily challenge for the hard-working public servants who have to use this system on a day-to-day basis. Considerable manual work and data entry is required every day to keep the information in GAS up to date, something that should happen automatically in any modern, contemporary ICT system. All this is thanks to the incompetence of the previous Labor government and members opposite.
Data quality remains a huge problem, as developing a data migration strategy to transfer data from nine old legacy systems to the new AMS was not done properly during the development of the system. Poor quality and incomplete data in AMS continues to be a major problem even today, more than a year-and-a-half after the system went live. Producing useful reports is a key feature of any decent ICT system. Having all of your asset data in a system such as AMS is not much use if you cannot extract reports and information easily to support decision-making and the management of assets in a proactive and cost efficient way.
It pains me to say it, but getting decent reports and information out of AMS is a bit like extracting teeth. Building a reporting business warehouse so information about assets could be extracted easily and in real time was a contract requirement on Fujitsu. This part of the project experienced repeated delays and, finally, after much frustration, Fujitsu committed to building around thirteen stand-alone reports as a stop gap measure. These reports are not adequate to meet government’s needs and have cost several hundred thousand dollars each to develop. Delivery of the reporting functionality, in the form of a business warehouse, remains an outstanding action on Fujitsu. If Fujitsu does not deliver, our government may be forced to develop this reporting functionality some other way and at a further cost to Territorians simply because we need it to manage our $8bn worth of assets effectively. Perhaps worst of all, the blueprints developed in the earlier phase that were so crucial to the system design and build did not accurately capture the actual processes used in agencies to manage their assets.
This means we have ended up with a system that does not match the business processes used in agencies to manage their assets. If I can indulge my motor vehicle analogy again, this is akin to taking that Rolls Royce we purchased and trying to drive it down a bush track better suited to a Toyota Hilux. It was simply never designed to do that. In fact, officers of my department tasked with investigating this scandal have recently made another alarming discovery. Advice was sought from independent ICT experts in industry on the use of the SAP software to manage assets. The advice they received is that they are not aware of any other organisation worldwide that has deployed SAP just for managing assets. SAP is a large scale system, what is commonly referred to in IT speak as an enterprise resource planning system, or ERP. Its strengths are in finance, HR, payroll and supply management. Using SAP as a stand-alone asset management system is unheard of according to the experts, yet that is the path the former Labor government embarked on.
Add to this the cost blow outs. This project was initially supposed to cost $7.2m. By the time the contract was awarded to Fujitsu, it was costed at $14.8m. When it went live, it had cost close to $27m, almost four times the initial funding envelope. At a Public Accounts Committee hearing in August 2012, the total cost of AMS is on the public record as $28.2m. In April 2012, after multiple delays with missing system functionality, suffering huge cost overruns and after what can only be described as fairly rudimentary testing by the former Labor government of the system, AMS went live across all agencies, shades of the same incompetence that caused the Queensland Health payroll scandal. It was shocking to find out there were 70 known defects in the system on the day it went live, but despite this it went ahead as planned. Omissions and missing system functionality remain outstanding to this day. In fact, there are still 200 known defects that require rectification.
One of the worst affected agencies from the crash-it-in approach by the previous Labor government was the Department of Housing. Housing has a lot of repair and maintenance work that occurs in relation to its assets. In the old legacy asset system, housing contractors were able to access the system to do their paperwork, such as retrieving work orders and submitting invoices. Despite Housing raising concerns with the then Labor government that the contractor portal had not been properly tested in the new AMS before go live and contractors not receiving adequate training, the system was crashed in. The end result was a system that was so slow, contractors refused to use it. They even sought payment for time they wasted trying to enter their paperwork. Significant technical work had to be done to fix the AMS contractor portal. Temporary staff had to be hired at great expense to input data manually for Housing, and to assist with reconciling payments to contractors.
This complete botch up should never have occurred. It was a scandal that was allowed to go ahead. It could and should have been prevented in the first place. Here is a litmus test. The original business case for a new asset management system, and what the whole seven-year project was based on, was argued on the basis that the new AMS would replace nine old legacy systems and produce efficiencies. This was so integral to the argument for purchasing a new system that it was an explicit condition of Fujitsu’s contract that these legacy systems needed to be retired or switched off for the project to be considered a success. As of today, only two of those nine systems have been retired. These two systems were smaller, perhaps better described as databases, and switching them off produced no material savings or efficiencies. The other seven systems remain switched on because AMS simply has not delivered the required functionality to enable them to be retired.
Whether it will ever be delivered remains in doubt. In fact, an independent health check review conducted by the Department of Treasury and Finance in October 2012 and assisted by SAP experts and asset management experts from KPMG Consulting, found AMS to be only 11% fit for purpose. Over $30m had been spent at the time this review was conducted, yet the system is only 11% fit for purpose. It is hard to imagine how this could get worse. It is a scandal of epic proportions.
AMS has been live for over a year-and-a-half now, yet the problems persist. The gaping holes in system functionality I have described today continue to hamper the efforts of government agencies that are trying hard to manage their assets properly. The inability of AMS to work properly with our government accounting system, GAS, continues to present a critical and unacceptable risk to government and the pockets of Territory taxpayers. In both the 2011-12 and the 2012-13 financial years, the financial value of the fixed assets recorded in AMS has not reconciled to the value of the Territory’s total assets in GAS. There are errors and inconsistencies in the order of tens of millions of dollars. The Territory’s finances are audited annually as part of preparing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, or TAFR, as it is often referred to. For two years in a row, the Auditor-General has been faced with the possibility of having to issue a qualified audit on the Territory’s finances. Fortunately, as a result of weeks of extensive manual work undertaken by staff in the AMS team and the Department of Treasury and Finance to manually reconcile the asset values, we have escaped a qualified audit.
Relying on resource intensive manual intervention is not the way to deal with this critical task. It needs to be addressed. I am very mindful that we need to close off another financial year in just over six months from now. The implications for the Territory of having our financials qualified are not to be underestimated. Not only is it an embarrassment for government as responsible fiscal managers, it has downstream implications for our funding arrangements. Fixing this is not negotiable, it is essential. Staff in agencies that use AMS to do their jobs continue to be frustrated with the system. This stems from a range of issues, including the lack of fit between the system and the actual process of managing assets in agencies. Lack of effective training and poor engagement and communication have all led to a lack of acceptance and uptake by agencies. Put simply, because of the former Labor government’s bungling, we have a defective system and a bunch of users who feel that the new system does not meet their needs and that they have not been listened to.
It would be timely to point out that while I have been critical of Fujitsu in its role of system integrator, the failures in this project are not all on its shoulders. Labor’s decision-makers made a number of mistakes at critical stages in this project: the initial decision to procure a Tier 1 software solution rather than an affordable Tier 2 system, retaining Fujitsu as the system integrator when a contractual opportunity existed to replace it after its failure at the blueprint stage, and the decision to go live despite significant defects and shortfalls are all examples of this.
Other mistakes were made. Labor botched an opportunity to grow local industry capability with the SAP software and, instead, a costly process of using expensive fly-in fly-out contract resources was put in place. Not only would a skills transfer approach have built local industry capability, it would have future-proofed AMS to get more of its support locally.
The Labor government’s use of expensive contractor resources to undertake basic functions that could be done by public servants also drove costs. At various stages, the Labor government used contractors for a range of routine administrative functions within the AMS team. Such was the level of the Labor government’s incompetence after the go live in April 2012, that contractors, including backpackers, were used to resource the AMS help desk, answering the phone and logging calls. These duties have since been transitioned to public servants.
The scope and complexity of the problems that exist with AMS are myriad. The system has been deployed and configured in such a way that it is not meeting the core requirements of agencies to manage their assets. These problems relate to fundamental system design issues that are not able to be fixed without significant reprogramming of core software components. The fact the system has now been live for over 18 months means this is even more difficult to address. It has become clear that even if these issues can be resolved, the Territory will be left with a long-term cost commitment to operate an expensive piece of software that is, at best, marginally fit for purpose.
I should point out that between 2009 and 2013 this project has been subject to an extensive review and audit. During this time there have been four independent reviews conducted by consulting firms, two audits of the AMS project by the Auditor-General, and executives responsible for the project have appeared before the Public Accounts Committee four times. The findings of these audits and reviews contain some common themes. The former Labor government was guilty of:
inadequate capture of government’s business requirements in order to deliver an ICT solution
mistakes made in procurement and contract management of suppliers
These are text book examples of the mistakes to be avoided in ICT projects and the previous Labor government made all of them. To make matters worse, it has been found that the former Labor government is also guilty of having splurged around $60m of taxpayers’ money in other ICT projects, most notably the Power and Water Corporation’s asset management system project and the Department of Health’s project to develop a grants management system. Problems such as accurately capturing the business requirements a new ICT system needs to fulfil, careful management of contracted suppliers and ensuring appropriate project management and governance mechanisms are in place are common to all three projects.
The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory August 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly paints a damning picture of how the Labor government’s bungling impacted Power and Water. The report details how almost $60m in taxpayers’ money was poured into a project that was supposed to have cost $15m. The final cost of the Power and Water project was more than three times the initial budget that was approved. The Auditor-General also noted that the Power and Water system went live in August 2012 with 570 defects, 29 of which were major.
The Public Accounts Committee is conducting an inquiry into the management of ICT projects more broadly across government. AMS, Health, and Power and Water projects are addressed specifically in the terms of reference of this review. What is required is a more robust and effective approach to the governance of ICT projects and initiatives – an approach where the warning bells are heard clearly when projects get into difficulty and where agencies have the right resources available to intervene and take corrective action when needed.
More on that later. First, I want to talk about what is being done to improve the management of the AMS system, both now and into the future. Firstly, I acknowledge the role of my colleague, minister Styles. He first inherited this mess from the former Labor government and took immediate steps to turn the ship around. Under minister Styles, our government was able to stabilise the system and he introduced a level of management rigour that had been sadly lacking under the former Labor government.
Minister Styles got 10 urgent remediation projects under way to improve the system so we could hobble through the 2012-13 financial year without a total disaster. Implementing these projects got us through and I thank the minister for that.
I plan to build on minister Styles’ initial work to fix this mess. Since taking on responsibility for AMS on 7 October this year in my capacity as Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I have taken further decisive action. A new, more agile project governance model has been implemented. With fewer committees, more senior representation from key agencies and regular reporting to me through the Chief Executive of the Department of Corporate and Information Services we will ensure much tighter management control moving forward.
A new three-tiered approach has been put in place to better manage the various elements of the AMS system. The service delivery stream is focusing on the steady state operation of the system, making sure users receive the training they need, have good quality support available, a help desk that deals with their issues, and that the day-to-day operation of the system runs smoothly.
The remediation stream is focused on fixing the parts of the system that are causing the most problems for agencies trying to manage their assets, and government as a whole. Critical priorities for this stream include resolving the financial reconciliation between AMS and GAS before 30 June 2014, and delivering a better level of reporting functionality. The recovery stream is focused on what we do longer term. While we need to stabilise the system to keep it operational and fix the components that desperately need fixing, there remains a question about what we do longer term. To put it bluntly, we are driving a Rolls Royce, and even if we get it working properly, it is still a Rolls Royce. We need to ask ourselves the fundamental question about whether this is sustainable over the long haul.
A team within my department is working hard to investigate the realistic options available to government and present them to me in terms of cost, benefit and risk. In doing this, they are engaging with all the major agencies that manage assets and we are working closely with central agencies.
I expect to be in a position to consider the findings from this group early in 2014. Additionally, steps are being taken to cut costs and eliminate unnecessary expenditure from the AMS program. We are reducing the number of highly paid contractors and transferring work to public servants who will stay the distance and support the system long after the fly-in fly-out resources have gone. We have also cancelled several consultancies. As I stated earlier, the Territory has not ruled out seeking legal remedy for non-delivery by its supplier, and we are taking expert legal advice before deciding on what action we might take in this regard.
Put simply, AMS is under new management. A key question in all of this is how do we stop it happening again? The single most critical thing we can do to improve success with ICT projects and initiatives is put in place a stronger, more robust ICT governance approach and get the right senior people within government participating in it. If we get this foundation layer right, other success factors such as project scoping, operational project management, resourcing, procurement and contract management, change management and implementation will all be addressed through the governance process.
I am pleased to report that my department is currently developing a new ICT governance framework that will improve alignment of ICT investments with government direction, strengthen oversight of high risk and high value ICT investments and put in place a framework to improve the management of ICT. This will be a clear and tangible response to the deficiencies in the management of ICT identified by the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee and various other independent reviews undertaken in response to troubled ICT systems projects. I expect to put a submission on this matter before Cabinet early in the new year. We have taken action to get this disastrous project, left to us by the former government, back on track. We are still a long way from smooth sailing, however, we are finally moving in the right direction.
I suspect more funding will be needed at some point. The fact we are still driving the Rolls Royce ICT system remains a problem. The Toyota Hilux may still be the best option. I am not here today to make any predictions about what the future of asset management systems might be for government. I will await the completion of the investigative work being done by my department. I am here today to demonstrate very clearly that this government is taking decisive action in response to the mess we have been left to clean up. I look forward to providing the Assembly with a further update in early 2014.
I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the statement, which was a highly technical one. I wish I had the resources he has to write this kind of response. I am not an IT expert. Some of the things he said were, excuse the pun, all Greek to me.
One thing I will not dispute is it was an extremely complex project and it was very costly. That is something nobody will deny. I was curious as to why things like that are so costly? I went to the usual place we go to nowadays – Google – and searched for assets management system overruns. Within 0.18 seconds, 22 000 results were found, highlighting asset management system overruns.
The Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister referred to a scandal. He has tried to put that scandal on the Leader of the Opposition, but nothing he said pointed to the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing points to scandal. It worries me that he said he will take legal action against a particular company. I hope he does and I hope he is lucky, but having named the company and put a lot of allegations against the company using parliamentary privilege, I wonder what he has done to any case he may have in a court in the future. Any company would hire clever lawyers and the first claim will be they were not given a right of reply or they were prejudiced in parliament under parliamentary privilege.
The Deputy Chief Minister said these systems ran into trouble when trying to integrate nine archaic systems. Why nine? When the CLP started building the Territory in the early 1980s, they decided every department should have its own IT system. As a result, we had nine departments and nine IT systems. Who in his right mind would have nine IT systems for 14 000 public servants? It is beyond me; I do not understand why it happened. At that time, with the number of public servants and the number of assets, they could have very easily integrated the IT. As time goes by, state-of-the-art systems of two years ago are now archaic and need complete overhaul to be able to assimilate with a new system. Often we find that older systems will not talk to a new system at all. They sometimes do not even talk to each other.
The Deputy Chief Minister says there were not enough public servants trained and they were not used. This was because the CLP government at the time outsourced all IT services to the private sector. As a result, there were not many people in the departments who understood IT. You do not have people who understand IT if they are not experienced within your organisation and you are always relying on external providers. Cabinet needs to find a balanced approach to what we wanted to do. Do we want to outsource everything or keep something inside just in case? The CLP went for everything out and kept nothing in house. This contributed to the difficulties we ran into with the asset management system.
Some of the things we did a few years ago were then, state–of-the-art, but today are obsolete. For example, in 1994, a token ring network system was used in this building after it opened. Today, there are only two token ring network systems left in the world, one in this Parliament House and one in Germany. Google it and you will find out. I did not know what the token ring network system was and I had to Google it to find out. I am not an expert in IT.
The Auditor-General has looked into it, identified the problems, and has suggested a way forward. I encourage the government to do that. If the government will take legal action because the contracted company did not maintain contractual agreements and milestones, they have a case and I wish them luck. I have concerns about how this will proceed with the Deputy Chief Minister having blasted and named the company, and made serious allegations under parliamentary privilege.
Nobody denies it is a complex system. It was a costly system and it went up and up. I do not know if the minister knows much about computers. I do not know much and would rely on expertise and advice from all departments to make decisions. To blame this decision on a particular minister is like trying to tell Robyn Lambley, the member for Araluen, that an operation was not done properly, was misdiagnosed and was her fault. She is the minister deciding policy when somebody else performs the dirty work, to put it that way.
I did not have the resources the minister has. I did not have information, and being 10.30 pm, it does not give us much opportunity to spend time on it. I look forward to what the minister will say in the future, as he is now in government and has the resources and money. I anxiously wait to see how he will proceed, when he will proceed, when he will develop an asset management system, if he will develop an asset management system and how long it will take him to develop that system.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report – Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table a report for the member for Goyder, pursuant to clause 4.1 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1 of 2012.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also lay on the table a report by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission regarding NT council elections.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish to reflect on the past 15 months as an MLA and the past three months as a minister in the Giles government. To say the past 15 months have changed my life would be an understatement. From a Warlpiri woman with her toes in the sands of the Central Australian deserts to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory as member for Stuart, elected on a huge swing against the previous Labor minister, to being promoted to the Giles Cabinet in September this year by the Chief Minister, it has been a huge 15 months but something I have thoroughly enjoyed.
I would like to thank the voters of Stuart for their trust and confidence in me. I was elected on a platform the bush had enough of the Labor ‘all talk and no action’ way of dealing with the bush. Rather than sitting still, I have been busy, both as member for Stuart and also as Minister for Community Services, Parks and Wildlife, men’s and women’s policy, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and Statehood.
Over the past 12 months, I have visited all schools in my electorate a number of times, established a footy academy in Yuendumu, which is still going strong; launched the Indigenous TV station in Yuendumu in April this year; attended a number of very successful sports carnivals in Barunga and Yuendumu as well as the Barunga Festival and secured a number of grants for sports equipment for Nyirripi, Barunga and Yuendumu. I represented the Chief Minister at the National Road Safety Forum in Hobart, Tasmania; gave an address at the women’s Liberal conference in Queensland; was guest speaker at a diabetes education program in Brisbane and managed to progress the Alyuen water supply, which will be completed by February. They have been waiting for water since 2007.
I attended the Pine Creek Gold Rush Festival, as well as the Timber Creek Campdraft in August, where I handed out prizes. I opened the Willowra learning centre in April this year. I was so lucky to be present at the Mt Doreen native title handover, where I got to sit in a river bed and watch the historic sitting of the federal court. I also had the opportunity to go to Singapore with Minister Styles, Linda Fazldeen and Rodney Illingworth to look at what we can learn from people in Singapore.
There is much more I could say about my electorate activities over the past 12 months, but I will run out of time and I need to squeeze in my Christmas messages.
I am proud to be the minister responsible for the work of the dedicated staff of the Parks and Wildlife Commission. One of the best things about this portfolio is that my family culture is very much part of it. My father’s Dreaming includes the western quoll, rufous hare-wallaby, mala, now extinct in the Northern Territory and, possum, Jalanpa, very much endangered. Most of these animals are found at the desert park in Alice Springs. I am so lucky to have some of the NT's most beautiful parks in my electorate such as Litchfield, Judbarra/Gregory, Nitmiluk, Tjuwaliyn (Douglas) Hot Springs Park, Umbrawarra Gorge, Keep River, Cobourg and many more. In my two-and-a-half months as a minister, I have met staff and rangers at Palmerston, Berrimah, Lambells Lagoon, Middle Point, Alice Springs, Timber Creek, Keep River and Katherine. The best comment I have heard so far is I am the first minister some rangers have seen in 20 years. What a fantastic compliment.
I thank all staff at the commission for their hard, tireless work over the last 12 months, many of who I have already met. I look forward to working with you next year to continue to improve our parks for all Territorians. To Andrew Bridges the CEO, and his executive management team of Dr Anne Walters, Executive Officer, Chris Day, Neva McCartney, Amanda Moore, Shael Martin, Brian Harty, Paul Ah Chee, Mac Moyses, Kristen Appel, and Mike Deegan, I thank you for the lovely green folders and your hard work over the last 12 months. This is reflected in the fantastic appearance of our parks and reserves. I have heard your united voices about the tiring infrastructure and I will work hard with colleagues to get more money for replacement and upgrades over the next few budgets. To the Chief Rangers, Nigel Weston, Lincoln Wilson, Barry Scott, Eddie Webber, Gary Weir, Wayne Gaskon and the rest of the rangers across the NT, keep up your fantastic work and I look forward to meeting with you and your teams next year.
I am also proud to be the Minister for Community Services, which includes both women’s and men’s policy, remote programs, interpreter services, the Stronger Futures unit and corporate services. I thank all staff at community services for their hard, tireless work over the past 12 months, many of who I have already met. I look forward to working with you next year to continue to improve the lives of remote Territorians. To the Chief Executive, Rob Kendrick, and his management team of Michelle Brown, Peter Campos, Ken Tinkham and Peter Boyce, thank you for your hard work over the last 12 months and I look forward to working with you next year to continue my plans.
I wish Mike Chiodo the best as he heads up the government’s Gove recovery team. The Chief Minister picked the best man for the job and I wish him all the best in this critical task for the NT. I will sorely miss his honest, and often candid, advice. I always wanted to improve the lives of all Territorians, including women, but the best way to do that is with the cooperation of our men and I want to work together with them. I thank Suzanne Everingham, Nathan Evans and their teams. We have a massive policy agenda to deliver next year and I cannot wait to start on this.
To David Alexander and your teams of interpreters, including Aboriginal interpreters; I have worked as an interpreter. I translated for many years and I am aware of the challenges you face, so thank you all for the hard work.
To Peter Campos and his team looking after remote programs and essential services. I was born and raised on a remote community and I have lived and worked on several others. I know how difficult it is to maintain services to these communities, to keep them connected.
Also under community services is the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Thank you, Ben Scambary, Marlene, Clive and the rest of the AAPA team. You have had a huge year with many major projects and pressing deadlines. Thank you for your efforts and keep up the hard work.
Last but not least, I thank my statehood advisor, Russell Keith in the Legislative Assembly, who continually reminds me he cannot give me any advice, but is merely there to help.
To Robert Bradshaw at the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, thank you for your policy assistance and I look forward to working with you next year on advancing the issue of statehood.
I will do my best as minister in all these areas, but I will not forget the people of Stuart. You are always in my mind and my heart. Karen and Jodi in my Alice Springs and Katherine offices work very hard and, most importantly, care about the welfare and wellbeing of the people of Stuart. They are always available to answer questions and to pass on requests and concerns to me.
To the Chief Minister, thank you for your confidence, trust and faith in promoting me to the Cabinet. I will return that confidence in achieving results for the Territory. I will return that trust in being true to my oath as a minister of the Crown, and I will return the faith in working with my Cabinet and backbench colleagues to make sure every voice is heard.
To the rest of my Cabinet colleagues, thank you for helping me out as a newie and showing me the ropes in Cabinet. I promise you I will be knocking your doors down next year and trying to get more for Territorians, especially those in the bush.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance and support, and the Deputy Speaker, the member for Daly. You are both great people and I appreciate your friendship and support.
I have two families left to thank. First, there is my Darwin family, my ministerial office. To Ana Elenis and Tammy Voukolos ,who run the admin side of my office, thank you for your hard work, laughs and constant care. To my department liaison officers, Vicki Campbell and Tracey Duldig; you are a fantastic asset for the department and I am so lucky to have you working in my office and being the key link between my departments and my office. To Joshua Higgins, my advisor, and communications adviser, Lauren Crawley; thank you both for your support and assistance over the past three months. Joshua, I am so glad I stole you from your father, the member for Daly and thank you for your help, support and laughs. Lauren, I am so grateful to the Chief Minister for letting you take this opportunity. Thank you for your craft, which you do so well. We have a big year next year, so get ready.
To my Chief of Staff and senior advisor, Paul Mossman - what can I say? You are a godsend and a great asset. Thank you, Ron for recommending him to me, thank you to my Darwin family. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Jacinta, my daughter, Colin Lillie, my son-in-law and my grandsons, Ethan, Leland, Declan and Kincaid. I am so proud of you all, especially, Jacinta, who launched her first album, Dry River, a few weeks ago and which can be downloaded from iTunes. I wish to mention my niece, who tragically died last Friday in a car accident in Alice Springs. I want to thank the Alice Springs police, especially Detective Sergeant Mike Schumacher and Senior Constable Phil Brooks-Anderson, and the Alice Springs coroner’s office for all their help. They treated my family like their own. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Dave Price, who is my world, my rock and everything to me. Thank you for your patience, love and support; without it, I would simply not be able to do this job.
I have been told to say Merry Christmas in Warlpiri, but we do not have a saying, so I will say Merry Christmas (member spoke in language). Thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My grandparents love stories starting with a bunch of bananas.
Grandad and Nana stayed on in Adelaide, I suspect, to avoid Con. They re-established communications with the family after Nana fell pregnant.
There, Grandad coordinated the carting of stock for Vestey’s. Once the contract with Vestey’s ended, the O’Neil’s offered Grandad work as their foreman at Fleetowners in Alice Springs, within a year he was the manager of their operations.
Grandad’s employment career was similar to many pioneering Territorians – you do a variety of jobs in a broad range of places. It is a career path very few would share today.
Grandad was one of the fathers of the Finke Desert Race. What is now an iconic event in the Northern Territory had very humble beginnings.
This was a deadly serious endurance event in which the possibility of severe injury was high. The course, as a pre-race track was non-existent, and as was conveyed to the entrants at the first pre-race meeting, they were totally responsible for everything to do with their own welfare. A recommendation was made that they carry every basic need, including water, to be decent fellows and check on any riders they found sprawled along the way.
The pre-race inspection performed had one aim only, to determine whether the machine looked capable of taking its rider safely there and back.
Geoff Curtis was the winner of the very first event in June 1974. Hayden Bentley won it this year in a buggy. The Finke Desert Race has become an iconic event.
My family still remain involved through the Desert Edge racing Team, my cousin Giselle works in the Finke office and my uncle, Peter Gunner, who raced in the inaugural event, has raced the last two years, this year with his son, Samuel. The Gunners will remain a part of the Finke Desert Race for a while to come. I thank the contributors to Wikipedia for some of my material on the Finke.
Grandad quit the Alice Springs Motor Club after:
Food remained in our veins after The Kitchen.
Gogs, Stephen Gunner, one of Grandad’s first set of twins, ran the chicken shop in Tennant Creek for a long time in the 1980s and 1990s. Benny started an ice-creamery in Tennant, and a pizza shop, and had Sammy’s in Alice for over a decade before selling up this year.
After selling The Kitchen, Grandad and Nana moved to Cairns for a while. This was the late 1970s, early 1980s.
Granddad spent some time managing Buntines and the Outback Motor Lodge before starting a contracting business in Tennant and taking on tender for the welding duties at Nobles Nob, White Devil and Warrego. In 2002, Grandad retired. Grandad had some form of employment from 12 to 72. Retired in Alice, ill health saw him move.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, my electorate officer Angie Walker is an absolute miracle worker. I love her and am so blessed to have her in my office. From day one, she has made an enormous impact, not only on my capacity and capability, but also on the electorate. I praise her because I see the work she does in my office, but when I hear contributions from members of my community, I know I have an excellent electorate officer; constituents say they do not need to see me as Angie has dealt with their issue or they want to see Angie, not me. Thank you, Angie, I have really enjoyed our last 18 months together and look forward to serving the rest of the time with you by my side. You are my right hand, we work extremely well together and I cannot thank you enough.
Justin Murphy has come on board to help me with the whip role. He is whip officer, and I am extremely grateful to have someone else carrying that load. Being whip is a thankless and tiring job, as the member for Fannie Bay would no doubt agree. It is very nice to have Justin by my side going through the torturous journey in the role of whip.
Serena Staines is our EOA and she has been wonderful. She has really helped take a lot of the administrative burden from Angie, because Angie has a very varied job and needs that support. Serena has been able to take away a lot of jobs that are very important but very time consuming. Thank you to Serena, and Jinx Smith, my regular electorate officer temp when Angie is away. Jinx, you are invaluable, a wonderful part of our office and I enjoy spending time with you, even though it is limited throughout the year.
I have to thank my parents, who have been great. They have relaxed a bit now I am a politician and the sky has not fallen in and I have not been crucified on the front page of the NT News. According to my parents, all is going well so far, so I will keep it up, Mum and Dad, do not worry. It probably will come, but it has not yet, so fingers crossed everybody.
I also wish my sister, Jessica, a fantastic university graduation. Thank God you are finishing uni after what feels like a million years. You are way too old to still be there. I am looking forward to escorting you into the new world in a couple of weeks’ time at your graduation ceremony.
My partner, Sam, is absolutely amazing. I am glad Denis and Annette put him through the wringer when he was a child because he has grown up perfect to be my fianc. That was training in the making of a politician’s husband-to-be. I love you and it has been a great journey. This has been our best year yet and I look forward to many more. I look forward to doing an adjournment, telling everyone about our wedding next March. Thank you very much.
The Gray community garden is an amazing project and has been kicked off by the City of Palmerston. I have to thank Brooke Kimberley; we held a meeting in my office on Sunday to put together the structure of incorporation. I publicly welcome and celebrate Naomi Lacey, who will be the Chairperson of the Gray community garden; Mary Peterson, who will be Vice Chair; Courtney Skye, who will be Treasurer; Laura Bachman, who will be Secretary and general committee members, Mark Green, Kathryn McWilliams and Paul Heskins. It is a brilliant project, in its infancy, but by June next year will be a fully-fledged community organisation. It is exciting this will start to happen on the ground soon. I am proud to be the local member and to be involved with all of you with such an amazing project.
This year has been fantastic. I have managed to squeeze in four or five mobile offices, which is much harder than it sounds when you have a 3m2 tent that weighs much more than I thought it would when I ordered it from the Internet. We have also held a number of barbecues. We had four community barbecues and my big Territory Day barbecue, which had in excess of 300 people attend. We had the jumping castle, face painting, climbing wall, barbecue - it was awesome. That is the second time I have held that major whole of electorate and whole of Palmerston event. I am very much looking forward to running that again for as long as the people of Drysdale keep me in this blessed and honourable position.
I was proud this year to be the patron of the Palmerston football club, University of the Third Age and Probus Palmerston. I take these roles seriously and am a very active patron. I love being involved and thank you very much for having me.
I love spending time in my schools. I get to as many assemblies as I can. It does not help that all assemblies are at the same time on a Friday; I cannot divide myself into six. I would love to, but I cannot, so maybe the school councils can rearrange assemblies and that would just be perfect for me. Until then, I will do my best to get to every one. This year, I trialled the Drysdale All Rounder Award for all-round excellence and that has been well received by parents, students, and teachers alike. Thank you for letting me present that award, which is very important to me.
XXXXXXXXXXX hard copy read to here.
I have also made various book presentations to schools, and get to as many school council meetings as possible. I enjoy hearing your grassroots commentary on our education system and what is happening in schools. I also like to be to be able to assist you, give you a leg up and get information as and when you need it.
It was very exciting to celebrate Vic Ludwig’s 85th birthday on 10 October this year. Vic frequents my office and has Angie doing all sorts of activities, which we love doing. Vic, you are welcome any time.
On a sad note, we said goodbye to a true Territory hero and visionary, Hans Vos. I only had the pleasure of knowing Hans for a couple of weeks, but in the small time I knew him, he blew me away. It was only a couple of weeks ago at the Chief Minister’s State of the Territory lunch I was sitting next to someone who mentioned Hans and what a visionary he was. He was a huge loss to the Territory this year.
We had a bumper year with activities such as Palmerston markets every Friday night; Clean Up Australia Day; Red Cross market day; City of Palmerston citizenship ceremonies; my advance personal planning consultation; Climate Change Forum; the Kids Brigade; national tree planting day where I organised US marines and ADF personnel to do a back yard blitz on the front yard of the childcare centre. We had the Palmerston Festival; SIDS and Kids Red Nose Day; Walk 2 Remember and balloon release; YChange?, where I represented the Chief Minister and we had the NT baking awards in Palmerston. I taught various Sacred Heart students about the three tiers of government. I am not sure how successful that lecture series was but I enjoyed it nonetheless. We had McHappy Day; two Palmerston hospital community consultations; the opening night of the travelling film festival; Northern Territory Board Of Studies awards; International Women’s Day; open garden programs; NT Space School awards; Total Recreation open garden; Duke of Edinburgh Awards; Women in League dinner; AIOP breakfast; the Italian Festival; the Mother’s Day Classic; Tropical Garden Spectacular; BPW golf day – my list goes on. It was all wonderful.
I was also able to organise some of my own events, including a barbecue at Oz designs for the guys who work for HPA. That was fantastic.
It has been an amazing year. It was also the year I became the youngest minister in history. I then unceremoniously became the shortest term minister, the shortest legs minister in history. However, they say all these things are character building, so I do not regret it. It is all part of the bumpy journey over the last 18 months.
I would like to talk about World Teachers’ Day, and thank a dedicated and professional group of people tonight. I offer my gratitude to the teachers of the Northern Territory for their contributions to the education and development of our young people during 2013. One significant day when we take time to recognise the great efforts of teachers is World Teachers’ Day. This special day is celebrated worldwide and in over 100 countries on the first Friday in October. However, in Australia, this date corresponds to the Term 3 break. To ensure all educators can make the most of this day, it is celebrated on the last Friday of October. This year, it fell on 25 October. Across the Territory, schools rightfully took time to pay tribute to the great contribution teachers make to our society.
Young children spend so much time in the classroom with their teachers and develop strong relationships that endure for years. Much of a child’s early development is attributed to the work put in by their teacher. Even today, Sacred Heart Primary School students were in the gallery, and I took them to the Chief Minister’s office. Their teacher was my Year 6 and 7 teacher, who has had a long-standing impact on my life.
Even in middle and senior secondary schools, teachers are a massive part of a young person’s life, as they model positive behaviour, share worldly experiences and teach skilfully according to the curriculum. I had a very strong role model throughout my time at school and I attribute much of my success to their guidance and perseverance.
I have some more remarks in relation to World Teachers’ Day and I seek leave to table and have my comments recorded in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Let us consider the hours spent preparing classes; general staff and faculty meetings; constant informal staffroom discussions; yard duties; dealing with tantrums of young students or the emotional rollercoasters older students are sitting on; the creativity and resourcefulness summoned to have the next lesson make an impact and the extra effort put in that makes sporting, debating or drama groups succeed within and outside of school hours.
Teachers are essentially learning and development facilitators who care for our students and it is right we honour them every day, especially on World Teachers’ Day.
As a small token of appreciation, I arranged for each school in my electorate to receive a delicious cake from Ben & Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse to help with their morning tea celebrations. This is the least I can do for the dozens of teachers in Drysdale helping our community.
As the member for Drysdale, it is paramount I give special mention to the wonderful schools in the electorate. I have worked hard to build strong relationships with Driver Primary School, Good Shepherd Lutheran College, Durack Primary School, Gray Primary School, Palmerston Senior College and the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre.
I try to get to every school assembly, as these provide me, and all parents, a snapshot of what the school is doing and what magnificent student accomplishments are occurring. I enjoy handing out the Drysdale All-Rounder Award, which is my way of showing the students teachers can see their great work and the community also values their efforts. I love to get to as many school council meetings, sports days and other events at the schools as often as possible.
Firstly, Driver Primary School, with 484 students, is an integral part of the Palmerston community. One example of the great work happening at the school is the farm, an initiative I am always glad to volunteer with. The students are learning about agriculture and food production in a hands-on, meaningful way and you can see the delight on the faces of children when they see the product of their hours in the sun and soil.
In many ways, Driver Primary School’s farm represents their vision. That is, to be a hands-on, vibrant and engaging learning centre that implements new and innovative programs in a secure, collaborative and sustainable environment. Students, staff and parents involved with Driver Primary School communicate and operate within four key values, which are:
respect – respect for oneself, others, property and the environment
community of learners – learning is lifelong and done together, in partnership with one another
safe learning environment – everyone bands together to create a fair, positive and trusting learning community – something absolutely necessary for the high-quality learning that Driver Primary School teachers strive for
excellence – students and staff always their best at everything they do.
These four values underpin the education delivered to students at Driver Primary School.
I know how important it is to produce well-rounded students and I thank Gray Primary School for the time they invested in me. Gray Primary School, my old school, is in the heart of our great city and does a great job of providing a quality education to their 332 students.
During the Dry season, Gray Primary School welcomes the US marines on Friday mornings and this is a program I am extremely proud of helping to get off the ground. The marines work really well with the students and having such positive role models attend the school is fantastic.
Gray Primary School was the first school to be built in Palmerston, opening in 1984. Many students of Gray Primary School face disadvantage, but the school works tirelessly with eight non-government organisations in a group called Partners Engaging Gray School that enhances students’ experiences in school.
This school is a great example of a community working together for the benefit of our little Territorians, and I commend the staff and community groups for their dedication.
Palmerston Senior College originally opened in 1986 as Driver High School, catering for Years 8 to 10. Two years later, the school expanded to offer Years 11 and 12 to Palmerston residents.
With over 500 enrolments for Years 10 to 12, Palmerston Senior College continues to provide a safe and enjoyable learning environment for our community’s young adults. This is aided by such programs as the Palmerston Girls Academy; Clontarf football academy; a centre for excellence in the arts; an internationally recognised information technology course and a flexible skills centre, catering for disengaged students. Great things are happening at Palmerston Senior College and I hope to become even more involved with the school in 2014.
I also hope to become even more involved with Good Shepherd Lutheran College. Tucked away on Emery Avenue, Good Shepherd is an important school for our area and I hope to work closely with them in the New Year. With just 18 students when it opened in 1998, Good Shepherd has expanded to now include a middle and senior school in Howard Springs, with a combined enrolment figure of 1100 students. I recently attended the school’s senior campus for the 2013 Pedal Prix presentation, recognising the great work done by staff, students, volunteers and sponsors – including the Northern Territory government – in getting students to Murray Bridge to compete so well at the Pedal Prix.
The Special Education Centre at Palmerston Senior College, first opened in 2002, still works hard to provide a quality education to students with special needs. Life is tough for many people with a physical or intellectual disability, but there are organisations that can help and I am glad to have met many of them when I attended the 2013 Northern Territory Disability Services Awards ceremony in November.
The most important phase of life for a person with a disability is their childhood and learning experiences. Palmerston Senior College’s Special Education Centre does its best to teach students important life skills to make the after school transition smoother and help them become more independent of carers. Staff at SEC tackle each day with enthusiasm and patience, and I enjoy visiting them every chance I get.
Strong school values help make strong students, and Durack Primary School’s values aim to achieve this. Getting along, confidence, organisation, persistence and resilience are values our young people need, and I am thrilled Durack is striving for these.
Durack Primary School opened in 1998 with 185 enrolments, which has now grown to 392 students across primary and preschool years. Over 40% of these students are from defence force families, and students of these families are specially supported by a defence force transition aide. As we all know, defence force members and their families are often required to uproot and start again in a location far away.
This school has also had a fantastic year, with the cherry on top being teacher Sally Bykowski winning the Palmerston and Rural Region Primary Teacher of the year award, on World Teachers Day here at Parliament House at a ceremony hosted by the Minister for Education. I am happy to say that Kat Gronholt was an NT finalist at the National Excellence in Teaching Awards. Sally and Kat are assets to the community, and I congratulate them both on receiving such prestigious accolades.
To Rob Presswell, Magdalene Mahomet, Shiela Delhay, Wally Mauger, Julian Denholm, Lynne Pokela, Sue Beynon, Susan Bockelman, Sue Healy, Frankie Maclean and Robyn Bryant; thank you for your leadership in our schools, and I commend the professional contribution you make to the education of our Drysdale students.
Lastly, to all teachers and support staff in Drysdale and right across the Northern Territory, I congratulate you on another year almost completed. We are privileged to have such innovative and hard-working professionals, and I am looking forward to building on the great relationships we have already formed.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I put on the record my thanks to the people in my electorate, at work and in my life who have helped make 2013 one amazing year. It has been a huge year for me work wise and a year I will never forget. To be given the privilege and opportunity in February to be the member for Wanguri was extremely humbling. Every day, I am grateful to all those who put their faith in me. It has been a lot of work, but I have enjoyed it. It is very rewarding personally when you are able to help make a difference in some of your constituents’ lives, and is something I will keep striving to do. I have been overwhelmed by how welcoming everyone has been, and the time they have given me as we have worked together. I thank them for their time and look forward to getting back on the doors next week and keeping up the doorknocking, community barbecues, events, mobile offices, and just having chats with people as I am out jogging or at the shops.
There are many people I thank for their work in the electorate, but also for working with and welcoming me into their networks and the community. In particular, I thank the local schools. I highly recommend any family move into the Wanguri electorate because the local schools are excellent. Staff are very committed to helping their students with their education and personal development, and school council members are passionate local parents and teachers wanting the best for their schools.
From Leanyer Primary School, I would like to thank principal Anne Tonkin, school council Chair Neal Cooper, and assistant principals Tania Kolomistev, Maria Albion and David Cocks - what an amazing team you have. Petula and the ladies in the office are always so helpful and professional too. This is a great school, always striving for high achievement and I look forward to seeing what you achieve in 2014.
At Wanguri Primary School, we have seen some big changes this year with principal of the last nine years, Jenny Robinson, leaving her job due to family reasons. Jenny had a farewell assembly last week, and all the kids gave her a huge farewell that included thank you gifts and every child had a Jenny Robinson sign to wave with a personal thank you note written on the back. Of course, we saw a musical performance with the song Mrs Robinson performed. Jenny, you will be missed by the students and parents. Thank you for your hard work over the last nine years and all the best for the future in Canberra. Our loss is Canberra’s gain. On a personal note, thank you for all your help.
At Wanguri, I would also like to thank the assistant principal, Pam Adam, teaching staff, Andrew Green, the school council Chair as well as other members of the school council who are all very passionate about education and have done a great job. Thank you to acting principal Jenny Nash for filling in for this term and good luck to her in her new job. Thanks to the fabulous Olga and the ladies in the admin team who are always great. Wanguri is a school that has been under real pressure due to outgrowing their infrastructure. They are bursting at the seams; I hope we see some new classroom space there soon. It is also a school that has had to deal with many challenges this year to manage big changes because of teacher cuts being driven by the government. The impact on contract teachers, support staff and teacher changes has been immense. They have been amazing at the school in how they have moved forward through these challenges, and I look forward to working with everyone in 2014.
St Andrew Lutheran School is going through some changes next year with principal Damon Prenzler moving. Good luck back in Adelaide with your family, Damon. Welcome to new principal Karen Koehler, and I look forward to supporting St Andrew where I can. Thanks to Amanda Peek in administration for all her help, and thanks to pastor Geoff Kuchel, a wonderful man who holds a great service, but also a man who has rolled up his sleeves in trying to help families in the community with post school options for their disabled children. Thanks for all your hard work and supporting the community, pastor Geoff.
One of my old schools, Holy Spirit, has also been a privilege to work with and support. Principal Bernadette Morris leaves the school next year to go to the Catholic Education Office. She is a wonderful strong leader and will be missed. Welcome to new principal Simon Duffy, and I look forward to helping Holy Spirit in 2014.
Thanks to Dripstone Middle School for all their work in what has been an incredibly difficult year there too. There have been huge job losses and the staff have done their best to cope, but there will be huge pressure on that school next year because of government cuts. Despite this, it has been another year of strong achievement at Dripstone and I am proud to see another one of my old schools giving Darwin kids a great education and future. Thanks to principal Jodie Green, assistant principals Nektaria Pikoulos and Gail Barwick for their hard work and being so welcoming. All the best to students, staff and teachers for the festive season.
Henbury School is also doing a great job, despite the challenges of aging facilities and overcrowding. Congratulations to principal Carolyn Edwards on all her hard work and recently winning the Darwin principal of the year award. That is a wonderful acknowledgement of all the effort she puts into her job. Thanks to the school council Chair Di Griffin and other parents on council. Di and her family will be leaving the Territory next year, and that will be a great loss to the school community. I thank her for tireless dedication to the Henbury community. A big thanks also to the other school council members who have been amazing. They are determined parents, not only wanting the best outcomes for their own kids, but also for the kids that will attend Henbury in the future. I also thank assistant principal Brenda Moore for her work this year. She filled in as principal for a term and has been wonderful to work with.
Henbury needs a new school. It is over capacity and Darwin is growing, with more children with disabilities needing to go there. This will become a bigger issue in the future. There is a petition in the community now, with over 400 signatures as of last weekend and there will be many more signatures to come. I hope the government listens to the school, the concern in the community and parents of disabled children wanting to see good education outcomes for their kids. Congratulations to all staff, students and parents on a great year at Henbury. I am determined to help you get what you need and keep this issue in front of government.
To all the staff and businesses at Hibiscus, thanks for welcoming me into the fold. It has been a great work place and I have enjoyed getting to know you all. Thanks to Laura, the centre manager, Gabby and Laurie, the cleaners - they are not just cleaners, they are terrific cleaners - but they take care and support a lot of the regulars that come into the shops and are wonderful people. Joan, Christine and Karen at Strawberry Fields; Tracey and the girls at the hairdressers; Nelson and the team; Matthew and his staff; Charlie at the checkout at Woolies every day; Tracey and the pet store crew, George and the framing shop guys; Robyn at the newsagency; Baby and Saji at Moneygram - all the businesses, it is a wonderful place to work and a great place to shop.
To the Tracy Village club and new general manager Gary Howkins, who is certainly bringing a lot of enthusiasm, experience and new direction to the club. It has been wonderful to work with you, Gary, and Paul Goggin, the president, for your leadership. It has been great to get to know you a bit better, Paul, and help the club where I can.
Thanks to Leanyer seniors village residents, who are wonderful and delightful people. I love seeing them out and about and around the place and we have some extremely inspiring seniors with some great life stories to tell. It has been wonderful being able to help where I can.
A big thanks to Pete Davies and Nick at Mix for giving me the chance to go on the show every month or so. Media is certainly not an easy part of the job, but to get the opportunity to have a chat has been terrific and also a lot of fun. The 360 show is great and gives locals a voice. I wish Pete and Nick well for next year.
Thanks to Mike Donnelly and Luke at Investa for their assistance this year and taking on board issues raised by residents. To Vim Sharma at the Wanguri shops; thanks for the friendship, the chats and letting me know what the issues are as they arise. You are more than just a shop owner, Vim, you are a terrific member of the community. You give great support to local residents and I am looking forward to working with you in 2014.
Thanks to Henry Gray for his wise words and good advice over the year, I always appreciate it.
Thanks to the local aldermen for their hard work and being so responsive, especially Rebecca Want de Rowe. She always gets back to you very quickly. It has also been great to work with Garry Lambert and George Lambrinidis.
Thanks to Nadine Douglas at the council because I have had to contact her a number of times about concerns from residents regarding Lee Point Road and she is always very willing to assist where she can.
To the Clerk and staff of the Legislative Assembly, and of course Hansard, thanks for all your help, guidance and professional service all year. Thanks to security staff and cleaners, who are always doing a top job at Parliament House.
To my Labor colleagues, you are such a wonderful team and family. Thanks for being great workmates and I am very grateful for being able to work alongside you all and learn something new each and every day. To the LOP staff, your support is invaluable. It is a tough gig resources wise in opposition, but your dedication and professionalism is always appreciated. I cannot thank you guys enough.
To the branch members at Casuarina, thank you. To my electorate officers, Jenny and Gracie, you have been absolutely fantastic. I could not do this job without you. The community adores you, you are so helpful. Thank you for all your support and best of luck for next year.
To my family, to mum, dad, Luke, the McNeills and my husband, Scott; you have been given so much support to me this year and I cannot thank you enough for your love, support, guidance and always steering me in the right direction. It has been great.
To my colleagues in the Chamber, I wish you and your families the best for the festive season. Take care.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I say thank you to my electorate of Namatjira and congratulate them on the things they have done this year. There have been many good things happening in my electorate - the sports grants we got for Hermannsburg, Papunya, Docker River and Santa Teresa. I want to thank this government for continuing to support Territorians and ensuring all the little things they do are supported and the things they feel are important are being looked at by government. It is fantastic.
I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks and Hansard for their support to us as politicians. We can sometimes get a bit grumpy and not really appreciate the good things they do, and they do wonderful things. When you are new in this House, they are the key to understanding how things operate in this place. I take this opportunity to thank my friends and the Alice Springs branch. I hope Jenny Lillis gets well soon. This is a special thank you to Jenny and all other branch members in Alice Springs.
I wish all Alice Springs residents a safe and merry Christmas. As you enjoy Christmas and New Year, make sure you have a Sober Bob and look out for your safety, as well as family and others.
To Chris, Rowdy and Barry, thank you very much for always supporting me and, of course, Cathy and Scotty. To my extended family in communities, I say thank you and congratulations to my young sister, Emslie Lankin, who was awarded a very special award by the Health minister. She works at Hermannsburg health clinic. She deserved that award. She has five children, and it is absolutely amazing to see someone so young achieve something. That happens because your mind is set, and the bar is set high enough for you to achieve. Congratulations, Emslie, and merry Christmas to you and your family. Of course, to my grandson, young Barry Abbott, Leo Abbott, Donna and the kids, I say merry Christmas to you and thank you always for your support, love and comfort on long trips, and the wisdom and guidance we share with each other.
To Max and Kathy and the kids at Wallace, thank you for the barbecues you put on during my tours when I was coming back from a long, hard trip to Docker, through to Kintore, Papunya, Areyonga, Hermannsburg and back to Wallace. There is always a warm bed and food for me at your place, Cathy, so thanks very much for that. Thank you as well to Val, Susan, Barry and Carita at Wallace.
Merry Christmas to my own family: Syd and his family at 5 Mile; Amos, Linda and their families at 3 Mile; the Raggard family; the Phillipusus; the Stockmans; the Paulsons and at Santa Teresa: Bill, Claire, police aide Phillip Alice; the Conways, and the Palmers, thank you very much for always supporting me, not just during the election but when you come into town. We have little laughs about what is going on.
I take this opportunity to thank all teachers, police officers and health staff in my electorate, who do so much with my people. We sometimes forget these people work long hours to look after remote clinics, police stations and schools. It is up to all of us, as politicians when we visit our electorates, to encourage our people and give them enthusiasm, spirit and fire back in the belly to encourage children to go back to school and adolescents to do some courses and get them focused on thinking education is important. We must always spread that message that education is the key to you stepping into any other world.
They can have the opportunity many people have had, experience of living in both worlds and stepping between two worlds, like most of us inside this House. Education has given the members for Arnhem, Arafura, Stuart and, of course, me that ability to move in, acknowledge, and understand both worlds. We must spread word of that experience around our own electorates.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my colleagues on this side of the House for fantastic support and the wise guidance we all have for each other, making sure we focus on leading the Territory forward. This is not just economically but socially in engaging with people, making sure all agencies are focused on working together to get the best possible outcomes for Territorians. It is a fantastic opportunity and I am glad Territorians have given us that opportunity to govern for the next four years.
I thank all Territorians for giving the Country Liberal Party this opportunity. Without you, we would not be on this side of the House. You have a safe one and make sure you look after your families and enjoy Christmas, New Year, and come back with a very positive message and outlook next year.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I say merry Christmas and happy New Year to both sides of the Chamber and the Independent behind me. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year if I do not see you until next year.
I thank colleagues on my side for supporting me. Being a first time politician in this House is pretty hard. I had a rough first year, but it has given me the strength to move forward. You always have to remember why you are in this House, and why you stood. I was appointed to the position. I did not just stand and say I could be the next great politician. It is the elders who had faith in me in my community. In the Jawoyn tribe, there are 16 different clans and they all came together at the elders council and said I would be the best candidate. Thanks to them for giving me the opportunity to sit in this House and represent all people in Arnhem Land and also the people of Stuart.
To my electorate, it has been a great first year to represent you in parliament. It has been an honour and I take that very deeply. I wish you all a merry Christmas and a safe New Year. Remember, family always comes first, regardless of what job you are in. You have to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ was born on Christmas Day ...
Mr Wood: I hope so.
Ms LEE: If you are not a Christian then, obviously, you do not believe it. My grandmother was a deacon, my father has always been around political arenas and my mother is a tribal woman so I have grown up with three different things in my life.
I thank my six sisters - Joyce, Helen, Anne Marie, Patricia, Levinia, and Priscilla - for always being there for my partner and supporting him when he needs you, especially with my three girls. My mum is a rock, life would not be possible without you, even to this day. Since dad left, you have always been there and supported us, regardless. In this House, the other party likes to often use the Lee name. We all know the Lee dynasty is pretty strong in the bush, because it is a tribal name and one that is well respected by the people in Arnhem. I take it as an honour to know I will always be a Lee. I was born with that name and I will die with it.
To my brothers, thank you for keeping my partner sane. It has been hard for him to look after three little girls while I am always away. It is a job no man would want to take up, being the mother while the mother is in this House representing the Northern Territory half the time. Thank you for all that support. To his family, thank you.
Most importantly, I thank the people in my electorate for having faith in me and helping me win the seat of Arnhem that had never been won by the CLP. It has been a really tough year, especially being in this House as a first time politician. I thank my colleagues for always being there and supporting me, especially the bush members, and in particular Alison for always mentoring me in the role and understanding why I am in this House, someone who relates to you at a grassroots level and shows you the example of why you are here.
We go over higher hurdles than anybody else. Being an Indigenous member of parliament is a tough gig. It is hard because out there it is even harder. We have to prove ourselves to the world.
Education is the key. It is the key for everybody. In the last 12 years there has been mainstreaming in the bush. I grew up with bilingual education, that was the key. We were taught to read and write in two languages. When I left Year 7, I went straight into mainstream high school. When I graduated, I was in mainstream,and that has taken away the lives and opportunities of these kids.
Merry Christmas to the people on Groote Eylandt, the Lalaras, my family, the Amagulas and the Marikas. Merry Christmas as well to the Yantarrngas, Duriilas, Bara, Tall Bobby, the Nunggumajbarr family in Numbulwar and Ngukkur, the Ngalmi family - there are too many families, so I will stick to a few. To the Hall and Rogers families, thank you very much for being there. At Lake Evella, I want to thank my brothers in the Wunungmurra family. Without you mob, it would not be possible. You are always there to support me. I know I am your little sister, but you treat me like I am on the same level now. That is a great honour, so thank you, I know where I stand, merry Christmas to all of you. To my family in Ramingining and Milingimbi, especially my cousin and her husband at Milingimbi, have a merry Christmas with your beautiful kids and I will see you all again soon. I will be coming out for two weeks, before I break for Christmas.
I thank the cleaners in Parliament House. I have never heard anybody in this House thank the cleaners. The cleaners do a fantastic job in this House. It is the greatest thing to have cleaners around you. Sometimes, I wish I had a cleaner. They make you feel at home and are always vibrant and friendly. Thank you to the security at Parliament House. Merry Christmas to Diem in finance, the Clerk’s office and Madam Speaker. It has been an honour to meet you all, know you and work with you. I look forward to the next three years in this House. Theyiwill be great. I will continue my hard work because I remember who voted me in and who put this government in power. We must not forget that. It was the people in the bush.
Being in this House takes you away from the reality of the outside world. You sometimes forget what you are really fighting for when you are in here, because there is so much influence. There are many talks about this and that and which direction to take or what you can be. You have to remember what you really want in your heart. That is what matters. It is about what really matters to you.
I was on the shoulders of my father and my father-brothers. They have all passed now. In the time when Brian Manning fought for land rights for Indigenous people,my father was there with him. That was a privilege. I did not speak during the condolences, but he was a really good friend of my dad. Being part of the land rights movement and being on my father’s shoulders made us passionate. It is the passion that drives us. We know we need to move forward.
I encourage all Indigenous people in the Northern Territory to go for education. Reach for the stars and go for the moon. Stand up because I would like to see more Indigenous people in this House. That is the only way we will find a balance in this House and do what is right for the bush. It does not matter which side of politics you are on, as long as you are true to your heart and stand for your beliefs. We are all equal. We may fight over legislation, and I will continue to fight for those rights for my people because that is who I represent. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about an outback identity who is well known in the cattle industry throughout the Northern Territory and north Queensland and is regarded as a pioneer for his time and a founding member of the live cattle export industry.
Alan Woods passed away in Townsville in November this year after a long battle with cancer. In 1980, Alan helped establish the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters’ Association. At that time, there were around 23 exporters and 34 ships based in, and operating out of, Darwin. Alan was also a part owner of a company called North Australia Cattle Company, which exported cattle into several countries in Southeast Asia.
In another major development for the livestock exporting industry and another first for the Northern Territory in the 1990s, Alan also helped establish the export and quarantine yards at Berrimah. He is regarded by many in the cattle industry as a significant contributor to the successful establishment of Australia’s cattle export trade into Southeast Asia. Alan served as Chairman of the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association from 1985 to 1995, as well as Vice President of the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council for a period in the 1990s. In 2006, Alan was inducted into the Australian livestock export industry’s hall of fame, and earlier this year was presented with life membership of the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association.
I understand Alan began his career in the northern cattle industry in the 1970s in Katherine. He worked as an accountant for the then Katherine Meatworks, later working for the Jimmy’s Creek buffalo and cattle abattoir at Point Stuart, located on floodplains east of Darwin. Those involved in the live cattle trade today have a lot to thank Alan Woods for. By his own estimation, Alan said that after 30 years in the live cattle trade industry, he had exported between 800 000 and one million cattle, as well as buffalo, horses, donkeys, camels, sheep and goats. Always helpful, Alan was well-respected by everyone in the live cattle trade in northern Australia.
Alan Woods was a great character and a great contributor to the northern Australia pastoral and live cattle export industries. On behalf of government and the industry as it is today, I want to place on record thanks and gratitude for the work he did in the live cattle sector, which we know is so vitally important to the Northern Territory.
As this is the final parliamentary sitting week before the end of 2013, I would like to acknowledge and thank those people whose work has provided me with support, information, encouragement and help to perform my duties as a member of parliament, the member for Katherine and as a minister in this government. First, I especially acknowledge Mrs Pat Witte, my electorate officer, and her offsider, part-time electorate officer, Alison Jacks, who essentially carry the load for me when I am not in the electorate office in Katherine. Pat’s wealth of knowledge of everything and anyone to do with Katherine and her ability to solve problems and find solutions has helped me enormously over the years. I have said it in this parliament before, and at our recent electorate officers’ dinner in Darwin: all electorate officers are the glue that hold members of parliament together. We recognise the significance and vital importance of the work that remains to be done in our electorates.
Bearing in mind we often cannot be there all the time, and as ministers in government we are rarely there, our electorate officers really hold the fort for us and provide an enormous amount of support, probably more than we could ever give thanks for. I pass that on to my electorate officer Pat, to Alison and to all electorate officers for all members of parliament.
I thank my ministerial office staff in Parliament House, including those who have left to pursue more exciting opportunities or to have babies, which is very nice. Thank you for the hard work and dedication you have shown throughout the year. I run a very busy office, as most ministerial offices on the 5th floor are, and the challenge is thrown to my staff every day of the week. I appreciate the fact they all put in an enormous amount of effort. The support they have shown me, once again, is probably beyond what I am able to give thanks for. It is very much appreciated and you all do a fine job. We are a great team in my office in Suite 5 upstairs. I still like to refer to us as the best office on the 5th floor, which I believe is true.
I also thank the Chief Executives of the four agencies for which I am responsible: Alister Trier in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries; Rod Applegate in the Department of Land Resource Management; Scott Perkins in the Department of Mines and Energy;and, of course, John Baskerville, who is heading up the Power and Water Corporation.
I also thank all staff from these four departments. There have been tough times for all of us over the past 15 months since coming to government. I appreciate thatall public servants within my agencies have grasped the new thinking around government since August 2012 and really run with the new paradigm.
I spoke to my water staff the other day at Goyder House in Palmerston. We have a symbiotic relationship in that they support me through the chief executive and I support the work they do. Let me acknowledge and thank them for the work they do.
I particularly thank Bushfires NT staff for the work they do. You go through very tough times in our fire seasons in the Top End, and also in Central Australia. I particularly pay my regards to volunteers in the bushfire brigades spread out across the Northern Territory, remembering all of the folk who are involved in our volunteer bushfire brigades are just that - volunteers. They give up their time to make sure the people and the property of the people of the Northern Territory are well protected. I can tell you it is very much appreciated, so, on behalf of the Northern Territory community, I send my thanks.
I also acknowledge Gary Barnes from the Department of Chief Minister, who has also been a great support to me and all ministers on the 5th floor.
While it is difficult to single out specific community members, I have to acknowledge we have great community spirit in Katherine, which shows on many levels throughout the year. Thank you to community volunteers, particularly members of the Police, Fire and Emergency Services in Katherine, our medical staff, the doctors and nurses at the hospital, our teachers who work tirelessly giving their time and effort to generously support people and families of children they look after each day. I particularly mention the teachers because we rely very heavily on our teachers in our schools because they are the stewards of the next generation of leaders in the Northern Territory. They are the ones who look after our kids during the day and we appreciate - and I appreciate - the work they do.
My door is always open to the people of Katherine. I am happy to report my constituents are not shy in coming forward. I thank Katherine branch members, and particularly acknowledge the executive officers and management of the various industry associations associated with my portfolios: Katherine Sarneckis and Rob Fish of the NT Seafood Council, Luke Bowen, Tracey Hayes and David Warriner from the NTCA, Grant Fenton from the NT Farmers Association, Warren De With from AFANT and Drew Wagner from the Minerals Council of Australia Northern Territory.
To all colleagues on the 5th floor, I say thank you for your support. I mention the parliamentary staff here - the library, Hansard and everyone in the parliamentary precinct who bring our parliament together.
I particularly thank my lovely wife, Jenny, for her ongoing support. I am away from home probably four or five nights every single week, and she manages to maintain the house, run all the household bills, look after the animals and make sure our kids and my new grandson are all cared for, in amongst all that. It is a real joint effort and very much appreciated. I love you, darling, and I hope you keep supporting me as I will continue to support you. To my parliamentary colleagues I mentioned on the 5th floor, but all of my colleagues here in the House, even though we might disagree from time to time across the Chamber, that is the nature of democracy. I certainly do not hold any personal grudges towards members opposite and even though, as I say, we might disagree, it is healthy to have that robust debate and interaction here in this House. It certainly does go towards making up good government. To all and sundry, I wish a very merry Christmas, a happy New Year and a safe and prosperous holiday season and hope to see you all in 2014.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to read a letter. It is an appropriate time to read it as these people live in Darwin and it is Christmas. This is an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The ‘I’ is not me. I will say who it is at the end:
I wanted to read that as it made me think about my own lack of compassion sometimes, or interest, in the plight of the refugees, especially those who live in our area. It also made me remember, as we are soon to celebrate Christmas, the time Jesus was born. He too was a refugee who was taken with his mother and father to Egypt to escape Herod, who was looking for him. I wonder, if Jesus was alive today, would we call him an illegal immigrant?
Next year, I would like to make myself more aware of those people. Bishop Hurley has offered to take me to see some of the refugees because we see them as a bland group of people. They are all either illegal immigrants or economic immigrants, and Australia is full and does not want them. Yet, we have no idea who those individuals are and we have a responsibility to look deeper into the lives of the people many of us say should not be in Australia.
I would also like to give my Christmas thanks. I thank a range of people and their families, especially Kim Lawlor, my secretary. She had to take over from my hard-working research lady, Michelle, who has gone to Alice Springs for drier pastures. With her new partner, she now works closer to her family. Kim does a terrific job. At the moment, she has to put up with what I call Myer Howard Springs because I have four trains going around a large white Christmas tree in my office at various times during the day. They make a bit of noise and sometimes have severe accidents, and she has to do something about fixing them. The smiles on the faces of kids who come by my office and bang on the window and enjoy some lights and trains – you do not see them much today – around a Christmas tree and a little snow setting and a nativity scene – it reminds us this is a special time of year.
I also pass on season’s greetings to some of my regular customers, Annie and Tom – Tom comes in regularly to get a handful of lollies when I have not run out – Vicky, who does the cleaning, Kim’s mum and also two special people, Di and Phil. Phil has been quite ill this year, and they always give me a hand with my newsletter. As Madam Speaker might know, I deliver my newsletters by hand, which takes a bit of time, and this wonderful couple, who are not young, always give me a hand delivering them.
Also, I thank people such as Mark and Belinda Brustolin, who are always doing wonderful work in the community but are always there to support me as well. As I said, I also thank Michelle, who worked from the beginning of the year but has now moved on. Sadly, I do not have a research person any more. Poor old Kim has to take a bit of that load as well, but she is certainly getting used to it.
I also thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the Table Office, the Clerks and their staff, the Hansard crew, security, the Parliamentary Library Service and the cleaners. I must admit, late at night when one of them pops in to empty the rubbish bin, fix the toilet and clean up the place, it is nice to have a quick little chat to them. After all, they are part of what makes the parliament work.
I would also like to wish all my parliamentary colleagues a very happy Christmas. Regardless of our opinions on matters - today has been a long day and I did not agree with lots of things that were said, but in the end when you leave this earth, will you get ticks for whether you were right or wrong in parliament? There are probably many other things that are important in life, and looking after your neighbour would be one good thing.
I thank you , Madam Speaker, for the effort you make in keeping us under control. You fit into that job perfectly. I appreciate it is not always the easiest job, but you do an excellent job and do it fairly. I have heard you tick off a few of your colleagues and make them sit down, and I have not seen that for a while in parliament. I thank you and the staff for helping us as well.
Of course, I thank my good wife Imelda, who never sees me but knows what I look like because I now have a photograph and a fingerprint on the door to let me in so I am safe when I get home. Also, I thank my daughters Angela, Caroline, Joanne, Jason, James, Wilhemina, and William – there were some grandchildren in there – and my sister Trish and Tony Butler, my brother-in-law.
A quick thanks and appreciation to Miriam McDonald ,who went to Sydney last Friday to receive the Award for Meritorious Contribution to the Profession from the Australia Professional Teachers’ Association. Only eight awards are presented nationally and she won one. She is Principal of Taminmin College and she does a fantastic job. As everyone knows, being a principal at the moment at any school is a fairly stressful job, especially a school of nearly 1200 students. I congratulate Miriam on a fantastic award, and one she truly deserves.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on October 14 this year, national television program Four Corners raised serious allegations about corruption and related crimes concerning funds administered by the Jawoyn Association. If substantiated, these allegations would constitute serious breaches of Northern Territory criminal law. They are very serious allegations and the Territory community and members of the Jawoyn Association have the reasonable expectation that all these allegations will be thoroughly investigated by NT Police and, depending on the findings of the investigation, referred to the DPP. We have raised questions in this House on this issue.
On 15 October, the Chief Minister told the House NT Police had not conducted a formal investigation into the alleged allegations exposed by Four Corners, despite the fact police had received a complaint on these matters from Mr Ray Whear on 17 January 2013, supported by a statutory declaration. I seek leave to table a copy of the two statutory declarations.
Leave granted.
Mr VOWLES: One of the disturbing allegations mentioned in these statutory declarations concerns legal bills and Mr Whear says:
It is extraordinary there has been no formal police investigation into the alleged misuse of such a large amount of money. Mr Whear’s allegations raise a range of questions that must be answered, otherwise the community’s confidence that allegations of criminality will be thoroughly investigated by police could be undermined. All honourable members would be concerned at such a development.
Mr Whear’s statutory declaration contains many other serious alleged breaches of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act. I quote an example:
In his statement, Mr Whear says there would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of Jawoyn funds used by Mr Lee for his own purposes.
Another former Jawoyn Association employee and former NT police officer, Ian McConnell, has made a statutory declaration I have tabled regarding allegations of fraud in the Jawoyn Assocation. Mr McConnell alleges:
These are extraordinary and serious allegations, yet the Chief Minister tells us there has been no formal investigation into these matters by NT police. Everyone against who allegations have been made is entitled to the presumption of innocence. However, when serious allegations about breaches of NT criminal law are made, supported by documentation and witnesses, they should be thoroughly investigated by NT police. In this case, there has been no satisfactory explanation why there has been no police investigation. It is time for a judicial inquiry into all aspects of how these matters have been handled by the government and NT police.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I give the customary Christmas adjournment to recognise the people who I worked with throughout the year, and also to recognise the opportunities I have had to visit wonderful places across the Northern Territory. One of the great things I look forward to doing next year, as Leader of the Opposition, is visiting those wonderful communities across the Northern Territory. Going into the bush is what I have been thoroughly enjoying since taking on the leadership.
I love travelling with my colleagues. I get a great deal of bush learning from my colleagues, the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly. They travel into regions with me. We get into remote communities, but also our big regional towns. Whether it is the Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy regions or the Tiwi Islands and Groote Eylandt, the opportunity to get out and listen to people on the ground about issues that concern them has been a fantastic experience for me this year and I have a whole host of good places lined up to visit next year. I am looking forward to getting on the ground again and the friendships I make along the way are friendships I really cherish.
The work keeps me busy in the big fights that occur in taking the government to account about the cost of living, the dismantling of Power and Water and the education cuts just to name a few. I have managed to strike up a strong relationships and networks with some pretty incredible Territorians who have taught me a lot about the issues we have been delving into.
I acknowledge a dear friend of mine, Giovanna Webb, who won the national award for Rural Woman of the Year. I had the opportunity to recognise that with a luncheon hosted by the Administrator. I was one of a handful of people Giovanna invited, where we could talk about encouraging women across the Northern Territory to step up and be proud of the efforts they make in their daily lives to enhance their families, but also importantly around them in their community.
I have had the opportunity of doing charity work that at times has stretched me. I had to model at the ladies function on behalf of raising funds for Variety, but there were also wonderful events where funds were raised for the Filipino community to deal with the super typhoon.
Multicultural events throughout the year have been part of the highlight for me. I love going to the different multicultural functions, listening to the songs, the dance, strong friendships across the communities, enjoying their hospitality and seeing them involved. Each are getting more elaborate in the style and presentation of their performances. Over the years, they have all taken advantage of the multicultural grants to have people come and teach them more elaborate dance and performances. It is fantastic to see.
I thank my staff, a fantastic group of people working really hard for me and my broader caucus team. To my acting Chief of Staff, Peter Wellings, you are a legend. To Adele Young, who is headed off to sort out Adelaide for everyone, we miss you but I know you want to get down there to be with your mother and take care of her. That is understandable. Charlie Phillips is a massive legend, of course. Angela, you do such an amazing job taking care of your family and also taking care of me. Anna, your thoroughness, sense of humour and strength is an absolute joy. Halliday, you came in, worked flat out and I am indebted to the effort you are making. Thanks to Kerry and Ruth, for doing that more junior administration job but a very valuable and necessary one; Ryan and Cameron and the team working hard to campaign, I appreciate the efforts.
I also acknowledge the schools, the life blood of my electorate. I have the opportunity to give Literacy awards across my primary schools. I give awards to students at Karama Primary School, Nakara Primary, Malak Primary, Manunda Terrace Primary and Sanderson Middle School, who put extra effort into their school work. For the sake of Hansard, if I could seek leave to table the names of those students.
Leave granted
Ms LAWRIE: I would like to acknowledge, in Hansard the names of the students who have been doing very well throughout the year in the literacy and achievement awards.
I congratulate the following students for receiving a literacy award this year, 2013:
Karama Primary: Jacbo Reid; Kira Paech; Zaliah Rowan; Daniel Papel; Djamarlia Darr-Lade; Samantha Prosser; Yubina Dhungana; Alyssa Weribone-Francis; Frankie Felipe; Leah Seden; Sophia Long; Melody Seden; Jodianne Diaz; Mary-Claire Papel; Christopher Fraser
Malak Primary: Ezeqiel Dos Reis; Alvin McKenzie; Suryani Sumendra; Bessie Barrett; Brianna Crooke; Bernice Ortiz; Alysa Pancipane Statorre; Noah Bradshaw; Elle Chamberlin; Caleb Franey; Tyrese Talbot; Bo-Rita Chapman; Koko Pakwiset; Emily Wilson; Takira Stapleton; Maharani Hirschausen; Miguel Magabo; Amber Noll; Jaimie Mitchell
Manunda Terrace Primary: Jason Davern; Joaquin Arela; Janaya Roman; Aisha Hayashi; Natasha Causley Di Pierro; Jayden Konatic-Shepherd; Enock Mulume Nawej and Stamatia Kampourakis
Sanderson Middle School: Kira Jaenke, Corey Whit-Johansen; Dona Da Costa; Joao Lopez; Daniyal Amran; Eleazer Nathanael; Coleen Flores; Nhikim Thi Nguyen; Mahnoush Ziaratzadeh; Cassidy Gerken; Honey Say; George Ballah; Angela Mota Torres; Aisha Lay; Tahlia Nona; Cassidy Gerken; Honey Say; George Ballah; Angela Mota Torres and Aisha Lay
At the schools, you really rely on your leadership and I want to acknowledge the hard work done by the leadership teams in the schools. At Malak Primary School, I have been working closely with Peter Swan and Vanessa Haw. At Sanderson Middle School, we have had a big rotation at the helm this year. Settling in there is Liz Veel, who I know from back in the old days when she was assistant principal at Malak Primary. At Manunda Terrace Primary, we have had the fantastic Sally Winch, who has been on long service leave and Lisa Hirschausen has really stepped up as the principal there from the AP position. She is fantastic for the whole student and parent cohort. At O’Loughlin Catholic College, we have David Finch, who has shown enormous leadership at the college; I really like the flavour he is bringing to the school after coming in and replacing Lester Lemke when he retired.
There is Shane Donohue at Holy Family School. David and Shane have been fantastic new leaders at our Catholic schools in the electorate and are working really hard, not just with the student cohort but with the broader family community. At Marrara Christian College, John Metcalfe is the principal there and does a really fantastic job; it is an unusual school in that it has pre-schoolers right through to Year 12, as well as the trade training school and what an incredible mix it is. Every time I am there, I see a fantastic array of talent and John’s leadership is quite stellar. I would like to especially acknowledge Marg Fenbury at Karama Primary. Marg is retiring from Karama, she is going on long service leave and looking at semi-retirement. She has been the principal at Karama Primary for the last 10 years. We are having a special farewell for Marg and I know the school community is in somewhat of a bereavement phase at the thought of losing Marg. She has been an incredible stalwart at the school, a very strong leader. She has been ably supported by Mary Harman and Jane McQueen in the AP roles, but Marg is a really stand out principal in the Northern Territory.
It is not just me saying it, as this year she won the national honorary fellowship from the Australian Council of Educational Leaders. She was the only Northern Territory recipient. She also won at the Teaching in the Territory Excellence Awards, as the Primary Principal of the Year for 2013. Not a bad way to cap off a very distinguished career as an educator of some 35 years across the Northern Territory. Marg has taught in remote communities from Kalkarinji to Borroloola, in addition to the regional centres of Katherine and Darwin. She has certainly taken the school through interesting and exciting partnership phases, working with the Smith Family to establish the Tata family centre at the school, under Marg’s leadership. Given we are in a low socioeconomic, disadvantaged area, she has been incredible in stepping up and carving out excellence for our student cohort. In 2007, the school was selected as the Northern Territory school of the year and this was followed shortly by a national ‘Dare to Lead’ award for excellence in leadership in Indigenous education.
In 2009, Karama and the Smith Family won the inaugural NAB Schools First Territory Impact Award for its successful school community partnership. The partnership included the early learning and parent education through the Tata family centre, sport and all. Marg, we will also you, but we will also miss our fabulous Noel Long, the AIEW of Karama, who is retiring after 14 years. I want to finish by acknowledging my family, my darling partner Peter Hillier. Thank you. Without your support, I would not be standing at work every day with confidence. Thank you for taking care of my beautiful children, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac and giving me love and support. Thank you to my mother, Dawn, who continues to be an incredible inspiration and a wonderful support as well. Bronte would not be excelling in the harp in quite the way she is, if that had not been for Dawn’s dedication to getting her to lessons all the time. To my beautiful children, growing up in a political family, they know there are long, hard yards; long hours with their mother, but they stand by me and as they enter adulthood, with the first one turning 18 at the weekend, they are appreciating more and more the efforts I am making. Thank you to all of them for their support.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, some good news stories from the Barkly.
Youth Raise Concerns at United Nations Assembly: concerns identified by Tennant Creek youth were raised at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in October. Australian youth representative, Adam Pulford spoke about education, community safety and called for an end to discrimination when he addressed the UN member states. Adam visited Tennant Creek in May as part of a five-month trip meeting with and listening to Australian youth. In Tennant Creek, local youth were particularly interested in the value of education because they saw it as a path to a better future. They also voiced concerns about community safety and the continued existence of discrimination.
Family Day Promotes Healthy Messages: The Elliott Families as First Teachers team collaborated with other service providers in the town and Tennant Creek to deliver a family day recently to promote child safety. The event was a huge success with schoolkids, their families, and other community members who enjoyed activities and treats while learning the important messages of health, hygiene and safety.
Five Gardens in Tennant Creek: five gardens in Tennant Creek were winners of the recent ABC radio garden competition:
Best Water Wise Garden went to Kevin Diflo, with Best Arid Zone Garden going to Battery Hill Mining Centre (Roddy Calvert) and Brashy’s Pot Shot prize going to Bob Baker.
The ABC Central Australian garden completion saw 20 gardens judged in Tennant Creek, and more than 30 in Alice Springs. Barkly Shire president Barb Shaw said:
Locals Dig Deep For Typhoon Fundraiser: Tennant Creek has proved, once again, it really does have a heart of gold with around $17 000 raised at an appeal for victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. An event held at the civic hall attracted hundreds of locals whose bulging wallets were quite thin by the end of the night. A quiz, singers and local bands kept everyone entertained as they bid on various items donated by individuals and businesses, and nearly any excuse was used to contribute to the cause.
A special mention to Caren Monkton and Natasha Civitarese, two local young people from Tennant Creek who organised the event; Randall Gould, the famous Tennant Creek quiz master; Kate Rush, the quiz master’s technological support on the night; Peter Davenport, the master of ceremonies; the musicians; the community organisations and the community volunteers who made the event such an outstanding entertainment event, as well as community gathering. The unbelievable outcome was $17 000 raised on a Saturday night in Tennant Creek. The benchmark set by the Northern Territory government was a cheque donated for $10 000. When a group of community people can come together in Tennant Creek and pull off a very entertaining and very enjoyable night, and also raise $17 000 for the same cause, it is pretty extraordinary.
For people who do not know, Tennant Creek is known as the town with the heart of gold. This is not so much for the power house in its mining history and the gold and copper that produced more gross state product in the Northern Territory than any other town, but for its generosity, caring, collegial nature and support of other Territorians.
The heart of gold title comes from Cyclone Tracy. When the Darwin community was being evacuated, many were evacuated down the Stuart Highway. The plan was to relocate them with accepting families to look after and nurture them after the incredible trauma of Cyclone Tracy. Tennant Creek opened its arms and took many people and families in, and set about a fundraising campaign that raised significant funds for the people of Darwin. From then, it never really lost its touch in being the town with a heart of gold. I have seen some incredible events in my time there.
I remember a Relay for Life, another fantastic evening on the sports oval at Purkiss reserve, where the rock and roll bands came out, the costumes were quite dazzling and the food stalls and community gathered in a carnival atmosphere. They had an objective and the last one I attended raised $24 000 in one night. It was well planned, well executed and a great talking point for the town. It never ceases to amaze me the generosity in a town that is doing it hard.
The tragedy that is unfolding in Nhulunbuy reminds the people of Tennant Creek about what happened to us. That was a different era, but they were essentially the same challenges, where a town of 5500 people was reduced to 3000. In an era where government did not get involved and did not care because it was a different era, there were different priorities and different values. What happened to Tennant Creek was the loss of its skilled workforce and the closure of the mining industry, the export abattoir and the loss of an incredible amount of talented people in the community who left to pursue work in other areas. Tennant Creek flatlined economically and has remained challenged economically for the last two decades.
We saw the closure of a primary school, the downgrade of our health services, the sell-off of public housing stock and witnessed the world travelling past us, but there was no real will from government to stop what was happening. It was just accepted as another period in history, a most unfortunate aspect of the town’s economic decline. It should paint some very serious lessons for the Northern Territory government in 2013 about what they can do in Nhulunbuy and how they should be working together with Rio Tinto to deliver the best possible outcomes to the community of Nhulunbuy. That community will have a tough Christmas and New Year, and I ask them to reflect on other Territorians that have been through hard times, like Tennant Creek in that era, and to keep the faith. I seriously ask the Northern Territory government to take a leadership role and work with a major company, Rio Tinto, in organising every opportunity to preserve that very important community of Gove and those very important community elements.
For Gove, take heart. Tennant Creek never lost the faith and is continuing to show resilience. There is no doubt we have our rough edges and our challenges. We live with our adversity and we mourn the loss of our loved ones, but people ask why you would stay there. I sum it up with a very simple explanation that the town has a real sense of community and you have to get off the main street to experience that. Knowing Tennant Creek is a major regional service centre, we also share the town with lots of regional visitors. There are lots of people coming and going for all sorts of reasons and we still manage to share that underlying sense of community. We are a robust, articulate mob. We do not back down from a fight and we are looking forward to signs of a recovery, with major exploration going on around the town and region, surrounded by the best pastoral country in the world. With the toughest and most resilient characters among Territorians, we have a good future. We want to share that story with Gove. I am sure the old guard of Tennant Creek who represent that incredible pioneering and mining history, and that resilient community, will be thinking of those residents in Gove. They will be sharing a thought and a beer around a barbecue and giving those people of Gove the support they need in spirit.
The Territory opposition has put some very pragmatic suggestions to government. The government needs to show leadership and, in a bipartisan sense, take on board suggestions from all members of parliament, all sectors of the Northern Territory community and dig deep for the people of Gove this year and the years beyond; what they will go through will be very challenging. Merry Christmas, but remember that sun will still rise over that incredible sea to the east and will still set in the west.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Gez Mulvahil. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
DISTINGUISHED VISTORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also have great pleasure in announcing in the Speaker’s Gallery heroes of yesterday. We have Hon. Marshall Perron, Hon Steve Hatton, Hon Barry Coulter, Hon Nick Dondas AM, Hon Eric Poole, Mr Rick Setter and Hon Mick Palmer may be coming very soon. Welcome, honourable past members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): May I place on the record that the whole House welcomes those honourable members. Madam Speaker, old politicians do not die; they do not bloody fade away either!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (CHARTER OF RIGHTS) BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is an achievement of the Strong Society goal in the government’s Framing the Future blueprint, specifically the blueprint’s objectives relating to legislative reform in child protection and the reform of out of home care services. It is also a realisation of the blueprint’s goal of enhancing community safety through legislative reform that protects the rights of the most vulnerable.
The provision of a charter of rights to children and young people in out-of-home care is a simple but fundamental step towards a truly child focused out-of-home care system. This amendment is long overdue. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction remaining that does not provide children in out-of-home care a charter of rights. The 2010 board of inquiry, Growing them strong together, report noted that all children in out-of-home care would benefit from a charter that outlines what children and young people can expect from the people who look after and work with them while they are in care.
Recommendation 38 of that inquiry was that the Northern Territory develop such a charter. A charter has since been developed with the assistance of the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, CREATE Foundation, Foster Care NT, Anglicare, Strong Aboriginal Families, Together and the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner.
The rights outlined in the charter have been developed in consultation with children and young people in care. Those children and young people were asked about what the abstract concept of rights generally meant to them, and, in particular, what rights matter most to children who find themselves in care. Their words were used to help and develop the child friendly charter booklet that will be given to all children in care and used by case workers to explain why the rights contained in the booklet are so important.
The charter both states the rights and explains them in a way that resonates with the intended audience: children and young people in care. For example, the right to feel safe and be protected was described by one young child as meaning:
- You never have to worry about not being safe – that’s the adults’ job
To children in care, the right to be listened to and say what you think and feel means that:
- You will be involved in important decisions that are about you.
The charter also explains that rights come with responsibilities. Some responsibilities were expressed by children in the following ways:
- let other people be who they are and do not make fun of them
go to school straightaway every day and always listen
treat others the way you want to be treated
sometimes you can’t always have what you want but you can at least have your voiced listened to.
On behalf of the Assembly, I thank the children and the young people who contributed to the development of the charter. They should be proud of their work on an important reform which will benefit other children for years to come.
The charter contains a list of useful contact numbers of organisations and services that exist to help children and young people in care. Most significantly, the contact details for the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner are provided in case a child or young person has a complaint that they feel is not being adequately addressed by their case worker or the system more generally.
This amendment will make it a legislative requirement that the charter be provided to children when they enter care, that the rights of the charter be explained to them, that the charter be published in a way that the Chief Executive Officer considers appropriate and that the Chief Executive Officer promote compliance with the charter within the Department of Children and Families. The charter will help to ensure that children in care know their rights and what they are entitled to expect from those who are responsible for their care. It will empower the voices of those who are often the most vulnerable and make the out-of-home care system more accountable and responsive to their needs.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School accompanied by Mrs Lynette Delaney and Miss Britt Webster. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your tour and your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
PLANNING AMENDMENT (CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS) BILL
(Serial 59)
(Serial 59)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a streamlined process for the approval of development projects that require both an amendment to the NT Planning Scheme and the issue of a development approval. As the Planning Act currently stands, these processes are required to be undertaken separately and sequentially, with the lodgement of a development application pending the finalisation of the related scheme amendment process. This arrangement can result in unnecessary delays and costs for both developers and the government.
The proposed amendment will provide for a single application and assessment process. While not suitable for all projects, it provides an additional approval pathway for a range of developments. Where suitable, it will reduce delays and costs while retaining a rigorous and accountable assessment process. Use of this new approval pathway will be voluntary and proponents will be able to use this process or the existing sequential pathway, if this is more suitable for their particular project.
The changes that will be brought about by this bill are consistent with the government’s proposed Framing the Future strategic goals of a balanced environment and a prosperous economy. It will result in changes consistent with objectives to streamline the NT Planning Scheme and to reduce delays and administrative requirements on business. It also retains an approval framework that will provide for sound decision-making and it will increase transparency, as the community will be aware of the particular development proposed for a site when considering an exhibited zoning change.
The background to this amendment is that under the Planning Act and the NT Planning Scheme, development consent is required for the subdivision of land, development and many types of land use. Where a development proposal is not permitted by the zoning of the land or particular provisions of the planning scheme, but is consistent with the planning intent for an area, then a planning scheme amendment will be required. Planning scheme amendment applications are subject to a rigorous assessment process that includes public exhibition, a reporting body hearing and final determination by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and can generally take up to nine months to be finalised.
It is only at this point, when the amendment is finalised, that the proponent can then lodge an application for approval of the actual development. This triggers a new development assessment process, again including general exhibition and an assessment by the consent authority. The statutory period under the act for the determination of such development applications is 12 weeks and it will often take between six to 10 weeks from application before a permit is issued. Where an appeal is involved or it is a particularly complex or large project, this period can be considerably longer. This can then result in an overall approval process, including rezoning and development consent, of over 12 months before a development permit is issued and construction can commence.
An example of this current process in action was evident in the Durack Heights development. This is a large project and, in 2010, a process of rezoning of the land was commenced, which took in the vicinity of 15 months to complete. Following the rezoning, development could not, however, proceed until the issue of a development permit for the first stages of the subdivision. Application for this could only be lodged at the completion of the rezoning stage and added a further three months to the time frame and an additional exhibition and referral process. Under the proposed concurrent application process, this development could have been assessed with a potential time saving of a minimum of three months and the avoidance of duplicate exhibition and referral processes.
This alternative pathway will not, however, be suitable for all projects, nor will developers always wish to use it. It is an additional option available to them for projects where detailed development plans or subdivision designs are available at the start of the approval process. Where projects have a greater lead time, which could be due to issues such as the consolidation of land parcels or market development, for example, then the standard sequential process is likely to be more suitable. There are, however, a range of important projects that can benefit considerably from a reduced approval time frame with increased certainty of the development outcome. This may include specific purpose construction projects and subdivision for both commercial and residential land release. It is these projects that the proposed amendment will provide a significant benefit for.
There is an additional range of projects for which, due to background studies and related approvals, a concurrent process may not significantly reduce the overall approval time frame. In such cases, it can still provide benefits to the community, proponent and the assessing agency by reducing the duplication of assessment and exhibition, providing an integrated process and clarity of outcome.
The concurrent pathway will provide for applicants to lodge a single application with one overall package of supporting information that is then subject to a single exhibition, referral and consultation process of 28 days. Following this, an integrated consideration process is then undertaken by the consent authority and a referral to the minister for determination of the scheme amendment component. The final development decision is still made by the consent authority and this decision determines the overall application.
In eliminating a dual application, exhibition and assessment process, this optional pathway will also have efficiency benefits for the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment in processing such applications. This will assist a continued shift in focus of the department to undertake the necessary strategic planning for the future development and growth of the Territory.
It is important to recognise that while the process has been streamlined and integrated, the bill proposes the retention of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment as the decision-maker in respect to planning scheme amendments, and the consent authority in respect to development. Refusal of either component of the application at any stage will result in the application lapsing. Appeal provisions in respect to the development component of this application have also been retained consistent with those that currently exist. This includes a right of appeal for the applicant against a development determination and third party appeal rights for particular classes of development, being those that may have a residential amenity impact.
I now turn to the draft bill before the Assembly to provide an outline of the steps of the concurrent application process as proposed. The lodgement of a concurrent application is subject to a mandatory pre-application meeting with an appointed planning advisor. This is necessary as a concurrent application is not suitable for all development proposals and does have inherent risks for an applicant. This risk is due to the requirement for full details of the development proposal to be provided up front, resulting in a greater cost at the start of the process. Where it is not certain that the land use change or development proposed is consistent with the planning scheme, then this may not be the appropriate pathway for that application.
The purpose of the meeting as defined in the bill is specifically to provide information and guidance on concurrent applications with the intent of assisting applicants to select the approval pathway most suitable to their project. Following this meeting, an application can then be lodged via a single application form with a single package of supporting information. An application is then subject to a preliminary assessment and a decision of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment to accept the application for exhibition.
A decision to support the application at this stage will result in a single exhibition period of 28 days for the overall application and a single referral of the application to relevant authorities. The minister can determine a longer exhibition period if considered warranted. The provision of notification in a local newspaper and signage on site of the availability of the proposal for exhibition is maintained consistent with current requirements of the act. The application can also be determined as a significant proposal at this time and is then subject to the requirements established in the act for such proposals.
This integrated exhibition will also benefit service agencies assessing infrastructure requirements and community members interested in making a submission. In both cases, this single integrated process means that only one submission is required instead of the dual process that now occurs, often with separate submissions on the scheme amendment and development proposals being made. It can also provide for a more effective process as interested parties have access to the full information on the land use changes and proposed development outcomes when reviewing the application and preparing comment.
Following completion of the exhibition of the proposal, the application is then referred to the consent authority for a preliminary determination of the likelihood of the application to be approved. This step ensures the determination of the planning scheme amendment that is then required to be made by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment is done so with awareness of the consent authority decision. This provides for an integrated approach to the decision process. After this initial consideration, the consent authority is then required to provide a full report to the minister on all aspects of this application, including its preliminary determination and the outcome of the submission and consultation process, and any other information it considers necessary.
The minister can then determine to approve the scheme amendment, and the application is returned to the consent authority for final determination. Alternatively, the minister can refuse the amendment as proposed, as a result of which the application lapses. The minister also has the option at this stage to alter the proposal and for it to be subject to re-exhibition. In this case, the application is subject to the assessment processes as if it were a new application.
The final determination of the consent authority either to refuse or approve the application will result in the determination notice requirements of the act being undertaken. Following resolution of any appeals that may arise and where the application was approved by the consent authority, a development permit can then be issued and development proceed. It is on the issue of the development permit that the scheme amendment is also brought into effect and the concurrent application fully determined.
Where the development application is refused by the consent authority, the application lapses at this point. That is, as a development permit is not issued for the development proposal, the planning scheme amendment does not take effect. As the final step, notice of approval of an application is then required to be placed in the newspaper consistent with the current act requirements for development approvals and planning scheme amendments.
I have outlined all key features of the draft bill and hope from this it is clear that the concurrent application process will provide an additional planning approval pathway that will provide a timely process for suitable applications and a range of benefits for applications and other interests.
In summary, this bill provides an additional approval pathway for an application that requires both a planning scheme amendment and a development approval that:
significantly reduces the time taken from application lodgement to issue of a development permit
reduces the resources required by government agencies in assessing such applications through eliminating a dual exhibition and reporting process and ensuring full details of the development are provided up front for referral authorities and the community
will retain the accountability, public notification and appeal rights associated with the development consent processes, as established in the act and valued by this government
is an additional and optional pathway for applicants to consider and use, where suitable, for their projects
can reduce the costs associated with significant development projects by reducing holding costs while the approval process is undertaken
ensures that decisions are based on sound planning principles and outcomes through the establishment of necessary matters to be considered for the determination of concurrent applications.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 51)
(Serial 51)
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this is the first debate in which I have participated, be it a bill or otherwise, with my new portfolio responsibilities of child protection and children and families. I acknowledge the work done by the member for Nightcliff in this role since the election. It is a very important and critical role, as I am sure the minister opposite would agree.
The second reading speech delivered by the minister in the last sitting opened with:
Since being elected in August 2012, the Northern Territory government has endeavoured to make the Territory’s child protection system more child focused.
We know from estimates that the number of vacancies within the agency numbered approximately 170. How the agency can look after the Territory’s most vulnerable children when there are so many staffing shortages, morale is at an all-time low and we have seen three ministers come through and lead this agency is alarming.
However, I have faith in the minister opposite as the individual from the government benches who can probably provide some leadership because I know him to be genuinely committed to this. His background as Attorney-General also brings strength to his role in what he will endeavour to deliver. However, it is not just about delivering; it is about the mess he has inherited from his predecessors and has now been brought in to clean up.
I turn to my comments on behalf of the opposition in relation to the proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill. This bill deals with a number of matters contained within the existing Care and Protection of Children Act and attempts to clarify their operation and application, the role of a child’s representative in the family matters jurisdiction, the welfare of children placed within the care of the Chief Executive of the Department of Children and Families, the procedures applying to the search of children and their belongings, and the responsibility of the Chief Executive for children in care.
While the opposition will not oppose this bill, it is necessary I draw to the attention of this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory the concerns we hold with choices the CLP government has made in drafting this legislation. Obviously we have consulted with stakeholders who inform the debate we bring to the House today.
I turn first to the representation of children in care and protection proceedings. I welcome the government’s commitment to implement Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to clarify the right of children to express their views in matters which involve them in Northern Territory law. So often in debates around child protection and related issues it is the voices of those vulnerable children which are absent.
It is true the Supreme Court, in a 2012 matter, made comments regarding the way in which the role of a child’s representative was conducted. However, those comments were not directed at the current wording of the act but, rather, at the way in which the role was conducted. It is for this reason I hold concerns with the government’s approach.
Firstly, in bringing forward these amendments, a current provision of the act which requires a child’s representative to explain their role to the child has been omitted. I would like the Attorney-General to address why that has been omitted. I would like the Attorney-General to address that question; there will be a few. Such an explanation is surely critical to the ability of a child to express his or her views, and for the legal practitioner to effectively carry out their role.
Secondly, despite a briefing indicating the quality of representation was of concern to the department, and the capacity within these amendments to make regulations for matters such as the criteria for appointment of a child’s representative and the standards they must meet, I have been informed there are no plans to develop or introduce such regulations. I would, therefore, like the Attorney-General to also address that matter regarding whether or not their intention is to introduce regulations.
The opposition is not alone in this concern. In its submission on this bill, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency – NAAJA – made the following comments. I will quote directly from them at length:
- NAAJA has advocated for the role of the child representative to be clearly defined, regardless of the model of representation adopted in the legislation, best interest, or on instructions. Problems with the existing process have arisen partly because the role was ill defined and left up to the individual child representative’s’ interpretation of what was required.
The bill provides that a child representative must act either in the best interests, or on instructions of the child.
Clause 143(c)(2) provides only that: ‘a legal representative must take all reasonable steps to actively and professionally represent the child’. These provisions alone are not sufficient to cure the concerns with the child representative role which have arisen in the past.
There is abundant material available about the minimum standards required for a child representative. We refer you to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 1997 report, in particular, Recommendations 71 and 72, which provide more detailed guidance on standards for the representation of children. Those recommendations include factors such as the time spent with the child, the content and form of the conversations required in order to establish rapport, and the role of the child representative in testing evidence before the court.
We also refer you to the Law Society of New South Wales’ Representation Principles for Children’s Lawyers 2007. Finally, there is precedent in legislative form in section 99(d) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 New South Wales, which includes, amongst other prescriptions, the requirement for the child representative to ‘ensure that all relevant evidence is adduced and, wherever necessary, tested’.
We remain of the first view that more guidance should be provided to child representatives in conducting their role.
DCF staff have advised that they are considering including guidelines in the tender, or contractual documents, between the government and the child representatives. However, it is our view that in order to ensure transparency any guidelines, rather than being in the form of commercial-in-confidence, contractual terms should be publicly available and, preferably codified.
Publicly available standards mean that child representatives who fail to meet those standards will be accountable to their client, the Law Society, the courts, the other parties in the proceedings.
NAAJA is particularly concerned about the lack of guidelines and standards in relation to the representation of Aboriginal children, and I will quote from NAAJA’s submission:
- We are particularly concerned that those proposed changes, without any additional safeguards, will only serve to exacerbate the still significant gaps in the child protection system which impede the full assessment of the best interests of Aboriginal children.
Currently, the recommendations in Chapter 4 of the Growing them strong, together report from the board of inquiry have not been fully implemented.
We acknowledge that the government established a peak body, SAFT, Strong Aboriginal Families, Together; however, this agency is not sufficiently funded to be able to represent the voice of the community or to advocate for the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal children. Further, it has no role in individual children’s matters; we note there is no Aboriginal childcare agency as recommended in 4.2.
A properly guided and trained child representative would ensure that Aboriginal children, she or he was representing, would have their cultural and social needs assessed together with their best interests and wishes.
In a situation where an Aboriginal child’s parents are not represented in the protection proceedings and that child is not represented, or is represented inadequately, it is disturbing that the current proposals do nothing to ensure that a court hears evidence and decides DCF’s application only after a full assessment of that child’s cultural and social needs. The best interests of the Territory’s most vulnerable children demand nothing less.
Further to the submission put to the Attorney-General by NAAJA and CAALAS, including recommendations for amendments, NAAJA wrote to the Attorney-General on 22 November and provided me with a copy of that correspondence; they raised those concerns with him in that e-mail correspondence. I would like to hear the Attorney-General’s response in debate to the recommendations of this very key stakeholder group, or groups, why he has not adopted the recommendations they have proposed, and what responses he has provided to those legal advocates that have a key role in advocating for children.
It is worth noting at this point that not only has this government not established an Aboriginal childcare agency, or ACCA, as recommended by the board of inquiry, it has cut the funding of the Safe Aboriginal Families, Together, SAF,T organisation, to prevent that organisation from progressing the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency.
It would not surprise members of the House that at the recent ‘Family Matters’ conference supported by SAF,T and the relevant national body, the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency was the number one recommendation of those present. Regrettably, I was unable to attend that forum but I have had feedback from people who attended and know the Attorney-General was there at some point during the day.
Returning to the bill, the amendments go beyond the role of the child’s representative in court proceedings and seek to curtail the manner in which the role currently operates. It has been the practise of legal practitioners acting as child representatives to maintain contact with the matter and to monitor, albeit informally, the department’s adherence to requirements under the act, such as whether a care plan is put in place for their client. While this practise is potentially uncomfortable for the department, it has had the effect of safeguarding the interests of children once taken into care. I see nothing in these amendments to replace this level of independent oversight. This is another matter I would like the Attorney-General to respond to.
NAAJA, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service are concerned that the proposed changes do not met the intended aim of giving additional protection to vulnerable children as expressed by NAAJA and I quote:
- In the significant number of cases where parents or carers are not represented and a child is under 10 the legislation allows for no child representative to be appointed. We are concerned that lawyers for DCF will oppose the appointment of a child representative, and then if the court declines to appoint one, the only voice presented to the court will be that of DCF. In these cases, there will be no independent testing of the evidence presented by DCF. We acknowledge that the role of DCF and the court is to act in the best interests of the child, however the court must decide on the basis of the evidence submitted in support of an application.
- We have concerns about the relevance and the probative value of the affidavit material prepared by the DCF case workers. DCF case workers are trained welfare social workers who we know work under extremely difficult conditions, particularly with the current staffing levels in the Northern Territory. However, they are not trained as lawyers, and they present the material which is relevant in a social work sense rather than with a view to what is legally relevant. In NAAJA’s experience, case workers’ affidavits often refer to file notes from other workers detailing conversations with third parties - hearsay evidence – or to that worker’s assessment of medical or school records without providing those records. The best evidence is direct evidence, and if that evidence is not before the court the safety of the decisions made in the child’s best interest is open to question. The proposed amendments do not contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that the best evidence is submitted to the court.
At a minimum, where the parents are unrepresented there must be an opportunity for an independent party to test the evidence before the court. That party should be able to subpoena primary material, request expert evidence and cross-examine case workers and experts. That is the role of a children’s representative as outlined in Recommendation 72 of the Australian Law Reform Commission report. We, therefore, recommend there be a provision that a child’s representative always be appointed in circumstances where the only other party who is represented is the DCF.
Unfortunately, the Minister for Children and Families has decided to ignore this important advice from experts in the field. If that case has since changed, I look forward to hearing from the minister in this debate.
I turn now to the amendments dealing with search of young people. The bill seeks to clarify and streamline the search provisions so they are easier for authorised officers to administer. However, in so doing, the amendments remove important protections contained in the current act. In relation to searches, the current act provides:
- 5. The officer or designated person conducting the search:
- (a) must be someone who is of the same gender as the child; and
(b) must conduct the search in the presence of an adult who:
- (i) is of the same gender as the child; and
(ii) is nominated by the child or, if the child fails to do so, by the officer.
6. The adult nominated by the officer:
- (a) must hold a clearance notice that is in force; and
(b) must not be an authorised officer or police officer.
Children being dealt with under the Youth Justice Act are given greater protection, with section 19 of that act providing that:
Why has this protection not been maintained for children in care, who have not done anything wrong? We know they need to be protected from self-harm or harm to others but, nevertheless, they have done nothing wrong.
While you might be interested in making things easier, the reason for the proposed changes I was given in the briefing is that this should not be at the expense of children who have experienced abuse or neglect.
Finally, I wish to comment on the provision relating to the investigation of harm or exploitation of children in care. The bill proposed to give to the CEO the power to acquire information from a range of people and bodies. It also sets out the CEO must provide information to the Children’s Commissioner where the allegations of abuse are upheld. These actions are in stark contrast to the course of action recommended by the board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory, which was:
- That an independent body is auspiced to review investigations into allegations of ‘abuse in care’ undertaken by the Department of Health and Families The Office of the Children’s Commissioner would be an appropriate body to take on this role.
In making this amendment, the CLP government is signalling its intention to dump yet another board of inquiry recommendation - recommendations which had been embraced by the former government. However, even more concerning is a demonstration of its approach to child protection; one of secrecy, and lack of oversight. We know one of the very early acts of the first Minister for Children and Families was to dump the external monitoring committee - an external and at arm’s length from government body. The role of this body was to monitor, without fear or favour, the implementation of the BOI and to uphold those recommendations which had been put in place to protect our most vulnerable. They are not committed to improving the system for vulnerable children; their commitment is making sure no one else can see it is not working.
As I said, the opposition does not oppose the bill; however, we have a number of concerns that the bill falls short in its robustness in guaranteeing minimum standards required for a child representative, noting that Aboriginal children make up the bulk of children in care in the Northern Territory. The opposition is deeply concerned about the apparent demise of safety and the failure to implement recommendation 4.2 of the board of inquiry, the abandonment of a very key recommendation which calls for the development of an Aboriginal childcare agency.
I thank the minister for availing his staff very early on in the piece for a briefing, for which I am grateful. While this bill is a good start, it falls short.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the bill, and I say that fairly clearly after some comments today. I thank the department for the briefing it gave me; I also received a briefing from the Children’s Commissioner. I take his advice very seriously, because he is a very competent person who has a long record in making sure we have child protection systems in the Northern Territory that do exactly that: protect children. I thank both the department and the Children’s Commissioner for their briefings.
I also appreciate the work the member for Nhulunbuy has done. I have not moved into the area she has, but I have some understanding of where she is coming from. I also understand that not all lawyers agree with the role being put forward for a legal representative for a child. There are some people who have a different point of view, but again, I am following the advice of the Children’s Commissioner.
I will not verbal him, but my understanding is that we are enabling a child to give evidence. There are some quotes in the minister’s second reading speech that talk about what is in the best interest of the child, and if that is allowing a child upwards of 10 years old to be at least given the opportunity to represent themselves in court; if that is in the child’s best interest, it should be done.
My understanding is that a judge will also be involved and will make decisions as to whether a child is mature enough to give an opinion that could be regarded as valid, if I can use that word. There are systems that do allow for judgments to be made when allowing a child to represent him or herself, and is an issue on which some people have a different point of view.
My understanding is that if a child can give evidence in court and that evidence is approved by a judge as being given by someone who knows what they are talking about, the voice of that child is a stronger representation and that evidence is more valuable when it comes to decisions that have to be made in court.
The other area, which is fairly straightforward and that these changes relate to, is clearly stated in the second reading speech and is something the Children’s Commissioner said is quite appropriate. It talks about the power of the Department of Children and Families to create inquiries in relation to children in care, just as for any other child. An allegation of abuse in care is a very different set of circumstances and warrants a separate provision. I will quote from the second reading it probably says it clearer than I can:
- In a typical child protection investigation, the Department of Children and Families will investigate the alleged failure of a parent to act protectively for a child with a view to determining whether the Department of Children and Families should intervene. When the Department of Children and Families investigates an allegation of abuse in care, it is investigating its own alleged failure to act protectively for a child, with a view to determining whether any changes need to be made in relation to the child’s care.
It then says:
- It is, therefore, appropriate this function be found in a separate part of the act to the standard investigation function. This will also allow the power to be delegated to a limited number of caseworkers so the investigation can occur independently of the office responsible for the case…
That is a fairly commonsense change to the act, which does not need too much explanation. Talking to the Children’s Commissioner recently, he said it was a sensible move.
There have been many changes in the department and many CEOs. The present CEO, Jodeen Carney, is very competent and I hope she brings real changes to this very important area of government responsibility. When she was in parliament, regardless of whether I may have disagreed with her on other matters, I know she was passionate about the protection of children. She was instrumental in pushing for an inquiry into the protection of children in the Northern Territory. With this passion and understanding of the complexities of some of this legislation in regard to the protection of children, she will make an excellent CEO. We now have – we will debate that further – legislation coming forward which will allow the Children’s Commissioner to have his or her own legislation to give them separate powers not belonging to the department or within the act, as he is now: a combination of Dr Howard Bath, Jodeen Carney and the minister.
Minister, I have no doubt listening to your debates before that you are passionate about doing something for the welfare of people in the Northern Territory, and we are all that way. The member for Nhulunbuy is passionate, just as I do not believe anyone here would not be passionate about ensuring children are protected.
It is good you have an opposition to raise some serious matters for you to address. It is good we now have three people with the ability, because they are a member of parliament, a CEO or the Children’s Commissioner, to drive changes that will make some difference. If that does not happen, I will be very surprised, but the only way we will find out if that happens is to look at the results of these changes.
This is only a relatively small change; I am not saying it is not important, but the reality will be a reduction in the number of people required to be in care and a reduction in the number of cases of abuse of children. That will not happen overnight. It will be an ongoing job of government and everyone in parliament to ensure there are changes which make a difference. The proposed new bill for the Commissioner said – I am not debating it; I am saying we have the issue of the vulnerable child, and that word ‘vulnerable’ means we have a responsibility as adults to ensure that child is protected.
This legislation will hopefully go some way to making children less vulnerable and to ensuring the system works for the betterment of all children in the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Children and Families’ Care and Protection Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill.
I listened to the speeches by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy and the member for Nelson. What struck me, listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, is how quickly history can be rewritten at the convenience of the opposition. Accusing the current government of instability, of failing in the child protection space, is ultimate hypocrisy from anyone’s perspective. I recall the track record of the former Labor government in this space of caring for the children of the Northern Territory and implementing proper, good, safe practices in the child protection area. The allegation of failure must first be levelled at the former Labor government before any consideration can be given to our track record over the last 15 months.
I remind this parliament of where we have come from in child protection. Under 11 years of Labor, there were over half-a-dozen independent inquiries into the failure of the Northern Territory child protection system. It was a complete and utter shambles. Minister after minister was instated to try to fix this problem which was like a cancer; it would not go away. They were impotent when it came to addressing their own management of a system that was imploding repeatedly.
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy accuse us of all sorts of incompetence and mismanagement. However, in fact, we are doing very well. This amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act is yet another example of how we are just getting on with the job. After only 15 months, there are significant amendments to this bill before the House and there are more amendments that will come to this House in the very near future.
The former Labor government presided over a bill that was outdated and, in many ways, quite irrelevant. As the former minister for the Department of Children and Families, I quickly sought to start work on amending this entire act. I have no doubt that over the next 12 months we will see quite a lot of changes to this act. The Attorney-General has come into this position in recent times and he is continuing the work which I started, the member for Namatjira continued with and he has taken it on with gusto and …
Ms Walker: He has come in to clean up the mess.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … will continue to undertake this very important work. Regarding the interjections from the member for Nhulunbuy …
__________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if I could ask you to pause, I draw members’ attention in the gallery of Years 8 and 9 students from Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre accompanied by Eleonore Simpson. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mrs LAMBLEY: Regarding the interjections from the member for Nhulunbuy, I realise she is defensive. There is a long history of incompetence of the former Labor government. Yelling across the Chamber will never change that. It is in the history books, in those considerable documents which have been produced over the years, telling the story of how the former Labor government failed. Indeed, it has hit all aspects of the media. The Four Corners program, ‘Dangerous Territory’, run in November 2010, was an expos of how the Northern Territory government at the time ultimately failed a couple of children in the most dreadful way.
I strongly reject any accusations, at this point in time, that we have failed more than Labor or, indeed, failed at all. We have embraced the opportunity to make legislative changes that will improve the lives of children. There have been a few changes within the senior levels of staffing within the Department of Children and Families. We have had some extraordinary people come through, which is often part and parcel of living in the Territory. People come and go and we are hoping the current CEO remains where she is for quite some time and is able to see through some of these very positive changes we have in mind for the area of child protection.
What is also interesting is the conversation about the Aboriginal child advocacy service, SAF,T. This was a non-government organisation that started in the Territory with some gusto. There was a lot of enthusiasm around the establishment of this Aboriginal child advocacy service and there were very high expectations of what that organisation, which came to be known as SAF,T, would achieve.
This organisation has not produced anything. It never, despite over $1m worth of funding plus, and – I do not have the figures in front of me – a hell of a lot of investment from the Northern Territory government, provided a service to one child in the Northern Territory. It is an example of a non-government organisation that has failed.
I cannot tell you in this House exactly why it has failed, but it has. This government has to be fairly objective about these things if after almost two years and considerable funding an organisation does not achieve the outcomes stipulated in its contract.
We have to make some very difficult decisions, and one of those decisions we made on coming into government, through the mini-budget, was to reduce the funding for SAF,T. This was because we had some concerns about its governance, its ability to deliver and it has come about that those concerns were well founded.
However, I do not want to preside or rejoice over the inability of service providers to deliver. It is a sad thing. It is a very serious thing …
Ms Walker: It is tragic.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is tragic, I take up the interjection of the member for Nhulunbuy. It is not the responsibility of government to manage non-government organisations; they undertake to manage their own affairs. We provide the funding, the support, the guidelines, ongoing monitoring and sometimes assistance, but it is ultimately their responsibility. I also take up the criticisms that were conveyed, by the member for Nhulunbuy, from NAAJA and CAALAS. These two organisations are very consistent critics of this government. The roll-out of our alcohol mandatory treatment program across the Northern Territory has been highly scrutinised and, indeed, critiqued by NAAJA and CAALAS. I would not expect them to treat any other aspect of the operation of this government any differently.
I feel their views are tainted and sometimes prejudiced by their political affiliations to the Labor Party.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a previous member of this parliament, Hon Noel Padgham, and her family members. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Elferink: A declaration of interest, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, definitely a conflict of interest, but a very welcome conflict of interest.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT
(LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 51)
(LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 51)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I was part way through my speech addressing the Minister for Children and Families’ Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill.
The member for Nhulunbuy discussed in parliament earlier today how NAAJA and CAALAS were quite critical of this legislation. I was in the middle of describing that NAAJA and CAALAS tend to be regular critics of this new government. They have been very critical of the alcohol mandatory treatment program we have rolled out over the last 15 months. It is no surprise they have critiqued the government, once again, on its intention to reform the child protection legislation of the Northern Territory. Because of that, I take their criticisms with a grain of salt. They have strong political affiliations with the Labor Party; that is fairly well known. They are friends of the opposition and are generally not friends of us. Having said that, we welcome the process of consultation, the feedback and robust debate, whether it is debating child protection, alcohol mandatory treatment or any matter before this parliament.
What the minister has brought forward is an improvement to the Care and Protection of Children Act. When I was the shadow spokesperson for child protection, it was something which was raised with me – improving or expanding the representation of children within the child protection system. I was approached by two solicitors who have given a significant part of their lives to work within the child protection system representing families and children affected by allegations of child abuse and neglect. A great concern of theirs was that there were gaps in the system, that some children, through their age and circumstances, were entitled to representation and others were not. There were some inconsistencies in the Northern Territory’s approach and children were being affected by this.
Looking back at the second reading speech of the Minister for Children and Families, this amendment changes the model to one of direct representation for children who have maturity and understanding to provide instructions to their lawyer. A legal representative of a child who has maturity and understanding to provide instructions must act on those instructions. It empowers children to have a say in the process they have been forced to engage in. Being heard, even though an official or professional considers one is wrong, is a necessary aspect of justice. The right to a hearing in a decision-making process may, of itself, fulfil a psychological need, regardless of the practical conclusion reached.
This legislation before us is improving on the former government’s legislation. As I said in the first part of my speech, the opposition, the former Labor government, dropped the ball when it came to child protection.
Ms Fyles: You dropped the ball, not us. What about Chapter 6, the board of inquiry?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They dropped the ball when it came to protecting the most vulnerable people in our community; for 11 years, they failed in this space. I hear the interjections from the member for Nightcliff, who was not around during that time so she is reasonably safe, although she was an advisor to the minister for Child Protection, so should bear some of the responsibility for the inept and systematic failure of Labor to look after our children. As I said before, many reports attest to the failure of Labor; the Little Children are Sacred report, the Growing them strong, together report, several Ombudsman’s reports, the State of Denial. There was also another report that covered an audit on the intake system – numerous documents stating the inadequacy of Labor in addressing these very serious social problems in our community.
We are 15 months into government, and I applaud the Minister for Children and Families for bringing on these amendments. I know he has a number more to make to this piece of legislation, improving the system for our children. He is a committed minister; he has embraced the job in a very short period of time. He is running with it, like we have never seen, like we never saw the Labor Party run with it. They passed the ball more frequently than us and it was one disaster after another. I applaud the minister and absolutely support the reforms he is making in child protection.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I wish to give the minister support for the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Legal Representation and Other Matters) Bill. To support what my colleague said; this man is extraordinary. I am sorry I took the seat of Macdonnell from him after eight years, but it had to be done. He is fantastic in every area of running his portfolios in this government. He has taken over from me and is running with it. He has been given the torch. I was given the torch by my colleague, the Minister for Health, and the minister has now received the torch from me and we have not stopped. We have not stopped running to make sure it is about children. When we came into government and took over this portfolio, the children were hidden; we could not see the children for the bureaucracy. They had no voice. What this bill allows for is the legal representative to make sure they understand the child, community, family – the extended family as well as the parents. It gives mature children a voice and is an important part of this legislation that we as a government have looked at.
It is about the voice of that adolescent or the mature child, and it is really important for children to be vocal, to have their say as to how their representative informs the court system about what they are doing, about their family structures and their community structures. This government, since it came into power, has been focused on making sure this is the area we looked at because we are talking about children. The Chief Minister has come out very early in the piece on this area, saying these are the most vulnerable children in the Northern Territory. I know the minister is doing lots of other things in this area to make sure we, as people who have children in care, take responsibility for our actions as parents and we, as a family and as a community, take responsibility for our children.
They are the future generations of the Northern Territory. They are our future, and we have to ensure we are at all times focused on how we get these children back to their families. While they are in our care, and as we work towards getting these children back into their communities and their families, we must ensure there is a chance for them to voice their opinions if they are not properly represented. We must understand that representatives of these children must have a relationship with these children. They must be connected to these children, and understand and know them; they have to know where they come from, their parents, their community and put all of that into context in its entirety. There is not a piece that does not match the other piece. You cannot take just a mum and dad without taking the extended family and the community.
The minister knows and understands all of that. For eight years, he worked as a local member in that area, understanding families and communities. He has worked as a police officer, so he knows exactly where he is coming from. He understands there are mums and dads with problems, communities with problems and this is why children get caught in this net that allows us, as a government, to become their carers. The focus of this government is the focus we need.
As I said, when we came into this area, we had to search for the child. Where is the child, where is this poor bugger? We could not find the child; we could not see the children. That is why, as a former minister, I support this bill, the focus of this government and the direction we are taking.
I thank you, minister, for bringing forward this bill, ensuring the voices of these mature children are heard and that the legal representative and the child really do have a relationship with one another.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, this is the one topic that truly drives people’s emotions. We are talking about kids, so let us not fool ourselves in this space.
I listened to this debate and I thought to myself, what actually are our expectations here? What is child protection? What are we expecting from the child protection system? That question is a fundamentally important consideration as to what we are doing as a government, bearing in mind that this bill is quite specific about a particular thing we are trying to achieve.
The nature of this topic invites people to range far and wide, as they have done in this debate. However, if you think a government exclusively can fix issues of child sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect, I suspect you are placing the bar intolerably high. Government is in this domain because it must respond to protect the innocent people who are not being effectively protected by those they should be protected by, namely parents and family.
To say, ‘Oh, well, governments past and present have a solution for child protection problems,’ is not a wise thing to do. The process of getting involved in child protection is an end point. It sits over here and when the government steps in, through the Department of Children and Families, and says, ‘We have become aware of an issue of neglect, exploitation, sexual exploitation,’ or something of that nature, this is an end point. We are involving ourselves in something that has occurred; it is, in essence, a policing action. If you think about a person who is unlawfully killed by another person, the police respond and step in, run an investigation and try to clean up the mess. That is what a child protection intervention essentially is.
The first question I asked myself when I became the minister is that if that is a policing action, a response to something that has been done, surely the question is: what do we do a week, month, year or lifetime before we intervene? That develops a bunch of issues that need to be addressed.
There are a number of forces at work in the area of child neglect. The most obvious and present one is the failure of parents, in particular, to do their job in relation to children.
The people who set the standard of what a parent should do are the community. The community has a standard which is reflected by people being elected to this place and passing legislation to deal with issues of child neglect, and we then turn to professionals and say, ‘We need your help in trying to intervene in this’.
Do not think for one second that a legislative instrument in this House will cure the spiritual cancer, if not the moral cancer, that is child abuse and neglect. It is a response, and that is something I ask all members to be mindful of; even the response from government will always be imperfect by its very nature, and the reason that occurs is manifold again.
I ask members of this House and people listening to this debate to picture a conversation between a childcare worker who has received a complaint that a child is potentially the subject of sexual exploitation. The childcare worker knocks on the door, is invited in, speaks to the parent, and then says to the parent, ‘We have this complaint’. The parent then says, ‘Yes, I have been sexually exploiting my child for the last five years’.
Of course that is nonsense. People will lie, not only about sexual exploitation but their failings as parents. Who here wants to say, ‘I am failing as a parent’? I do not want to; I often feel guilty that I feel I am. However, the idea of failing as a parent is one of the yardsticks society measures people by in terms of them being a success or a failure.
Imagine an environment where childcare workers have people consistently lying to them, because those people are lying to themselves; if they are not lying to themselves and carry some real and criminal guilt in relation to how they conduct themselves with their children, they will not tell the childcare workers. When I came to the department, I was extremely mindful of the fact the department will make mistakes because the information they have to work with is often very limited and sometimes dishonestly presented. When we say to childcare workers, ‘Why did you screw that up, why did you make a mistake here?’, it is because they are trying to make plans to fix up a policing response around innocent people when they are being lied to.
Of course they will make mistakes; they have to second guess things. They have to try to develop an understanding of an environment based on limited or no information at all other than the physical observations they can make.
What we do as a government, as a legislature, is when we buy into these arguments – the death of Deborah Melville is a good example – it engenders a fear response from the government. We saw it from members opposite and I suffer a little from that fear response in the sense of there being some political pressure where it can get really nasty, so the minister and the government have to make a conscious decision, and this is the decision I have made.
I have said to the workers throughout the Northern Territory, wherever I have been, I expect mistakes will occur. It is unavoidable in the circumstances in which they operate as workers. Nevertheless, I expect them to do what they have to do, based on the judgment they have available and, so long as the decision is in good faith, they will have the support of the minister and the government to continue what they are doing. I will even go one step further: take reasonable and considered risks in the pursuit of protecting children and your minister will stand in front of any camera and say, ‘I defend that choice’, because nothing chokes a bureaucracy more than ministerial fear and imprecise direction. If the minister has no faith in the CEO, and that cascades all the way down to the final level of responsibility of the child protection worker, it falls upon them as they are the one who has contact with the child.
All of a sudden, rules are created, guidelines and laws are developed, Children’s Commissioners and all types of bureaucracies are created to ensure all these dreadful mistakes do not happen again. Somewhere in that mix, something important was forgotten: the kids.
As a minister of the Crown, as the minister for child protection, I acutely feel the weight of duty that falls upon my shoulders. However, I will not create an environment where people are suffocated and prevented from doing their job out of fear of reprisals inside the departmental arena. I expect the child protection workers of the Northern Territory to take calculated risks, to make judgment calls based on their experience and armed with good faith. If they do that, they will enjoy the protection of this government, and I will champion their cause. If they make mistakes, I would rather see a person err in the pursuit of a proper outcome than fail to act for fear of reprisal from the system. That is the expectation I have; unless a person is grossly negligent or criminal in their conduct, they will enjoy my support; just act in good faith.
I want child protection workers to step into that environment as though it was their first day out of university, with that much passion and enthusiasm. I want those workers to think they can change the world, because people who believe they can change the world are much more likely to do so than those who are consistently looking over their shoulders and living in an environment of bureaucratic fear. It will not happen.
That is a general statement of intent and principle from me, because I believe it is important that child protection workers have it on the record that is what their government and minister believe.
Having made those observations, I will turn to the bill in more detail. Once again, this is not a massive change in law; this bill deals with a small component of a system which struggles to deal with a big problem in our community. This bill turns its attention to something you and I would expect if we had capacity – when I use the term ‘capacity’, I use it in its legal sense – to make decisions.
Unfortunately, in the current child protection environment with the legislation as it stands, the case officer or the representative of the child in court is not required, in any substantial or legislative way, to have a lawyer/client relationship. There are other examples of this type of legislation in our system; one example is animal welfare legislation because, of course, an animal does not quite understand the difficulties and nuances of a courtroom. Of course, children are not animals. When we say ‘children’, we are talking about people who are under the age of 18 years of age. There is, quite conceivably, a class of those children who are able to understand what is happening to them and what is being said about them. Surely, their voices should be heard when it comes to an application concerning an outcome that will affect them for the rest of their lives. That is the thrust of the bill before us.
This bill intends to say to a court, and a lawyer representing a child in a matter of this nature, that we recognise that life sucks, that you have found yourself in this environment as the result of other people’s failings. The duties that should have been extended to you as a matter of right have not been, in many instances, extended to you at all, in cases of neglect, and actively deprived, in cases of sexual exploitation or abuse. Of course, a person who has the capacity to understand what is happening to them, what is being said about them, should have a right to have their voice heard.
This legislative instrument no longer places the lawyer in the position of an animal welfare lawyer. The lawyer is now placed in the position of having a lawyer/client relationship with the child and effectively means we are creating what is called a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary is a person who is bound by the rules of common law and equity, which assumes a relationship of trust.
That trust is almost exclusively a one way street; that is, the relationship between the lawyer and the client has to be of such a nature that it is the client who enjoys the benefits of the trust of that relationship. An example of this is the law of lawyer/client privilege; it is entirely a one way street. A lawyer may never breach the confidentiality of a client; however, the client can breach a confidentiality any time they like, in terms of their relationship with their lawyer. It is because it is about the client and not the lawyer, and that is the intent of this piece of legislation. It is about the child and not the lawyer, and that is what we are trying to achieve.
We are saying to the practitioners in this area, ‘You now have a relationship which is a lawyer/client relationship’. That implies a level of duty which is long established in law, both here in Australia and other countries around the world, and that duty is carried by those lawyers who represent their clients. The fiduciary relationship is of such a nature that it is a relationship of complete trust and is applied according to law. A lawyer who does not maintain their fiduciary relationship will find themselves neglectful in their duty to the point where a court would rule against them if there was ever an issue raised about them breaching a fiduciary relationship. Bearing that in mind, the NAAJA and CAALAS submissions read by the shadow minister are largely defunct. The reason I say these are defunct is the shadow minister would have us impose a bunch of guidelines and regulatory instruments that would intrude onto that fiduciary relationship.
These matters are as individual as fingerprints when they come before a court. One of the great risks we engage in when we cast our fishing net into the future with a legislative instrument is that we are trying to simply capture one species of fish. It has been my experience that the more technical and detailed a legislative instrument is made, the tighter the weave of that fishing net, the more likely you pick up unintended species all the way through, and it is unintended consequences I wish to avoid. Therefore, I am satisfied the existence of a fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client is sufficient to protect the interests of the client, and it has long since been established. I do not like being excessively prescriptive and if we, as a community, are going to trust lawyers to do their job, we have to trust the fact that the expectations around the lawyer/client relationship will be maintained by those lawyers, as they are trained to do in lawyering 101.
Having made that observation, there will be guidelines. The Law Society will be invited to draft those guidelines as it has done in other jurisdictions. I draw honourable members attention to the Law Society of New South Wales, which has produced, on behalf of the New South Wales government and available on an Internet site near you, the Representation Principles for Children’s Lawyers, third edition, September 2007.
In that document, you will find a number of references to the issues we are raising today: I quote from page 7 of the document:
- A best interests representative should seek the child’s views and present them to a court.
There is some rocket science for you:
- However, the best interests representative does not act on the instructions of the child, parent, guardian or anyone else connected with the child or the legal proceedings. The representative will often request experts from other fields to provide reports or opinions.
In other words, the child is at the core of these instructions, as the child is at the core of this legislative instrument.
I intended to table through normal processes – but nothing prevents me, as I understand it, doing it here – the Children’s Commissioner’s Annual Report 2012-13. It was to be a deemed paper, but I can table it here, and that is there for all members to see. It will probably find its way on to a deemed papers list anyhow.
I want to specifically address some issues raised by members opposite, particularly in relation to notifications. If you look at page 51 of the Children’s Commissioner’s report – I realise that no member will have seen this, so I do not accuse anybody of anything. For the edification of members of this House, on page 51 there is a chart showing the number of notifications, investigations and substantiations of abuse and neglect 2008-09 to 2012-13. Ghastly as it is, the number of notifications spike sharply, and the last 12 months are no exception.
I also note the number of investigations is slightly down on the last financial year and the number of substantiations has fallen substantially in the last financial year. We have more notifications coming through the front door, an equal number of investigations and a fall in substantiations.
I also draw honourable members attention to the graph on page 42. On that graph, you will notice there has been no sharp increase in the number of notifications by categories from schools, health organisations and non-professional organisations. There has been a slight increase in others, but the one area where notifications have absolutely skyrocketed over the last two years, from 1500 to 3500, is in the activities of the police.
The reason we are seeing notifications go up is that authorities are now looking. The police are obeying the law which says if you run into these circumstances, you are obliged to report it, which is what the police do. It is also that the nature of what is being reported is changing over time, and, thank the Good Lord, the number of sexual reports is coming down sharply. What is pronounced is not so much abuse, but neglect. Whilst neglect is not good, I would rather have to deal and cope with those sorts of issues than the rape of a child on a regular basis.
I draw honourable members attention to that report and will make sure there are sufficient copies circulated in the next few days.
I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter, but in relation to suggestions made by the members opposite, particularly the shadow minister in this area, I do not want to become prescriptive in this space. I want to leave the practitioners with sufficient room to make judgment calls, which I will trust them to make, and I hope the courts will appreciate that; I am sure the practitioners will appreciate that. Through their integrity, I am satisfied the people who operate in this field, the lawyers and the practitioners, will not take advantage of the liberties we are providing them to become slack or callous in the way they approach their work. Rather, they will take it as an opportunity to approach their work with a new level of enthusiasm, knowing they will be profoundly well supported by a government that trusts them to make the right decisions for themselves, the system and, most importantly, clients.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER BILL
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes and supports this bill. I have met with the Children’s Commissioner on one occasion since becoming shadow minister for this important area of responsibility, Child Protection and Children and Families. As a hard-working and dedicated public servant, he expressed to me no political bias, nor would I expect it and nor would he. He is supportive of this bill, as are members on this side. Anything that protects our vulnerable children – those who are at risk, who suffer, sadly, neglect or abuse – it is our responsibility as members of this House to ensure we have the best legislation in place to meet the needs of those children.
As I did in the last bill we discussed around amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act, I go to the opening statement of the second reading from the minister which says:
- This government is committed to the goal of a truly transparent child protection system that is accountable and subject to ongoing review and scrutiny.
That is fair enough, but I ask the government why, since they have been the government, they have successfully wound back reforms implemented under the former government and the very robust board of inquiry report, Growing them strong, together? I have the two volumes on my desk, put together by eminent professionals in this area: the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, Dr Rob Roseby and Professor Muriel Bamblett AM.
If the minister wants to open his second reading speech by talking about being accountable, transparent and subject to ongoing review and scrutiny, it begs the question as to why they sacked the external monitoring committee. The committee, at arms-length and independent from government, was providing that level of scrutiny. I am not convinced the minister can guarantee that scrutiny and being held to account when they so blatantly remove those instruments set up to have that level of scrutiny and review in place. I find that incredibly disappointing.
I was unable to attend the forum held at Charles Darwin University on Thursday 14 November. It was coordinated by SNAICC and the theme of the forum was Family Matters: Kids safe in culture, not in care. One of the aims of the board of inquiry was to be able to deliver that. I am sure I will be accused of selectively quoting by the minister, but given I was unable to attend – I heard it attracted some media attention – the commissioner sent me his speaking notes from that event when I requested them. He spoke about a number of the demands around the care and protection of children and his own role, but he makes reference in his speech notes as to why there are fewer children placed into kinship or foster care. In part, he answered that question he posed himself with this sentence:
- I fear it is because our child protection system does not have the capacity or the will to respond.
I find those remarks very concerning. While I said that members of the opposition support the Children’s Commissioner Bill, we have to recognise that our child protection system is in complete crisis; this legislation does nothing to address the fact that with child abuse reports rocketing up, child abuse investigations are plummeting down. These are facts.
This legislation does nothing to help the organisations that help abused or neglected children retrieve the funding the CLP has taken away from them. This legislation does nothing to stop the rivers of grog that so often lead to child abuse and neglect, to prevent children, effectively, being subject to alcohol abuse before they are even born through foetal alcohol syndrome, to stop the CLP from cutting child protection funding, and this legislation does nothing to stop child abuse. We can give the commissioner all the powers in the world under the statutory authority he holds, but unless the government and the minister are prepared to address the crisis in the agency in child protection, this legislation will not count for a great deal.
There are organisations which are simply not able to support abused children as a result of the CLP’s decision to slash their funding, starting with the mini-budget last year. It is as though this minister, with the swipe of a pen, quickly slashes funding for organisations dealing with these abused children so he can get back to tinkering with legislation and the legal peculiarities.
Let us look at the crisis in child protection. Let us start with the shuffling of three ministers in 15 months and the Office of Children and Families, which, under the recommendation of the BoI, was a stand-alone agency, being placed into Education under the CLP government and then taken back out again. It was put in Education because the CLP decided to ignore the board of inquiry’s recommendation it should be a stand-alone department. They said that having Education and Child Protection in the same department would be complementary, according to the CLP; they then changed their mind and agreed it should be a stand-alone agency. They sacked the CEO, appointed a new one, sacked her, and then gave it to a former CLP member of this House, the member for Araluen.
I welcomed the appointment of the member for Araluen. I am sure she has inherited something of a mess, but I know her passion and her commitment to this. I cannot help but think, however, if under the former Labor government we had appointed a number of former Labor members, we would have been under the hammer from members opposite. The fifth floor is just about to give in under the weight of former CLP members and cronies who are now working up there.
Mr Conlan: I think Lynne just cracked a joke!
Ms WALKER: I know the members opposite find child protection a hilarious matter; good luck to them.
Let us look at what this dysfunction and chaos has caused. Child protection notifications are up by 25%. In the first year of the CLP government, the number of child abuse notifications increased dramatically from 7960 to 9967. That is an increase of 2007, or 25%, in just one year.
The CLP’s response has been to dramatically decrease the number of child abuse investigations that are finalised, down from 4257 to 3558. This is a decrease of 699 child abuse investigations, or 16%, in one year. Abuse and notifications are up 25%, but investigations are down 16%.
The CLP has gone from investigating 53% of child abuse cases to 35%. The numbers just do not stack up and indicate quite clearly that children are slipping through the cracks.
The County Liberal Party is culpable, both for the increase in notifications and the decrease in investigations. All the experts told the County Liberal Party that reopening the rivers of grog would lead to increased child abuse, but the CLP ignored them. Child protection staff have walked out on the CLP in droves; we know from estimates that 171 staff have left. Every report of child abuse or neglect deserves the full attention of the government, but there are simply not enough staff to properly investigate child abuse in the Northern Territory.
The CLP failures are not only hurting children; they are costing money. The department’s annual report shows, on page 21, the number of children in care dropped last year from 820 to 748, but the cost of caring for these children has ballooned from $70m to $85m. I see the minister nodding his head.
There are fewer children costing more money, because under the CLP, foster carers have walked away. They are now paying enormous sums to private providers to care for children. Why are foster carers walking away? There are fewer children in care, but the cost is blowing out. We have had 171 staff leave, child abuse notifications are up, investigations are down – fewer children in care, but it is costing us more and this bill, sadly, will do nothing to address any of this.
What does the CLP do? It raises the current provisions relating to the Children’s Commissioner and places them in stand-alone legislation. However, like the decision to put the department in with Education, it could well be changed back. In six months, we might even see a bill transferring everything back. I hope not. However, who knows with these members opposite.
What else does it do? In making the move to stand-alone legislation, it fails to transfer the principles set out in the current act; perhaps the minister can address this when he wraps up the debate. While all functions under the act are currently guided by principles relating to the importance of family and culture, particularly for Aboriginal children, these principles do not apply in this legislation. We have all heard the Chief Minister’s comments regarding forced adoption, and some people wonder if we are seeing the first moves in that direction. The amendments also confirm the CLP’s rejection of the board of inquiry findings and recommendations and remove references to the monitoring of the BoI. This function is replaced with a completely meaningless statement about promoting well-informed public discussion of child protection issues.
That must have been what the Chief Minister was doing with his well-informed comments about forced adoptions. I wonder if the member for Namatjira agrees with this. No doubt she will be making a contribution to this debate. Finally, I will comment on the new responsibility given to the Children’s Commissioner under this bill, and that is the responsibility to review the Care and Protection of Children Act every three years. That is good, but it is a substantial role. It is a very important function, and, given its significance, what additional resourcing has been provided to the Children’s Commissioner to conduct this three-yearly review? Are there resources that will be made available? Is it a requirement he or she will have to do it within existing resources, cobble it together from the information you get along the way? Seriously, minister!
We do not believe the CLP government is serious about improving the child protection system, far from it. We look to the Growing them strong, together report and the incredibly important recommendations that came from Chapter 6, titled ‘Enhancing the service system to support families in the Northern Territory’. We look for the recommendations, of which there are five, and recommendation 6.1 probably spells it out:
- That the planning processes around the development of integrated children and family centres in remote areas specifically address the service delivery needs of vulnerable and at-risk children and families and promote collaborative practice amongst government and non-government service providers relating to these target groups.
Unless the CLP government is serious about embracing these recommendations, about going to the heart of what is going on in families with children at risk – parents who struggle to fulfil their parenting responsibilities need that support. We need these preventative measures and there is no clear evidence that commitment exists from the CLP government.
I have talked previously about the lack of support for safety and the establishment of an Aboriginal childcare agency. These are critical issues. Unless the CLP can demonstrate it is committed to the independent report in two volumes, then I fear that making a real difference to children’s lives in the Northern Territory will not progress much beyond putting together legislation. It is important legislation, but it is not all about having the legislation in place. It is also about having those preventative measures in place, supporting and funding them so those children and families who are at risk have measures to support them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this bill and welcome this from the government. I also supported the Children’s Commissioner being given a separate role from the Ombudsman when he was given the duties before us today, with some expansion of those roles.
He previously came under the Care and Protection of Children Act. There was a lot of discussion in this House about that, and there was a certain element of politics in relation to the role of the then Ombudsman and whether some of her role was being eroded by the move of the then government to take some of her responsibilities and place them in the hands of the Children’s Commissioner.
You may have heard the member for Greatorex talk about some of the investigations that occurred at that time – reports – and one of those was a report from the Ombudsman; the Ombudsman claimed she could not finish that report. I might be wrong, but I think the Children’s Commissioner also produced a report at the same time. There were several things happening, and at that time it was getting a little confusing as to what was really happening and how much, unfortunately, political agendas were getting in the way of the clash of roles between the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner when that role was part of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
We have moved on from there. We now have a clear role for the Children’s Commissioner. As was said in the second reading speech, the government is now transferring the Children’s Commissioner to a stand-alone act, which creates an opportunity for construction of specific underlying principles more suited to the Children’s Commisioner’s role.
I was given a briefing by the department and the Children’s Commissioner and, once again, I think the Territory is very lucky to have such a person as our Children’s Commissioner. We have a man who is absolute in his convictions about caring for children and doing the best thing, not only for vulnerable children, but children in general. It is funny; we do not call him the vulnerable Children’s Commissioner, we call him the Children’s Commissioner and that is important. We understand – and in the years I have known him – he has carried this role diligently and thoroughly, but also with a passion I think is part of the man.
I will comment on a number of things from the briefing, from reading the act and the second reading. The member for Nhulunbuy raised an issue, which I raised with the Children’s Commissioner. Where does the line occur between a child who is not born and when it is born and if that child’s health has been affected by the actions of the mother or another person? I refer specifically to alcohol, because we know of foetal alcohol syndrome, and smoking, especially heavy smoking. We know the information is that people who smoke – I believe the size of a baby’s head can be smaller. What would happen if a child was injured due to a violent act by a partner or another person on a woman having a baby?
Is it only a vulnerable child once it is born? If so, if that child is born with some physiological damage caused by maltreatment, is it regarded as something the Children’s Commissioner can look at? I know that is a very big question, but the second reading speech states:
- Further, children in the Northern Territory are entitled to live in:
a caring and a nurturing environment in which they are protected from harm and exploitation and able to reach their full potential
If something happens to a child before it is born which stops them from reaching their full potential, is the Children’s Commission entitled to look at it? It is a fairly big question, but over recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis placed on encouraging pregnant women not to drink or smoke. The information is already available. We know if you do these things, especially to excess, it could have some implications on the health of that child.
I raise that as an issue. The issue could be expanded if you were looking at some of the matters raised in New South Wales in regard to Zoe’s Law. At the moment, I am not raising that as part of this debate, because it raises a range of other issues. The issue I am raising is the responsibility of somebody in caring for an unborn child, and what responsibility is placed on that person if the child is born with something that stops them reaching their full potential. What would the role of the Children’s Commissioner be, because that is what I am relating this to?
I also note that part of the Children’s Commissioner’s role will be:
- … to promote understanding of, and informed public discussion, about, the rights, interests and wellbeing of vulnerable children.
That is good, but I imagine this Children’s Commissioner will be more than that.
The member for Port Darwin said this is not just a rigid set of rules. We are dealing with human beings from particular circumstances, and it may be the Children’s Commissioner can use his role to promote the change we need in our society to reduce the chances of children being vulnerable.
I find it difficult sometimes when I listen to the debate over alcohol and locking people up or doing this and that; we are getting tougher on crime, but there is not a lot of debate about the causes or what we are doing to reduce it.
I told the Minister for Education, one of the problems with the cuts to education is, in some cases, we are taking people out of certain positions because of the reduction in staff, not necessarily teachers, but people who may have a job caring for vulnerable children at school. I have always believed we need to spend more time with early intervention and encouraging young people who do not have those parenting skills. If we can spend more money at the beginning, we have a better chance of them not coming out the other end in prison or in domestic violence situations. If we can reduce poverty in our society, encourage employment instead of welfare, have fewer people in overcrowded houses – which is not an easy issue even with all the money the federal government spends.
Some of the things we are talking about today go back to the situation of neglect at home – families that are affected by alcohol, drugs and overcrowding. They are not the only ones. Six or seven years ago, I visited a therapeutic prison in Ohio. If I had known the minister was going to America recently, I would have asked him to go to West Central therapeutic facility in Marysville, Ohio and look at the program they have. I was fortunate enough to sit with six men; each one of those men said the reason they were in prison was because they got into drugs and alcohol early – a mixture of the two at times – and were from broken families or their parents were not at home.
When we are dealing with child protection, for most there is a reason why children are in the situation. It would be good to have more debate on how we can turn that around and get that early intervention to stop this occurring.
I see the role of the Children’s Commissioner as being an advocate for governments – not just the Territory government but the federal government – to look at ways, programs and approaches which may work and support those approaches that do. I would hate to see the Children’s Commissioner as – I do not believe he will – someone who ticks the boxes and that is it. He has a much broader role.
I also note, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, and the minister said in his second reading speech, he will be able to review the act. He is definitely the person who could fulfil that task because of his experience and background. He can also conduct investigations on his own motions. That is good because he needs to have the flexibility to conduct investigations freely, whether it is of a complaint from someone or whether he believes he should look at a matter individually.
I also note what came out of the briefing with the Children’s Commissioner: he can look at things informally. That is an excellent part of the act. Instead of having formal deliberations which may cost money and have representations from various groups, he can set up informal discussions to try to solve some of the issues before him. That is a good idea.
He has the option of tabling a report to the Legislative Assembly if it is in the public interest. He may or may not waive that requirement – I hope I have that right – it will be up to him. There were issues in relation to the previous Ombudsman’s report which was tabled in parliament. There were some concerns about that report having too much information in it which would have enabled people who were close to the matters recorded in it to identify those people. One has to be very careful when dealing with those matters.
I sum up what the minister said in his second reading speech:
- The Children’s Commissioner’s act provides accountability and oversight at every conceivable level for the individual through investigations, the systemic via enquiries and the broader discussion of ideas through the explicit informed public discussion function.
As I said, it is good the government has put this together in a way that deals with the legal side but also deals with the practical side. It also allows the commissioner to be more than just a person fulfilling a legal role that is set out in this act. He is a person who will promote the importance of looking after children, of stable families and some of the things that are needed if we are ever to get on top of this issue. It is complicated when you start to say, ‘What are the reasons for child neglect?’
I mentioned some things, but they will not be applicable to everybody. When I spoke to those men in Ohio, I realised if you have a broken family and have no support base at home, and you are offered drugs or alcohol by people at an early age, you can nearly guarantee you will be in prison. I know the minister is doing some great stuff with people in prison and I know he is dedicated to trying to turn things around, but it is this intervention that is really important.
Mr Elferink: I will tell you what I am thinking afterwards, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I think someone like Howard Bath is the right person to promote and encourage governments to look at schemes that will hopefully, in the long run, mean he will not do himself out of a job, but he may have less work to do than he has at present.
I thank the government for introducing this legislation, and I support it.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I again thank honourable members for their contributions; I want to place a couple of things on the record though. The shadow minister made a couple of assertions that are just wrong. I want to make sure she is aware of it so she does not accidentally repeat those assertions again. She said there were fewer foster carers. The number of foster carers, from June to October this year, grew 3% to 383. That is a 13% increase since June 2012. I will take it on face value that was an error on this occasion, but now the shadow minister has been informed, I am sure she will not repeat that error.
The second component is the comments about kids being held in out-of-home care, which made a reference to the budgetary expenditure in that space. I can inform honourable members that in June 2013 we had 179 and on 31 October it was 174. However, the overall number of kids in foster care was, in June 2012, 231 and to 31 October 2013 – the most recent set of numbers I can lay my hands on – it was 266. You will see increases across the board. There were certainly increases in purchased home care as well, but there were increases across the board. We do not have fewer kids in care; we have more kids in care. Since the last days of the Labor government, we have about 100 more.
I feel a bit conflicted about this, because more kids in care means more families are failing; that is the truth of it. I pick up on comments from the Children’s Commissioner where he is a bit at odds with many other players in the field. I went to the SNAICC conference not that long ago and I listened to what they had to say. Their idea of taking kids away was they were not for it at all; it was a last resort. Listen to what the Children’s Commissioner has to say. He says because we are walking around on cultural egg shells; we are not being assertive enough. Even the experts on the field are of divergent views. There is a lot of other stuff that also washes through in this space, so who do I trust if the experts cannot agree?
Mr Tollner: Yourself, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection; all I can do is trust the judgment I and the Cabinet have in this space. Taking more kids into care is both a triumph and tragedy, depending on which way you look at it. I do not blame anybody because this ghastly situation, as I said in the last debate we had, is a result of a complex collapse; however, the last thing we can afford to do is pump out misinformation in this space.
I pick up on the shadow minister’s comments in relation to the budget blowout when it comes to out-of-home care services. I can assure the shadow minister I have become very aware of that since taking over the role, and I am looking at it very closely indeed. Some announcements may well be made in the not so distant future in relation to that expenditure. It concerns me there was essentially a $13m overspend for that out-of-home care service. Watch this space in terms of how we respond.
I listened very carefully to the shadow minister, but I did miss part of it. I do not know whether she was supporting it or not. I suspect that she was not opposing …
Ms Walker: We said we fully supported it.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, you fully support it; all I can do is respond to your comments with: with friends like you, who really needs enemies? The tirade that followed your support demonstrates you either do not have the courage of your convictions in supporting this or you see this as an opportunity to grab a little traction and mileage so you can go on the attack. That is fine, you go on the attack. That is what you do and it is what politicians do. I am mindful of the other question I have and which I posed earlier: what do I do and who do I listen to?
I went to that SNAICC conference recently and the second last question posed to me was: will you support an ACA? My response to that was, ‘No, I will not. Not in the first instance, not until I can be convinced that such an organisation will have beneficial results for the children of the Northern Territory.’
The other recommendations from the board of inquiry that we have seen followed up led to the creation of SAF,T. We heard the concerns of the Minister for Health about the inability of SAF,T to come even close to what was expected of it.
It is not about the bureaucracy. The moment we start worrying about the bureaucracy, we have lost sight of the children. When I became the minister for this portfolio, I made it clear that my focus will remain strictly in that space.
As far as I am concerned, and so it is clear for the record and anybody to hear, I will apply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This means I will not enter into debates about Aboriginality, gender, race, religion or anything else like that until such time as I am satisfied that the first tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is protected. Issues of cultural significance and privacy take a back seat to safety, security, sustenance and a sustainable environment. That will remain my priority the whole way through this area.
The fact we have a Children’s Commissioner demonstrates that the former government thought it was necessary to create one to be seen to be doing something in an area it was struggling in; I believe it was struggling because it is a tough area. We will struggle in this area, as a government, because if we were to intervene at such a level as to be able to stop these kids being neglected and abused, we would be intervening to a level where we would be institutionalising thousands and thousands of kids. Is that the solution? Will that make for better outcomes for these kids? Historically, and I have said this publicly before, governments make bloody awful parents.
Ms Fyles: That’s Kon’s line.
Mr Vatskalis: My line.
Mr ELFERINK: Is it? Well, they do! In that case, the member for Casuarina and I are of one mind. Historically, governments make shocking parents. Is the solution any better than the problem?
I understand that the opposition has to get some traction against the government, and this will always be a soft area of assault. It is a mixed bag of mixed emotions, and the traction you can get is that we are talking about kids. One of the problems the shadow minister had was having a prepared speech. In relation to addressing the increase in the number of notifications, I drew her attention in the last speech to the graph on the recently tabled Children Commissioner’s report, which demonstrated police activity in this area had been the primary driver for increased reporting. It is on page 42 of the report, and if she had listened to what I said the last time, she would have been fully aware of the fact the increase in reporting was almost exclusively attributable to the police, particularly in the last two years. In the 2010-11 year, police made 1500 notifications, and by the year 2012-13, they were making 3500 notifications. That means and explains – because the police are acting with an abundance of caution – by the time you get to page 51, you will see notifications have gone up; however, investigations have come down slightly and substantiations have fallen substantially. The substantiation fall is something we should take heart from and celebrate as a community.
I welcome the support of honourable members and look forward to the Children’s Commissioner being a separate organ. He is, ultimately, in his function, a police officer, policing the police so to speak, but he is there with good intent and has demonstrated himself to be, in the body of Dr Howard Bath, a fellow of great integrity. I thank him for his service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Other than that, I also point out I have given notice today of the charter of rights, which will be another step in the amendment and refinement of the legislation which protects children. I finish with this observation: this is a mess; it has always been a mess, and it will continue to be a mess because that is the nature of the ghastly outcomes the children, not only in the Northern Territory but in other jurisdictions and throughout the world, have had to live with for centuries, if not millennia. It will not be fixed overnight, but we will endeavour in our limited capacity to do our best for kids into the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (RESTRUCTURING) BILL
(Serial 60)
(Serial 60)
Continued from 27 November 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, members on this side do not support this bill. It is incredibly difficult for us to understand what the urgency is on this bill. We do not believe there are grounds for urgency, other than the political expediency of the CLP endeavouring to meet election commitments and keep certain members on their side happy.
This bill was introduced last Wednesday; even then we tried to delay debate and defer the bill on urgency to enable, as you would expect, adequate consultation to occur. The minister, as you would expect, offered briefings to those of us who sought them. As the shadow minister, I sent an e-mail to the minister’s office at 4.14 pm on Wednesday, 27 November, to which I never received a reply. I was not in Darwin on Friday; I was home on a matter of urgency. Urgency seems to be the order of the day for the government, whether it is trying to force through legislation associated with local government or close the fourth largest community in the Northern Territory. They are quite happy to be doing business on urgency.
I sought a briefing but I never received a response from the minister. that is disappointing and tells me they are not particularly interested. I did receive a briefing, thanks only to the member for Nelson with whom I had a few conversations over the weekend. As a result, I was able to sit in on a briefing, at which the member for Barkly joined me, on Monday afternoon in the member for Nelson’s office. To be honest with you, there was not a great deal the public servants could do to convince us this is good legislation. I acknowledge the efforts they put in as hard-working public servants, but the reality is the bill we are dealing with is more about politics than good policy.
It is a shame that only one week after this bill was introduced, I am on the floor of the House feeling ill-prepared when I have to discuss legislation that is my shadow responsibility. Like all members on this side who have shadow responsibilities, I take those responsibilities seriously, particularly when it comes to bills and legislation because it is important. However, the reality is, as the shadow, I simply have not had the opportunity to canvass stakeholder views as I would normally like to do. I have managed to make a few calls, send a few e-mails and have received a few responses, but it is woefully inadequate preparation before coming into this House. I do not believe the minister can clearly state or demonstrate wide stakeholder support on his side of the House to say this is good legislation.
I acknowledge the hard work the member for Nelson has done. He has graciously and generously shared with me some of the things he has turned up during his contact with stakeholders over the last week. Essentially, I am not able to talk as extensively on this bill as I would have liked to on the strength of feedback I have had from stakeholders, other than those I have spoken with. They agree with members on this side that this is rushed legislation. It is poorly thought through, it is not democratic and there are elements of this bill that give extraordinary powers to the minister.
We do not oppose progressive improvement and strengthening of local government across the Territory. In fact, that was the intent of Labor’s reforms around local government in 2008 when we were in government. These were considerable reforms that were implemented and reforms we knew would have to be reviewed, examined and watched closely to see how they were bedded down. That is what led us to address the issue of financial sustainability across the shires and their ability to deliver local government services across the bush.
We have an exhaustive report from Deloitte, an independent consultancy, that informed government of the current status of our shire reforms in terms of financial sustainability. There is much to be taken out of this report to inform future policy on how we go forward. I do not think the minister is the slightest bit interested in what the Deloitte report contains or what may inform future policy and decisions made about the future of local government. I am not just talking about shires, but about municipal councils as well.
In 2012, having commissioned that report and made it publicly available, we also announced our action as government to address the concerns about the role of local boards and how we could better connect local communities to their shires in terms of decision-making, work priorities and shire administration. We also announced, around that time, in July 2012, we would provide a review of shire boundaries, prior to the 2016 local government elections. We announced the formation of a task force then minister Malarndirri McCarthy had appointed to review the shires. I cannot exactly recall the terms of reference, but it was a broad review with key stakeholders, including certain expertise to look at, ‘Where to next?’ with local government and the next steps for shires.
We envisaged that a process around that review would include the consideration of community recommendations that led to the formation of those 2008 shire boundaries and, within that, internal ward arrangements. We would also hear the views of existing councils, elected councillors, affected communities and key stakeholders who were involved in our local government advisory board. We had done all of these things, to a point, and the current government has simply thrown them out the window.
We would ensure we had a very sound understanding of the costs and benefits of boundary changes, the opportunities and risks, especially to taxpayers who largely underwrite the operations of our shires while they progressively build their financial sustainability. In this body of work around financial sustainability, in relation to this bill on urgency, that element is missing entirely.
Effectively, what we have here is something of a top down intervention by this government, which seems to be entirely at odds with giving a voice to communities, given the consultation process earlier this year, the formation of the Regional Governance Working Group and the review of regional governance. The Regional Governance Working Group has not been engaged in this process. It has not met since June, so what we see here is what you get when you have three Local Government ministers with different ideas about how they want to do things. As we know, the current Local Government minister is very happy to plough through things on urgency, without consultation, to meet what are essentially election, and very political, commitments.
We have a bill before us that provides for unilateral action by the minister to take control of councils, rid himself of elected councillors, take control of assets, including cash assets, and unilaterally establish new council boundaries in town or the bush over most of the remaining period of this government. That prospect is frightening.
There is potentially a huge body of work involved in disassembling the shires. Who will do that work? How will the shires be assisted to disassemble assets, share liabilities, review funding agreements with the Commonwealth and other funding bodies, as well as allocate grant funds for roads and other assets?
None of these questions have been answered, and I do not believe the shires have been consulted on any of them, which is interesting. The shires have not been consulted in this process, which is such an insult to the third tier of government in the Northern Territory – the failure to recognise the progress our shires have made since 2008 and failure to give credit to elected councillors – I know from the observations I have made in my electorate, the many discussions I have had around the Territory with CEOs, mayors, presidents and councillors, where they are available, about the growth in confidence and governance and making a real difference in their communities in delivering municipal services on the ground.
In parliamentary debate last week, the Attorney-General noted that the Henderson Labor government introduced local government transition legislation, including the use of restructuring orders in 2007, which was debated on urgency. However, let us be very clear about the differences between then and now when we are talking about bills on urgency. In 2007, the entire Northern Territory knew that government was embarking on major reform to build a strong system of local government in the bush to improve service delivery and redress the dysfunction – that dysfunction was very real – found in too many of the small community government councils at the time.
That was announced at the LGANT annual conference in 2006. In early 2007, the then Labor government established an overarching and independent local government advisory board to guide and advise government on procedural issues, including transitional arrangements and the use of restructuring orders as part of the transition arrangements. The overarching board included LGANT, the Local Government Managers association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Cattlemen’s Association, the Australian Services Union, the Minerals Council, the land council and the Australian government.
The then Labor government also established a number of transitional committees to advise the board and government on boundary issues, the determination of communities of interest and representation arrangements for elections for the new shire councils. The restructuring arrangements embodied in that legislation were envisaged as tools for the orderly development of the new shire councils. The then Labor government – when I say ‘we’, it was just before my entry into this House – were amalgamating small councils – many of them struggling - into new shires and joining and strengthening resources, rather than pulling apart and separating council resources and assets as is proposed now.
The 2007-08 process was supported by LGANT in the lead up to a new Local Government Act and the first elections for the new shire councils. Restructuring orders were not envisaged as a tool to remove elected members from office. The primary purpose of these orders was to ensure the orderly development of the new local government bodies and, in particular, the orderly transfer of assets.
Asset stripping from the former councils was a key risk identified by the local government sector, so arrangements were put in place to ensure the orderly management of the transfer of assets, many publicly-funded. This was a time when the control of assets, including cash, was a key issue. During that transition period, the discovery was made as shires inherited community government council legacies of decades. I am not saying it was all community government councils, but in too many of them the assets could not be located, or assets were located, such as plant equipment and motor vehicles, but were not functioning.
At that time, we were working in a situation where just a year before the Department of Local Government had assessed that of 56 councils – 30 community government councils, 23 association councils and the three ORIC councils – 50% of them were either high risk or dysfunctional. This is why we went down the path of local government reform during that period. We all know it was not an easy journey, but five years down the road we have maturing shires that have largely dealt with the legacy issues they inherited from the many former community government councils: poor asset controls, rundown assets and very poor financial management and records.
Our transition arrangements were brought in on urgency to enable the July 2008 establishment of the new shires to take effect off the back of local government elections. We were paving the way, with the support of LGANT, for the election of new shires – a smooth transition, not the unilateral sacking of councils. It is important to highlight it was quite different to this occasion. The then opposition was offered a full briefing on the bill two weeks before it was brought to the Assembly, not one week and then you do not receive a response from the minister when you request a briefing.
It is clear many people in the local government sector, including elected members, have little knowledge of the intent of this bill and its potential consequences. Indeed, shire councillors and the local government sector only became aware of the change in direction and proposed intervention when the minister mentioned it at the LGANT conference in Alice Springs a few weeks ago. However, that was really only for people who were there or who relayed the message.
The President of the East Arnhem Shire Council, who I have spoken with in the last couple of days, advised me the council met last Thursday, a day after the bill was introduced on urgency. Officers from the Department of Local Government and Regions addressed councillors and staff about changes to boundaries and how that process might work. No one is objecting to a review of boundaries, not at all, but at no point during that briefing were they advised a bill on urgency had come before the House. It is a very different thing to offering an information session. I wonder, knowing the hard-working public servants based in my electorate, if those officers knew a bill had been introduced on urgency. Most definitely, there was no talk of that when the East Arnhem Shire Council met last Thursday.
The council has since written to the Chief Minister and has given me a copy of that letter. I will read it; it is brief. It is from Banambi Wunungmurra, president of East Arnhem Shire:
- Dear Minister Giles,
Re: Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill 2013
Council has recently been made aware of an amendment to the Local Government Act in relation to restructuring orders that appear are being rushed through parliament.
Given the extensive review of local government which has been conducted recently, and the outcomes of creating local authorities to provide a stronger voice to community, I and my council question the uncommon need for this bill to be urgently rushed through with no consultation or discussions whatsoever.
Not only are the proposed changes to the bill undemocratic, but could have widespread financial and operational implications on councils, shires, and municipals if boundary changes are undergone without a viability report being conducted first, as promised by the previous minister for Local Government.
On behalf of council, I would like to request that a bill of such significance be given the usual four to six week period for considerable debate and discussion and not seven days, which can only appear to be a means of avoiding a democratic process, proper scrutiny, and transparency.
I await your response on this request.
I doubt the Chief Minister or the Local Government minister have seen that letter; it only came through yesterday. This is what happens when you have things pushed through on urgency without proper consultation. To not consult with the third tier of government, the shires, even the municipals, is disgraceful.
This sector had been working, until the announcement came through at LGANT that local government reform was progressing along the lines outlined by the second CLP Local Government minister since the change of government, the member for Namatjira. She had a different way of looking at and managing these reforms. In a media release on 12 August 2013, reporting the results of a 25-member regional governance working group and government response, she said:
- Stage two … will involve a full review into …
… sustainability and viability of regional local government in the Northern Territory. Any further changes such as boundaries will be a result of this process.
That was the way the former Local Government minister did business. She is no longer in Cabinet. We have a new Local Government minister who, clearly with the full blessing of the Chief Minister and colleagues in Cabinet, is happy to throw the commitment to go to stage two out of the window, which was to have commenced in January. They have hit the fast forward button, ignored all warning signs, not bothered with any consultation, and here we are with a bill on urgency that will pass all stages today.
The member for Namatjira had to propose the time line presenting stage two of the reforms, including financial sustainability and viability, to Cabinet by January of 2014, with any further changes following that process. The government’s overview of its review of regional governance said in one line that it would ‘continue to look at possible boundary adjustments’.
The final consultation report records there was a common preference for smaller councils. It goes on to say:
However, there were also comments that the shire councils had improved services generally and should not be dismantled.
Also:
- Boundary issues were not raised as much as anticipated …
…
While individual views focused on reduced size for Regional Councils, equally prevalent were views on council boundaries remaining the same.
- … need to be tested for their broad community or regional support through more detailed consultation.
It goes on to say:
- An assessment of the implications for financial sustainability would also be required.
That was in June of this year. The review panel got it and the member for Namatjira got it while she was the Minister for Local Government. But sensible, fully-costed and orderly change is not what is likely here with the extraordinary powers being given to the current minister to enable him to follow his own agenda, in partnership with the member for Daly who seeks the first boundary changes associated with his electorate. There is nothing wrong with boundary changes, but in the face of such limited consultation and planning, the warning bells are going off for us.
The local government sector had every reason to believe, with the member for Namatjira as the Local Government minister, it could have anticipated – indeed expected – an orderly development process. However, here we are today with a bill on urgency which gives the new minister extraordinary powers and no process to appeal decisions he or she makes.
The debate on urgency is all about convenience for the minister for Local Government and, quite frankly, is an abuse of parliamentary process. It is clear that passage of the bill on urgency has one intent. It clears the way for the minister and the Chief Minister to rush through the establishment of a new local government authority in the Wadeye region. Chief Minister Giles has said, ‘We are very keen to get that going by 1 January 2014’.
We understand the people of Wadeye and surrounding communities, and perhaps in other parts of the Territory – we know Maningrida and Groote Eylandt have been mooted about their aspirations for their own local government bodies. Where does the removal, in this first instance around Wadeye, of this part of the population from the existing Victoria Daly Shire leave other small communities like Timber Creek and Yarralin, which depend on a strong and viable local government body to deliver services to them?
What will be the downstream effects of this decision for those smaller communities in the northern part of the electorate of Stuart? Where will it leave the community of Nauiyu? I do not think it will not be part of this new regional council. What confidence can the people of Wadeye and Peppimenarti have that they will be supported by a financially sustainable new council and not simply handed a financial lemon?
I wonder if the member for Stuart has consulted with her constituents, who will be outside of this new boundary change, about what it will mean for them? I have no doubt that since entering Cabinet much of her time has been sucked up in Darwin. Perhaps she has not had the opportunity to travel to her communities to talk face-to-face with people. That is the only way you can find out what these boundary changes mean for the remainder of the Victoria Daly Shire, not to mention people who are employed through the Victoria Daly Shire. What about the financial sustainability of other councils, which may well find their own financial support declining in order to support a new council?
We have heard the minister flag a new regional council at Groote Eylandt, but to the best of my understanding that is not what they wanted or were aspiring to, but rather a regional authority. How will that process work should that progress? The last thing we want to see is Groote Eylandters with a lemon dropped into their lap. I thank the minister for approaching me prior to the commencement of this second reading debate to offer me a seat on any one of these transition committees. I have told him if the opportunity arises in the East Arnhem shire, should Groote Eylandt choose to progress its aspiration for a regional authority, I would welcome the opportunity to be part of that transition committee and to observe how those processes unfold.
What will happen to the cash reserves of councils that come under the gaze of the minister? How will he determine the share of cash reserves built up by hard-working shire staff and councillors that he may want to appropriate to a new council? What about the impact on shire business plans, built on cash flow and business projections that may no longer be relevant? Will the affected shires be compensated for the work done in good faith and in line with the expected directions of the government? How will they be supported in adjusting to the new ministerial world order? What guarantee do we have there will not be another Cabinet reshuffle – some may welcome that – with another Local Government minister who might have another view of doing business?
Where is the independent review and scrutiny of the minister’s reform proposals? The minister said last week that a transition committee would be established for the Wadeye region and the department’s planning included consideration of applying the same de-amalgamation methodology that was adopted in Queensland. That included publication of Treasury analysis of the cost of de-amalgamation. Can the minister commit today to that simple step as part of his plans? Territorians and taxpayers have a right to know what this will cost them. We ask the minister to table the Treasury analysis: the financial modelling that demonstrates the establishment of the new regional council at Wadeye is sustainable, viable and will not in any way impact negatively upon the remaining communities of the Victoria Daly Shire that fall outside of these boundary changes.
We have had three ministers for Local Government in just over 15 months, all with their own view of how reform will proceed. Who might be in the chair next year, next sittings? Where is the capacity for appeal and review of ministerial decisions, especially on the acquisition of assets? Quite clearly, this legislation is poorly thought out; it is an off-the-shelf solution and is not a well-thought-out or tailored plan for local government development, which is a very important third tier of government in the Territory. It does not support in any way, particularly being introduced on urgency, a sound, open or considered review process. Far from it; it is a licence to dismantle councils and erect new ones at the whim of the minister. I find that frightening.
We oppose the bill and call on the government to talk to LGANT, shires and councils, their employees, their democratically elected members and come up with a new process that is open and accountable: a process that will lead to informed decisions, especially on future cost and viability, and one that continues to build a strong and financially sound system of local government in the bush.
I reiterate that we oppose this bill. I know the member for Nelson is introducing some amendments. I will be interested to hear what reception those amendments get from the minister; I doubt they will be accepted. From an opposition perspective, while I appreciate the efforts of the member for Nelson, it becomes a moot point for the opposition, amendments or otherwise, because we cannot support this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank other members who have spoken on this, but I seem to recall they got thumped on the urgency debate last week, so I am not sure why that keeps coming up. Anyway, I will pick up on a couple of points.
Firstly, we were talking about what the minister will do with the cash reserves, equipment, etcetera that might be held by councils he is splitting up. I have a couple of examples of what happened under the previous restructuring. Palumpa had its own store; many of the locals would spend a lot of time doing paintings and so forth and selling them so they could build their own store. The council took it off them, plus all the profit. They finally got that back in February this year, and I have been told they made a profit for the first time since they got it back. However, Victoria Daly Shire pocketed a lot of the profits from that shop for the last four years, so do not talk to us about cash reserves and so forth.
With equipment, Nauiyu community had its own civil works area. That equipment has disappeared. It is gone under the new shires that the opposition introduced. So for them to say we are not answering these questions is rubbish.
In the last couple of days, some ALP operatives have been ringing many of the CEOs, trying to cause trouble with these sorts of things and spreading their usual lies. I am glad to see many of the CEOs see through that rubbish.
Going back to the minister’s speech, I reiterate why we are doing this. He said:
- It is a priority of this government to give a voice back to people in regional and remote communities…
Consultation was conducted on that basis. It was called an election; an election that you also got thumped at, on local government. That was good consultation, as far as I can tell.
Another point made by the minister is how we will make these changes:
- In order to change the local government structure in the future, to create new councils…
That is what this legislation is all about: to introduce these restructuring orders. When they talk about giving powers to the minister, I remind them that in 2008 the current opposition had the same powers. There were 660 councillors and 500 were removed by the previous government. These sorts of things seem to be forgotten.
We have, in this act, the ability to create transitional advisory committees which will look after the apportioning of the assets, liabilities, etcetera. These are points from the minister’s second reading speech.
I received an e-mail today, which is a copy of a letter written by Tony Tapsell, the CEO of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory; I will read a couple of things from it. These points are in regard to an e-mail from the member for Nelson about the restructuring of local government which was sent to many of the CEOs. The e-mail from Tony Tapsell says:
- He would like LGANT to make a fuss …
It seems the Labor Party was trying to do that too.
- … and he was fairly emotive in his response.
I am just reading what I have here. The other statement says:
- We all knew the legislation was going to contain provisions which provide the minister with power to restructure a council in much the same way that was done in 2008.
That is interesting! LGANT does not seem to have too much of a problem.
- We all recognise and understand the minister for Local Government must have the powers under legislation necessary to effect structural changes to local government.
The provisions of the bill were discussed with the Local Government Association in Queensland. The officers advised me the provisions are very similar to the powers the minister has in that state. At the end, it says:
- At this stage, LGANT has no option but to support these measures.
As far as I can see, there is nothing here that creates any problems, but I am quite happy to table those documents. If I do not, I am sure the minister will in his response.
The point I am making is there has been plenty of consultation ..
Ms Walker: No, there has not.
Mr HIGGINS: There may not be in your electorate, but I get out in mine and consult with the people. An election is a pretty good consultation. I see many similarities in this between local government and the federal carbon tax. The previous federal government lost the election; that, as far as I can see, was a statement by the people to say they do not want a carbon tax, but the Labor Party wanted to fight it all the way. It seems to be the same with local government; they had an election, they were thumped, why do they not support this bill? Why do they not recognise the people of the Territory have spoken? They want their voice back; give it to them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be speaking on the carbon tax, but I might emit a bit. I had baked beans at the caf under the West Lane car park this morning, so you never know.
Member for Daly, as much as I like your speeches, we are talking about this bill. This bill did not go to any council until it was brought into parliament last Wednesday. There might have been discussions in general, and I know the feedback from councils at the last LGANT meeting was pretty dismal, but this is the crux of the matter, this piece of paper, and is what this debate is about.
Thank you for the copy of the letter from Tony Tapsell. Unfortunately, he did not bother to send it to me, but I did not write ‘LGANT would want to make a fuss’. I wrote that LGANT should do something about it; if that is a fuss, fair enough. As for ‘fairly emotive’, sometimes you have to drive an issue you consider important with a bit of emotion, otherwise it is boring as hens’ teeth.
This issue requires some passion and, unfortunately, you can see by the state of the House, Madam Speaker, this government could not care two hoots about local government. I look around and stare at the faces – I cannot see the faces – and what I see reflects what they think about the importance of local government and this bill. That is a shame, because for too long, local government has been put down by governments above it. It is time our government showed some support and concern about governance.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry for interrupting, member for Nelson, but he raises a good point. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, it is a difficult debate to progress. I was looking at the minister when the member for Nhulunbuy was speaking and I believe he finds it boring because he has made his mind up and anything I say today is a waste of time. We could probably be outside enjoying life. Unfortunately, the reality is this is a House of debate. You presented legislation which some think is seriously faulty. That does not mean we do not agree there should be some legislation in place for restructuring councils. However, we have great concerns about the manner in which this has been introduced and the lack of consultation with those people who are directly affected. With those two points; the government should stop and rethink where it is going. If the minister thinks an e-mail from Tony Tapsell, which says, ‘That gives me great comfort’ – this is the media release that came out today from the Local Government Association:
- The Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) notes that the Northern Territory government has rushed through legislation amending the Northern Territory Local Government Act.
The minister for Local Government has advised the proposed changes to the Local Government Act are to support the reforms to regional and remote areas. There is a sunset clause of 1 January 2016 for this amendment.
‘I am advised that the government is introducing this amendment to support the restructuring of the remote and regional local government areas. However, going forward it is imperative there is full and comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders and the broader community on any other major changes’, said LGANT President, Damien Ryan.
As an equal partner, the government should ensure that they consult with LGANT and key local government stakeholders on any legislative or policy changes that will impact on them.
Clear as crystal. You have not consulted with the main body of government that will be affected by these changes.
This bill is being rushed through to achieve a political goal, not a local government role. It is not really about a government that is a true believer in local government, of people they represent or democracy. This bill has confused local government people because they have not had sufficient time to properly debate or look at other options regarding this bill. You just had to hear this LGANT media release that came from Damien Ryan at lunchtime today.
Why is such important legislation being rammed through parliament without proper scrutiny? The minister is deliberately avoiding scrutiny of this bill. Scrutiny means it goes to all those who are affected, you wait until they give you some feedback and then, hopefully, if the legislation needs to be adjusted you take that on board. I thought that was the role of the minister for Local Government. He has a role, a duty, to talk to members of local government in the Northern Territory, not give them one week to comment. Much of that work has been done by people who are not part of government.
I had to send e-mails out about the bills; I asked for comment. I sent out some other e-mails about what is happening and mentioned possible amendments to improve the bill. Has the government done any of that? No, they just expect this to go through.
After searching through the second reading speech, there seem to be three key points the minister is trying to make. Firstly, he said the government met with more than 100 Indigenous Territorians who told the meeting of the Chief Minister, me, the local member, Gary Higgins and others that they want their own council, and that is what government is giving them. He later said:
- When you find a place that almost unanimously decides it wants to be on its own, we have said, as a government, we will listen to people and, where practical, will respect their points of view and implement what they want.
If I am right, that happened three weeks ago. The minister has listened to the people – all 100 of them – and by that unanimous decision, we have decided to give them a new council. The population of the Victoria Daly is about 8000. You call that unanimous? I would have expected a long-term approach to this, not three weeks, not 100 people. You could have looked at a plebiscite asking people in the area if they agree. As I said, a plebiscite or a referendum is no good unless you inform people of the issues.
On top of that, you have no idea if the breaking up of the Victoria Daly Shire will be viable, so we have decided to go ahead with this council, regardless of whether it is viable. Will you go ahead with this council if it is not viable? If someone asks about it – if you find out after you eventually fulfil the promise the previous minister for Local Government made that there would be a review of the viability of all local government councils and we would then look at boundaries. If you are not going to agree with that promise or break that promise, can you tell me what will happen if and when you take that section of the Victoria Daly Shire out of the Victoria Daly Shire and you find it is not viable or you have to pour millions of dollars into it? Will you say no, or is it just blind Freddy going down the path of, ‘Well, we made a promise and no matter what it will cost we will stick with our promises’? That is dumb.
I did not realise getting a new council was so easy. You just say to the minister, ‘Look, I have 50 people here, we need a new council and at the next election, we will support you’. You say, ‘Great idea’. That is silly, and when you come back and say, ‘We made a promise to give people a better voice in their local government’, why have you not let the local authorities, just approved by this parliament, have a chance to be established first? See how that goes in giving people a better voice. I would have thought you would say, ‘Let’s allow 12 months of operating under that system and see how it goes’.
The key here was not changing boundaries, not so much viability – because we know local government is on its bare bones, you only have to read the Deloitte inquiry – it was giving people a better voice. I have spoken before and said places like Nauiyu, Barunga and Beswick have been screaming out for ages that they have not had enough of a voice in these big, new local governments, and you have introduced local authorities. I do not know whether they are even set up, so why are you going down this extra path, before you find out whether they are working or not? You have said they will operate in the Victoria Daly Shire; you are now going to chop a bit out of the Victoria Daly Shire. Do some of those local authorities no longer exist? Have they become a waste of time because you have a smaller council? I do not know. This is a mess.
The second issue in what we are discussing today – I am taking this from your second reading speech – is this new amendment an amendment to the Local Government Act? There is good reason to change the act if restructuring is to occur; that is natural. It seems no one saw this bill until last Wednesday, including local government. No one was able to make meaningful comment as they did not have time to digest it. Could you say, for instance, if councils were given enough time to take it to their meetings so all members could have a say?
Most councils would prefer to take important legislation like this to a meeting which includes members of the public. Most councils have a meeting on a set day, maybe the second, third or fourth Thursday of the month. Did you give councils enough time to take this legislation, which is legislation that affects them, to one of their meetings?
I know the answer, but I have to ask you. You have avoided proper process, which is not about slowing things down, it is about making sure those who live in and work within local government have a chance to express an educated opinion before this law is passed. I refer back to LGANT’s media release. What is annoying – you will hammer the idea this is a big hurry – is you will not concede that if you do things too quickly, you are liable to make a mistake because you have not consulted.
Minister, you know one of my main concerns – this was raised at the briefing – is section 10C (1), (d) and (f). I will read from the bill to make it clear. This is under the restructuring order:
- (1) The minister may make an order (a restructuring order) that the minister considers necessary or desirable to facilitate the restructuring of the system of local government, including an order to:
…
- (d) suspend from office, or terminate the term of office of, the principal member or any other member of a council, or …
If you read further, it says:
- (f) appoint a person to fill a vacancy in the membership of a council, including in the office of the principal member, or …
And it goes on.
Looking at the local government de-amalgamation implementation regulations brought out this year which are now current and in process where full councils in Queensland are being de-amalgamated, there is no mention of sacking mayors and councillors, so why do we need it in the NT?
Our bill is weak. Compare it with the Queensland regulations. The Queensland bill simply introduces regulations to the Local Government Act which allow for de-amalgamation of full councils that are specified. That is the purpose of the bill.
Ours has a clause which says ‘restructuring orders’. The world ‘restructuring’ has not been defined, but in the dictionary it says, ‘to give a new structure to, rebuild, or rearrange’, whereas ‘de-amalgamation’ simply means reversal of a previous amalgamation.
The question is, why did we not call this ‘de-amalgamation’? It is clear, precise and exact about what you are doing. Restructuring can mean anything; it can mean you can restructure Palmerston and Darwin councils. You might say, ‘It has nothing to do with that’.
The bill does not say you cannot use those powers. This bill is not exclusive to local government shires being restructured; these are broad powers. You said, ‘We are not going to use them for that; I am not a quasi-dictator’, so why are they in here? Why do you need them? As they are written, they could be applied to anything you decide needs restructuring. If you want Douglas Daly or Coomalie to join Litchfield, whether it is a good idea or not, you could sack all councillors, restructure it and join them all together. You do not need to do that, but this power enables you to.
This bill is open ended in which councils the minister can apply a restructuring order to and what type of restructuring he can enforce, including the sacking of mayors and councillors. This gives the minister power far beyond what is needed to deal with any proposed de-amalgamations in the Territory.
To quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill 2013 which will give me the powers I need to restructure local government as appropriate.
Not shires, ‘local government as appropriate’. That is a very broad statement. ‘Appropriate’ could mean anything – just what you feel like, just like the heading, ‘desirable’. That is a very broad brush to be applying.
The minister said during the urgency debate:
- I sincerely disagree with you that I am set up as some sort of quasi-dictator…
The minister already has power under section 224 to sack councillors, but only if something is amiss: there is a reason for the sacking and due process which follows. Under section 224, we know why you do it and there is a reason for it. With this bill, we have a law under which the minister can sack councillors for not doing anything wrong. The minister just has to say it was desirable and necessary for restructuring. We do not have any idea what restructuring or restructuring orders mean.
Where is the principle of natural justice? The minister can sack a duly elected local government person. Surely natural justice or procedural fairness must apply, but this bill is silent on that. If a councillor has been accused of doing something wrong, at least they can state their case under section 224 as to why they should not be sacked. In this case, they have not done anything wrong, but the minister can sack them and they have no right to appeal or object. That is unfair and undemocratic.
It has also been said that this bill will help councils having to pay for the cost of by-elections because of resignations. With this bill, they can just get the minister to appoint a replacement. That is an electoral matter and should be dealt with in an amendment to the definition of general election in the Local Government Act. I would be happy to put forward some options – one of those is in this amendment – and appointment by a minister is not one of them. For instance, if Victoria Daly Shire is finding it too expensive for two by-elections, change the act to allow councils to carry out their own elections. That could be amended. At present, all elections are run by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and I understand it is a very expensive process. Why can the council not run elections themselves, or use the system of recount that happens in Tasmania? I quote from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website:
- When a vacancy occurs a new member is elected by a recount process based on votes cast at the previous general election. Only unsuccessful candidates at the general election are eligible to contest the recount. Only the ballot papers which were used to elect the vacating member are distributed in the recount. These votes are distributed to contesting candidates. The candidates receiving the least votes are excluded until a candidate receives the majority (50% + 1).
They use proportional representation, something I raised about 10 years ago with LGANT to promote and we now have it in the Northern Territory. We use the same process. Tasmania has the method of replacing people where there is a casual vacancy.
I am putting forward an amendment to the bill today which would allow that to happen without the minister appointing people. That is not your role. These councils have been elected democratically by the people and it is not your role to step in. While you have a role to play in ensuring the Local Government Act is operating correctly, we do not need Big Brother to step in where it is someone else’s responsibility.
I gather the other reason – this is not clear from reading your second reading speech – you want to bring these powers in is because the Victoria Daly Shire sees a possible general election. If you use the Queensland de-amalgamation regulations, you will find they have a document regarding the methodology required. I will see if I have the right name; it is called the De-amalgamation Transfer Methodology. These are the guidelines for councils in Queensland to operate so all know the timetable. For instance, between October and December this year, there will be elections held for new councils at a date to be determined by the minister. There will be a changeover day, and on 1 January 2014 the term of mayor and councillors for each new council commences. They have an election for both councils.
My understanding of the reason you have these clauses is because Victoria Daly does not want a full election. Victoria Daly did not ask to be split; some people from another group in another council are saying it wants to split. That new council should pay for Victoria Daly’s election or, if the government is putting money into this new council, it should set some aside for specific elections. If you have two elections on the same date, you will get a new council for the old part of Victoria Daly Shire and will have, at the same time, a council for the new portion of the Victoria Daly Shire. You do not need to sack anyone because all councillors automatically retire at the time of the new election. That is how it is done in Queensland, and how it would be done normally.
You might say the previous government did a similar thing. I did not agree with the previous government’s approach of appointing CEOs and not having elected members for the first six months or so, and I do not agree it is necessary. I would love an explanation of why you cannot live without those two clauses.
Some people in LGANT believe the government will only use the bill in relation to proposed de-amalgamation of some councils, but there is nothing in this amendment to say that. There are hints in the second reading speech, but nobody has a definition of restructuring orders or restructuring. It is not in the act and not in the amendment.
A number of council mayors definitely do not support what you are doing. Call the mayor of Katherine; pop outside, call her and ask what she thinks. I will not say what she thought; I might get pulled up by the Speaker again. She thinks it is rubbish. The West Arnhem Shire mayor came into my office and he was absolutely fuming. There was no consultation, he did not agree with it and thought government did not care; that is the feeling you get from government. I rang Allan McKay from Litchfield Council and he did not agree. The member for Nhulunbuy has mentioned East Arnhem Shire as well. These are four big councils that do not agree …
Ms Walker: I forgot to mention MacDonnell Shire; they do not agree.
Mr WOOD: MacDonnell wants to stay a shire, not a region.
There is one other group of people we keep forgetting and that is the people who expect to be able to elect their local representative as a basic political right. Minister, you might say this is not what you are talking about, but this amendment could be used any way any minister wants, and that is what concerns me. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia is a signatory to, says, under Article 25:
- Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
…
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors
One of the privileges bestowed on new citizens when they attend a citizenship ceremony is the right to vote and elect Australia’s governments, which include ours. In the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, section 6 which gives us legislative power says:
- Subject to this Act, the Legislative Assembly has power, with the assent of the Administrator or the Governor-General, as provided by this Act, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory.
Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia stated, when deciding whether a law was validly made:
- The correct general principle is … whether the law in question can be truly described as being for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion concerned.
There is no doubt taking away the rights of people to vote for their representatives in local government and sacking councillors and mayors without good reason does not reflect good government. I would support most of this bill if these two clauses were removed. The Queensland regulations are able to provide certainty in the de-amalgamation process without sacking anybody, so it should be taken out of the legislation.
The minister will tell me this can only be used when restructuring, but does not define restructuring. The intention might be to use it only in certain circumstances, but the clauses in the bill could be used anywhere, anytime, as long as the circumstances come under the term ‘restructuring’. The changes can be made without having these undemocratic clauses, if only the minister wished to do it.
What is happening today is what I call the third part of this government’s approach to this bill, rushing it through parliament which avoids normal scrutiny. The minister, in his second reading speech, made these statements:
- Waiting for the next sittings to pass the legislation will exacerbate the situation. The sooner these appointments are made, the sooner they can get on with the many tasks associated with restructuring the council.
…
- To get this process happening and provide clarity to the people affected by these decisions, this legislation must be passed now as urgent legislation. A delay would mean another three months of uncertainty …
I have never asked for that. I thought we would come back by February for the next sittings when I asked for some time to have a look at it. The minister went on to say:
- A delay would mean another three months of uncertainty, doubt and hardship for all current Victoria Daly Shire constituents, and council staff in particular.
He also said:
- With each passing day the local government system, introduced by the previous government, continues to further marginalise already disadvantaged ….
Hang on! You just passed the local authorities bill; you have already done something. The minister then went on to say:
- What the bill does is give me the power I need to put in place the necessary processes to effect those changes. It is urgent so we can move forward and give people certainty into the future.
This bill is flawed and anyone who supports this bill, with the two clauses in it, is against the democratic principles that make us a free nation. Being an Australian gives us the right to freely elect someone from our community to represent us, whether federal, Territory or local government …
Mr Tollner: Think about that statement.
Mr WOOD: I will, because you changed the clauses. Our local government may be regarded by some as minor and insignificant, as I believe the minister thinks, and there will be those who say it is only local government, so what does it matter whether the minister has the right to sack the elected representatives? If he is doing it for a good reason, who cares? It is the end that justifies the means. We, as the members of this parliament, have a duty to protect the democratic rights of our citizens, whether they live at Lajamanu, Larrimah or Larrakeyah, to use a Tim Fischer expression.
From the footy club to the federal government, we pride ourselves on having the right to vote someone in or out. To some, this may be a small and insignificant piece of legislation, with even smaller or more insignificant clauses within it, but that does not matter. It eats away at our freedom. As Martin Luther King once said:
- Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Barkly. In summing up, I understand the minister will say, ‘No, this is not what it is about’, but he has never given an explanation as to why those two clauses need to be in the bill, why he cannot operate by amending parts of the Local Government Act. As I am putting forward, there is a way for him to overcome the issues the Victoria Daly Shire have put to him. We should not be making legislation based on the concerns of just one shire. This legislation applies to all local government shires, all municipalities – I am not sure if there are any community government councils anymore – as well as the unincorporated areas.
The minister has total power to sack anyone under the banner of restructuring, if he thinks it is desirable or necessary, and there is no appeal; he can just do it. The minister should give local government time to look at this bill. He may laugh at that and say, ‘Well, I do not care what you say, it is irrelevant and I am passing it’. That reflects arrogance towards the processes. It is about putting political goals ahead of the people. It is showing a lack of due diligence that governments will decide to make new councils without the promise the member for Namatjira made when she was minister. This promise was there would be a second review, which would look at the viability of all councils, and after that review they would look at the boundaries.
I thought that was a sensible suggestion. The government had already introduced local authorities and we have not even had a chance to have them set up. I do not think they are set up. Why do we not give them a 12 month set up time before we make any decisions? That could be done before we go down the path of making new councils. Why do we not wait for the report of the response to that review?
I have never said I am against boundary changes. I have never said I am against having other councils. In fact, I am the one who said the councils are too big and that is why they have lost their community focus. I would be a fool to say I support a council breaking away from another council if those councils were found to be unviable. In the end, the money that will prop up an unviable council comes from the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. If government makes a decision based purely on a political promise and disregard whether a council will be viable or not, it is a dereliction of its duty to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. Surely we can be cleverer than that. The previous minister for Local Government set up a good process which would at least achieve an orderly approach to this issue.
I am extremely disappointed that the minister for Local Government, from what I have heard, does not appear to want to accept these amendments. I hope a bolt of lightning hits him, like on the road to Damascus, and he says, ‘I can still achieve all the things I want to without introducing something which is totally undemocratic and unnecessary’.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present
Mr WOOD: As someone who I hope supports the correct processes, I ask the minister to withhold this legislation until the February sittings. I ask you, as someone who is passionate about the importance of local government and does not want to see legislation go through that is faulty and could come back to bite local government, to listen to what the Local Government Association has said today. I will repeat it:
- I am advised the government is introducing this amendment to support the restructuring of the remote and regional local government areas. However, going forward, it is imperative there is full and comprehensive consultation with key stakeholders and the broader community on any other major changes …
- As an equal partner, the government should ensure they consult with LGANT and key local government stakeholders on any legislative or policy changes that will impact them.
That says it all. They are asking for consultation on this bill, as am I. If you get the consultation, you get the support of local government. If you ram this through today, do not expect local government to give you the support you need. It would be better if we all went together supporting what you are trying to do. This process is the wrong way to go about achieving positive changes in local government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose the passage of this legislation. I am a very privileged Territorian to have lived in the bush for more than half my life. The people of the bush have certainly provided me, my family and my children with an education we could not get anywhere else. I chose to avoid bureaucracy. I chose to live on cattle stations and outstations. I eventually drifted back to town, and when I arrived back into the more organised bureaucracy of communities, I took a real interest in the community government council. It was quite celebrated across the bush in those days that, when it came to money, the community government council was strapped for cash. They were running out of money, and what were we going to do? We will ask the government for more money. I found that to be a very interesting approach. What I see today is the minister taking a major retrograde step heading back into that same ideology. That is the risk because of flawed legislation and a flawed process.
In this House of debate, I always look for the alternative position to put forward. Without a doubt, the member for Nelson would be the most experienced person in this House in relation to local government. The member for Nelson is a well-researched local member and has put a very clear alternative to government. It is a pragmatic suggestion that could save a world of pain. Let us face it, when the community government councils had to be reformed it was a painful and ongoing exercise.
The previous Labor government had more stages in that reform, but the member for Daly takes great delight in reminding us the previous Labor government was thumped in the bush over this issue. It is ironic that the member for Daly uses that story because it goes back to how that election was won and what I have defined in this House as the CLP’s toxic election strategy in relation to shires. It was the expectation strategy formed in the bush, the expectation the shires were to be scrapped, the old community government councils were coming back and the low loaders would come over the horizon carrying the graders, tippers, Toyotas and civil construction gear of that era back into each of these small jurisdictions. There are people in the Barkly electorate still waiting for that. That is how effective that toxic shire strategy was.
We saw an element of rationalism enter the debate and a series of new CLP Local Government ministers trying to manage this. The member for Daly spoke about Nauiyu and all the civil construction gear that disappeared. It did not disappear; it was part of this challenging and painful major reform that represented the change on the national scene and the Territory scene in the third tier of government at the local government level.
When I looked at this, I looked for a clear alternative. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, the spokesperson for Local Government from the opposition, who also guided me through the legislation. I then took an interest in what the member for Nelson put forward, a pragmatic opportunity to do this in not only a democratic sense but a rational and commonsense approach to ensure we do not put any expectation in people’s minds that will impact not only on the operation of the new model, but on the operation of all shires that surround it. Let us face it, this is a big place and the people I represent in the Barkly are most interested in where this sits.
The first question is, why Victoria Daly? Why one shire? The answer would be, ‘We have to start somewhere’. However, it is ironic the member for Daly, the great defender of this amendment, will be first. I believe Groote Eylandt and Maningrida will be next. What about MacDonnell and Daly? There is a synergy in possible boundaries there. Victoria Daly and MacDonnell, MacDonnell and Barkly; we will then talk about Roper Gulf and Barkly, East Arnhem and West Arnhem. As the member for Nelson pointed out, taking Maningrida from any shire is a major logistical component that will have a residual effect on the operations, sustainability and financial viability of those around it.
I decided to put it to the Nick Calacouras test. Nick Calacouras was a former NT News journo. He taught me as a minister, and I coined the phrase ‘the Nick Calachorus test’. What is it, why is it different from the previous, and how much does it cost?
The minister’s answer was, ‘Just trust me, it will be all okay’. I get a bit nervous in this House because I am starting to sense there are many CLP members in government who are not taking an interest in what the leadership team is doing. I find it to be an environment that is rather frightening, regarding the leadership team of the CLP having private meetings with an ideology of, ‘Do not worry about that, this other mob are not really interested. They are not really going to kick up a fuss. We will just jam it through.’ That concerns me because we have many members from the bush here. When we start to see these boundary changes and new powers of hire and fire we will receive a considerable backlash from other areas of the Territory. This minister may be setting himself up to fail.
What is it, minister? It is a boundary change. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, we do not have a problem with boundary changes. However, my learning from the member of Nelson is if you start to push out or squeeze boundaries, that reverberates and has big impacts on everybody else. That is of concern. There is an alternative: the independent boundary commission. That is a great, logical suggestion. It would examine this legislative instrument, do the research and present it back to government. Then we could all debate it, including the members for Arnhem, Namatjira, Stuart and Arafura. We could look at what those experts say. That is a very pragmatic element of this debate, a very good opportunity for the minister to take on board and make sure we get this right.
The other part of the Nick Calacouras test is: why it is different from the previous? It is different from the previous? We are talking about the major reform in 2007 and 2008 of the old community government council landscape into shires. It is different from that because this is a knee-jerk reaction based on politics to satisfy an election promise from the member for Daly. Why is the hot potato suddenly in the Victoria Daly Shire? The toxic shire CLP election campaign created expectations across the Territory. The words ‘scrapping of shires’ still reverberate around the whole of the Territory. It is not just Victoria Daly we are talking about; it is everybody else as well.
Why is this different? It is radically different because this is bad policy reflecting bad politics. It is not being done on any thorough research or conducted in a democratic sense. It is just being done to satisfy a certain group of people in the Territory who are making waves. The local member has the first jump. There is then some talk of phase two next, but no real detail around that. I do not think this government knows where it is really going with the planned changes to Victoria Daly. I ask myself, what is the pressure point here? Why, suddenly, in the last parliamentary sittings of 2013? I have formed the opinion there is a fire sale going on. Expectations have been raised because the member for Daly has been spruiking these changes to the constituency.
When I say a fire sale, I reflect on what happened in Tennant Creek when the major reform from the old community government landscape to the new environment of the shires was taking place. A municipal council started to garnish assets and push them to one side to keep them out of the model. We saw the debacle over the Juno Horse Centre which went on for months and months. We saw attempts to purchase the CEO’s house, the community council administrative centre, and it had to be stopped. This is a pressure point the minister is feeling
I had the privilege to work with the Victoria Daly Shire on road contracts. That was the whole ambition of government, in terms of financial sustainability: to build work into those shires, get local people jobs and do the work on country. The Victoria Daly Shire had some really good contract work, with significant civil capacity. Those road gangs were leading the field with that shire reform in the Northern Territory. I would suggest, with a considerable civil capacity and the value of those assets, there must be some serious jostling now and concern about how that will be dealt with, in what is a knee-jerk reaction. The immediate response is to start pushing around boundaries, setting up a new council and working out who gets what, how this works and what goes forward from there later down the track. Reflecting on what I saw happen in Tennant Creek, there could be some serious pressure points in this situation. That does not reflect good process. It does not reflect the passing of good legislation in this House. It reflects, once again, a debacle and the potential to create a serious legacy for government.
We go to the third point of the Nick Calacouras test and that is: how much will it cost? We interrogated the CLP government in estimates this year and there is a budget appropriation of $6.2m to scrap the shires. That was articulated very clearly. I have been using that $6.2m and the $5m for paperwork on the Palmerston hospital, as well as the $9m the Chief Minister made a withdrawal on and then deposited into the Chief Minister’s department account. I have been aggregating these figures to show the people in the Barkly there are serious savings that can be made with the CLP budget when they preach doom and gloom and why we are not seeing much happening around the Barkly after a four-year record infrastructure investment.
There is $6.2m budgeted to scrap the shires. How much will be spent to scrap the Victoria Daly Shire? How much is budgeted to scrap the West Arnhem Shire and excise Maningrida? How much will be spent on the Groote Eylandt model? The answer is pretty logical: we do not know. We know there is a figure of $6.2m appropriated to scrap the shires. Now, the member for Daly has the first cab off the rank; he has his mitts into that $6.2m first of all. He will start to see the appropriation of money into scrapping the Victoria Daly Shire, creating a new shire – not quite sure of the viability, not quite sure of the financial sustainability of either of those models because the research has not been done. This legislative instrument is quite clear; it provides the minister with the power to scrap the shires. As we have heard in this debate, there has been no thorough research to back this up.
I thank the departmental officials for the briefing I was able to attend. It was very clear in that briefing there was certain tension around the politics of this. The public officials are very professional and hard-working diligent public servants who are implementing government policy. There was definitely that tone of politics that could not be denied, but I did get some good notes. I was able to learn and I really enjoy those opportunities to learn from experts in the public sector. When we are talking about the separation of these shires, we are talking about grant programs, staff, assets, housing, changing names and changing electoral boundaries. That is a very brief summary of what needs to be done. There is an enormous amount of work and understanding needed because it is not just the Victoria Daly that will incur these changes, it will be all surrounding shires. It will be the new council or whatever it will be called. When you get down to just changing the logos, you see the costs escalate considerably. There is $6.2m worth of taxpayers’ money allocated to scrap the shires, and I ask the minister to give us a breakdown in his wrap of how much of that $6.2m the member for Daly has garnished to be first cab off the rank and scrap the Victoria Daly Shire.
The member for Nelson also talked about an independent boundary commission. That is a very pragmatic opportunity for the minister to put the brakes on, get an initiative up and running and bring real evidence back to the Territory taxpayer about what the changes will bring. Having said that, I commend the Chief Minister for creating the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. The work of that committee, the research and valuable information that will be brought back to government, has demonstrated to me how important and effective that process can be within the parliamentary system. It is a great opportunity and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for nominating me as one of the members, along with my colleague, the member for Casuarina, as deputy chair. It is a process of real learning. It is determining the facts. It will provide government with solid policy advice.
The member for Nelson, who is very experienced in this area, has proposed an independent boundary commission. He has even given the minister a suggested line-up of people who should be on it. This would be worthwhile before we go down the road of appropriating $6.2m and find ourselves backed into a corner with no way out.
I have talked about the multiplier effect in shifting boundaries. Financial sustainability is really important. It has been talked about and is a major concern. I will go back to what has been quoted previously in this debate. The previous CLP minister, minister Anderson, is quoted, reporting the CLP government response to 25 members at a regional governance working group:
Stage 2 … will involve a full review into …
… sustainability and viability of regional local government in the NT. Any further changes such as boundaries will be a result of this process.
It is a two-step process. The minister was very clear and very wise because she could see that this needed to be researched thoroughly and needed to be a two-stage process. The research of sustainability and the multiplier effect as to how it will relate to all the shires within the Territory needs to be done before we go down this road fraught with potential and real trouble, not only with finance, but also social impact. The community government council model not only had a two-world approach in my opinion – the joke was, ‘What happens when you run out of money? You just put your hand out and ask the government for more.’ It also had elements of real exploitation, and when I talk about this area, I reflect back on the member for Braitling and his discussion around local government when he was the first CLP minister and spoke about cultural empowerment.
I have always thought I understood the concept, but how do we deliver that? The previous Labor government took that element on and was looking at pragmatic ways to deliver more empowerment in a cross-cultural context. I had input into that debate; I was very vocal with what I had learnt over many years in the bush and what I had seen in development of the shire model.
However, the minister has not spoken about any of the cultural factors in what will happen. If an area of the Victoria Daly is annexed off and concentrates on Wadeye, for instance, tell me how it will be different for a community government council? How will it be different in the outcomes it will provide? Talk about cultural empowerment for that area of the Northern Territory, and we can then apply those principles to all the other shires which will be very interested in what is taking place.
It can work in a positive context. It should work through good policy based on research; however, this is a fast-track, a knee-jerk reaction. It is pure politics on the west coast of the Northern Territory by one of the protagonists of the ‘scrap the shires’ policy who has an element of the constituency, which numbers in the thousands, that has applied pressure to break away and get out of this model. I ask why? To become empowered. As the minister said, it is a democracy. ‘I am giving people their rights. They have spoken and I will deliver.’ That is okay for a small section on the west coast, but where will it apply to the rest of us? Where will it be honest, open and accountable, and where will it be equal? We do not really know.
I would like to hear how the minister will appropriate that cash. I am interested in where the minister is heading once he gains the power to hire and fire, once he has the tools to fast-track these local government changes and acquires the tools to deal with what is quite challenging in the bush where we have a turnover in councillors, necessary by-elections, and we need to continue to empower people through education and awareness. The tools the minister has will be readily available in cost cutting exercises and quick fixes, but, unfortunately, lacking accountability and transparency, they relate to ministerial appointments. This happens to be the flavour of the CLP and it is not new.
I lived under the CLP for 27 years, but this smacks of jobs for the boys, ministerial appointments – appoint the mates. This one further concerns me, as these tools will be able to avoid the true democratic processes, cut corners, avoid the by-elections and allow the minister to make those changes.
It will be interesting to hear the wrap. I will say one last time: there is an alternative; the member for Nelson has suggested a serious alternative. It might take slightly more time, but it could save the Territory taxpayer, save the Victoria Daly Shire, and save a great deal of grief on the west coast of the Northern Territory should things go horribly wrong from very poor legislation being rushed through this House as a knee-jerk reaction to political promises made by the Country Liberal Party.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of this place who have contributed to the debate. Some parts of the debate were quite hysterical and lacking in any type of reason.
This bill enables this government to deliver on our promises. I will say it again: this bill enables this government to deliver on our promises. It is enabling legislation in that it does not make changes to any councils, but it gives me the power I need to make orders as necessary.
The government was elected on the promise to review and reform Labor’s system of shires, and that is what we will do. I have heard the scare campaign which has been going on, from the member for Nelson in particular, and in general from the Labor Party that has exaggerated and distorted the purpose of this legislation.
The member for Nelson has been trying to frustrate this process for the last couple of weeks. He has jumped in with a motion for local government and last night tried to pull a swiftie in the parliament to get something up. He has had a great rant about bumping this on to a committee and getting another group involved. What the member for Nelson is saying, fundamentally, is we have to disregard the commitments we have given to the people of the Northern Territory, abdicate our responsibility as a government, and go to some chicken farmer’s committee he wants to set up. This guy is bizarre!
We were elected to govern, and that is exactly what we will do. We will not abdicate our responsibilities to other committees. It is a disgraceful example of causing concern and aggravation for absolutely no reason apart from base political motives. That is exactly what this is about: the member for Nelson trying to cause concern and anxiety.
The member for Daly made note of a letter which was sent by Tony Tapsell to LGANT members around the Territory. I will read the entire letter onto the record:
- Good Afternoon,
By now all of you would have received an e-mail from the member for Nelson, Hon Gerry Wood MLA, about amendments to the Local Government Act to do with restructuring of local government. The member for Nelson:
would like LGANT to make a fuss
LGANT has received little in the way of feedback from councils on the matter (and certainly not at the general meeting in November 2013) although all of us have not had much time to study the legislation.
We all knew the legislation was going to contain provisions which provide the minister with powers to restructure a council (in much the same way that was done in 2008 for the shires) however, it was not until late last week (when I sent you all the papers on it) were we able to view its content. The legislation is expected to go before parliament tomorrow and becomes law once the Administrator gives it assent. This is expected to happen by the new year and remains as law until 1 January 2016 when it expires.
So it is near on impossible to do anything about it now and particularly since restructuring is what the government has always said it would do.
I gather we all recognise and understand that the minister for Local Government must have the powers under legislation necessary to effect structural changes to local government. There are some differences to the 2008 legislation which I understand have been introduced in part to provide for vacancies in councils and therefore avoid the necessity for by-elections.
Councillors terms of office were terminated in 2008 under restructuring orders so there is nothing new there. At the time there …
… some 660 members in councils and that reduced down to 160, a loss of some 500 elected members.
Also I read out the provisions of the bill to LGA of Queensland officers who advise me the provisions are very similar to the powers the minister has in that state.
The Minister for Local Government, Hon David Tollner MLA, advised LGANT delegates at the general meeting in Alice Springs on 11 May 2013 that transition committees will be set in place to deal with the myriad of issues that arise out of restructuring orders and that the government will work closely with councils and communities to ensure issues are addressed.
At this stage, LGANT has no option but to support these measures in good faith and with the knowledge that the powers are only to used for the purposes of restructuring a council. LGANT is seeking a meeting with the minister with a view to finding out:
the extent of restructuring in the immediate future (i.e. the councils that are to be affected given we still do not know – presumably because announcements about such matters are subject to this legislation being in place)
if LGANT will be given advance notice of a restructuring order
the membership of transition committees.
I suggest members view Hansard on the web in the coming days as it is likely more explanations will be provided in the parliamentary debates.
Tony Tapsell
CEO
Local Government Association of the Northern Territory
Mr Wood: What date was it written?
Mr TOLLNER: It was written today.
Mr Wood: No, it was not.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, yesterday, Tuesday December 3, at about this time.
We have the member for Nelson crowing on about all the harm we will cause. You would swear I had stolen his children and sold them into slavery. This is the reaction he has.
It is absolutely disgraceful that the member for Nelson and Labor are trying to frustrate this proposal. This government has a mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to reform local government and anybody who thinks it does not was not around at the last election. The fact is, we were elected by the people of the Northern Territory to make changes, and that is exactly what we will do.
Rather than frustrate the process, I have made a major concession to the members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy. They seem to think I will be some sort of an Adolf Hitler, Mussolini or some other dictator and will have free rein to run around and change the Territory as I see fit. The concession is that I have offered the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson positions on the transitional committees. These are practical committees that will do something for the good of the Territory. The members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy can provide real solutions and support as members of these committees. One would expect they would be somewhat grateful for that offer, but all I hear from this other side is reasons to stop the entire process.
I can tell you right now, the government is not stopping this process. We have made promises to the Northern Territory community, we have made promises to Territorians, and we intend to deliver on those promises, as terrible as you guys might think it is.
The powers are only to be used for restructuring local government and the powers will only be used for restructuring local government. It has been mentioned today that this bill could affect the City of Darwin. Our review of local government is focused on the shires; however, we have included broad powers to reform local government to respond to all facts that may be presented in the review.
For example, the City of Darwin, on 22 November, wrote to me asking it be considered as part of the review, as did the City of Palmerston a couple of weeks ago. I am proud that this government is moving forward with the reforms to local government. We will have regional councils as we promised we would. We will have confidence in the regional councils with the improved involvement of local people. The local authorities will be operating by the end of June next year, and in some places they may well be operating much sooner. The regional councils will include local authorities in their decision-making, and the future is looking bright at last. As I said earlier, there is still some work to do. We are not rushing the changes, we are listening to what people say.
This bill is being passed on urgency to give me the necessary powers, but that is so I can get things happening. This bill is not in itself a restructure of local government, and I wish people on the other side could understand that. We know that people in the Daly area want a new council; we know that absolutely, we have looked into the possibility and are planning to make that happen. After this legislation commences, I will establish a prospective council for the Daly area. I will also appoint an acting CEO to get the ball rolling. The acting CEO will have the benefit of advice from the transition committee, which I hope will include the member for Nelson. The role of the transition committee will be to advise on transitional arrangements, key planning strategies, continuity of service delivery during the transition period and the establishment of local authorities in consultation. Through a restructuring order, I will also be able to address what will happen to vacancies that occur in council membership during the restructuring process for the Victoria Daly area.
It may not be sensible to have by-elections when there is a restructure in progress. Some of the people will have to vote for a new council in the next few months, and in the case of a council-wide by-election for mayor, the winning candidate may be from the territory of the new council, which will result in a further by-election for that position. I will also make sure that one of the first things the prospective council must do is have its website provide regular updates on its progress.
There is much to be done in planning a new council. We need to look at boundaries, financial management, human resources, administration, service delivery and accommodation.
Mr Wood: Viability.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a big job and will be progressed over the next six months. We anticipate the fully-fledged new council will commence on 1 July 2014.
I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson to do with viability. It is fair to say that most councils in the Northern Territory have not been financially viable for at least the last 30 years of their operations. All of a sudden, there is an enormous expectation this government will instantly make them financially viable. There has to be some work done with councils on their revenue raising capacity; that is one of the areas the department and I are making inquiries about. However, all of a sudden this is the only thing that seems to concern members on the other side, particularly the member for Nelson. It has worked for 30 years where they have been financially unviable, but for some reason, as the minister, I have to snap my fingers, wave a wand and magically make these councils financially viable. It takes a bit more work than that, member for Nelson.
In the meantime, we are considering whether there is any other need for restructuring. In making those deliberations, we need to consider the financial sustainability of new councils and councils generally. We will see what we can do to help councils raise their revenue. Councils provide valuable services that need to be paid for by someone. This legislation is about flexibility; it provides full flexibility so we can do what needs to be done. It does give me wide powers, but those powers are necessary. It may well be I do not need to exercise many of those powers, or exercise them very often, but we need the flexibility.
The legislation will also ensure that where by-laws currently exist they continue to apply if there is restructuring. People will know if they have by-laws now, they will have by-laws after any restructuring. Down the track, it will be up to councils to keep, extend, change or revoke any by-laws they have inherited.
This bill enables the government to deliver on our promises, something the opposition and the Independent member have scant regard for. Those promises are to review and reform local government and fix up the mess Labor made in this area.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
MOTION
Refer Bill to Select Committee
Refer Bill to Select Committee
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:
1) the bill be referred to a select committee, to be called the Select Committee on the Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill, for inquiry and report, including consideration of other possible models for achieving the objects of the bill
2) the members of the committee shall be two members nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Government Whip, one member nominated to the Speaker in writing by the Opposition Whip and Mr Wood
3) the committee shall report to the Assembly by 18 February 2014
4) The committee may elect a deputy chair of the committee, who may act as the chair when the chair is absent from a meeting or there is no chair of the committee
5) A quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee
6) this resolution shall have effect notwithstanding any contrary provision of the standing orders.
I am moving this motion to allow adequate time for proper discussion amongst all local governments and the community so they can give a considered response. The minister quoted an e-mail from Tony Tapsell, but today’s media release clearly states local government wanted a full and comprehensive consultation about this issue and has not received it. This select committee will give it an opportunity.
The minister tried to denigrate what is normal parliamentary process: a select committee to look at various issues that come before this parliament. To call it a chook committee shows a disregard for the processes we are allowed to ask for in this parliament. It is not doing something for the sake of doing it. I am asking for this to give a far more considered response.
The minister has spoken about his reasons but not about the lack of consultation with local government. This bill only came forward last Wednesday. We have a response from LGANT saying it wanted comprehensive consultation and has not had a chance for that. This gives it a chance to have it by delaying it for a small period, bringing it back in February, which is in the middle of the Wet Season. There will not be a huge amount of work done in remote communities once the rains come. It gives those councils a chance to look at it.
If Mr Tapsell, the CEO, believes I was making a big fuss about something, they will tell us Gerry Wood was talking through his hat and making a big fuss. If they believe I was too emotive, the local governments will say Gerry Wood is too emotional about it and what he is saying is irrational hogwash. This gives affected people a chance. There are two lots of people affected by these changes: the councils, the elected members …
Mr Tollner: Who is affected by this? This is enabling legislation. You do not understand what you are talking about. You are talking about a bill to change local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: As you can hear from those interjections, you have someone who does not understand there are repercussions in this bill. Whether they are intentional or not does not matter; the bill, to me, does not have the safeguards it should to protect the rights of elected members to hold a job without being sacked by a minister for no other reason than restructuring. It can be done differently, and I put this to the minister. Those options are what I hope a select committee could look at to see whether we could do it without enforcing or having those sections in the act which allow the minister to sack councillors or nominate who he wants. It is an important issue.
The other side of it which is forgotten is that people elect those local members. You now have a law which allows the minister to step in, not because the council has done something wrong but because the minister has not found a way of making these changes without using the hammer instead of using his brain. This could be done by amendments to the act which would satisfy the Victoria Daly Shire. We should not be basing this just on the problems of the Victoria Daly Shire. We should be …
Mr Tollner: I am not.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you are. I was just talking to the Victoria Daly Shire. You mentioned this issue and it has been mentioned to me at the briefings. You mentioned that Victoria Daly Shire had problems with having two by-elections and the mayoral by-election. What I was saying to you is you could use the Queensland model which this select committee could look at and consider whether it is a useful source to go ahead with possible changes to this bill.
What annoys me is the minister regards this as ‘love it or leave it’, because they made a promise and how dare you stand up and query the legislation? How dare you oppose? We should just sit here like a bunch of dummies. No. Our job is to look at your legislation and see whether it would work. I am not against the possibility of restructuring councils. This is the same old argument. Every time, you throw the cheap lines back, ‘You oppose the reforms’, and all that sort of stuff. No, I do not. In this, I see you have some dangerous clauses you may not use. I am not accusing you of being Adolf Hitler, but I am saying you could have improved this bill so it did not include those clauses. You could make amendments to the Local Government Act, especially around casual vacancies which I am putting forward as a possibility today, which will allow a council to run to a certain date.
They are the options a select committee could look at. I have asked that the select committee be small, specifically so it can get on with the job and do it quickly. Not much will be done around Christmas and the new year, not even from the department’s point of view, which would give you about six weeks to come to the next sittings of parliament with a review of the legislation, something that is not uncommon in other places with a unicameral system. You keep saying, ‘Oh, you will just oppose us and you are stopping us going ahead with our promises’. Your promises are your promises. This is the parliament, and the parliament has a right to at least see what the effect of your promises would be. You are showing us legislation which needs more scrutiny, and I am not the only one saying that. As Damien Ryan said:
- As an equal partner, …
People forget that.
- … the government should ensure that they consult with LGANT and key local government stakeholders on any legislative or policy changes that will impact on them.
I am supporting what LGANT wants. It wants time to consult about this, and a select committee – which is not some chook farmer’s association annual meeting – is a way of doing it within the parameters of parliament. It is using our parliamentary system to look at legislation to see if it is good.
I do not oppose the restructuring. However, the minister has brought forward some legislation which to me is suspect because he is in a hurry to do it and did not show it to anyone before he introduced it. You make us a bit suspicious as to why you would do that with such an important phase of the changes to local government.
You would think you would ensure each piece of legislation that comes here has the backing of local government and that members had a chance to find out for themselves whether it had support from the community. We have not had that chance, and when I send letters and emails to local government people, all I receive from the local government association is that I have made a fuss and am fairly emotive. I was fairly emotive when the previous government tried to amalgamate Litchfield shire, and who was dead quiet on it? The local government association. Who stood outside the local government association with tape across their mouth, asking whose side the local government association was on?
I do not think things have changed too much in the local government association. When it comes to the crunch, it wants to make sure it is still sweet with the government but, unfortunately, I do not think they stick up for all their members, as they did not with Litchfield. I ask them if they are doing it with West Arnhem? Are they doing it with Katherine or East Arnhem? I am not sure.
They need to check with their members first and tell them what is in this legislation. This committee would give parliament an opportunity to report to the minister about whether this legislation is good, whether my opinion on the legislation …
Mr Tollner: A committee of one.
Mr WOOD: No, it is a normal parliamentary committee, not something like the energy committee. It is a select committee. These are short lived committees that look at legislation, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. To denigrate that kind of committee – the Queensland parliament does it all the time. I do not know if we have ever done it; we have tried once before and once today. There is nothing wrong with trying that. When you laugh at that, you just say, ‘Parliament is a waste of time, pass it through. We are on the way to doing something.’ That is a bad way to treat this parliament.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the opposition in support of the motion brought by the member for Nelson. Clearly, we have a government which, apart from having broken just about every election promise it made, is not interested in transparency or being held accountable. What we see here is a bill before the House on urgency. They have created the urgency themselves. It is entirely to do with political expediency; there has not been consultation with stakeholders. We know the member for Daly has a vested interest in getting this through. His political neck is on the line, but due process has not been followed. There is no demonstrated need for urgency. There has not been consultation, there is nothing in this bill or in what the minister has said that…
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has the wrong speech notes in front of her. She is referring to the urgency motion that was dealt with last week. This is a select committee motion, which is completely different.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Member for Nhulunbuy, continue.
Ms WALKER: I believe I have some latitude within this motion. The professor of procedureology over there will do anything to shut people down.
There needs to be a process. If it is a committee, we welcome that. We know members opposite would do everything to avoid scrutiny, transparency and accountability. This bill needs to be referred to a committee. We look at what Queensland is doing with the very accountable and transparent process it has. It is not apparent here at all and we fully support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Eviction of NT Badminton
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the minister for Sport and the CLP government for:
1) evicting NT Badminton from Sports House without providing an alternative single venue accommodation solution that is acceptable to NT Badminton
2) disregarding the proposal from NT Badminton to allocate funds in the May 2014 budget for construction of a multipurpose facility for badminton, judo and table tennis at Marrara
3) ignoring NT Badminton and the many thousands of Territorians who have signed a petition supporting NT Badminton and their proposal.
The CLP government decision to forcibly remove the Northern Territory Badminton Association from NT Sports House in Fannie Bay has been handled terribly by this incompetent CLP government. This is not surprising; in 15 months of governing, the CLP has shown Territorians they are bad policy makers, bad decision-makers and have no regard for appropriate process.
We have seen this government, time and time again, not consider the full impact of its decisions before they are rammed through and they make Territorians suffer the consequences. They refuse to consult before or after they makes decisions. Because of the CLP’s decisions, we see families suffering unprecedented increases in the cost of living in the Territory, with increases to power, water and sewerage. We see cuts in education and to teacher numbers in our schools. We have seen the abuse of parliamentary process with the CLP ramming through legislation without proper consultation with stakeholders and the community.
It has been no surprise that the closure of Sports House has been handled so appallingly by this CLP government. I can guarantee, if Labor was in government, the tenants at Sports House would not have been left high and dry; we would not have deserted them. The difference between the CLP and Labor is that on this side of the House, we actually care about people. We believe decisions should be made with the best interests of those affected at heart. We make it our business to consult. Instead, we have a CLP government that refuses to assist the tenants at Sports House in any meaningful way and has no regard to the proper processes that should have been involved with this decision. This was from day one. When it came to making the decision, the CLP completely mishandled announcing to tenants they were to be evicted. I was told by various – now former – tenants that they received an e-mail stating they were being kicked out, followed by an apology e-mail saying it was a mistake. A few days later, they received the same e-mail informing them they had to move out.
The NT Badminton Association was informed of the decision of your department, Sports minister, and was given six months’ notice, from May 20. The CLP offered no immediate assistance in finding a new appropriate facility; it offered no assistance with relocation. Part of the mishandling of this issue is the CLP’s complete disregard for badminton. Let us face it, if it was AFLNT at Sports House, do you think the CLP would have made no attempt to relocate them? If it was NT Rugby League at Sports House, would the CLP have deserted them? I do not think so.
I value all sports in the Northern Territory, as do my colleagues on this side of the House. They all have a role to play in creating and adding to the great lifestyle we have in the Territory. The CLP has shown it does not share my respect and appreciation of all Northern Territory sporting organisations. The NT Badminton Association is a peak body for badminton in the Northern Territory. It is affiliated with Badminton Australia and is responsible for the promotion and development of the sport in the Northern Territory. It provides coaching for juniors, hosts regional and international competitions, and promotes badminton as a sport for Territorians. Under normal circumstances, they would also participate in the Arafura Games, which is an important sporting competition that engages our Asian neighbours for whom badminton is a hugely popular sport. I am absolutely shocked at the lack of respect shown to badminton. Governments govern for all Territorians, not just a select few. We have to be realistic that not everyone wants to play AFL, basketball, netball or rugby league. When it comes to recreation, not everyone will be interested in racing be it car, horse or greyhound racing. These areas currently have a huge amount of government financial assistance.
In sport and recreation, we must provide alternatives, and that is where badminton fits in. It is a very popular sport with a great following in Darwin and has enormous health benefits for its participants. It is a well-established sport in the Territory with a proud history, and players and volunteers who have been involved in the sport for many decades. The CLP’s failure to properly relocate NT badminton has shown their disregard for this sport.
This decision by the CLP has been about one thing only: dollar signs; the CLP loves to put dollar signs before people. In this instance, it was so hell-bent on the financial prospects of the Sports House site, it forgot about the tenants, who should first be relocated appropriately.
In March this year, when rumours were rife that the tenants of Sports House were being evicted with nowhere to go, instead of responding with an emphasis that tenants would be looked after, the CLP government issued a media release titled Identifying Sites for Housing Development. It featured a small paragraph about the tenants, but was dominated with plans for redevelopment.
Why is it always the cart before the horse with the CLP government? They are more interested in selling off land for development than providing adequate facilities to a valued, strong and vibrant sporting body. They are hastily forcing the NT Badminton Association to leave Sports House for the sole purpose of demolishing it to make way for high rise development. To do this without finding adequate replacement facilities is heartless and opportunistic. As the member for Nelson openly said, and I agree, this government has its priorities wrong. They need to organise replacement facilities first, then worry about demolishing Sports House and selling off the land.
In Question Time today, we discovered how the minister really feels about badminton. When asked about the near 12 000 signature petition on the issue, the minister questioned NT Badminton’s integrity in collecting signatures by saying:
- You mentioned 12 000. I would like to see that petition and see if they are all Territorians, because I know a number were people from cruise boats and interstate visitors signing at the markets.
The minister will no doubt address the petition further in his response this evening, but you cannot help but get the impression he will be ignoring the petition started by the NT Badminton Association. The petition asked the government to defer the eviction of badminton from the Sports House facility. The petition also asked the government to agree to allocate funds to facilitate construction of the new multipurpose facility for badminton, table tennis and judo at Marrara.
One thing certain about NT Badminton is they have not taken this appalling decision by the CLP government lying down. It is rare these days to see groups of everyday passionate and constructive activists, and that is what members of NT badminton have been. They have taken to the streets and raised awareness of this issue with phenomenal speed. Like a well-oiled machine, they have been present everywhere, campaigning to save their sport; they have been proactive.
NT Badminton provided the minister with a detailed and well-thought-out proposal for a new facility to house badminton, table tennis, judo and gymnastics at Marrara. In addition, it proposed the NT government allocate funding in the May 2014 budget for this facility. This proposal provides adequate facilities for several sports and, most importantly, provides them with certainty. According to NT Badminton, the proposal presents two options for the facility. Option one is a fully air-conditioned facility with a sprung wooden floor. This is the more expensive option at $9.6m. Option two is a cheaper option that would use more natural airflow and a cheaper flooring option, which would cost $6.8m. I have heard the land at Sports House could be sold for between $10m and $13m. One would think there would be some funds to accommodate such a proposal.
I know the minister will say he is not interested in the proposal because of the sums he has for cost per participant. He said in Question Time:
- Based on the current membership of these three sports, that equates to about $22 000 per member for the high cost option or $15 000 per member for the lower cost option.
Firstly, I say to the minister for Sport, it is four sports not three, as you stated in response to my question. Those sports are badminton, judo, table tennis and gymnastics. There must be some middle ground here. I hope you detail the cost per participant of all sport and recreation organisations for us to make a fair comparison, not just a select few in your argument.
What the CLP has done is offer NT Badminton a five-year lease on commercial property in Woolner, with the cost of the lease shared equally between NT Badminton and the Northern Territory government. This will work out to be $82 500, a sum that is simply not possible for this group. I am not sure why the CLP thought this was a viable or even fair option. I am happy to be corrected by the minister, but I understand no such commercial arrangement exists with any other sporting group in the Northern Territory. Why would the minister put something on the table that would lead to their financial ruin? Why will the minister not provide them with an appropriate facility at a peppercorn rent, like other sports? If he does not, he will destroy NT Badminton forever, which has been around for 30 to 40 years.
I understand NT Badminton has said there is even a possibility of the hall being dismantled and assembled on a different site. The condition of the hall is sound, unlike the rest of the Sports House building. I welcome the minister’s response on this as a possibility.
The only other thing the minister has done is to tell NT Badminton to look at using community halls again, to which they have responded:
- ‘To be told to go back and look at school halls again is very frustrating and especially since we outgrew school halls back in the late 1970s, which led the CLP government at the time to allocate badminton Sports House’ ...
The CLP government has been completely heartless and unjustified in its hastiness to shift NT Badminton without an alternative facility. This side of the House recognises the need for sports like badminton to thrive. We recognise the contribution sports like badminton make to the Northern Territory. We also recognise the contribution that badminton makes to our beloved Arafura Games and hopefully will do in the future should the CLP ever decide to bring it back. Nearly 12 000 petitioners are demanding the CLP and the minister reconsider and show themselves to be a rational, compassionate and respectful government. One of the petitioners is, in fact, the Treasurer.
The NT Badminton Association has been treated with complete disrespect, given little notice, no help and no viable alternative. It has resorted to doing the government’s work for them in putting together a proposal. It was the NT Badminton Association which consulted stakeholders and reached out to the badminton community in preparing its proposal for an alternative facility.
NT Badminton is a force to be reckoned with, and it deserves our respect. I urge the CLP to recognise and respect that over 12 000 signatories have supported a petition asking for their pleas to be heard and NT Badminton’s proposal to be considered; I understand this petition has the largest number of signatories on record. I urge the CLP to simply listen. I urge the CLP and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing to assist the NT Badminton Association in relocating, and to commit to a fully funded multipurpose facility that will save the sport of badminton.
I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Sport, Recreation and Racing): Mr Deputy Speaker, NT Badminton’s biggest problem is it has the member for Johnston in its corner.
After all the hoo-hah, all he can give them is 12 minutes – $10m equates to 12 minutes in the House. Unbelievable!
The answer is categorically, no. The government will not be providing $6.8m or $9.8m for a stand-alone facility for badminton, judo and table tennis. You can put that on the record right now. It ain’t going to happen! It strikes me as rather alarming that the member for Johnson, if he had a bag of money and had $10m, would be allocating this sort of money for such a facility.
Let us look at where some of this money could be spent across the Northern Territory. We could upgrade and seal 15 km of one of our outback highways, it could be the Tanami, Central Arnhem Road, the Plenty or the Buntine Highway, or it could be 25 dwellings for affordable housing. We could extend and seal the Outback Way from the current end to Harts Range. We could construct two boat ramps at the standard end of the Elizabeth River and a boat ramp into Palmerston. There could be further sealing of the inner loop of the Mereenie Loop on the Red Centre Way, which has been on the books for a long time. There could be a state-of-the-art fire and emergency command centre. We could have five cyclone shelters or 30 km of urban cycle paths. That money could be spent on these urgent infrastructure projects, but what is alarming is if there was the money – there is not, thanks to the $5.5bn debt we are tracking to – a magic bag of money, they are priorities I would see as helping all of us in electorates that need such infrastructure. I know the member for Sanderson would have a long list and what he would do with $10m as the Minister for Infrastructure.
There are other facilities around the Darwin area that the Northern Territory government has provided, built and owns that would suit badminton. The sport, unfortunately, is not big enough to warrant a $ $9.8m commitment. It has around 160 registered members, followed by around 80 social players. I commend badminton for their efforts; there is no doubt they are very passionate about what they are doing, they are very committed to the sport and are very keen to see it continue. It is not the Northern Territory government that will kill off badminton, as alluded to by the opposition. Badminton has been provided with options, and for a sport that size, there are more than enough facilities around the Darwin and Palmerston area for it to continue as it is.
Let us look at some of the numbers. Touch Football NT has 3200 players. Football Federation NT has 3200 registered members. Netball NT has 2800 members, Tennis NT has 2800 members and Baseball NT has 745.
Ms Fyles: They have a home.
Mr CONLAN: Of course they do. Look at the numbers, member for Nightcliff.
It is incredible; it is staggering. For the amount of registered participants, it just does not stack up to spend $9.8m. Let us look at some of the recent history of Sports House.
In March 2013, the Northern Territory government announced that Sports House land had been identified for rezoning for future housing redevelopment, something that is critical in the Top End. In fact, across the Northern Territory, there is a real housing shortage. Sports House has had major infrastructure failings and has reached the end of its economic life. It is 30 years old; it is well past its use by date. Since then, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing has been assisting the non-government organisations that have occupied the space on the ground floor at Sports House to identify alternative accommodation. Contrary to what has been alleged in the Chamber this evening, the department of Sport and Recreation, along with me, have worked overtime to provide solutions to those tenants.
The Royal Lifesaving Society of the Northern Territory has moved into Ethos House. Touch Football NT has moved to Ethos House at Casuarina. Swimming NT has moved to Casuarina pool and Football Federation NT to the Italian Club. They are still working on negotiations with Darwin Sub Aqua Club, but it is hoped it might move to the Ski Club. Darwin radio club has sourced other options and is looking to move to Knuckey Lagoon recreation reserve and triathlon to Ethos House in Casuarina. With the assistance of the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, we were able to negotiate an extension for badminton at Sports House until 31 March 2014.
The question put to me during Question Time this morning was:
- Nearly 12 000 Territorians, including the Deputy Chief Minister …
Speak of the devil!
- … have now signed a petition urging you to defer the eviction of badminton from Sports House. They were out the front in force this morning. The petition urges you to allocate funding for NT Badminton’s proposal for a new facility. Given the huge backlash to the ignorant and cold-hearted decision to evict badminton from Sports House, will you now reconsider your decision to forcibly remove NT Badminton from their premises and accept responsibility to provide them with an appropriate facility at a peppercorn rent like other sports?.
Let us look at some of that question. The eviction has in fact been deferred until 31 March. I will not be allocating funding to the tune of $9.6m towards a new facility. As for an ‘ignorant and cold hearted decision’, the place is well past its use-by date, has become a health and safety hazard and has been earmarked for much needed housing in the Northern Territory. I will not be reconsidering the decision. I hope the Northern Territory Badminton Association will reconsider its decision and accept one or more of the offers provided. It is frightening to think the member for Johnston would commit such an enormous amount of money for such a project.
We did not, as suggested, reject or disregard the proposal as the motion suggested. The department has met with NT Badminton on at least seven occasions since the letter in May. Badminton members have also had meetings with me and my office on a number of other occasions, and we have also met with them after hours at weekends. We have been bending over backwards to assist them in their sport.
The petition signed by many thousands of Territorians who support NT Badminton and their proposal reads:
- … the Assembly will defer the eviction of badminton from the Sports House facility and agree to allocate funds for and facilitate construction of a new multipurpose facility for badminton, table tennis and judo at Marrara during the 2014-15 financial year as detailed in the NT Badminton Association New Venue Proposal September 2013.
I have not ignored the petition; in fact, I have not even seen it. I am waiting for it to be tabled. However, in response, I am aware of the passion of the members. The passion and commitment the Northern Territory Badminton Association have for this sport is not in question or doubt. This has never been in dispute.
I note an online comment regarding the petition. It says, ‘Today at the markets, it was more like harassment getting people to sign. If you pressure people to sign, it is not a true petition.’ The member for Johnston said 12 000 Territorians have signed this petition. I would be very interested to see if they are all Territorians.
Mr Vowles: Irrelevant.
Mr CONLAN: It is very relevant. You said in this House this morning that 12 000 Territorians have signed this petition. I would like to see whether or not 12 000 Territorians are indeed supportive of a $10m badminton facility for 200 members. I would be very interested to see if that is actually the case.
Let us go to point one:
- … evicting NT Badminton from Sports House without providing an alternative single venue accommodation solution that is acceptable to NT Badminton.
The Palmerston Recreation Centre has existing anchor points for badminton. There is room for up to eight courts and it is already used by badminton on Tuesday evenings. In 2012, it was used for the Under 19 Australian Championships. The current facility is not being used for national championships, and the Palmerston Recreation Centre is the centre badminton used to host this national championship. The department has offered to assist in discussions with the operator, YMCA and Palmerston City Council to free up weeknight time slots. Community halls located on school grounds were another option for them. Nightcliff Middle School time slots are also available weekday evenings, Dripstone Middle School time slots are available weekday evenings, Sanderson Middle School is available Monday, Tuesday and Friday after 6.00 pm, Darwin High School and Casuarina Senior College.
The Northern Territory Badminton Association proposal identifies 24 venues around Darwin and Palmerston as possible alternatives. All 24 venues were rejected by the association for various reasons, the common theme being the alternative had only four courts, whereas Sports House has five. Three of the 24 were considered by NT Badminton to have some pros, and 21 venues had nothing good about them, according to the NTBA.
I have offered the assistance of Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing staff in negotiations between Badminton NT and the relevant facilities. This has also been rejected. They were offered assistance through the department, but it was also rejected. Badminton NT’s sole purpose and focus has been to obtain a single venue location, and to that end, the department offered consideration of two commercial sites. One, despite being noted in their proposal as unacceptable, was eventually deemed acceptable.
A Woolner property was offered with government assistance of $82 500 to match, dollar-for-dollar, the commercial rent. This has been rejected outright as too expensive without any thought to who would pay for hiring fees, maintenance and outgoings on their proposed new facility. Marrara Indoor Stadium, for example, is currently available for hire at $99 per hour. Assuming NT Badminton play, let us say, conservatively, 25 hours per week 50 weeks a year, the rental fee for a similar facility is to the tune of about $123 000. This is not the only option the sport has been provided with. I have listed numerous options at minimal cost to continue the sport.
Let us look at the new facility. We have declined the NT Badminton request to government to construct a multiuse hall at an estimated cost of between $6.8m to $9.6m. The proposal recommends a building bigger than Marrara Indoor Stadium to accommodate 410 participants across three sports – badminton, judo and table tennis – and would free up space within the current Marrara hall for gymnastics. While admirable in its intentions, there is no dispute that we cannot consider such a development at a cost in excess of $22 000 per participant to be a sound use of government money for the badminton participation rate. It does not stack up, particularly with a debt tracking towards $5.5bn from the member for Johnston and his former Treasurer, the current Opposition Leader, the member for Karama.
It is not an option to allocate funds from the sale of Sports House to construct the new venue either. We need to reduce debt and allocate monies to areas that will assist the greatest possible number of Territorians, simple as that. An amount of $10m can assist a greater number of Territorians.
NT Badminton is not offering to assist with the construction in any way. The sport has enjoyed rent free accommodation for over 30 years. Badminton is a small but vocal sport, and I commend and congratulate the association on its campaign. They have been very vocal and I earlier recognised the passion of its membership of approximately 200, but it is worth noting that numerous sports have much greater participation and, accordingly, place greater demands on the Northern Territory government: sports such as touch football, which has 3200 members; Tennis NT, 2800 members; rugby league, 2100; and basketball, 2000. There are even less high-profile sports such as triathlon with 462 members and calisthenics with 348. We also have to make note of the Sport Voucher Scheme, the success of that program and the take-up by some sports. For basketball there have been 810 redemptions, athletics, 178; surf lifesaving, 18; judo, 71 and badminton just two.
While it is not a direct reflection of the sport, it supports the case the demand for government expenditure is greater elsewhere. Badminton can save their own sport by reconsidering and accepting one of the several options put to it over many months of hard work by the Northern Territory government. We will not be building a $10m or $6.8m facility for badminton. As I said, that money can be spent better for a greater number of Territorians, not just in sport but on infrastructure across the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson’s pool in the rural area is an example; forget about the pool, let us put it there. I do not know how many lots of $10m dollars you think we have; we do not have any, in fact. However, if we had one, would you rather see the pool in the rural area or a facility for 200 participants?
What about Freds Pass Show society? Would you rather see the money spent there for a greater number of Territorians or allocated for a badminton facility for 200 people? Member for Johnston, in your own electorate, $10m would help with flood mitigation works at Rapid Creek. It would go a long way towards that, but you would rather see the money spent in this area; I wonder if your electorate is aware of that. The member for Johnston once, apparently, played cricket. Have you told the many cricket clubs around the Northern Territory that you are willing to hand over $10m for badminton when participation in cricket is already a couple of thousand? I wonder if they are aware of that. Forget about new equipment, the badly needed upgrades and even the picket fence around the Marrara cricket ground. The member for Johnston wants $10m spent on a stand-alone facility for a sport of 200 people.
All we have to do is put this bloke into context once again. Here is a guy who travelled to Alice Springs to watch the cricket and all he had to say on his tweet at kenvowles@kenvowles – that is his address – was:
- England cricket in Alice Springs, very hot, ground looks great as usual. Last time internationals played here vs West Indies which I played in.
Ms Fyles: We are talking about badminton.
Mr CONLAN: Let us have a look at the member for Nightcliff. What is the feeling around your local Nightcliff sports ground about this? How do your constituents feel about the Nightcliff Football Club handing over $10m to badminton? Do you both really think this is an appropriate and fair allocation of government funds? Do you really think it is? Palmerston Magpies cannot afford the upkeep of its $10.2m facility in Palmerston. Member for Johnston, I am not sure if you have told them you intend to give $10m to a sport of 200 registered players. It is very interesting to hear the …
Mr Vowles: You are a grub!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Johnston withdraw that comment, please?
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, I withdraw that comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I used that Twitter comment to go to the heart of the member’s character, but I think he is doing a pretty good job of that himself, as he does here in parliament on a regular basis. The point is you both have electorates that require a huge amount of expenditure, whether it is on infrastructure, sporting facilities or whatever it may be; we have talked about Rapid Creek and the like. To suggest this is where you would like to see the money spent, I find extraordinary. There is a huge amount of demand across the Northern Territory for money of this magnitude, but you two are falling for the popularity contest. You have been sucked in and are now beating this drum to generate $10m from the Northern Territory government to build a stand-alone facility for badminton. That is what is really scary. I look at the member for Nelson, who has two big projects in his electorate he would like to see. One is the swimming pool and the other is Freds Pass. I guess you guys have to look at yourselves as to where you really want that money spent.
The two sports thrown into the mix are judo and table tennis. When I spoke to judo and table tennis, they said they struggle a bit during the Wet and they are unable to use air conditioning. While they would love to move into a new gold plated facility, the future of the sport is not going to rest on whether they receive a multipurpose facility. Their priority is a part-time development officer. When I spoke to judo, they said they have around 30 on the waiting list and the sport will not cease to exist if they do not move to a new facility.
They could not host national championships in the new facility because three mats are required. If they were to do it, they would probably need to hire the convention centre. They would like a more permanent mat or to see the sport grow south towards Palmerston. It is worth noting they have 80 juniors and the estimate is that about 71 have taken up the Sport Voucher. You can see where the greater need is.
We were able to spend money of this magnitude for a greater number of Territorians. To the members for Johnston and Nightcliff, if you want to save badminton, I urge the sport to agree to one of the many options that have been presented to it over a number of months. The government has done what it can and it is now squarely in the hands of NT Badminton to help themselves to save the sport. The NT government will continue to assist or provide staff and support where necessary, but the future of badminton is in the hands of badminton.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight to add my support to this motion. I am speaking in support of the sport of badminton in the Northern Territory. The CLP government, and particularly the minister for Sport, should be condemned for:
- 1) evicting badminton from Sports House without providing an alternative single venue accommodation solution that is acceptable to badminton
2) disregarding the proposal from badminton to allocate funds in the May 2014 budget for construction of a multipurpose facility for badminton, judo and table tennis at Marrara sports complex
3) ignoring NT badminton and the many thousands of Territorians who have signed the petition supporting NT Badminton and their proposal.
Badminton is being forcibly removed after 30 years at Sports House in Fannie Bay. In 1983, the then CLP government recognised that badminton had outgrown school halls and that to survive and develop it needed a home, hence its allocation to Sports House. Since then, the sport has gone from strength to strength, from a small handful of players participating one to two times a week at a social level to approximately 240 players participating in the seven day, 50 weeks a year program. The Northern Territory has male and female players from 8 to 80 and has run national and international tournaments in Darwin and Alice Springs. Our junior and senior players have represented the Northern Territory at national championships throughout Australia, and these players regularly participate in tournaments around the country.
Like many sports, badminton is more than a sport for its members; it is an important part of their lives. Not only is it a physical activity, but it is an opportunity to participate and come together as a group. It supports these people through physical activity, mental health and keeps them fit and healthy; it is their life. It was only a couple of months ago one of my constituents shared with me her joy at having recently participated in an interstate tournament.
There is the social enjoyment and the fitness. This sport means a lot to these people and your ignorance of that as the Sports minister is disappointing. Badminton is a particularly popular sport and has players across a huge age range. Young children can learn to play it and develop good skills, through to people well into their 60s, 70s and even 80s. In the Territory, where our lifestyle is based around physical activity, it is great to have the opportunity to participate in a sport that is inside. Although it is very warm in the hall, it is still out of the direct sun, which allows the sport to be played during the day, suiting many of our senior players. This needs to be recognised. It is important for us to have sport options for all members of our community so we can benefit from the social and health benefits. It is fantastic to have a sport that can be played across all ages and something for our climate that, although still warm in the non-air-conditioned centre, offers opportunity for physical activity during the day. If you were any kind of Sports minister, you would be looking at how you can help this sport grow and develop.
Mr Tollner: That is what he said he is doing.
Ms FYLES: I was hoping you, Deputy Chief Minister, might be a little more open because you have signed the petition. We know the minister for Sport is against it.
Since 1992, badminton has been an Olympic sport with five events, and, in the singles particularly, it demands excellent fitness. Players require aerobic stamina, agility, explosive strength, speed and precision. It is a technical sport requiring good motor coordination and the development of racket movement.
I witnessed this firsthand when I took the time to visit the sport at Sports House with my colleagues, the members for Karama and Johnston. I witnessed the energy of those players; those players were fit and healthy. Badminton is particularly popular with our Asian neighbours and was an Arafura Games sport, except your government axed those games. Earlier today, we saw representatives of badminton present my parliamentary colleagues with a petition of nearly 12 000 signatures. How can you ignore that? That is 12 000 signatures supporting the sport of badminton. Not every one of those people wants to play, but they recognise these people should have the opportunity to play their sport. I was appalled in Question Time by your dismissal of and arrogance towards this petition. Minister for Sport, I quote you from Question Time this morning:
- I would like to see that petition and see if they are all Territorians.
This sport has rallied hard. It is not about whether or not they are Territorians. Twelve thousand people recognise that Territorians should have the opportunity to play this sport. I have seen them collecting signatures at my local market on Sundays, and people signing are passing on their support and disbelief at your government’s actions in being so dismissive. At the recent NT Badminton Association AGM, the members passed a motion which states that:
- … members of NTBA only agree to leave Sports House when the NT government identifies an alternative single venue accommodation solution that is acceptable to NTBA and a binding agreement is made.
The NT Badminton Association is asking for something that is afforded to other sporting organisations in the Northern Territory. Badminton has shown passion and persistence on this issue and I applaud them for that. It is a shame our minister for Sport cannot show the same. They have shown determination in the face of this government’s heartless priorities that put selling off land before the future longevity of an important Territory sporting organisation. I urge the CLP government to match the commitment shown by the sport of badminton.
I understand the Deputy Chief Minister, as I alluded to earlier, has signed the petition and I urge him to look towards it, in the face of his minister for Sport’s ignorance and dismissiveness. You have the opportunity, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister. You can put badminton into your budget Cabinet early next year and fund this facility. This would be building on something at Marrara.
I was only talking to the previous CLP member for Nightcliff earlier today, Hon Steve Hatton. He spoke to me about Marrara and its master plan. It is a shame that your government cannot build on that. Labor invested with netball courts and squash courts and it would be fantastic to see a multipurpose facility that could suit badminton. There have been other sports spoken of, and if you had any foresight, you would think of what you could do with another multipurpose hall. However, you seem to be knocking this out, and that is the most appalling thing.
What the sport is proposing is very reasonable. There are two options, one not even air-conditioned, that will also house judo and table tennis, which are squeezed into the current hall shared with gymnastics. I did gymnastics as a young child, some 30 years ago when it first moved from Sports House to Marrara. It is in the same facility today. Allowing these sports to expand would be fantastic. It is the government’s role to invest in sports. I know we have had the minister for Sport stand here and rant and rave at us about all the other things that $10m can be spent on. Amounts of $6m and $9m are two proposals, but there must be options to work within it. It is government’s role to invest in sports and their communities.
The lack of assistance for NT Badminton is so wrong. They were notified by a letter from government that they must move and were given six months from the date of the letter in May. Initially, they were offered no assistance in finding a new, appropriate facility. The badminton shed is not part of the Sports House building that is condemned. The front half of Sports House is, but the back half is perfectly usable. My colleague, the member for Nelson, has said the shed could be taken down. It is disappointing the government is so dead set against this without any serious consideration. The Sport minister has bungled this.
I can now read from a recent letter sent to the minister for Sport by the NT Badminton Association. It is important it is on the public record. Tonight, the minister had a real spray about the fact they seemed very unreasonable, not working with solutions, and that is unfair. The badminton association has looked at the options and they do not work for them. Renting the shed at Woolner would cost them $82 500 per annum; they do not have that capital. The sport made it quite clear that they have outgrown moving around school halls, which is what they did in the 1970s and 1980s. It is disappointing to see the minister has no foresight as minister for Sport. As I understand, you have not worked well with the sport on this issue.
I question the haste to sell off the land at Fannie Bay. That land will generate in the order of $10m to $13m; surely, some of that can be used towards supporting badminton. I congratulate NT Badminton on collecting 12 000 petitioners, a huge amount, but this government just laughs at petitions. They laughed at the emergency department nurses and at teachers. It is appalling that the minister for Sport can be so arrogant and dismissive. Was it $300 000 spent on the Alice Springs Golf Club? I would be interested to know what would happend if this was in Alice Springs.
I offer my personal congratulations – I know some of the badminton volunteers are here tonight in the gallery. They have done a huge amount of work; they have given up their weekends and worked hard to put their sport on the map. They have done a lot of the work where the government should have supported them. That is the most appalling thing about this, the lack of support from the government and the minister for Sport. This is something I have never seen before. The minister can axe the Arafura Games and just laugh at sports.
My colleagues, when in government, received proposals and had to help out sports, but they did it because that is the role of government. The sport has done a lot of work looking at plans and preparations, and that needs to be acknowledged. The minister has been quite dismissive of them, making out they have dismissed all the options Sport and Recreation have put forward, and that is not fair. What they are fighting for is not too much to ask. The plight and unfairness of this government’s treatment of NT Badminton is best summed up by one of their volunteers in their media release earlier today. Monica Beadman said:
- People we meet are very surprised to hear that we’re being thrown out on the street and the NT government is not proposing a replacement facility. They say it’s very unfair …
I have witnessed that. People think it is unfair. It is your role to support our sports and work with them.
Mr Tollner: That is what we are doing.
Ms FYLES: You say you are doing that, but we cannot see it. There is no evidence of it ...
Mr Conlan: I just spent 25 minutes telling you what we have been doing.
Ms FYLES: I heard 25 minutes of where $10m should be spent. This should not be an argument about comparing ...
Mr Conlan: Take the cloth out of your ears.
Mr Tollner: You were not listening.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 51: no interruption. I ask that the member for Nightcliff be allowed to make her remarks without the interruptions from the members for Greatorex and Fong Lim.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was about to mention that. Can people please refer to Standing Order 51 and ensure they abide by it. Thank you. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your support. We have members of this sport in the gallery tonight and what they are witnessing from your government is appalling. This is what we see in this parliament. If it is not your way, it is no way, and that is appalling. You need to take stock; you need to look at this situation, minister for Sport, because you can solve it. Where is your initiative? Why are you not in budget Cabinet fighting for sport? You have just dismissed it and thrown silly comments like $10m for the Nightcliff sports oval. It should not be about that. Territorians do not pit their sports against each other; they just ask their government to step up. The breaking down and costing per participant is unfair.
It is our role as parliamentarians, and your role as government, to work through things. Government is not easy, but you should not be coming back to cost per participant and coming up with measly numbers of 200. Badminton has put forward many options; you are offering no room to work with them. To build another facility could be a fantastic opportunity to add to Marrara sports complex. As I said earlier, the previous CLP member for Nightcliff, Steve Hatton, spoke of the master plan for Marrara and all the sports that could be housed there. This could be taken as an opportunity. I know it is not ideal timing for the Treasurer, but this could go to budget Cabinet with some initiative to show you are leaders.
You have no shame. You will not meet with them and consult properly. Something we constantly hear about on this side of the House is the need to consult with our community. From what I have seen, the minister for Sport has lacked in that area, laughing at the nearly 12 000 people who signed the petition. Twelve thousand people is a huge number and I admire them; that is nearly three of our electorates and is some percentage of the Territory population. However, we have a minister for Sport who just laughs. Whether it is the 74 emergency department nurses or nearly 12 000 people who are showing their support for badminton, it is appalling. I spoke earlier about the $300 000 for the Alice Springs Golf Club. I would like to see, minister for Sport, what the breakdown per participant there was and how much it costs to join the Alice Springs Golf Club.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Ms FYLES: What badminton is offering is a physical activity to our seniors. However, thanks to you and your government’s price hike rises …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, Standing Order 51! Would you like to read it, as you are being so vocal? Thank you, member for Nightcliff, you can now continue.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We saw $300 000 given to the Alice Springs Golf Club, which costs many thousands of dollars, I am assuming, to join, yet this is a sport that gets our seniors out of their homes doing something physically active, enjoying each other’s company.
I am appalled at this minister for Sport’s arrogance. You are pitting sports against sports. It should not be that way; it should be about every Territorian, every sport taken on merit and getting the opportunity.
The squash facility has been built at Marrara and squash is going from strength to strength; it is expanding. Life. Be In It used that facility. There are opportunities but, instead, we have a Sport minister who has thrown it out. I find it a little disappointing that you pulled up figures of other sports and were pitting them against each other, breaking them down by the number of participants per sport. Have you looked at the touch football and triathlon facilities? It is quite easy to play touch footy; you can play it on the Esplanade.
It is about your role as Sport minister, and finding facilities and supporting Territorians in their sporting endeavours. That is something you just do not get. It is unfair to pit sport against sport.
To the badminton people who are here today, we will not give up. I am urging the Deputy Chief Minister to take this up; your Sport minister is obviously not competent. Deputy Chief Minister, I urge you to take up this cause. You signed that petition; it must mean something to you. You are a long-term Territorian, passionate about your sport. I have heard about your endeavours on the basketball court. Can you imagine if your basketball courts were removed, and the previous Labor government had not stepped up and built that new facility at Marrara? I am urging you, as Deputy Chief Minister, since your Sport minister is so incompetent, to take this forward. Can you take this into budget Cabinet and fight for the sport of badminton? I and my colleagues will not give up on this.
We have seen your government laugh at 12 000 signatures, but NT Badminton will keep up the fight. Minister for Sport, you are appalling! You will be known as the minister for Sport who canned the Arafura Games, and I hope you do not let badminton down.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for bringing forward this motion. It is an important motion, as badminton needs to be supported. It was in that light that I was happy to sign that petition, and I do not back down from signing that petition. I support the badminton people in finding a solution for their needs.
Sport has played a great part in my life. I have often said to people it is probably the only discipline I have had and, without sport, I would probably be locked up in gaol rather than this parliament! Having said that, any type of sport deserves support and I am happy to support the badminton association in finding a meaningful solution. However, to take it to that next step and suggest a $6m or $10m investment in badminton – I would love to support that kind of investment. Unfortunately, it is not possible in current circumstances, as the member for Nightcliff said.
Sport is one of the great disciplines I have been involved in. From an early age, I played a lot of cricket as well. In fact, I played against the member for Johnston. I played a season for Nightcliff and I am happy to say I got him out a couple of times. The circumstances are probably not worth boasting about because both incidents were exactly the same. I thought I was reasonably quick, but for a bloke of the member for Johnston’s talent, they were like basketballs coming at him, and each time I had him caught on the boundary as he square cut the ball. I do not think it went more than four feet from the ground the whole way. Whilst I might have claimed the wicket of the member for Johnston on a couple of occasions, it would have been over the fence both times had he not…
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. We are talking about badminton. It is great to hear about Dave’s sporting career …
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Standing Order 113 is for Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: We were talking about sport, money, judo, table tennis, badminton and a range of other things. I did not think reliving a past sporting moment would be such an inappropriate thing; anyhow, I digress. Needless to say, the member for Johnston was a far greater cricketer than I could ever dream of being. I used to think I was pretty quick, but a bloke with an eye like the member for Johnston, I was not. I have played a range of sports all over the Territory and all over Australia. I have played rugby union, cricket, basketball, eight ball – I think they call that a sport – and a range of other things. I am very supportive of the discipline, the fitness and the health benefits that can be derived from playing sport as well as the team building, the camaraderie and the friendships you gain.
When I was a young bloke, I did make a representative side in cricket. I was going to boarding school at the time, St Peters in Brisbane. I was pretty chuffed about making this team. My dad turned up to the school and as a reward for making the side he gave me a cricket bat, three stumps and one of those rubber balls that came in a plastic bag from Kmart. I was pretty upset by that, I have to be honest; I might have shed a couple of tears at the time. I was about 13 years old; all the other blokes in my team had Gray-Nicolls cricket bats, spikes, all the good gear, and I was very upset about the fact that, on making a representative team, somebody bought me a cricket bat from Kmart.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from subject. We know it is all about Dave but this is actually about badminton.
MR TOLLNER: Maybe the Opposition Leader should clean her ears out and listen to this because it does have relevance.
I was quite upset by what I saw as a big slight. I shed a tear and my dad looked at me. We were simple country people and he was genuinely concerned. He said, ‘What is wrong?’ I said, ‘Oh, look, dad, I wanted a Gray-Nicolls cricket bat’. A Gray-Nicolls cricket bat cost $120 at the time and what he bought you could buy at Kmart for $5 or $6. Dad said, ‘Look, David, at times in your life, you have to understand you cannot always get what you want’.
Mr Wood: That sounds like a country and western song.
Mr TOLLNER: It is actually the Rolling Stones, You Can’t Always Get What You Want.
I was very upset. He asked, ‘Do you know what it cost to send you to boarding school at St Peter’s Lutheran College? …
Ms Walker: So, in short, this is the answer to badminton: you can’t always get what you want?
Mr TOLLNER: That is exactly right. We were not poor at all; my parents could afford to send me to boarding school, but we were by no means rich. They pretty well mortgaged the house to send me off to school. When I look back on it, I was taught a valuable lesson. I could not have the Gray-Nicolls cricket bat because I was going to boarding school, something very few kids from my little town had the ability to do. I did not appreciate it at the time, but I do now. I would love to be in a position where we could commit $6m, $10m, $5m, $3m to badminton, but at this point in time, we have some extraneous circumstances that are limiting government spending. As the member for Nightcliff says, it is unfortunate.
One of the small items is that we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt. That does not mean much when you say quickly …
Ms Walker: How did I know that that was coming …
Ms Fyles: What about the $10m from the sale of the land, Dave?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, what about the $10m? I am getting to that – $5.5bn in debt this financial year. This financial year, we have a budget deficit of $1.1bn …
Ms Lawrie: No, it’s not …
Mr TOLLNER: … bequeathed to us by the one over there in purple saying, ‘No, it’s not’. The reality is we are spending $1.1bn more than we receive in revenue. I do not know if there are any alarm bells ringing over there, but there certainly are here on this side of the House.
We are having to make some dreadful decisions. I would rather have not had to sell the land, but guess what? The mob over the other side, who throw money around like it is confetti, do not seem to care that we have to try to cut spending this financial year by $1.1bn to live within our means. That is the context we have this debate in; that is the nub of it. It is fine for you guys to say, ‘Just ignore that. Give badminton a few million dollars. It is nothing in the scheme of things.’ You are probably right.
Ms Fyles: The money for the Alice Springs Golf Club.
Mr TOLLNER: Pull up the Alice Springs Golf Club. Alice Springs Golf Club members pay $1500 a year in membership. Anybody who turns up to play – I have been there and had a game on the golf course. I actually do not think it is that good. It is like a pinball machine. You hit your golf ball and see the damn thing bouncing all around the rocks.
Mr Conlan: That is because you keep hitting it in the rough.
Mr TOLLNER: Evidently, I am hitting it in the wrong direction, but in any case, it costs you $80 to play nine holes.
Ms Fyles: It is great for those who can afford it.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right; it is great for those who can afford it, that is my point. An amount of $4.5m was spent by the previous government on the Darwin Basketball Association. The Darwin Basketball Association committed $600 000 of its money to that. On top of that, every player pays around $100 a season to be a member and on top of that, they pay $12 every time they turn up. A team of 10 is paying $120 for a game. That is two teams, $240 per game for 40 minutes. Somewhere along the line, someone pays, and I do not think that point gets across to those opposite. It is either the participants or the taxpayer. Taxpayers’ money does not seem to concern those opposite. It is like a magic pudding, something you can be digging from and throwing money everywhere.
We had the discussion today about the AMS: a $60m blowout for nothing, we get nothing for it. The computer system at Power and Water was a $45m cost blowout; we get nothing for that. It is just dead money – disappeared. The interest payments on this year’s level of debt – that does not matter. We are paying $1.1bn more than we will receive this year. The financial dunderheads over there do not care about that; everybody should be able to get whatever they want, any time they want, no holds barred. You are financially irresponsible suggesting the government should fork out between $6m and $10m ...
Ms Fyles: You will not even look at it.
Mr TOLLNER: We cannot look at it; that is my point and you do not seem to get it. I want to help badminton. I want to ensure the sport continues and grows, but you cannot pull your socks up when you have none on. We have no money; the can is empty, we do not have $10m to throw at anyone. Why do you think we are selling the land? We need the money. We need to pay down your debt; we need to start living within our means. Badminton misses out.
Ms Fyles: Dump their home, and they miss out.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, maybe. We are desperately trying to find a solution. I want to find a solution, but there are more solutions than coughing up $6m or $10m. That is what this is all about. You have to be responsible. You cannot sit over there in opposition knowing full well we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt you guys created. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn. We are living beyond our means, but you want us to continue throwing money around.
Ms Fyles: You throw it at the sports you like, but the sports you do not like, you do not worry.
Mr TOLLNER: You sit there and crow about this. You are the reason Moody’s is looking at downgrading our credit rating. Does none of this worry you? Does $5.5bn worth of debt not bother you? There are 230 000 people in the Northern Territory and we are wearing debt of $5.5bn. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn, but you want to give $10m to badminton. Why? Because it is a sport. We care about them, we want to nurture and grow them, and we want to see them grow into the future, but if you think we have $10m to throw at them, think again; we do not. We are cutting spending, not increasing it; that is the point. You talk about supporting the Alice Springs Golf Club with $300 000, when they have as many members as they do all paying $1500. That is a fair whack they are generating themselves. Similarly, basketball put up $600 000 to have its courts built; admittedly, government chipped in $4.5m at the time, pre-Delia, pre the Opposition Leader, when a bit of money could probably be spent. Times have changed. Basketball put up $600 000 of its own money. Members pay $100 a season membership plus $12 a game. Goodness me, people at basketball are paying ...
Ms Fyles: They are not asking for it for free. Participants pay, just like basketball.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. They pay $27 a year, full stop.
I 100% support the minister for Sport because he is looking for options.
Ms Fyles: No, he is not.
Mr TOLLNER: He is, he just listed them: school halls, Marrara Indoor Stadium, Palmerston stadium, warehouses in Winnellie. It is not as if we turned a blind eye and said, ‘Forget that. We do not need them.’ He is going out of his way trying to find a solution. He is coming to me saying we might need to help subsidise some of the rents in some of these places; that is what he is doing. Do you think I am in a mood to say yes, given the fact we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt and a $1.1bn budget deficit? It is not easy to say we can afford another $85 000 a year to subsidise the rent for sport.
As I said from the outset, I support sport. I want to see more Territory kids playing sport; I want to see more Territorians playing sport, being fit, active, healthy, networking and the like. It is very healthy to get involved in sport. That is why we support and promote sport in government ...
Mr Elferink: We have a minister for it.
Mr TOLLNER: That is why we have a minister for it, and he is doing a damn fine job. I take offence at the comments that have been made about the minister for Sport. Unless he tells it exactly the way it is, you guys do not listen. You twist, contort and cant the words he uses. He has told you in black and white that in no way known are we spending $10m on building a purpose-built facility at this point in time for badminton. Why? Because you cannot pull your socks up when you have none on. The cupboard is bare. If you want to know why the cupboard is bare, look at the girl in purple sitting in front of you ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 21. Referring to the Leader of the Opposition as a little girl is offensive.
Mr Tollner: I did not say ‘little girl’. She is a girl; I did not call her boy or anything like that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, she should be referred to as either the Opposition Leader or the member for Karama.
Ms Fyles: Can he withdraw the comment?
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, all right. I apologise. If she does not want to be called a girl, I will call her the member for Karama. Anyhow, we all know who is responsible for the mess we are in. I love the way you guys operate. It is totally responsible to hand over a $3m block of land for 20 years to your union mates, ‘Oh, no, they are a good community organisation, not for profit’. No, where do the profits go? The profits all go into the coffers of the Labor Party, but that was a responsible decision just the day before the election, five minutes before caretaker mode, ‘We will hive that one off, we have money to go everywhere’. The Treasurer, the Opposition Leader now, had just produced her pre-election fiscal outlook which clearly showed we were heading for $5.5bn debt. It clearly showed it in her own numbers. She published it, it is out there for the world to see. You predicted a $5.5bn debt, but you still hand over a $3m block of land for 20 years for zero rent. That is the financial responsibility of the Labor Party. How pathetic!
And how pathetic it is that you come in here with an ask of $10m, rather than trying to find a solution. A solution is what I want, what the minister for Sport wants and, I am sure, is what the people who play badminton want. That is what we are looking for, bearing in mind we do not have $10m to throw around, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was interested in the minister’s statement; his sad country and western song about how deprived he was of a cricket bat. The rest of it was starting to make me weep, it was such a sad story. What if he gets there and he could not get a bat – what was the brand again?
Mr Tollner: Gray-Nicolls.
Mr WOOD: I could not afford one of those either. I never hit the ball enough to warrant having one of those. What he forgets is the Badminton NT Association already had a bat, and you have taken it away. You did not have a bat in the first place as you could not afford it. They did. What they have and were given by the government was a facility to play badminton, and they have had it for 30 years ...
Mr Tollner: For perpetuity.
Mr WOOD: Just let me continue. This motion does not talk about $6m or $10m, the members have spoken about it …
Mr Conlan: It mentions the proposal, Gerry, which is…
Mr WOOD: Hang on, I am giving my point of view on this matter. There can be solutions found, and I do put some blame back on the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment because its decision, to some extent, has put the minister for Sport in a difficult situation. This is after the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment made a decision to sell the block of land. He has then copped, ‘Well, where will badminton go?’, and a few other clubs, most of them sporting clubs. We need to look at what solutions are available that will allow badminton to have its own facility that may not cost $6m or $10m. The minister for Sport did not answer the question the member for Nightcliff raised – I was going to raise it as well – about the cost of relocating the building.
I recently met the manager of Norbuilt and he has a long history of building in the Northern Territory, especially with major projects out bush. He built the new squash courts for Darwin at Marrara. I asked him to pop out and look at the building there. I asked if it could be moved and he said yes. He said it will have to be demolished anyway, that is what the government wants to do with it. When the government is looking at the cost of a new building, they cannot include the cost of demolition because that cost would be there regardless of whether this building was relocated or not. He said the building can be relocated.
I was at the meeting the other night. It would have been good for you to be there too; it was during sittings. I went to that meeting, and badminton people are not a fierce looking lot. They do smell and sweat a bit after a game, but I do not think that is enough to put you off going to a meeting. They are certainly passionate about their sport. I do not agree with this playing one sport off the other, whether I want a swimming pool or not. These people have come to parliament with a 12 000-plus name petition, and that is one of the great advantages of living in a democracy. They have put their point of view that they would like a purpose-built facility. This was provided for them by the government, until now.
I think we can, the badminton community and, if other people are interested too, try to look at ways of giving them that facility that may not just be a matter of, ‘Government, we want some money’. It may be we can get a partnership. We often talk about public private partnerships in this place. We have had them here before, but this would be on a smaller scale. If we were able to relocate the shed there, we would need a couple of things. We would need a concrete floor. We need someone to build a concrete floor. This is not much more than a shed. It has a shower, toilet and change rooms attached to it, some lighting – although they provide their own lighting – and it would need cladding. That is all it has got at the moment. There is a thing going around – I do not know who made the statement, it might have been the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. He said, on 27 November:
- The same thing should happen to Kurringal and the same thing should happen to buildings like the old Sports House. The asbestos problems in there, the air-conditioning problems, the economic life of the building is finished.
I do not know whether he was referring directly to the shed behind, but it does not have any asbestos and it does not have air conditioning. It is a pretty basic shed, but it would nearly withstand a nuclear explosion, at least the steel frame would.
There is an opportunity for the minister for Sport, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment – he has made a decision to sell this land. I asked a question in parliament recently about why he could not delay that because part of the petition is asking for a deferment. Minister, you do have other parcels of land, so the question is, why can you not – I will read the first part of the petition:
- … defer the eviction of badminton from the Sports House facility.
Minister, I do not know how many blocks of land you have identified for housing. If you take the point of view of the minister for Sport you say, ‘We need to sell this land to make money,’ well, there are other blocks of land. I presume you are not going to sell them all in one big hit.
So there is an opportunity; one is to defer the decision. I know they have made a decision to allow them there until part way through next year. I would think there is no big rush to get rid of Sports House, considering you have other parcels of land.
Even if you do sell it, regardless of what the minister for Sport is saying, a small proportion, at least, of that money should go as recognition you are moving a club from its home. Lands and Planning has made a decision that it wants the land for housing. The decision was made by government 30 years ago that this would be the home of badminton. Surely there is some responsibility you could take in the form of using some of the revenue you raise from the sale of that land to put into a proposal that may be able to cost, not $6m or $10m, but may add to a contribution from the private sector.
I even spoke to the gentleman from Norbuild. I am not trying to say he would do it, but I know people like him are the sort of people who, if you sat down with them, may be able to contribute, at a reasonable price, some of the building of a facility at Marrara using the existing framework.
Sometimes we have to engage ourselves in working together. I will give you an example of how things have happened at Freds Pass. The minister spoke about Freds Pass before. There are two big sheds there and the minister for, I think it was Infrastructure at the time, required, as part of the redevelopment of the waterfront, two very large sheds that were originally part of – fertiliser may have been stored in them or iron ore when it was loaded there. There were two enormous sheds. The minister knew those sheds had to be demolished, so, at no cost to Freds Pass, the minister enabled them to be pulled down and taken to Freds Pass. They were erected at Freds Pass at a subsidised cost by certain people. Those people volunteered their time and effort to sandblast the steel and get it painted. There are two very large sheds out there that would now last for a very long time.
One is used at the markets; the intention was for it to be an indoor sporting facility. The other is used for indoor equestrian, which can be used night and day, and in wet weather. There is an example of people getting together and being able to do something much more cheaply than if the government did it. The government would probably want all sorts of plans and everything. I am not saying you will not need some plans. You will certainly need some engineering plans and building approval. But if you get together with people and say, ‘We have 12 000 signatures. We have a group of people who are Territorians – there might not be a huge number of them, but they are worthy of support.’
If we could get a committee together, and have the minister for Infrastructure on it as well – he will have his contacts. I am sure if you went around at this stage of the development of Darwin, not forgetting that the Treasurer the other day was espousing how booming the economy of the Northern Territory is – if it is booming that much, which is mainly construction, I am sure we can find some people in the construction business who could help out.
I know INPEX has probably got more requests for donations than you can poke a stick at, but there are other big companies in the Northern Territory, like Leighton, JKC, ConocoPhillips, Halikos and some of the concrete companies which might get involved, some of the people involved in metal, the same for cladding.
I support this motion not because it will spend $6m or $10m, and I understand where you are coming from. You could do it cheaper and I use Freds Pass as an example. It can be done cheaper and we need to work together. I will ask the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment if we can get some money from the sale. The member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer says, ‘We don’t have any money’. I could always ask where the $11m to move NTOEC came from. I thought we were broke and the Open Education Centre does not need to move, but we have found $11m to move it, plus money to move the Music School, put a new driveway in at Sanderson and send other people to Harbour View. You have money when you need it; you do not have money when you do not want to spend it.
We have a wonderful group of people here who represent a good cross-section, in some cases older Darwin, some people new to Darwin and some young people. The advantage – I am speaking without any proof – if you take the facility to Marrara you will open up badminton for more people to see because lots of people go to Marrara for all kinds of sport. If you put it next to a facility where you have basketball, judo, gymnastics, table tennis, netball or athletics right next door, you have other facilities – squash across the road – then it may be a good way of promoting the sport.
In this debate we have not said it is one of a number of sports suitable for people who like to be active but do not want to be wiped out in the process. It is not rugby union, not Aussie rules, it is a more genteel sport but one where you can keep fit. It is also a good sport for improving your mental health, and older people are encouraged to be active. It is not just the physical activity, it is good for one’s mental health as well, and it is important we recognise that when trying to support these things.
I congratulate the NT Badminton Association for the effort. If I had the member for Blain here – we reckon we have the highest number of signatures on any petition, the TIO petition – but I do not reckon that matters too much. To have 12 000 people sign a petition says people are concerned about this small but important group of people who enjoy their sport and would like it to continue but, because of a government decision, they are losing their home.
I hope after all this argy-bargy tonight perhaps some of the ministers might get together and work with the Badminton Association. I will talk to some of the people I know, like the boss of Norbuild, and see what he can arrange. He will have plenty of contacts and it might be, if we can put some plans together and the government defers the decision to move badminton from Sports House, we may come up with an answer and a solution to satisfy everybody.
I support the motion. I have not said I support the $6m to $10m quoted because we can come up with something which shows the government is responsible. It does not necessarily have a lot of money, but at the same time it needs to contribute. Let us see if we can get some private participation to make this a win-win situation for all sides so the Badminton Association can continue and grow and be the great sport it is. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I like lateral thinking. The member for Nelson has demonstrated some lateral thinking. I will not commit the government to anything, but if that suggestion could be brought forward to the Northern Territory government it would be something the government could look at.
Unfortunately, on every occasion I have spoken to people from the Badminton NT Association, there was, basically, a presentation of a fait accompli. The argument consistently went: the asset the thing stands on will cover the cost of building a new $6m or $10m facility. What they are still arguing in that case is you have to forgo that asset. So, it is still a loss and a future debt, because if you cash up that asset, it comes off a deficit for this year and, ultimately, the debt situation we are facing.
We have to be a responsible government. I do not want to diminish the people who play badminton, but government is about having to make decisions, and we cannot continue to sustain the $5.5bn debt we were heading to. It just cannot be done. So, when badminton members came to me and said, ‘This is the way it has to be, and all you have to do is give away the asset’ – they are arguing still, ‘Give us a $10m donation’. It just cannot be done.
I heard the member for Nelson say during the debate there is this other potential option. Okay, if that is the case, then bring that to government. I say to the NT Badminton Association, bring that to government. I have not heard that at this stage, despite the fact I visited the site and spoke to any number of those badminton players. All I have been delivered is, ‘All you have to do is spend between $6m and $10m’. That is it, that is the offer.
The minister and the department have made overtures and efforts to relocate badminton. We have made an offer to go part of the way to covering the costs of a shed in Woolner, but that was not acceptable because it was too expensive. Well, if it is expensive for the people of badminton, a $10m grant, whether it is a handover of an asset or in cash, is expensive for the people of the Northern Territory. When, in government, you are presented with ‘this is the way it has to be or nothing at all’, then that is the way you respond.
If Badminton NT was to come back and say, ‘We think we have located a site. We think we can find a way to move the shed on site at the moment. We think we have found a way to cover the ongoing costs of electrical, water, etcetera, of that relocated shed’ – bring that to government, then government will look at it, and perhaps there is a result. I like that sort of lateral thinking. Lateral thinking has been absent.
I cannot justify, as a person who tries to be personally financially responsible in his own home because I know the importance of financial responsibility, being financially irresponsible. I listen to the members of the Labor Party opposite. In Question Time today alone, they would have spent $100m. ‘You have to bail out Rio’, we have to do all sorts of things …
Ms Lawrie: Bail out Rio? Who on earth is asking you to bail out Rio?
Mr ELFERINK: ‘You have to spend lots of money on Rio.’ You do not put a figure on it. We have to spend all this money on Education and on badminton. There was $100m or thereabouts spent in Question Time in one hour.
That is the way these people spend money. That is why we are in this situation! This is the frustrating thing. I would love to say yes every time, but I understand the reality that sometimes you just have to say no. I do not like saying no. I take no grim pleasure out of it, but that is the situation we are in: a $5.5bn debt. This is something we have to live with.
I would absolutely love to be able to start government with a clean slate every time. But you do not, you inherit the debt you have been given, and you have to be able to manage it.
I heard the former Treasurer saying ‘rubbish’. When there is a Moody’s downgrade looming, it is not rubbish, it is real, it is coming, and it is because of the legacy we have been left. ‘But you cannot put money in front of people.’ That was the solution in other countries we have seen in the last few years and they cannot support any sports anymore because they are too busy paying off their debt.
We are spending hundreds of thousands every day in interest alone, paying off debt we are carrying. When I say hundreds of thousands, it is in the order of about $600 000 or $700 000 every day, paying off debt. The answer is, ‘Oh, well, it will only cost $10m or $6m’. I get frustrated at that approach. If there was another solution offered, such as the member for Nelson offered, and that solution came from badminton and they were able to demonstrate how it would be done, I am sure it would get a more benevolent hearing.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I have met with them! This is the point, and you sit there and say I will not meet with them. I have visited the site. I have looked at the site. I am getting extremely frustrated with a Labor opposition, which has, in government, taken us to the point where we have to start saying no to the solution, and they say it is our fault. It is frustrating to have to say no to the good people who play badminton and are interested in that sport. If we do not say no to them, and do not say no to somebody else, it will not be long before our debt goes to $6bn or $7bn. Where does it stop? Where is the threshold? They say we are the meanies because we have the audacity to say, ‘Hang on, slow down’.
I ask the people in badminton to look at the Woolner option. There might be a way the extra $82 000 can be found. If you bring some other options to the table that will not cost millions of dollars – because the unavoidable problem we have is we are stuck with a debt and we have to try to deal with it. That is the bottom line. Is it about money? Yes, it is because money is about people and that is utterly misunderstood on that side of the House. It costs money to run health systems, police officers, court systems, schools, to run all sorts of things. It just costs. Members complain about the cost of living. There is a cost of governance and it is about people, because without money you cannot do anything for people at all, whether it is in the area of sport, health, law and order, public safety or education. That is the reality. It is a cold, hard reality and it is unfortunate we have taken on that responsibility, a responsibility that was shirked and avoided by the members opposite because they did not want to face up to it.
That is the challenge we have, so I ask badminton to start suggesting some ideas that will not cost millions of dollars. If you do that, there might be some further space. I know the minister and his department have made numerous efforts to try to bring out other solutions. I urge badminton to go think about those solutions. If the price tag is in the millions it will not happen.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The fact the motion is even in parliament is disappointing. It shows there has been no political will from the government to work through solutions to the eviction with the badminton association. This has been brought about by a government decision. That is where this started, the CLP government decided it would evict badminton from Sports House and took a hands-off approach after that.
Badminton made several attempts to meet with the minster and he would not meet with them. They were getting the blocked door syndrome that we hear about so often from a range of organisations. They say, ‘We just cannot get to the minister’. What they get is, ‘Talk to the department,’ and the department says, ‘Well, we cannot help you’.
Mr Conlan: She is misleading the House.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw, ‘misleading the House’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you please withdraw ‘misleading the House’. Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Badminton repeatedly tried to meet with the minister. He kept passing the buck to the department. The department was not coming up with a solution. They had one meeting with the minister and it was passed to the department again. It is not uncommon, as we hear time and time again from any organisation, as well as businesses, trying to get some political traction and will to resolve an issue. I repeat, this issue did not arise through the actions of badminton. This issue arose because the CLP government decided to sell Sports House. The CLP, in government, wants to sell Sports House. The Labor Party, in government, wanted to sell Sports House. We took very different approaches. The approach we were taking was to work through, detail by detail, all of the user groups in Sports House, including the facilities attached, such as badminton, and working out how on earth they could be accommodated elsewhere when they did not have the financial capacity to come up with a solution on their own.
If you are truly going to support sport, as we heard in the lengthy self-indulgent speech from the Treasurer, you have a responsibility in government to work through the issues in detail and come up with the options. That did not happen. They received a letter of eviction, first and foremost. After the letter of eviction, I have seen an organisation come together and gather a range of interim solutions, as well as a more permanent option, which is a multiuser facility at Marrara.
The debates covered a bit of both in the Chamber tonight. The interim solutions included the department sending them to look at school halls; the minister included that in his comments. Badminton is saying, ‘We have grown past the days of popping into school halls’. They used to do that a long time ago. Badminton has also said how deeply disappointed they are in the attitude of this government because they know they were committed to a new purpose built facility when the Katherine floods hit. The government of the day came to them and said, ‘We cannot help you with that commitment any more. We have to go back on that commitment because of the Katherine floods.’ As a sport, they said they understood.
They never lost the ultimate hope of a proper facility. They used the opportunity to look at what would be a more reasonable multiuser facility, co-existing with other sports that also need facilities to grow. The costs per person, which are the figures the minister for Sport is using, do not truly reflect what it would be. He is not taking into account gymnastics and table tennis. If you want to put a dollar amount on this, you would need to look at the cost benefit analysis of keeping Territorians healthy, fit and out of our health system. There are huge cost benefits in that. That does not enter the debate for our Sport minister; he does not seem to care.
We heard the member for Nelson talk about the redevelopment of equestrian facilities at Freds Pass with the move of the shed from the industrial area to cater for the waterfront development. That came about because there was the political will to find a solution for equestrian facilities at Freds Pass. You heard the suggestions from the member for Nelson about how you could do it. We heard a rant and rave from the Treasurer about the need to be fiscally responsible, yet he continues to ignore the fact the sale of Sports House will yield significant income for the government. We have not heard a definitive figure from the government, but it would be in the range of about $13m. The sport is asking the government to work with them for an interim facility. They cannot afford to go it alone; other sports are not expected to go it alone. They are not asking for something that other sports are not enjoying. They are asking for more support from the government in an interim facility and to work with the government on a multiuser facility from the proceeds of the sale of Sports House, where they currently are.
Darwin is recognised for its fantastic sporting facilities at Marrara. These were developed over successive governments because we recognise the importance of sport to the fabric of our society and the health of Territorians. It is always tough to find funding, there is no doubt about that. I had to find funding to support sports throughout my time as Sport minister and as Treasurer. You cannot shirk your responsibility; you need to find the political will. You need to sit down, nut through it, and make an effort. What has been lacking from the minister is effort; you have a very dismissive attitude towards the needs of sports in the Top End. I do not question your commitment to sporting needs in Central Australia, and it has been good to see your commitment to those sporting needs. You have signed off on very lucrative deals to bring one game of soccer a year to Central Australia. Every game they play will be in Central Australia. They will never grace the Top End, you could not be that gracious. You have signed off as many deals as you can around sports in Central Australia.
Good on you, but we have a community here which enjoys sport and is looking for commitment and political will to find a reasonable outcome to accommodate their sporting needs because you are evicting them from their current home. You have a responsibility there.
As for the nonsense I heard from the Treasurer of, ‘We would like to but can’t because of the debt,’ I point that out in the last 12 months the CLP has spent $84m in new policy initiatives. It is in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report if you want to look it up. There are $84m of decisions you have taken, CLP, to spend somewhere because you want to.
During Question Time today we heard the Chief Minister talk about the memorandum of understanding with the Tiwi Islands and the land there. Predictions are – they are certainly not negated by the government – there has already been a $1m down payment and, in total, it will be around $3.5m for the government to purchase 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands. My point is that where you have the political will, you spend the money. You have spent $84m in new initiatives. Many Territorians, when asked if they can work out what the government has spent $84m on in just 12 months, cannot answer. They say, ‘You are kidding me. We know about the $300 000 for the golf club, but where on earth did they spend $84m in the last 12 months?’ New initiatives.
We have a sport saying, ‘It was your decision to evict us. Work with us more constructively instead of being dismissive of our needs.’ They cannot afford the proposal for interim accommodation at Woolner. They have been up front with that, and they are asking you to work with them on a better outcome because other sports have had a relationship with successive governments, both CLP and ALP, that has been more constructive in finding resolutions to their concerns.
There were some disingenuous contributions to debate by the Treasurer. He pointed out that basketball put money into a facility, a debt to government that ultimately had to be waived. If you introduce information into this debate, try to be honest about it.
The Treasurer said we are in dire financial circumstances and so cannot do anything. He would like to but cannot. That is nonsense. Under his watch, debt is increasing by $1bn a year. Labor delivered an operating surplus of about $165m, according to the Auditor-General’s audited accounts of the 2011-12 financial year, the last financial year under Labor. The debt was $1.8bn and under the CLP we have seen increased revenue from the GST. The GST has increased by several hundred million dollars. That is in your own Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, if you want to read that figure. At the same time, you are on your spending spree to the tune of $84m in 2012-13, just one financial year.
Governments always get to choose their priorities in these matters. It is not unreasonable for a sport to say, ‘We have been in a location for a long time using the facilities. Help us find some interim facilities and use some of the profits from the sale of our location to reinvest into a multiuser facility at Marrara which will enhance not only our sport, but others as well.’ They have not said, ‘We want our own facility; we want it to be the Rolls Royce and everyone else can go he.’ They have looked, generously, at a multiuser facility at Marrara from the profits of the sale of Sports House.
It boils down to political will, and that is what we have not seen. It is a hallmark of the way this minister goes about his business. You are the minister for all sports, regardless of where they play their sport in the Northern Territory. Take that responsibility far more seriously. Roll up your sleeves, find the political will, and work more constructively and proactively with badminton.
Mr Conlan: Find $10m.
Ms LAWRIE: You sit there chanting, ‘find $10m’, which shows you are not listening to any of the constructive suggestions that have come forth in this debate. It is so disappointing to hear, and it does not fill us with much hope. I hope some of your colleagues understand that Territorians, regardless of where they live, should be accommodated in their need to have appropriate facilities in which to play their sport. Badminton has every right to a facility in the Top End.
Mr Conlan: Shadow minister for Central Australia, God forbid!
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: no interruption.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to point that out to the member for Greatorex. If you could keep it down, thank you.
Mr Conlan: I am a lone voice over here at the moment.
‘
Ms LAWRIE: It is no one else’s fault, Matt, if you do not have your colleagues here.
The point I am making is where they want to help and put their effort, they do. Somewhere, they put $84m investment into something in the Northern Territory in just one year. There was a bit of a spending spree there. You are being helped out at the moment by a bit of an increase in the GST.
We do not know where we are at this point in the financial year, because the Treasurer has not handed down the mid-year report yet. That is due during these sittings, and I dare say it will be slipped in as late as possible tomorrow night, just as he slipped in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report before his Business statement late on the Thursday of the last sittings. It was that report that showed us the $84m spend. It showed us the $32m grab in tariff increases for Power and Water.
You will never hear from the Treasurer or the CLP that Labor managed to reduce debt by $582m. You will not hear that in the discourse because that does not suit what they want to peddle. You will not hear the debt was sitting at $1.8bn because that is not what they want to peddle. You will not get an understanding from them that it is the responsibility, in government, to govern for all Territorians, regardless of whether they happen to be in vogue or not.
Stop being dismissive of the needs of NT Badminton in the Top End. It is a worthy sport. It has a great cross-section of players. It provides us with healthy, fit, active Territorians who will increasingly not need to rely on the health system, which is where we get the bulk of our cost in government service delivery.
Find the political will. To date, you have had an arrogant and dismissive attitude and approach to this matter. From this debate, I hope at the very least you find a way of engaging with NT badminton, recognising the need for an interim answer to their needs because of the eviction. Generously open your mind, Sport minister, if that is possible, to the reality that every government provides support to sport infrastructure. Marrara is the location where we enhance and improve sport infrastructure. Through this term, you will be gaining significant funds of $13m from sport infrastructure, Sports House. Reinvesting some of that into a multiuser facility at Marrara is not an unreasonable request. It is not a simple ask; it is a reasonable request.
I was deeply disappointed to hear some of the debate today but I was not surprised. That is what we have become used to in here. I will remind you, where you have political will, you will find a solution to the needs of NT Badminton. I ask you to find the political will.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Johnston, for bringing forward this issue around badminton. As the local member for Fannie Bay, I have been working with the member for Johnston. He has been handling the sports related issues around the closure of Sports House, while I have been talking with local residents about the subsequent issues that come with that. The other minister who has been involved in this process has been the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, regarding what happens to that site, if and when NT Badminton leaves. I have been working with our hard-working shadow Sport minister, who is very passionate about the future of badminton, and we believe badminton should have a home in Darwin. They should be able to play their sport. This is, in many ways, a binary issue: does badminton have a home or not? We believe it should have a home, so the member for Johnston has been working very closely with badminton regarding those issues. It is important we put on the record during this debate our thoughts about the Sports House site. It is currently within a community purpose zone and some of the badminton players are also residents of the Fannie Bay area, so they would be aware of some of these issues. We believe it should remain for community purpose. The current government has flagged it will be rezoned for high-density residential development and sold.
It is not necessarily the best use of that land and government land should be used for its best purpose, not its best price. The community purpose of that land is important for the area of Fannie Bay. We have seen significant residential developments in Fannie Bay. We have seen a significant increase of density in the Fannie Bay area. We know Kurringal has been flagged for further density by both sides, so more people will be living there.
As you increase density in a local area, you have to make sure you have space that supports that density, community purpose land. Sports House serves a community purpose, and I have said this to local residents and the minister. There are community groups which call Sports House home which are yet to find new homes. Nothing should happen with the Sports House site until sporting groups like badminton are found new homes by the government.
That is the first step in the process. The second is that it is community purpose land and should remain for a community purpose. There are a variety of community needs the community purpose land could serve; growing a local seniors population is one and Southern Cross, which is next door, has expressed an interest in that land. Soon after the last election, when we were moved into opposition, I met with Southern Cross and I spoke with John Coleman, who at the time was the acting Chief of Staff for the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills. We arranged a meeting between Southern Cross and the then Chief Minister to explain that Southern Cross is a seniors group which would like to expand its services to the local Darwin region, provide therapeutic care and look after seniors who are living in their own homes. They were told that land would be available at some stage in the future, for a price. They would have to buy that land.
It is community purpose land for a community purpose. Southern Cross, despite having a community purpose mind, does not have access to the land. Let us also bear in mind that nothing should happen on that space until the people who use that space, like badminton, actually have a new home. Unfortunately, Southern Cross was told, ‘No, you have to come with a chequebook,’ and Southern Cross, being a not-for-profit community organisation, does not operate in that way. Government land should be used for its best purpose, not its best price.
The other community purpose that land could serve is its current purpose, which is organised sport. Sports House might be at the end of its useful life, as we have heard. Not all of Sports House is at the end of its useful life; parts of it are still quite functional. While parts of Sports House might be at the end of their useful life, that does not mean the land cannot be redeveloped and provide new public facilities for sport and recreation.
There is no reason why we need to ignore the current use of that land. It is currently community purpose land and it is serving a community purpose; badminton is a community purpose. They are using that land and there is no reason why, if we redevelop that site, we suddenly have to go to high-density residential housing in an area which is full of high-density residential housing. There is more housing going up all the time. There is no reason why that community purpose land cannot continue to serve a community purpose. I want to put on the public record another aspect of this debate. The main point of this debate today is that badminton should have a new home and we support badminton having a new home. We will keep working with badminton for that purpose. There are other consequences to that decision to move Sports House from the land it is on, with the changing nature of the land it is on from a community purpose to high-density residential housing. This is where we also have an issue with this government; a different minister is involved in that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table my correspondence with residents, the Planning Commission, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment and correspondence concerning the interests of Southern Cross, as neighbours.
Leave granted
Mr GUNNER: It is important, for the full context of this debate, to know it is about more than not having a home for badminton. It is about a cash grab of community purpose land. It is hasty, unseemly and does not serve the needs of local residents. Community purpose land should remain for a community purpose. It has been zoned for a community purpose for a reason. It recognises the high-density residential living around it. When more people live in an area, you provide more services to that area. That is the point of community purpose land.
We support badminton. We support their search for a new home, or the possible development of a new home on that site. We support them in their endeavours, but we also have concerns as to why they need to find a new home. The haste of this government to move them and vacate Sports House, knock it down and sell it – the reason we are having this debate is the other agenda to sell community purpose land in Fannie Bay for high-density residential housing.
I support the motion put forward by the member for Johnston and add those conditional concerns about the agenda and actions of the Country Liberal Party government.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions. I do not agree with pretty much all of what was said by the other side, apart from the member for Port Darwin in some of his comments. I highlight that we were expecting this substandard response from a failing and useless minister for Sport. He is bungling everything he touches.
You have a Chief Minister who is destroying a town like Gove, and we now have a minister for Sport who is destroying a sport like badminton in the Northern Territory. It is an absolute disgrace. He should be standing up for sports, not saying no. How about you take a leaf out of the member for Port Darwin’s book of consultation? The first thing to do is speak to them; I think you have met them once. I am happy for you to tell me otherwise, but you have met with NT Badminton on one occasion. Is that correct? The silence is deafening here.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution. He spoke some sense. There are not many things I and the member for Port Darwin agree on, but one is that when you can consult, you actually meet with people and visit the site. I doubt the minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Greatorex, has been to the facility. He said it has been condemned, but I can tell you, as can the members for Port Darwin, Nelson, Nightcliff and Karama, it has not. The badminton facility is a strong facility; it is a sound facility. That is why the member for Nelson was saying we should look at opportunities and options to pull it apart and build it somewhere else, because it is structurally sound. If you had been there, if you had gone and listened and spoken to the badminton people, they would have told you they have had reports that the structure of the facility is good. It is good to move.
Sports House is an old building. That is fine, but we need to separate those buildings to say the badminton facility is sound. It is amazing that all of a sudden this facility is being condemned and Lands and Planning wants to rezone it from community purpose to build multistorey apartment blocks and sell the land. It is very convenient for this government.
To talk about about debt, debt, debt – while I respect that the member for Fong Lim was talking up my cricket ability and his lack of ability, I respect he does know sport. He gets sport, he is a legend on the basketball court and he gets sport. That is what he is saying. However, to keep going on about the debt – Territorians are sick of the talk around debt, because they know it is not the true story. You keep talking about tracking to $5.5bn; it is not $5.5bn at all.
When you want to support something, you seem to find an enormous amount of money. Out of nowhere, you found $10.5m to resurface the track at Hidden Valley, $4m for the NRL deal with the Parramatta Eels, $300 000 for the minister’s golf club, a couple of hundred thousand dollars for the Adelaide United deal, and $300 000 for the Melbourne Demons contract. It seems, as the Leader of the Opposition said, whenever you need to find money, you find it. It is getting beyond a joke for everybody, especially us.
What the Leader of the Opposition has come up with is that when you do something, you need a new policy initiative; in one year, you found $84m for new policy initiatives. We are talking about $6.8m or $10m for a new facility for four sports. Badminton would have a home. This is a fantastic proposal.
The minister is a bit dodgy with me because I have been a sports adviser; I know my stuff on sport. The proposal that has come forward is a fantastic written proposal. To incorporate and grow other sports is a testament to the initial report NT badminton put forward. To allow gymnastics, judo and table tennis to grow, because they are at capacity, while incorporating their new facility is a fantastic proposal and something we need to look at. We always want participation levels of sports to grow, and that is why our side of the House, and the member for Nelson, have supported the ability for sports to grow their participation.
In this case, we are talking about NT Badminton’s survival. They do not want to go back 30 or 40 years. I will fight for a facility for them and to see their sport does not go backwards. I have seen sports go backward in the Northern Territory and they never return to the same strength.
During our time in government, we spent a lot of money on facilities. To highlight some of this, we have hockey and netball, the amount of money that went into TIO Stadium, the Palmerston Raiders football facilities, the Palmerston Magpies facilities. We had over $54m worth of commitments in Palmerston, because we were allowing sport and recreation opportunities to grow. As we grow in population, we allow more Territorians to participate.
When the member for Fong Lim came in, we thought he had a massive piece of paper with a signed cheque for $6.8m. Unfortunately, it did not happen.
The member for Nelson, all politics aside, speaks sense. Regardless of your political affiliation – I am glad you are on that side of the House, member for Fong Lim – the man speaks sense. That is why we took up the fight. When NT Badminton said the member for Nelson was assisting its fight, it was in pretty safe hands.
Let us work together because we can. We understand the importance of working with local groups to save their sport. This is opposite to the minister for Sport, who is trying to destroy sport, destroy participation rates, and not allow the sport to grow or have its facility. The minister for Sport is kicking them out. I do not understand it. If you want to kick people out, you need a plan for them. I have never been involved in a sporting organisation, or even as the advisor for Sport and Recreation, and come across people being offered commercial rents, a commercial lease, where you sign the lease. It is unheard of.
You saw what we did, and the minister was there with a big cheesy smile, opening the squash centre. There was no mention of who built it and who went through the deal. We, as a government, decided this sport needed to grow and continue in the Northern Territory. That is why, when in government, people believed we had the best interests of everybody in the Territory around sport, supporting sport and recreation ...
Mr Conlan: That is why you did so well in Central Australia.
Mr VOWLES: You can throw all the personal attacks you want at me, member for Greatorex. That is all I am asking. You just do your job, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr VOWLES: You do your job and I will not complain; that is all I am saying. You are the minister for Sport.
He sledged me about my Twitter account. I find it pretty creepy that he is following me for one. You must be one of the only followers of my Twitter account, and that freaks me out a bit. There are two or three, and I know one is my mum. I am a bit concerned by that, and I put on the record if the minister, or one of his highly-paid advisors upstairs, wants to get some transfer from CAAMA radio, I even gave the NT government a rap about what a great event the Chairman’s XI in Alice Springs was.
My colleagues and I will continue to fight and make sure there is a facility for NT Badminton. I did suggest a solution. You keep talking about what I would do, so I will suggest a solution on the record. I put forward that maybe the member for Port Darwin becomes the point of contact for NT Badminton and talks to them, along with …
Mr Elferink: I have just had a meeting with them.
Mr VOWLES: That is what I am saying. You have just consulted more than the Sport minister, so I thank you. My solution is, get together with the member for Port Darwin, the member for Nelson, me, and NT Badminton. Let us have a chat and find a solution to this problem. You do not want to be the Sport minister or the government that destroys badminton in the Northern Territory. The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 12
- Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Ms Finocchiaro
Mr Vatskalis Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion negatived
MOTION
Local Government Shire Restructuring
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am aware of the nature of the motion proposed as notice of it has been given. I note that almost precisely the same motion, in essence, is being argued outside of the GBD arrangement and is currently under debate. Can I seek some guidance from you in relation to the anticipation rule?
Madam SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: I believe it is 68.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you wish to speak to the point of order?
Mr WOOD: I also need clarification. I am not sure what bill the member for Port Darwin is referring to by saying that I may be anticipating, so if I could know what …
Mr ELFERINK: Essentially, there are two debates. There is one that is currently suspended to enable the GBD, which, under Standing Order 183, moves that the local government bill be referred to a committee. You have given notice for a motion, now in GBD, that says that local government stuff has to go to a committee. I am seeking guidance as to whether or not that offends the anticipation rule, which is designed to prevent repetition.
Mr WOOD: The debate we are having, which is on hold during GBD, is in relation to a specific bill which is about restructuring orders only. I am asking that it go to a select committee and I will be giving the reasons why. That is a fairly specific. This is much broader. It is about how local government will be restructured.
Madam SPEAKER: Across the Northern Territory, is that the intent of your motion?
Mr WOOD: It is.
Mr ELFERINK: I place myself in your hands, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I accept what you say and I hear what the Leader of Government Businesses has said. Proceed, but ensure what you are discussing does not impinge on the previous debate in regards to your motion to send the bill to a select committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that before any local government shires are restructured, and notwithstanding the rejection by the government of a boundary commission, which is the preferred and most sensible option, there should be an independent inquiry similar to the Deloittes inquiry to look at the viability of the new council and the viability of the remnant council. The results of that review should be made public. Any input from Treasury should be made public. If it is shown that the new council is not viable without more NT operation funding to prop it up, then the de-amalagamation should not go ahead.
Secondly, there should be public meetings or information sessions held at the main towns and outstations within the proposed new council, organised by an independent facilitator to explain what is being proposed and the arguments for and against the proposals.
Thirdly, there should be either a plebiscite or referendum within the proposed new council run by the NT Electoral Commission or LGANT to see if the residents agree to the proposal to break away from their existing council.
Fourthly, if there is agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing council’s elected members. Any changes will be made by the people on the election day where residents of both councils will elect their representatives. The model provided in the document De-amalgamation Transfer Methodology could provide a useful model.
Before any local government shires are restructured, and notwithstanding the rejection by the government of a boundary commission – which is still up for debate and is the most sensible option, but which the minister for Local Government has already said would be too expensive, a waste of time and all the usual things to avoid democracy – there should be an independent inquiry, similar to the Deloitte inquiry, to establish the viability of the new council as well as a remnant council. The results of that review should be made public. Any input from Treasury should be made public. If it is shown that the new council is not viable without more NT operational funding to prop it up, then the de-amalgamation should not go ahead.
That is the first part of that motion. I am concerned a political decision has been made and there will be a new council in the Victoria Daly district. I have nothing against the principle of that if it can be shown that people want it. However, we had a promise from the minister for Local Government. We have already had the debate about local authorities and local authorities are the first part of the reform. They are not yet tested, they have just been agreed to. I am not sure if those local authorities have any members yet or whether the nuts and bolts of how they will operate have been established. Has the funding been attributed by the government to enable people in those local authorities to be paid? What is the cost of administering those local authorities? Have the nuts and bolts been put in place in relation to local authorities?
The government says it has made this promise, it will reform local government and will give people a greater voice. I do not have a problem with that, but if you have the local authorities up and running, you would see how they are working before you go to the next path. Have they given people a better voice? What issues might need some adjustment in relation to the operation of these local authorities? We have gone straight to the next phase, which the then minister for Local Government said would be part of a review. I imagined the review would have two stages. The first stage would be to look at the viability of the councils. The Deloitte inquiry said our councils are basically not viable. The minister has said, ‘Well of course they are not viable. They have not been viable for 30 years. Of course we will have to put operational funding in there.’
We know councils rely on operational funding from the Northern Territory, but what the minister is missing in this debate is that one of the issues raised by Deloitte was the lack of ability for shires to raise money through rates. For instance, it works out that around 2% to 4% of income for the shires comes from rates; before we go down the path of cutting up councils, we should attack that issue.
The minister raised this issue and received some criticism from the Central Land Council. He said, ‘If the land councils want to charge rent on government facilities, they should pay rates’. I have some issues about the lease arrangements, but the point is the minister is aware local government is struggling to raise revenue through rates. It has not necessarily been as big an issue as it is now because the councils are bigger, with bigger responsibilities, and they need to raise more revenue. I have not heard anything from the government to say, ‘These are our proposals to increase the ability of councils to raise more revenue,’ apart from a comment in the paper.
I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about any positive action you are taking in enquiring how councils can raise money to be more viable. If you want to make councils viable in the Northern Territory without any changes, the government will have to put about $10m into operational funding to give councils a chance to deliver services in the shires.
I have not heard anything from the minister, and I hope in his response he can say where the government is in relation to putting something positive out about how local government can raise revenue through a rating system. Perhaps if he has some other idea – chook raffles and TattsLotto – he could let me know. This government is willing to break up the shires, change the boundaries, and has not done the very thing the then minister, Alison Anderson, promised would happen. Have you conducted a review to see whether you could answer some of the questions Deloitte raised in its review of local government funding?
There seems to be a void. We seem to be going down the path of, ‘We made a political promise, we are going ahead regardless’. When I ask if this new council will be viable, all I hear is, ‘No council is viable’. Surely you will not create another council that would increase debt? The minister has harped on about debt. If you construct another council, it means the council will require more operational funding to add to the total operational funding that already exists for local government. Is that not irresponsible? Have you not shown due diligence when it comes to whether your new council will be a bigger burden on the taxpayer? That is not fair and the government should not go down a path of saying, ‘Because of a political promise, we will give you a new council’. It seems anyone who asks about viability is told, ‘You don’t want to know about it and the councils are not viable anyway. That is it so don’t worry. We are the government, she’ll be fine.’
That is my first query. Where are the studies to show councils can improve viability, and what ideas is the government putting forward as a positive way of improving viability?
Secondly, there should be public meetings or information sessions. The minister said he will have transitional authorities, etcetera, but that is after the event so I will not discuss it; we can discuss that in another bill.
You issued a media release on 17 November; I do not know whether I am right or wrong there. However, only a few weeks ago, you said you had a meeting at Peppimenarti and you met about 20 clan groups and about 100 people. You need more than that to say you have the full backing of the community. You might have the full backing of the community and, if you have, good luck. However, you have not come back to this parliament and said 60% of people in the area support a breakaway council. Has there been a discussion among the greater population of the area? Have you discussed it with Elizabeth Downs? Have you had discussions at Woodycupaldiya, Emu Point or some of the outstations around Wadeye? Have there been any discussions about whether this is a good idea? Have there been information sessions? Have you put the pros and cons of having a new council before the people? I ask if that has happened because good governance, due diligence, requires you to do things in a certain way so, when you argue that people support local government, a breakaway council – whether it is Victoria Daly or anywhere else – you have the majority of people behind you.
I do not know whether you have that. I only have a statement that 100 people turned up at a meeting at Peppimenarti. Someone said to me the day of the meeting was the normal day many people turn up to Peppimenarti. I do not know if the club is open on that day, but it could be they turned up and you were all there the same day, had a bit of a powwow and they all said great idea, and patted one another on the back. The loud people got the vote and the ordinary people did not. I always repeat: is the lady under the mango tree ignored? Is she not part of the system? Is she run over by those who speak loudest or pat the politicians on the back and tell them how wonderful they are? Or is she just ignored? Local government is about the people in that shire, the residents, and they need to be part of these changes. If they are not, it is a top down, force down solution – I am not even sure it is a solution, but a concept – that has come because the government has made a promise. Sometimes, you may find the promises you make might not be the right thing. That is why I would test it.
I have also asked whether there should be a plebiscite or referendum. I am not expecting you to spend a fortune on referendums, but I gather you have $6.6m to achieve some of these amalgamations. I would have thought that is the sort of money you could use for elections, referendums or plebiscite. That is the sort of money you could use to get information out to the community. Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask. If you are going to say the majority of people are supporting this council, show us the figures that say that.
Please do not ram down my throat, ‘You are only bringing this up because you oppose amalgamation’. I support new councils if it can be proven they will be viable, or at least will not add to the public purse by being less viable than existing councils. I want to ensure the decision is made on the basis of good governance rather than good politics, because that is what the basis of local government should be. I am concerned that I hear a lot of smooth talk and spin, but I do not see much depth. The depth is: is the community really supportive of what you are doing? Not the noisy people, but the average Joe Blow. The only way you can tell is to put an independent facilitator in there. You are going to put transition committees in and they will have many people from within the department and local government. One of the concepts I was suggesting with the boundary commission is you have a group of people who are experts and at arm’s length from the government so when they go into the communities there is not a potentially biased meeting where people are trying to promote the government’s side or another side. They would be there as neutral observers to hear what people had to say about the issues in relation to the changes that had been put forward.
That would be the same with the public meetings and information sessions. You do not want, in some cases, the government department doing those sessions for something – for example, with the Victoria Daly Shire – they are supportive of. That means you do not want people coming from the department, because it is already pre-set, to some extent, that the government wants it and the department people are usually there to support what the government wants. You would need an independent person to facilitate those meetings.
The fourth part of this motion is if there is an agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing council’s elected members. Any changes will be made by the people on election day, where residents of both councils will elect their representatives. The de-amalgamation transfer methodology document provided a useful model. I understand what you said, Madam Speaker, about being wary of the bill we are going to debate. If the government is going to break up councils, it needs to do it in a way where there is no requirement to do anything to existing council members. The members need to simply finish their term, as they would if there was a general election. It is not a difficult thing to achieve, and it perhaps needs a bit more thought in regard to amending the Local Government Act. I hope the government does not act just because one council has a problem. We need to be looking at this as if we are dealing with the whole of local government in the Northern Territory.
The minister has said, even though we may still debate it, he does not support a boundary commission. He has said it would take too much time and cost too much money. He has already said we have $6.6m for this process. A lot of the issues I am talking about could be dealt with through a boundaries commission. You would have people from the electoral commission, finance, experienced people who have dealt with local government over the years and others. They would be similar to the people I recommended, a member of LGANT, as well as perhaps someone from the grants commission. That would realise most of what I am trying to achieve through the four sections of this motion.
I do not know why the government would be reluctant to set up a boundary commission. It was proposed when the previous government was in power. They also knocked it on the head. Do not ask me why! There was a Labor government in Queensland that set up a boundary commission and you now have a Liberal government setting up a process of de-amalgamation. Both of these processes allow for a much better course that could be regarded as being at arm’s length from the politicians and the department. It would allow local government to be assessed by a group of people regarded as independent. You would have an unbiased view of what people want. If the people of Victoria Daly, especially the section that would like to break away, say, ‘We want to break away,’ that is fine. If the government has done a viability study, which it promised, they could show the taxpayers of the Northern Territory that by having this extra council you are not adding to the debt. The debt has been spoken about this evening. They could also say, ‘I am a ratepayer’. Madam Speaker is a ratepayer.
Ratepayers in municipalities that do not receive operational funding sometimes get a little cheesed off if they do not get much funding yet the government is quite willing to prop up other councils that are unviable. That is fine; we are going to live with operational funding for a long time, but the equation that is not being debated is how local governments can raise more money on their own without first relying on the public. At Litchfield, 64% of money is out of rates. East Arnhem or West Arnhem is about 2% or 4%. There is a vast difference in the ability to raise money. It would be good to hear what options the minister has in regard to the rating of land.
He has spoken about the rating of Aboriginal land. Where will he get that power from? How will it actually work? A good part of the unrateable land in the shires is Aboriginal land. Unless they have leases through, for example, Northern Territory housing, there are very few other places they can raise their rates.
There are some deficiencies in what the government is putting forward. They may have answers, and I would love to hear what the minister has to say, but at the moment it seems we are going along on a wing and a prayer, and a political promise. That is not the way we should be moving forward with the reform of local government.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. It is a very lengthy motion, but we certainly get the gist of it. I understand that the member for Nelson is calling for an open and transparent process to ensure that where there are new councils or shires under a restructuring arrangement there be, if not a boundary commission, some sort of inquiry or process that explores if financial modelling has been done and that it be publicly available through Treasury, that there be open and transparent communication with whoever wants to be part of it and, of course, with those directly affected by changes, a plebiscite or referendum to ensure residents in the affected area agree to the proposal of the breakaway, and no changes to those who have been duly elected, except by an election process when the next election comes around.
This has arisen because of another matter we have before the House. We certainly support the motion because it introduces order. It ensures there is community engagement and transparency with the government’s plan to change boundaries to restructure existing shires or councils.
When the Labor government established the boundaries of the new shires in the lead up to 1 July 2008, we found it a very challenging exercise, given all factors that have to be considered. From the previous government – a one-pager here talks about what some of those considerations are. I will quote from this. Sorry, I cannot cite the source, but I would like to read from it:
- The department has developed recommended boundaries for municipals and shires by learning from local government reform processes in other jurisdictions over the past three decades, identifying successes and failures of local government in the Northern Territory, identifying unique circumstances of local government in the Northern Territory through extensive data collection, identifying a set of local government sustainability factors and applying a local data to matrix of these factors determining a recommended framework for shires and municipals.
It goes on to say:
- The sustainability factors referred to above include population, communities of interest, geographical dimensions, management, organisational and operational arrangements, financial viability …
- .. service delivery mechanism, enterprise and resource sharing arrangements, levels of anticipated acceptance by constituents and external stakeholders, and levels of subsidiarity or interdependence between settlement, townships and regional centres.
They have to be key in this process, and we need to understand, as best we can consequences, impacts on services and service standards, the cost of operations, who pays, workforce development, local cultural issues, governance and electoral representation. We were, as the former government, aiming to build a strong and vibrant local government sector for the bush and unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory. This is very complex work, hence under Labor, there was the Local Government Advisory Board overseeing that work as well as our local transition committees, with over 300 Territorians contributing and working through the very practical issues and providing our local cultural pathway.
We never assumed we had it right with the very extensive reforms we had in place and recognising we needed to give the shires time to show their value. A big job for many shires – bigger than first suspected – was to clean up the legacy issues left behind by a very run down system of local government community government councils, which more than two decades of CLP government failed to address. They knew there was not the transparency or accountability and, ultimately, there was not the effective delivery of key services on the ground, hence a need for these reforms has been known of for some time.
The Deloitte report I referred to earlier today is an incredible and important body of work on the former government’s agenda. We were happy to prioritise that work at the request of LGANT. Through this consultancy work, there is a view of the financial sustainability of shires, and it should be referred to. I am surprised it is not sitting on the minister’s desk as a very thorough body of work that should be informing policy and the way forward. It has clearly demonstrated the very heavy demands on shires, the high expectations often imposed on shires and, ultimately, the source of funding for both financial viability and long-term sustainability.
That is why, fundamentally, we have to ensure these issues are addressed in any de-amalgamation work or establishment of new local government bodies, regional councils or whatever name we might give them. It is essential to ensure the ongoing viability and sustainability of any new entities, but it would also highlight consequences for the existing entities where there are boundary changes, creation of a new council – what does that mean for other communities within that boundary area post change?
We understand many of the existing shires have been contributing to an update of the Deloitte report. That work is showing that shires have worked hard to improve their financial position and work on those finance service delivery and management issues they have some level of control over. It is now time for the government to be much clearer on their role in supporting long-term financial sustainability of local government, certainly in the bush. I fear, as do other members on this side, their attention is now drifting to establishing new entities even before we have a good picture of what that will mean financially for the councils, affected communities and other levels of government.
What we learnt from our reform process was to ensure you have the capacity, including the department’s capacity, to embark on change before taking giant leaps, given the complex legal and social issues, let alone impacts on councils and their employees, as well as the people they serve.
The potential impact on services, disruption to services, impact on employees and, let us not forget, current elected councillors, and, over the past five years, the growth, the strength among those councillors, employees and shires – being labelled, as they were by the CLP when in opposition, as ‘toxic’ was incredibly unfair in dismissing the efforts, and leaps and bounds shires have made. There is nothing wrong with boundary changes, recognising, as somebody said to me during the first stage of the consultation process at the beginning of the year, that many of the issues people had were not with local government itself, but with other areas of service delivery that had landed in the lap of local government. Housing maintenance is probably one of the biggest ones.
We support the idea of Treasury analysis, and note this is absolutely essential to the Queensland model. With Queensland currently going through de-amalgamation processes, there are a number of things they cover off in here. This is the proposed Noosa de-amalgamation, which comes from the Queensland Boundaries Commissioner Report of November 2012. There is a section in here all about financial viability and sustainability, and the role of the Queensland Treasury Corporation in doing some financial modelling to arrive at an informed position around the financials, and of looking at boundaries and capacity within those changed boundaries to continue to be viable and deliver services. This is a very comprehensive document.
However, we see nothing like this from the new government in their proposals associated with reviewing boundaries. It basically covers all the things brought forward by the member for Nelson, such as the four key elements he has in this motion before the House today. It is about financial modelling, engaging and making sure you have a very clear evidence-based position from which to move and declare boundaries.
We do not accept any argument that such an analysis would cost too much money. That is simply unnecessary. I go back to Queensland, and within its own Department of Local Government Community Recovery and Resilience, it created a thorough de-amalgamation transfer methodology. I have seen nothing like this from the current government, which would support or inform proposed boundary changes. We should be seeing documents like this that have Victoria Daly Shire on the front and a proposal that maps out for everybody to see – incredibly transparent – the desire for the community of Wadeye to move to its own regional council and change of boundaries.
As I said, it is critically important this information is publically available. I have no doubt 100 or so people who attended a meeting in the region we have talked about were keen. However, what about the other residents and ratepayers outside that meeting of 100 people and understanding what the impacts would be for them?
It is reports such as this from Queensland which I have just shown which help to provide reassurance that ongoing costs have been properly accounted for, and also helped provide reassurance to residents of the new local government body that they are not having a financial lemon dropped in their lap. Likewise, there needs to be transparency around the impact of change on the future of the Northern Territory Local Government Operational Grants Program. It would also be essential to hear the views of the NT Local Government Grants Commission which understands, better than anyone, the complexities and issues relating to financing of local government in the Northern Territory.
Yes, we support the importance of informed decision-making by those people who are most effected – the residents of the affected area – and that such consultations should have an element of arm’s length from government. Yet, we know a meeting was held at Peppimenarti; I think that is where it was. Who was there? No doubt, some department of Local Government officials, but the Deputy Chief Minister, the Chief Minister, and the local member is not quite what I would describe as being at arm’s length from government. We need some independent advice to assist informed decision-making, and there needs to be a channel for feedback on proposals for change. Last time I looked on the Victoria Daly website, I did not see anything there about the government’s proposals for boundary changes. I do not see anything on the East Arnhem Shire website about the desire or aspiration of Groote Eylandt to have a separate regional council. Their desire and aspiration to do that is perfectly within their right. The fact there is no consultation, no channels through which to move that forward, is unforgiveable.
Given this government’s track record of preference for agreement making with a select few, we will not hold our breath that we might see something transparent in the near future.
We agree, on this side of the House, that in supporting this motion we need a better measure of the level of support there is for change among the affected residents. I know I have talked about this before, but the member for Nelson is very clear in this motion about the need for a plebiscite or referendum. We would be keen to explore options for better assessment of community support. That community support is critical. In that context, I note the Aboriginal Land Rights Act sets out a process for change to land council boundaries that include a plebiscite, as does the Queensland de-amalgamation process. These are options that should be seriously considered. It is about having a rigorous and transparent process in place into which people have an opportunity to have input. We support the general principle that if there is agreement to go ahead with the proposed new council, there should be no changes by the government to the existing councils elected members. Any changes should be made by the people on the election day where the residents of both councils will elect their representatives. It is a democratic process which should not only be respected but protected as well.
Local government is about grassroots democracy. That is the strength of local government and the strength of the three tiers of government. The people of a local government area need to connect to and own their elected representatives, and it is local people at the ballot box who should have the power to choose their elected members. Procedures already exist under the Local Government Act for action to be taken to remove a councillor from office in certain circumstances, whether that be through misdeed, illegal or corrupt behaviour or other such matters. This is why we also see codes of conduct for elected councillors. Those are the powers that should be employed to remove elected members from office, if that is required, not sacking by gazettal notice, using new unilateral powers for the minister.
One can only speculate how loud the howls of outrage would be if the government in Canberra was proposing such powers over the Northern Territory government. Sadly for the 15 minutes of my breath and that of the member for Nelson, I do not imagine there will be much support from the members opposite. We have become used to that. They are not particularly interested in accountability, transparency or consultation. That is a great shame. It is a great disservice to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly those in the third tier of government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, ain’t democracy grand. I support the Independent member for Nelson and the motion brought forward, in the essence of democracy, on a General Business Day, where the opposition and the Independent get to present real alternative policy to government. I support this motion and I support democracy. Essentially, when we talk about democracy, we talk about a parliament. While I will not regress to the Punic Wars to make my point about the Westminster System, I will talk about the parliament, because we all represent Territorians.
In this debate, I want the minister to visualise the linking of arms of the shire of MacDonnell, the Central Desert Shire, the Barkly Shire, the Roper Gulf Shire, the East Arnhem Shire, the West Arnhem shire, and we have not even come near the Victoria Daly shire. Let us say the Victoria Daly shire is the test case. For some mysterious reason, the Vic Daly Shire has been selected to be restructured.
The member’s motion is very pragmatic and is good advice to a government. The government is only the numbers in this parliament and if we truly reflect the parliament in representing all Territorians, then we will consider clear policy alternatives, not changing the policy, but considering additions to it. This is a particularly pragmatic addition to this major policy. So let us look at the Victoria Daly Shire, the test case, and use the honourable member’s motion to design the initiative that will support the government’s policy. It would be nice to know the Victoria Daly Shire gets it right. The minister is very confident in this House, announcing that the government has a mandate, it will govern for the people and they will essentially do whatever they like. The government does not have a mandate to get it wrong. The government has a mandate to get it right. It would be horrible to see that $6.2m, appropriated for scraping shires in the 2013-14 budget frittered away down the track when this government gets it wrong.
The Victoria Daly is the test case. The budget appropriation is there. The minister’s will is to restructure the shires and the motion stands. The motion is simply to take that very important step of gathering empirical evidence, researching and looking at what will really happen. When we talk about empirical evidence – 160 federal government grant programs? Can we really decide on 160 federal government grant programs in this parliament tonight? That is some serious cash and serious outcomes for the Northern Territory, particularly when we are looking at restructuring a local government model.
We have heard in the debate about the staff changes, the assets, housing, changes in names, logos, letterheads, administrative add-ons and to elected members. All these issues will need to be dealt with as a result of the changes proposed for the Victoria Daly Shire. If we take a step back, take a breath and allow this independent body to do the research and then the work, then when everybody else comes online, we will make sure we get it right. We have already heard in this House today that there are two more standing in line, and I can assure you the other shires will be coming online next.
If I change the paddock and rearrange my fence lines, then I create a serious change in the management of the stock inside that fence line. I do not want to risk destroying good pasture. I do not want to risk losing animals. I do not want to risk putting pressure on my water resources. I really want to make sure I get it right. It is very simple. It is not a huge political backflip. It is recognition of bipartisanship. It has come from the most experienced politician in this House, in relation to local government and local government authorities. It is very simple. It has the potential to deliver incredible efficiencies as the restructuring model by the new government, moves forward. That is all this debate is about. It is supported by the opposition, it is put forward by the Independent member for Nelson and it is asking for consideration from government.
I picked up on another matter in the House today about timing, climate, seasons and this time of the Territory calendar. Let us face it, that is a pretty important point because that time of year really is the time to wind back, take leave, recharge the batteries, re-energise and then bounce back out of the barrier for the race next year.
Minister, we ask you very honestly, in a spirit of bipartisanship, to be honest, open and accountable with all Territorians, all the constituents from all the shires and, for that matter, the municipalities across the Northern Territory that are looking at your legislation very closely.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. I thank him for sharing his learnings with me. I thank colleagues on this side for their contributions to the debate, and I hope this government will acknowledge the parliament and the governance for all people of the Northern Territory without a single mandate to possibly get it terribly wrong.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I say from the outset and I told the member for Nelson long ago, we will not be supporting this. He insists on bringing it into the House to blow his own trumpet, grandstand and all that stuff, and that is great.
Mr Wood: I do not have a department behind me.
Mr TOLLNER: No, that is right; you do not have a department behind you. I am fortunate, I do. I am not the brightest person and without a department behind me I would probably not be involved in this debate. In any case, the government will not be supporting this. As I said at the outset of the previous debate, we were elected, we have a mandate. We have told everybody what we are doing. We have consulted. I have noticed those opposite like to belittle us because of our consultations. There was a suggestion that 100 people at Peppimenarti turned up at the pub one day and we just happened to lob and did a straw poll around the room. If that is the view of members on the other side, that is fine. The reality is they came from all the major clan groups, they were representatives of those clan groups, and they were absolutely insistent.
As I said in the Chamber in other debates, I was quite surprised at the level of desire and some of the wishes. I would never have dreamed they wanted a headquarters in Peppimenarti. To me, it did not make a lot of sense, but when you say you will listen to the people it is important you do. Clearly, those on the other side do not care about it …
Mr McCarthy: If I was hunting a wallaby would you give me a .308.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I would insist on coming along with you, member for Barkly.
Madam Speaker, I understand what this is boiling down to. It is not so much about representation or giving people their voices from the other side, certainly not the member for Nelson, and it always comes back to this subject of financial viability and …
Ms Walker: And democracy.
Mr TOLLNER: You have a twisted view of democracy, member for Nhulunbuy. It is either your way or the highway. You seem to forget we have a mandate and people elected us on …
Ms Walker: You have a mandate to close down Gove.
Mr TOLLNER: Let us talk about closing down Gove. We know who gave the green light to Rio Tinto to close down Gove. It was not anyone on our side of the Chamber, but you want to go there? You want to show how irrelevant you are in your own electorate? In 2011, when you were part of the government benches, you had no clue your then Mines minister gave them the green light to shut down the refinery ...
Ms Walker: Oh, that is rubbish. I did not see a media release from you on that day.
Mr TOLLNER: When I was there, member for Nhulunbuy, talking to your constituents in the lead-up to the election about the energy problems Rio Tinto face, what were you saying? Absolutely nothing! Goodness me! Here is a person who has the audacity to talk about transparency, speaking up for your electorate, doing something for the electorate, but what have you done? Nothing! You have been an absolute disgrace; an embarrassment …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. I understand the member is sensitive about the lack of consultation in the local government bill and is allergic to the truth, but he might want to talk about the lack of consultation on the local government bill, which is the point of the current motion.
Madam SPEAKER: it is not a point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about how members on the other side decide to consult within their electorates. How pathetic to come into this joint and get a lecture from the member from Nhulunbuy on how to consult. Goodness me! She woke up the day after the election and went, ‘Oh, goodness me, our mine is in trouble. The refinery might close. Oh, it is all your fault, CLP.’ How pathetic! That is the member for Nhulunbuy’s great contribution in this joint.
Getting back to what I was saying, what has become apparent to me in these last few debates, or many debates – there are hours of diatribe from the member for Nelson – is it is not about representation or giving people their voices back. He is happy to suck that one and see. He will allow that to pass by. What really irks – I know it irks the other side – is the financial viability of councils in general.
As I said, I am not Einstein and I do not have all the answers. Since the dawn of time in the Northern Territory, local government has never been financially viable. It was not financially viable prior to Labor’s changes in 2006 or 2007 – whenever it was. They certainly were not viable after the changes. Yet, I am expected to show how councils will be financially viable. We never committed to that. We committed to giving people their voices back.
I am very keen to look at the financial viability of councils. It is a nut that I would like to crack. However, in light of history, I do not fancy my chances, particularly now because a big option has been taken away from us. The Northern Territory government, as I said in the previous debate, is staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt. This financial year we have a $1.1bn budget deficit. We are spending $1.1m every year that we do not have, that we have to borrow. The ability for government to provide even more money into local government is no longer there; it is not an option for us. Therefore, we have to think of different ways to make councils financially viable.
I have been prepared to stick my head above the turret and suggest that maybe we should look at imposing rates on Aboriginal land, pastoral leases, and maybe some of these unincorporated areas that still exist in the Northern Territory. I know that is extraordinarily controversial. I have talked to LGANT, my colleagues and people around the community about this. It gets up people noses. If you talk to Indigenous Territorians about applying rates to Aboriginal land, they are not happy. If you talk to pastoralists about increasing rates on pastoral leases, they are not happy. If you talk to people who live in our rural areas in some of those unincorporated areas about paying rates, they are not happy. This is a tough nut to crack, and it is a nut that no government in the history of self-government, has been able to crack.
I have made some inquiries. I have talked to Senator Scullion and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister and asked them to investigate ways we may well be able to charge rates on Indigenous communities. I have raised the issue of pastoral leases. With pastoral leases, goodness me, these poor people have gone through the worst time ever since that deadbeat Gillard decided to cut off their lifeline and kill off the live cattle industry.
Here is old buggerlugs in the Northern Territory suggesting they pay a bit more in rates. I have talked to people in Dundee about paying rates. We will invoke the Darwin Rates Act on them and charge them rates. They have a rubbish dump there. They drive on roads, they demand services. I opened a bushfire brigade house for them, I opened a health clinic, but if you talk about rates, they are not happy. I am doing my bit in asking the questions. I would like a bit of constructive feedback from the other side. Where do you expect we will get the money? You know the Territory government is broke, you know the federal government is also broke, so where will the money come from? I would love to see one of you guys over there with the spine to stand up and tell it how it is, to stand up and say, ‘Where are we going to get money to put into local councils to make them financially viable?’ They were not financially viable before your changes, after your changes, and will not be financially viable after these changes. There you go, I have admitted it. I know that is the biggest problem. How do we make these councils viable? That is the issue the member for Nelson has, because it is something he always keeps coming back to. It is the same issue the member of Nhulunbuy raises, because it is what she keeps coming back to. The member for Barkly raised it. We keep coming back to it.
I challenge any one of the three of you to give us the solution. Put your money where your mouth is and tell us what your solution is to make councils viable, because at the moment, there is one solution. Wipe them out. Get rid of all those councils where they do not pay rates. Are you going to go out bush and say, ‘We have a view not to have local government here,’ because I think you made the point that one of the council’s rates are less than 3% or 4% …
Mr Wood: Well, Deloitte says …
MR TOLLNER: Deloitte says one of these councils is raising less than 3% or 4% of its earnings from rates. Tell us what your solution is. You can come in here, throw rocks and knives and carry on like idiots, but I challenge any one of you to tell us what your proposal is and take the flak, because you know there is flak.
Ms Walker: You are the government. Time and time again, you keep saying, ‘You find a solution’. You are government …
MR TOLLNER: I am taking it on. I have been to Canberra and spoken to the federal government about how we may rate Aboriginal land. I have talked to my colleagues about rating some of the pastoral leases. I have been into some of the unincorporated areas, talking about how well we may rate them. I do not hear any of you guys talking about that. Nothing at all, so either put up or shut up.
Mr McCarthy: There are 120 objections to deal with.
MR TOLLNER: There are objections everywhere to deal with. This is my point. I do not have to look far to find objections. Do not harp on about the financial viability of councils, because you had 11 years to fix the financial viability of councils and you did not. You keep referring to the Deloitte report that shows they are not financially viable, so you failed in that area when you were in government.
Mr McCarthy: The reform happened in 2007.
MR TOLLNER: Whatever, they are still not financially viable. They were not at any time on the Labor watch. They were not viable on the previous CLP watch; they have never been financially viable. The only financially viable ones are the municipals and possibly Litchfield.
Mr Wood: It is a municipal.
MR TOLLNER: It is a municipal, there you go.
I do not think any of the identified regional or remote councils, anywhere I know of, are viable. They do pay rates on pastoral leases here. It is interesting to listen to the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson talk about Queensland and say, ‘Well, in Queensland they are all paying rates’. Pastoralists in Queensland or Western Australia pay an enormous amount more than a pastoralist in the Northern Territory. I challenge any of you to run the idea you want to put rates on pastoralists, land councils or Aboriginal land and people in unincorporated areas.
Mr McCarthy: Start with the 120 objections to the Valuer-General.
Mr TOLLNER: You will not, because you lack the intestinal fortitude. You received 120 negative responses. Do not talk about the financial viability of councils when you have no solution. It is not something we promised. We promised, and let us be very clear about this, to give people their voices back. That is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what you are standing in the way of.
Every time you filibuster – member for Nelson, you have tried every little sneaky trick in the book to defer this. That is your right, you were elected. People in Nelson probably love you for that, Independent Labor member for Nelson. When have you ever supported this side of the House? When Labor was in government? No, you were sitting over here.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member asked me a question. Could I answer it? I supported the Pastoral Land Act.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot, member for Nelson. It is not a point of order, sit down.
Mr TOLLNER: The Pastoral Land Act – there you go, it took me by surprise. Did Labor support that? Wherever they go, you go, Gerry. They wander over here, you wander over here. The Independent Labor member for Nelson …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, direct your comments to the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I am, Madam Speaker. He is the Independent Labor member for Nelson. I remember him going to an election on bringing back open speed limits. What happened? He became the kingmaker, and they killed speed limits; there were no open speed limits. He did not want the prison moved. He went to an election saying the prison would not move. Bingo, he is the kingmaker. Guess what? Flip, bang, he is back there again. Now where is the prison? In his electorate. The government is about $1bn or more poorer, but he supported it. What else did he want? He demanded a swimming pool. Labor said no, but where does he sit? He is making excuses about why he could not have a swimming pool.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance to the topic. It is not about me, it is about reform to local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could keep your comments to the topic, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The member for Nelson should remember that; it is not about him. This is about local government and giving people their voices back. It is not a grandstanding opportunity for the member for Nelson to try to stuff up everything government is doing. It is not your show, member for Nelson. You sit there, high and mighty, banging on about democracy, but you continue to try to hold this place to ransom. To what end? That is my point. You never know what the member for Nelson stands for. Does he want open speed limits, or not? Does he want a prison, or not? Does he want a swimming pool or not? Does he want Howard Springs Reserve or not? It is flip, flop, flip, flop. I do not know how people can have any faith in the member for Nelson. He says, ‘I am upset about this, I am upset about that’, but he is really upset about the financial viability of councils. He has never provided any solution to that. He is happy enough to form another committee. He wants a plebiscite; he wants government to spend money everywhere. I do not know whether you listen, member for Nelson. We are staring down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt unless we change our ways. We have a budget deficit of $1.1bn; we are spending more than what we get in. That is alarming, but every time you guys open your mouths, you are encouraging us to spend more and go further into debt.
Mr Giles: How much money have they spent today?
Mr TOLLNER: Who would know? The crazy member for Nhulunbuy wants us to take on a further $3.5bn of debt to prop up Rio.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that offensive. I am not crazy and I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you withdraw that comment, please?
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker. Draw your own conclusions. The member for Nhulunbuy wants us to go a further $3.5bn into the red to prop up Rio Tinto. Is there any sort of financial responsibility to orphan these people on the other side. How pathetic!
Mr TOLLNER: We are not supporting this motion and we will not be supporting the other crazy motion you have put up in order to slow the passage of a bill which the government wants to get through reasonably quickly. If you think you can hold us to ransom, think again. We are not the Labor Party.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the Labor Party is pleased to hear that. You might have a mandate but that is no excuse for doing things the wrong way. All we have asked is that you do things in a certain manner. It is not grandstanding; it ensuring people in local government areas are asked what they want to do. That is not grandstanding; it is just inquiring whether you are doing your job properly. Mandates are not an excuse for doing things any way you want and avoiding democratic processes.
The previous minister promised a review into the viability of councils. That is what we are asking for – to look at what methods could be used to improve the viability of councils. You promised the review, where is it? There are important issues and you say I do not have the guts to say what should happen. I went to a meeting at Marrakai and asked that the council become part of Litchfield Council so I know what it is like to be told to ‘ – off’ by a hostile crowd. I took it, and it was probably my baptism of fire in local government and politics in general. They did not want to have a bar of it and I had to cop it. I have tried to push for local government reform in areas I have lived in.
It is not an easy issue but you are the government and have contacts with the federal government. I do not have those contacts. You promised a review and that is what this is about. It is also about democratic processes to ensure your mandate is carried out in a proper manner. We do not mind if your mandate says you want more local government. We say if that is your mandate, do it the right way.
It is not grandstanding; it is our job as members of parliament to ensure the government does the right thing. If that is a problem for you, run your government solo. Yes, solo, similar to a dictator because that is what dictators do. They do not worry about processes, they just say the way it is ...
Mr Tollner: We are using exactly the same processes as Labor.
Mr WOOD: By not agreeing to this, you are not agreeing to a plebiscite. You are not agreeing to information nights. I ask that this motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 14
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Ms Finocchiaro
Mr Vatskalis Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Wood Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Refer Bill to Select Committee
Refer Bill to Select Committee
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, in addressing the House on this motion, I will keep my comments short. We have just had a debate in similar terms in this House during the general business day component. We now return to the matters involving government and we have a Standing Order 183 motion to be dealt with. I understand what the member is attempting to do, but what the member needs to recall is the majority of the House last week voted to enable this to be passed on urgency for the reasons given by the Treasurer and minister for Local Government.
The operational effect of the motion brought by the member for Nelson would defeat the purpose of the urgency motion agreed to by the majority of this House last week, when notice was given of the bill currently under debate. As a consequence, I do not see any purpose in pursuing the matter, because it would have the practical effect of overriding the urgency motion supported by this House. I understand the member for Nelson’s desire to have this matter delayed and that is a matter for him, along with the House, to deal with. It has already been dealt with. However, the processes of this House enable him to bring such a motion to members’ attention. The matter has now been thoroughly debated. It will not be supported by government and I have little more to add to that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from all speakers. I take up what the member for Port Darwin said about urgency and the government. The bill has not gone through yet but it has been moved today on urgency. This may not be a requirement if it had been introduced into parliament at the previous sittings and we could have spoken to local government. Local government might not have put out this media release saying they would like a full consultation if they had a chance to see the bill between the October and November sittings, but that did not happen.
The government pushed this forward very quickly. There was no opportunity for anyone to have any real input into whether this bill was fine by local government, if there were any issues that could have been raised by local government and whether the legislation was sound. That is not such a terribly undemocratic process and that is the normal process we have in this House. When you say, ‘I would like that process to not be rushed through,’ you get a hammering from the minister for Local Government, saying, ‘We have a mandate’.
That seems to be an excuse for any sort of behaviour, so I would expect a lot of urgency debates to go through here because the government says they have a mandate. They believe the parliament is a bit of a nuisance, debating important issues is irrelevant, the member for Nelson is grandstanding and what else can we find out? ‘He supported open speed limits at election. Oh, we will drag anything else into the debate.’ They will not stick to the real issue, which is the lack of adequate time for this important bill to be discussed thoroughly by local government and the community. All I have done is ask that it go to a select committee so there is an opportunity for those concerns to be addressed.
It is sad the minister can just ramble on, try to move this debate in all other directions and avoid the real issue LGANT has raised, which I have also raised it. LGANT believes there should have been full consultation in relation to this bill. You can say I am the grandstander, I am showing off, whatever you want to say, I do not care. I am standing up for what are good local government principles. A community has the right to elect its representatives and not see those representatives sacked because a minister feels like it and uses the overriding excuse of a mandate or that it is desirable or necessary for restructuring.
If we do not stand up for making legislation that has some principles in it, rather than designing it to simply push through government mandates, we are definitely going down the wrong path. By sending it to a select committee, which would not be very long, we would have a chance to deal with some of the issues LGANT, the community and other members of parliament have concerns about. That is what it was about. It is obvious. From day one, even when discussing the previous motion, I knew the minster was not interested in a debate. He would rather put down anyone who opposed the bill and rubbish them because he has a mandate and this parliament is irrelevant. It makes it very sad when you hope we will have a reasonable debate, we will be giving constructive criticism to government and they might actually take some of it on board and reassess their legislation. It is obvious this is no more than a sounding board for the government. From what you hear of the minister, no matter whether it is wrong or right, good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, as long as they have a mandate, they will do it. It is a very sad day for our parliament, for politics and the democratic process we expect from this parliament. It is also a very sad day for the democratic processes that should be protected in local government. I move that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (RESTRUCTURING) BILL
(Serial 60)
(Serial 60)
In committee:
Clause 1
Mr WOOD: Before we move that, could I ask one or two generic questions about the bill, Mr Chair?
Mr CHAIR: I will limit that to two, seeing you have given me the choice.
Mr WOOD: I should have said one to 20. I missed an opportunity there.
Minister, in relation to circulation of this bill, who did you send this bill to for comment? Did you receive any feedback on this bill?
Mr TOLLNER: No.
Mr WOOD: That is what I expected. Thank you. I can move on now, my question has been answered.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr WOOD: I have one amendment and one query in this section and because my query, in alphabetical order, will come after general election, I will do the amendment first.
I move amendment 13.1 in my name that the definition of ‘general election’ after paragraph (b) - the words ‘general election’ are in the definitions in the Local Government Act. Presently, the act says the meaning of general election is:
- (a) a general election mentioned in section 84; or
(b) a periodic general election mentioned in section 85.
The new definition is:
(c) a general election for a council held under a restructuring order made in relation to the council.
That is important because it also refers to a clause in the local government bill in relation to casual vacancies. For instance, clause 86 on by-elections – I will ensure I do not go backwards here. Section 39(5) on casual vacancies says:
- (a) if a casual vacancy occurs within 12 months or less before the next general election, the council may, (in accordance with its policy), co-opt a person to fill the vacancy until the next general election;
My understanding is there is a concern that there are two vacancies at Victoria Daly Shire which would normally have to be filled now, but Victoria Daly Shire is concerned that would be a waste of money if a general election is required as part of the restructuring. To get around that, if one uses the same section in the act:
- if a casual vacancy occurs within 12 months or less before the next general election …
there is no general election coming up, but there will be a general election if this amendment is accepted. You will have a third definition of general election which will state it also means an election that is held under a restructuring order made in relation to the council. That would allow a council like Victoria Daly to use the normal processes councils are allowed to use in a particular circumstance relating to a restructuring order where they have a casual vacancy. This is a commonsense amendment that would reduce the need for – as we will discuss further – a clause which allows the minister to sack councillors or mayors, or appoint them.
It is a simple change, but it would allow the democratic processes to occur. One of the important issues in this bill is the minister making the decisions. Here the council is making the decisions. We are debating a local government act, and local government should be the centre of what we are doing. This takes away the power of local government to make its own decisions under its own act – these are the changes proposed later – and handing that power to the minister. It should not be in the hands of the minister; it should be in the hands of the local council. That is what this amendment will help do.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, we will not agree to this change as it reduces flexibility somewhat. In the case of splitting the Victoria Daly in two, my understanding is this would require a general election for both new councils, where the transition committee may recommend other measures. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, but we are trying to maintain some flexibility in this system and will not be supporting that change.
Mr WOOD: I find that very disappointing. I know my desk is looking like the member for Port Darwin’s. The minister knocked the Queensland view. Queensland is doing, more or less, exactly as we are doing. It is breaking four councils into eight. They have brought together a transfer methodology which is nice and clear and sets out the key dates. I get the impression, when the minister said it would reduce his flexibility, they do not have a program.
Am I right, minister? You decided a few weeks ago you would allow the Victoria Daly Shire to be broken up, but you do not have a program. If I look at the key dates for what the Queensland government is doing – it introduced a set of regulations, the Local Government (De-amalgamation Implementation) Regulation 2013, was enacted on 11 April. Transfer managers were appointed on 12 April. The Local Government Remuneration and Discipline Tribunal was to decide the remuneration category for new councillors and councils, and that was decided on 1 September. During October to December, elections for new councils will be held at a date to be determined. On 31 December, the terms of the councils will end. The changeover day is to be 1 January. On 1 January, the term of mayor and council for each new council would commence.
Are you saying you do not want the two councils to have a general election or you do not have a program to allow you to make this amendment work? Are you saying it will take more than 12 months to do what you are doing?
Mr TOLLNER: I am saying, member for Nelson, I will await the advice from the transitional committee. I will not lock myself into one situation. Horses for courses, we are trying to maintain flexibility. I will not support this amendment.
Mr WOOD: You are going down a path of elections without …
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, do not put words in my mouth. What I said to you was I am not supporting this.
Mr WOOD: I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you for an explanation. I was asking a question and you are pre-empting it. You do not have a specific path for your program of restructuring for this council set out anywhere.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I do not have a path lined up for anyone. I am waiting to hear from people. I am waiting to receive information from the ground. That is why these bills are being put through on urgency, because we want to start mapping out the way forward. To do that, I want to maintain maximum flexibility in the approach and I do not want to be corralled onto one single path, as you put it.
Mr WOOD: Why do we need to change it? Why do we need things liking sacking councillors and appointing them? Is that you making a decision which is not needed? You have obviously put that into the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: We are trying to keep our options open.
Mr WOOD: I have another question on this section. I understand what the minister is saying. It is disappointing he is not supporting this change, because it really says he does not want that section of the bill to be removed. If he was to pass this, he would not need that. Could I ask for definitions? What is restructuring and what is a restructuring order?
Mr TOLLNER: They have the meaning they have in the 2007 act.
Mr WOOD: I do not have the 2007 act in front of me. Could you tell us what that is, please?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know whether it is defined but I certainly know that people have not had a problem understanding it. I can organise a briefing for you at some stage, with some lawyers, and you can determine it then?
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister, but this is the stage where we question the government on its legislation. You make a statement in clause 10C, which is pretty important in relation to …
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, I think we have the usual dictionary definition.
Mr WOOD: That usual dictionary definition – which I did explain today – is very broad. De-amalgamation means to reverse amalgamation, and that is clear, simple. Restructuring could mean anything from, for example, you would like more councillors on Darwin City Council. It could be applied in any way and anyhow, but you have said many times this is to do with the shires. Is it just a broad statement that allows you, at any time – if you think something fits within the gamut of restructuring of any council in the Northern Territory – the ability, if needed, to sack a councillor and appoint someone you would like?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not pre-empting anything that might come up in the changes to councils. In that regard, I do not want to limit what authority I have, as the minister as we go through this process. Like I said earlier, we are focused on the regional and remote councils, but I have interest from Darwin City Council, which may want some changes, along with Palmerston council.
I do not want to pre-empt what others might want and I do not want to be locked in to a position where I might find others want to do other things. The whole point is to be reactive to people’s wishes and desires and react in a timely manner. Understandably, the authorities placed with me under this bill are very broad. I know people on the other side are seeing problems everywhere, dictatorships and goodness knows what else, but we are very interested in working with people to achieve their wishes.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I appreciate that. Once you put something into a bill that is not specific to what you are trying to apply it to, there is no guarantee it will not be applied much further than the original intention, regardless of what you put in a second reading speech.
Mr TOLLNER: I have just received a definition. Restructuring orders: an instrument to introduce changes that relate to the regional governance review.
Mr WOOD: Can I find that in the bill?
Mr TOLLNER: No.
Mr WOOD: It is not an official definition within the legislation?
Mr TOLLNER: You will now find it in Hansard.
Mr WOOD: Hansard will not stand up in court. You have a definition here …
Mr TOLLNER: It might, because if courts get down to the nitty gritty, they will read Hansard and try to find out what the intentions of the parliament were.
Mr WOOD: Why was it not in the second reading speech? That is the most important part.
Mr TOLLNER: My learned colleague has informed me the second reading speech is most important. You are right, it is not in the bill. I should have mentioned it in the second reading speech. I had no idea you would want a definition of something like that, otherwise I would have incorporated it the speech. Before you say you did not know about it, because you did not see the bill, I accept that. It is not in there, but you have been given a definition.
Mr WOOD: That is pretty poor when you come to a legal document. As someone who reads these bills and uses definitions, if someone asks me what a restructuring order is, I will give them your phone number, because it should be in the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: No, as I said earlier, it is the ordinary dictionary definition, and that will be found. You will not have to make phone calls to me.
Mr WOOD. It might be found, but it is in this act in bold. Therefore it needs a definition, because it says under 10C (1):
- (1) The minister may make an order (a restructuring order) that the minister considers necessary or desirable to facilitate the restructuring of the system of local government, including an order …
If that is not defined, please do not blame me for saying the world is yours.
Mr TOLLNER: You will find the words ‘restructuring’ and ‘order’ in any dictionary.
Mr WOOD: I can use a dictionary, but this is the bill. If you introduce something which requires a definition, surely that should be part of the bill. That is obviously not going to happen. I see that as a great example of why this should have been given more time.
Mr TOLLNER: With due respect, the words ‘the’ ‘there’ and ‘notwithstanding’ do not appear as definitions in this bill, but most people have a pretty good idea of what those words mean. If they do not, they can go to a dictionary, look them up and find a general meaning for them. One would expect they could do the same with ‘restructuring’ and ‘order’, member for Nelson. I do not know why you get hung up on something like that.
Mr CHAIR: I am not going to let these questions go around in circles.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 2, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move amendment 13.2 standing in my name. I will deal with the two at the same time. This is asking the government to omit clause 10C(1)(d) and (f) :
- (d) suspend from office, or terminate the term of office of, the principal member or any other member of a council; or
…
- (f) appoint a person to fill a vacancy in the membership of a council, including in the office of the principal member …
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know at this stage, member for Nelson. It is a short answer, but I do not know what will happen in the future. For that reason, we are very keen to maintain maximum flexibility and those authorities are provided. You talk about draconian, this is no different to Labor’s 2007 legislation to do exactly the same thing, which they rushed through on urgency. There are some slight differences and I will read through them. Clause 10C(1)(d) says:
- (d) suspend from office, or terminate the term of office of, the principal member or any other member of a council; or
The similar areas in the 2007 legislation were section 28A(i) and (j):
- (i) alter the number of members of a council or the number of members to be elected for a ward;
- (j) suspend all members of a council, or terminate their terms of office;
There was a power to terminate the term of office of any council member. This included the principal member, member for Nelson. In that regard, there is little difference to what was in the 2007 bill.
Your concerns with clause 10C(f), which says:
- (f) appoint a person to fill a vacancy in the membership of a council, including in the office of the principal member …
This was reflected in the 2007 legislation under clause 28A(m):
- (m) appoint a person to a vacancy in the membership of a council;
Mr WOOD: Thank you. This will come as a rude shock to you, but I am not a member of the Labor Party. What they did then does not mean I agree with it. We are dealing with a bill today which continues to need scrutiny. I do not believe it is an appropriate power for you to have. If anybody has to remove someone from the council or put a new person in, it should be the local government, even if I do not agree with the methodology. It should not be you.
There is a section about continuing local government councillors in the regulations in de-amalgamations. It does not say anything. It just says councillors’ terms end on the changeover day. I am not sure where that information came from, but this is the de-amalgamation regulation. I do not think you are correct there. Minister, why have you put (d) in?
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, you have to understand that councils have the ability to rack up debt which goes on our account. We need to be able to control that in some regard. We have the power to create councils and to abolish them. When it comes to spending our money, it is entirely appropriate we have some checks and balances in place to determine how that money is spent.
Mr WOOD: Minister, can you tell me what section 224 of the Local Government Act says? I hope I got it right. It is either 222 or 242. I am working without the piece of paper.
Mr TOLLNER: You would like it read?
Mr WOOD: Is that the one on …
Mr TOLLNER: It says in section 224(1):
- If the Minister is satisfied that serious deficiencies have been identified in the conduct of a council’s affairs, the Minister may, by Gazette notice, place the council under official management.
What is your point?
Mr WOOD: That is the section that allows you to get rid of a council or councillors?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is right; it is already there. I am asking why is it here?
Mr TOLLNER: Why should it not be here?
Mr WOOD: Because you already have it for malpractice. This is not for malpractice. Why is it a requirement of a restructuring order?
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly, that part of the act is for misbehaviour; this is about restructuring.
Mr WOOD: Why do you need it?
Mr TOLLNER: To restructure.
Mr WOOD: To restructure what? For what part of restructuring do you need to sack members of a council, when I have already said you do not need to go down this path? As the Queensland legislation showed, members of a council finish the day the election is called.
Mr TOLLNER: When they no longer represent the people in that new council boundary, they may have to be removed and other people found. It is a transitional phase.
Mr WOOD: That is exactly what the Queensland government does not do. It makes sure the two councils have general elections. You do not get into that complication. You have two new elections. One is for the remnant of the council and one is for the new council. That way, you do not have to sack anyone.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, election money is coming out of their budgets. You harp on about financial sustainability, but these councils and the transitional committees might not deem it necessary to hold an election immediately to get new members on the council. My point is, resources are limited and things may well be different to Queensland. I understand Queensland is another state; it has a different system. Unlike here, I imagine local government is not necessarily as unsustainable financially in Queensland. Our pot is bare in the Northern Territory government. I cannot imagine the Australian government kicking the can because a council wants to split up in the Northern Territory. In some cases, we have to make do with what we have. I am not necessarily suggesting we will even use this authority, but it well may be that a recommendation comes through from a transitional committee.
Mr WOOD: A point of clarification. Is it true $6m is set aside for this process? If so, surely that is money that would be used for holding elections?
Mr CHAIR: I do not think that question relates to the clause.
Mr WOOD: Well, it does.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. There is money there and we ultimately have to determine how it is best spent. If you want to run around having general elections, holding plebiscites, that may suit your purposes, but it may not suit the purposes of others.
Mr WOOD: It is not about my purposes. If democracy is just something that comes down to dollars and cents all the time, we can make an argument for scrapping a lot of things. Are we not failing ourselves if we want to retain a fair, democratic process of electing our representatives and we wipe that simply because it could cost too much money and replace it with this clause 10C(d)? We are showing we cannot come up with a better option than the one we have here.
Mr TOLLNER: This is about democracy. This is about giving people their voices back. This is about allowing people to have their say and falling in with their wishes. That cannot, in our case, cost a lot of money because we do not have a lot of money to throw at these things. I am not suggesting we undermine democracy or anything of that nature. This is all about democracy, listening to people on the ground and getting to a place where they want to be as quickly as possible, with minimal cost and disruption. In some cases, we will have to cut a few corners to do that, but the end goal is the people will have their say. Their voices will be heard and I want to make this as smooth a transition as possible, with the least disruption. I find it entirely appropriate that the minister has the powers to do these things, if that is what people want.
Mr WOOD: We have never had the chance to take this piece of legislation out to discover what people want, so that is not really relevant. It goes back to the very heart of the issue I had. While you might be able to relate your concerns to a particular shire council, this section does not define that. It is very broad and can apply to anything. It is not only to hurry the process for the Victoria Daly Shire because it is what the people want – when you read this section, it does not say that. It is saying the minister may make a restructuring order considered necessary and desirable to facilitate restructuring the system of local government. That is the whole of local government, not just the Victoria Daly Shire, including an order to suspend from office.
The way it is written may not be the way you say it will be applied, but you may not be the minister forever and someone else may use this any way they wish. Am I reasonable to say this could be used far beyond what you are saying it should be used for?
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as printed, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 9
- Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Manison
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Ms Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley Mr Wood
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Asset Management System
Asset Management System
Mr TOLLNER (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Assembly with detail on what is a multimillion dollar scandal involving the Northern Territory government’s troubled asset management system, or AMS as it is commonly referred to. I will update members on bungling by the former Labor Territory government, which has many parallels to Queensland’s Health payroll scandal. It is a scandal that has cost Territory families more than $50m, and the bill is expected to grow. I will also inform members of the House what the Adam Giles Country Liberals government is doing about it, including improving the management of ICT across government.
Since AMS transferred to my portfolio of Corporate and Information Services on 7 October, I have asked my department to get to the truth of the former Labor government’s botched AMS project and provide me with a detailed briefing on the system and the mammoth challenges the Territory is faced with. To be frank, it is a diabolical mess, overseen by the current Leader of the Opposition.
As I said, to date more than $50m taxpayers’ dollars have been spent on a system that is still plagued with problems, requires significant manual data entry, needs expensive fly-in fly-out interstate resources to keep it going and struggles to manage the Territory’s assets effectively.
To understand how the former Labor government got Territorians into this position, you need to start at the beginning. In 2006, the former Labor government approved a proposal to replace nine older legacy ICT systems with a new modern asset management system. Managing the Territory’s assets is serious business, and something this scandal proves was beyond the previous Labor government. Government has assets of around $10.8bn, over $8bn of which is fixed assets held in AMS.
Nobody would argue that a robust and effective ICT system is needed for this task. A replacement system was estimated to cost $7.2m in total and deliver savings after five years by replacing the nine older systems and the cost of operating them. In December 2007, a request for tender was put to market by the former Labor government for a commercial off-the-shelf replacement system in what is referred to in the IT industry as the Tier 2 category. Tier 2 is the middle ground in terms of ICT systems, a reasonable system for a reasonable price. To use a motor vehicle analogy, Tier 2 is the Toyota Hilux option and a sensible, affordable way to go.
Unfortunately, when tenders closed in 2008, no suitable tenders were received from Tier 2 suppliers. Three compliant tenders were received from premium Tier 1 suppliers, which presented high end, high cost options. To use another vehicle analogy, we went to market for a Toyota Hilux and received tenders for three different luxury motor cars.
This is where the first fundamental mistake was made by the former Labor government. Rather than being smart and stopping to consider whether the tender process would deliver an affordable solution, one that was within an acceptable cost envelope, the then Labor government proceeded to recklessly push ahead. Fujitsu had tendered the ‘Rolls Royce’ of ICT systems, a German product used extensively in major enterprises known as SAP. Despite the fact there was no SAP expertise available within the Northern Territory to support this project, a contract was signed by the former Labor government with Fujitsu on 31 March 2009. At this point in time, the value of the contract to Fujitsu to deliver the SAP system had already escalated from the $7.2m starting point to nearly $14.8m. The alarm bells were ringing but they were being ignored by the then Labor administration. As you will see later, while $14.8m is more than double the initial estimate, it is still a far cry from what the former Labor government has cost Territory families to date to deliver a system that can only be described as a wreck.
Once work commenced with Fujitsu, the situation turned from bad to worse. Fujitsu has failed its role as the contracted systems integrator for AMS. I need to be somewhat circumspect in this area as the Territory is currently reserving its rights and could possibly seek legal remedy for the failings of Fujitsu. Having said this, the failings are numerous and significant. The problems started from day one with project delays in the very first phase.
Fujitsu was to arrive on site in Darwin to commence work within six weeks of the contract being signed. The team arrived late. The project manager arrived even later and only lasted about six weeks. This was just the start of resourcing problems and high-level turnover of skilled resources that would plague the project over the next few years and send costs spiralling out of control. There were delays in delivery of every phase of this project.
The first major output Fujitsu was required to produce was a series of blueprints to document the processes the new system would use to manage the Territory’s assets. This work was planned to take 10 weeks; it took a whole year. This delay occurred due to the poor quality of work produced by Fujitsu, which needed repeated rework to meet an acceptable standard.
The first drafts of these technical system blueprints that were so important to getting the system right were absolutely terrible. They contained numerous errors, failed to address our business requirements for an asset system, contained spelling mistakes, and were, in some places, simply incomplete. In many places, they were obviously cut and pasted from another Fujitsu client and still had the name of the other company in the documents. This blueprint phase also required Fujitsu to produce a number of key technical documents that would be crucial to the process of building and implementing the AMS. Many of these were not done.
It was at the completion of this blueprint phase that the second and probably most serious blunder was made by the former Labor government. The contract with Fujitsu contained a provision that allowed a window of opportunity for the former Labor government to disengage Fujitsu as the system integrator at the completion of the blueprint phase and engage a new supplier to deliver AMS.
At this point, Fujitsu had struggled to deliver the critical system blueprints and extensive technical system documentation, and resourcing issues continued to create major problems. You will also recall my earlier statement that the original request for tender was for a commercial off-the-shelf system. By this point, it had become apparent that two major system components would instead require customised solutions to be built. The spatial data – GIS as it is commonly referred to – component and the mobility component, enabling the AMS system to be accessed via hand-held devices, as you would expect from a modern ICT system, could not be delivered from the core SAP software.
To this day, the GIS and mobility components remain undelivered and are outstanding actions on Fujitsu. Despite all this and despite having a contractual opportunity to get out, despite the advice from independent ICT experts that the lowest risk option was to appoint another systems integrator – one experienced with SAP – the then Labor government recommitted Territorians to Fujitsu as their system integrator. With absolute disregard for the millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being put at risk, it irresponsibly soldiered on.
What came next was nearly two years where the actual AMS was being built prior to it being rolled out across government agencies in April 2012. During this phase of building and testing the new system, things continued to go wrong, and the scandalous waste of taxpayers’ dollars continued to grow.
Turnover of Fujitsu resources continued to be a problem during this period. In fact, over the life of this project, Fujitsu has had more than 11 different project managers and at least 100 different specialist contractor resources working on the AMS. This high level of turnover and absence of key Fujitsu personnel at various times created a huge challenge and resulted in very little handover and skills transfer to NT public servants working in the team, despite this being a condition of Fujitsu’s contract.
The system development continued to experience delay after delay. Fujitsu’s contract required them to deliver the system to final preparation stage in around nine months, yet it took over a year-and-a-half. Significant problems were identified during this system development phase, many of which remain outstanding and unresolved to this day. The interface between AMS and the government accounting system, or GAS, is one critical example. With more than $8bn in fixed assets held in AMS and with the system used to manage every capital works project, it is a crucial function of the system to get the right accounting treatment of our assets.
It simply does not work properly and the Labor members opposite are responsible for that. Applying the correct accounting treatment to assets and getting reliable financial data out of AMS and into GAS is a daily challenge for the hard-working public servants who have to use this system on a day-to-day basis. Considerable manual work and data entry is required every day to keep the information in GAS up to date, something that should happen automatically in any modern, contemporary ICT system. All this is thanks to the incompetence of the previous Labor government and members opposite.
Data quality remains a huge problem, as developing a data migration strategy to transfer data from nine old legacy systems to the new AMS was not done properly during the development of the system. Poor quality and incomplete data in AMS continues to be a major problem even today, more than a year-and-a-half after the system went live. Producing useful reports is a key feature of any decent ICT system. Having all of your asset data in a system such as AMS is not much use if you cannot extract reports and information easily to support decision-making and the management of assets in a proactive and cost efficient way.
It pains me to say it, but getting decent reports and information out of AMS is a bit like extracting teeth. Building a reporting business warehouse so information about assets could be extracted easily and in real time was a contract requirement on Fujitsu. This part of the project experienced repeated delays and, finally, after much frustration, Fujitsu committed to building around thirteen stand-alone reports as a stop gap measure. These reports are not adequate to meet government’s needs and have cost several hundred thousand dollars each to develop. Delivery of the reporting functionality, in the form of a business warehouse, remains an outstanding action on Fujitsu. If Fujitsu does not deliver, our government may be forced to develop this reporting functionality some other way and at a further cost to Territorians simply because we need it to manage our $8bn worth of assets effectively. Perhaps worst of all, the blueprints developed in the earlier phase that were so crucial to the system design and build did not accurately capture the actual processes used in agencies to manage their assets.
This means we have ended up with a system that does not match the business processes used in agencies to manage their assets. If I can indulge my motor vehicle analogy again, this is akin to taking that Rolls Royce we purchased and trying to drive it down a bush track better suited to a Toyota Hilux. It was simply never designed to do that. In fact, officers of my department tasked with investigating this scandal have recently made another alarming discovery. Advice was sought from independent ICT experts in industry on the use of the SAP software to manage assets. The advice they received is that they are not aware of any other organisation worldwide that has deployed SAP just for managing assets. SAP is a large scale system, what is commonly referred to in IT speak as an enterprise resource planning system, or ERP. Its strengths are in finance, HR, payroll and supply management. Using SAP as a stand-alone asset management system is unheard of according to the experts, yet that is the path the former Labor government embarked on.
Add to this the cost blow outs. This project was initially supposed to cost $7.2m. By the time the contract was awarded to Fujitsu, it was costed at $14.8m. When it went live, it had cost close to $27m, almost four times the initial funding envelope. At a Public Accounts Committee hearing in August 2012, the total cost of AMS is on the public record as $28.2m. In April 2012, after multiple delays with missing system functionality, suffering huge cost overruns and after what can only be described as fairly rudimentary testing by the former Labor government of the system, AMS went live across all agencies, shades of the same incompetence that caused the Queensland Health payroll scandal. It was shocking to find out there were 70 known defects in the system on the day it went live, but despite this it went ahead as planned. Omissions and missing system functionality remain outstanding to this day. In fact, there are still 200 known defects that require rectification.
One of the worst affected agencies from the crash-it-in approach by the previous Labor government was the Department of Housing. Housing has a lot of repair and maintenance work that occurs in relation to its assets. In the old legacy asset system, housing contractors were able to access the system to do their paperwork, such as retrieving work orders and submitting invoices. Despite Housing raising concerns with the then Labor government that the contractor portal had not been properly tested in the new AMS before go live and contractors not receiving adequate training, the system was crashed in. The end result was a system that was so slow, contractors refused to use it. They even sought payment for time they wasted trying to enter their paperwork. Significant technical work had to be done to fix the AMS contractor portal. Temporary staff had to be hired at great expense to input data manually for Housing, and to assist with reconciling payments to contractors.
This complete botch up should never have occurred. It was a scandal that was allowed to go ahead. It could and should have been prevented in the first place. Here is a litmus test. The original business case for a new asset management system, and what the whole seven-year project was based on, was argued on the basis that the new AMS would replace nine old legacy systems and produce efficiencies. This was so integral to the argument for purchasing a new system that it was an explicit condition of Fujitsu’s contract that these legacy systems needed to be retired or switched off for the project to be considered a success. As of today, only two of those nine systems have been retired. These two systems were smaller, perhaps better described as databases, and switching them off produced no material savings or efficiencies. The other seven systems remain switched on because AMS simply has not delivered the required functionality to enable them to be retired.
Whether it will ever be delivered remains in doubt. In fact, an independent health check review conducted by the Department of Treasury and Finance in October 2012 and assisted by SAP experts and asset management experts from KPMG Consulting, found AMS to be only 11% fit for purpose. Over $30m had been spent at the time this review was conducted, yet the system is only 11% fit for purpose. It is hard to imagine how this could get worse. It is a scandal of epic proportions.
AMS has been live for over a year-and-a-half now, yet the problems persist. The gaping holes in system functionality I have described today continue to hamper the efforts of government agencies that are trying hard to manage their assets properly. The inability of AMS to work properly with our government accounting system, GAS, continues to present a critical and unacceptable risk to government and the pockets of Territory taxpayers. In both the 2011-12 and the 2012-13 financial years, the financial value of the fixed assets recorded in AMS has not reconciled to the value of the Territory’s total assets in GAS. There are errors and inconsistencies in the order of tens of millions of dollars. The Territory’s finances are audited annually as part of preparing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, or TAFR, as it is often referred to. For two years in a row, the Auditor-General has been faced with the possibility of having to issue a qualified audit on the Territory’s finances. Fortunately, as a result of weeks of extensive manual work undertaken by staff in the AMS team and the Department of Treasury and Finance to manually reconcile the asset values, we have escaped a qualified audit.
Relying on resource intensive manual intervention is not the way to deal with this critical task. It needs to be addressed. I am very mindful that we need to close off another financial year in just over six months from now. The implications for the Territory of having our financials qualified are not to be underestimated. Not only is it an embarrassment for government as responsible fiscal managers, it has downstream implications for our funding arrangements. Fixing this is not negotiable, it is essential. Staff in agencies that use AMS to do their jobs continue to be frustrated with the system. This stems from a range of issues, including the lack of fit between the system and the actual process of managing assets in agencies. Lack of effective training and poor engagement and communication have all led to a lack of acceptance and uptake by agencies. Put simply, because of the former Labor government’s bungling, we have a defective system and a bunch of users who feel that the new system does not meet their needs and that they have not been listened to.
It would be timely to point out that while I have been critical of Fujitsu in its role of system integrator, the failures in this project are not all on its shoulders. Labor’s decision-makers made a number of mistakes at critical stages in this project: the initial decision to procure a Tier 1 software solution rather than an affordable Tier 2 system, retaining Fujitsu as the system integrator when a contractual opportunity existed to replace it after its failure at the blueprint stage, and the decision to go live despite significant defects and shortfalls are all examples of this.
Other mistakes were made. Labor botched an opportunity to grow local industry capability with the SAP software and, instead, a costly process of using expensive fly-in fly-out contract resources was put in place. Not only would a skills transfer approach have built local industry capability, it would have future-proofed AMS to get more of its support locally.
The Labor government’s use of expensive contractor resources to undertake basic functions that could be done by public servants also drove costs. At various stages, the Labor government used contractors for a range of routine administrative functions within the AMS team. Such was the level of the Labor government’s incompetence after the go live in April 2012, that contractors, including backpackers, were used to resource the AMS help desk, answering the phone and logging calls. These duties have since been transitioned to public servants.
The scope and complexity of the problems that exist with AMS are myriad. The system has been deployed and configured in such a way that it is not meeting the core requirements of agencies to manage their assets. These problems relate to fundamental system design issues that are not able to be fixed without significant reprogramming of core software components. The fact the system has now been live for over 18 months means this is even more difficult to address. It has become clear that even if these issues can be resolved, the Territory will be left with a long-term cost commitment to operate an expensive piece of software that is, at best, marginally fit for purpose.
I should point out that between 2009 and 2013 this project has been subject to an extensive review and audit. During this time there have been four independent reviews conducted by consulting firms, two audits of the AMS project by the Auditor-General, and executives responsible for the project have appeared before the Public Accounts Committee four times. The findings of these audits and reviews contain some common themes. The former Labor government was guilty of:
inadequate capture of government’s business requirements in order to deliver an ICT solution
mistakes made in procurement and contract management of suppliers
These are text book examples of the mistakes to be avoided in ICT projects and the previous Labor government made all of them. To make matters worse, it has been found that the former Labor government is also guilty of having splurged around $60m of taxpayers’ money in other ICT projects, most notably the Power and Water Corporation’s asset management system project and the Department of Health’s project to develop a grants management system. Problems such as accurately capturing the business requirements a new ICT system needs to fulfil, careful management of contracted suppliers and ensuring appropriate project management and governance mechanisms are in place are common to all three projects.
The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory August 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly paints a damning picture of how the Labor government’s bungling impacted Power and Water. The report details how almost $60m in taxpayers’ money was poured into a project that was supposed to have cost $15m. The final cost of the Power and Water project was more than three times the initial budget that was approved. The Auditor-General also noted that the Power and Water system went live in August 2012 with 570 defects, 29 of which were major.
The Public Accounts Committee is conducting an inquiry into the management of ICT projects more broadly across government. AMS, Health, and Power and Water projects are addressed specifically in the terms of reference of this review. What is required is a more robust and effective approach to the governance of ICT projects and initiatives – an approach where the warning bells are heard clearly when projects get into difficulty and where agencies have the right resources available to intervene and take corrective action when needed.
More on that later. First, I want to talk about what is being done to improve the management of the AMS system, both now and into the future. Firstly, I acknowledge the role of my colleague, minister Styles. He first inherited this mess from the former Labor government and took immediate steps to turn the ship around. Under minister Styles, our government was able to stabilise the system and he introduced a level of management rigour that had been sadly lacking under the former Labor government.
Minister Styles got 10 urgent remediation projects under way to improve the system so we could hobble through the 2012-13 financial year without a total disaster. Implementing these projects got us through and I thank the minister for that.
I plan to build on minister Styles’ initial work to fix this mess. Since taking on responsibility for AMS on 7 October this year in my capacity as Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I have taken further decisive action. A new, more agile project governance model has been implemented. With fewer committees, more senior representation from key agencies and regular reporting to me through the Chief Executive of the Department of Corporate and Information Services we will ensure much tighter management control moving forward.
A new three-tiered approach has been put in place to better manage the various elements of the AMS system. The service delivery stream is focusing on the steady state operation of the system, making sure users receive the training they need, have good quality support available, a help desk that deals with their issues, and that the day-to-day operation of the system runs smoothly.
The remediation stream is focused on fixing the parts of the system that are causing the most problems for agencies trying to manage their assets, and government as a whole. Critical priorities for this stream include resolving the financial reconciliation between AMS and GAS before 30 June 2014, and delivering a better level of reporting functionality. The recovery stream is focused on what we do longer term. While we need to stabilise the system to keep it operational and fix the components that desperately need fixing, there remains a question about what we do longer term. To put it bluntly, we are driving a Rolls Royce, and even if we get it working properly, it is still a Rolls Royce. We need to ask ourselves the fundamental question about whether this is sustainable over the long haul.
A team within my department is working hard to investigate the realistic options available to government and present them to me in terms of cost, benefit and risk. In doing this, they are engaging with all the major agencies that manage assets and we are working closely with central agencies.
I expect to be in a position to consider the findings from this group early in 2014. Additionally, steps are being taken to cut costs and eliminate unnecessary expenditure from the AMS program. We are reducing the number of highly paid contractors and transferring work to public servants who will stay the distance and support the system long after the fly-in fly-out resources have gone. We have also cancelled several consultancies. As I stated earlier, the Territory has not ruled out seeking legal remedy for non-delivery by its supplier, and we are taking expert legal advice before deciding on what action we might take in this regard.
Put simply, AMS is under new management. A key question in all of this is how do we stop it happening again? The single most critical thing we can do to improve success with ICT projects and initiatives is put in place a stronger, more robust ICT governance approach and get the right senior people within government participating in it. If we get this foundation layer right, other success factors such as project scoping, operational project management, resourcing, procurement and contract management, change management and implementation will all be addressed through the governance process.
I am pleased to report that my department is currently developing a new ICT governance framework that will improve alignment of ICT investments with government direction, strengthen oversight of high risk and high value ICT investments and put in place a framework to improve the management of ICT. This will be a clear and tangible response to the deficiencies in the management of ICT identified by the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee and various other independent reviews undertaken in response to troubled ICT systems projects. I expect to put a submission on this matter before Cabinet early in the new year. We have taken action to get this disastrous project, left to us by the former government, back on track. We are still a long way from smooth sailing, however, we are finally moving in the right direction.
I suspect more funding will be needed at some point. The fact we are still driving the Rolls Royce ICT system remains a problem. The Toyota Hilux may still be the best option. I am not here today to make any predictions about what the future of asset management systems might be for government. I will await the completion of the investigative work being done by my department. I am here today to demonstrate very clearly that this government is taking decisive action in response to the mess we have been left to clean up. I look forward to providing the Assembly with a further update in early 2014.
I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the statement, which was a highly technical one. I wish I had the resources he has to write this kind of response. I am not an IT expert. Some of the things he said were, excuse the pun, all Greek to me.
One thing I will not dispute is it was an extremely complex project and it was very costly. That is something nobody will deny. I was curious as to why things like that are so costly? I went to the usual place we go to nowadays – Google – and searched for assets management system overruns. Within 0.18 seconds, 22 000 results were found, highlighting asset management system overruns.
The Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister referred to a scandal. He has tried to put that scandal on the Leader of the Opposition, but nothing he said pointed to the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing points to scandal. It worries me that he said he will take legal action against a particular company. I hope he does and I hope he is lucky, but having named the company and put a lot of allegations against the company using parliamentary privilege, I wonder what he has done to any case he may have in a court in the future. Any company would hire clever lawyers and the first claim will be they were not given a right of reply or they were prejudiced in parliament under parliamentary privilege.
The Deputy Chief Minister said these systems ran into trouble when trying to integrate nine archaic systems. Why nine? When the CLP started building the Territory in the early 1980s, they decided every department should have its own IT system. As a result, we had nine departments and nine IT systems. Who in his right mind would have nine IT systems for 14 000 public servants? It is beyond me; I do not understand why it happened. At that time, with the number of public servants and the number of assets, they could have very easily integrated the IT. As time goes by, state-of-the-art systems of two years ago are now archaic and need complete overhaul to be able to assimilate with a new system. Often we find that older systems will not talk to a new system at all. They sometimes do not even talk to each other.
The Deputy Chief Minister says there were not enough public servants trained and they were not used. This was because the CLP government at the time outsourced all IT services to the private sector. As a result, there were not many people in the departments who understood IT. You do not have people who understand IT if they are not experienced within your organisation and you are always relying on external providers. Cabinet needs to find a balanced approach to what we wanted to do. Do we want to outsource everything or keep something inside just in case? The CLP went for everything out and kept nothing in house. This contributed to the difficulties we ran into with the asset management system.
Some of the things we did a few years ago were then, state–of-the-art, but today are obsolete. For example, in 1994, a token ring network system was used in this building after it opened. Today, there are only two token ring network systems left in the world, one in this Parliament House and one in Germany. Google it and you will find out. I did not know what the token ring network system was and I had to Google it to find out. I am not an expert in IT.
The Auditor-General has looked into it, identified the problems, and has suggested a way forward. I encourage the government to do that. If the government will take legal action because the contracted company did not maintain contractual agreements and milestones, they have a case and I wish them luck. I have concerns about how this will proceed with the Deputy Chief Minister having blasted and named the company, and made serious allegations under parliamentary privilege.
Nobody denies it is a complex system. It was a costly system and it went up and up. I do not know if the minister knows much about computers. I do not know much and would rely on expertise and advice from all departments to make decisions. To blame this decision on a particular minister is like trying to tell Robyn Lambley, the member for Araluen, that an operation was not done properly, was misdiagnosed and was her fault. She is the minister deciding policy when somebody else performs the dirty work, to put it that way.
I did not have the resources the minister has. I did not have information, and being 10.30 pm, it does not give us much opportunity to spend time on it. I look forward to what the minister will say in the future, as he is now in government and has the resources and money. I anxiously wait to see how he will proceed, when he will proceed, when he will develop an asset management system, if he will develop an asset management system and how long it will take him to develop that system.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report – Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table a report for the member for Goyder, pursuant to clause 4.1 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1 of 2012.
TABLED PAPER
NT Electoral Commission Report –
Council Elections
NT Electoral Commission Report –
Council Elections
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also lay on the table a report by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission regarding NT council elections.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish to reflect on the past 15 months as an MLA and the past three months as a minister in the Giles government. To say the past 15 months have changed my life would be an understatement. From a Warlpiri woman with her toes in the sands of the Central Australian deserts to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory as member for Stuart, elected on a huge swing against the previous Labor minister, to being promoted to the Giles Cabinet in September this year by the Chief Minister, it has been a huge 15 months but something I have thoroughly enjoyed.
I would like to thank the voters of Stuart for their trust and confidence in me. I was elected on a platform the bush had enough of the Labor ‘all talk and no action’ way of dealing with the bush. Rather than sitting still, I have been busy, both as member for Stuart and also as Minister for Community Services, Parks and Wildlife, men’s and women’s policy, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and Statehood.
Over the past 12 months, I have visited all schools in my electorate a number of times, established a footy academy in Yuendumu, which is still going strong; launched the Indigenous TV station in Yuendumu in April this year; attended a number of very successful sports carnivals in Barunga and Yuendumu as well as the Barunga Festival and secured a number of grants for sports equipment for Nyirripi, Barunga and Yuendumu. I represented the Chief Minister at the National Road Safety Forum in Hobart, Tasmania; gave an address at the women’s Liberal conference in Queensland; was guest speaker at a diabetes education program in Brisbane and managed to progress the Alyuen water supply, which will be completed by February. They have been waiting for water since 2007.
I attended the Pine Creek Gold Rush Festival, as well as the Timber Creek Campdraft in August, where I handed out prizes. I opened the Willowra learning centre in April this year. I was so lucky to be present at the Mt Doreen native title handover, where I got to sit in a river bed and watch the historic sitting of the federal court. I also had the opportunity to go to Singapore with Minister Styles, Linda Fazldeen and Rodney Illingworth to look at what we can learn from people in Singapore.
There is much more I could say about my electorate activities over the past 12 months, but I will run out of time and I need to squeeze in my Christmas messages.
I am proud to be the minister responsible for the work of the dedicated staff of the Parks and Wildlife Commission. One of the best things about this portfolio is that my family culture is very much part of it. My father’s Dreaming includes the western quoll, rufous hare-wallaby, mala, now extinct in the Northern Territory and, possum, Jalanpa, very much endangered. Most of these animals are found at the desert park in Alice Springs. I am so lucky to have some of the NT's most beautiful parks in my electorate such as Litchfield, Judbarra/Gregory, Nitmiluk, Tjuwaliyn (Douglas) Hot Springs Park, Umbrawarra Gorge, Keep River, Cobourg and many more. In my two-and-a-half months as a minister, I have met staff and rangers at Palmerston, Berrimah, Lambells Lagoon, Middle Point, Alice Springs, Timber Creek, Keep River and Katherine. The best comment I have heard so far is I am the first minister some rangers have seen in 20 years. What a fantastic compliment.
I thank all staff at the commission for their hard, tireless work over the last 12 months, many of who I have already met. I look forward to working with you next year to continue to improve our parks for all Territorians. To Andrew Bridges the CEO, and his executive management team of Dr Anne Walters, Executive Officer, Chris Day, Neva McCartney, Amanda Moore, Shael Martin, Brian Harty, Paul Ah Chee, Mac Moyses, Kristen Appel, and Mike Deegan, I thank you for the lovely green folders and your hard work over the last 12 months. This is reflected in the fantastic appearance of our parks and reserves. I have heard your united voices about the tiring infrastructure and I will work hard with colleagues to get more money for replacement and upgrades over the next few budgets. To the Chief Rangers, Nigel Weston, Lincoln Wilson, Barry Scott, Eddie Webber, Gary Weir, Wayne Gaskon and the rest of the rangers across the NT, keep up your fantastic work and I look forward to meeting with you and your teams next year.
I am also proud to be the Minister for Community Services, which includes both women’s and men’s policy, remote programs, interpreter services, the Stronger Futures unit and corporate services. I thank all staff at community services for their hard, tireless work over the past 12 months, many of who I have already met. I look forward to working with you next year to continue to improve the lives of remote Territorians. To the Chief Executive, Rob Kendrick, and his management team of Michelle Brown, Peter Campos, Ken Tinkham and Peter Boyce, thank you for your hard work over the last 12 months and I look forward to working with you next year to continue my plans.
I wish Mike Chiodo the best as he heads up the government’s Gove recovery team. The Chief Minister picked the best man for the job and I wish him all the best in this critical task for the NT. I will sorely miss his honest, and often candid, advice. I always wanted to improve the lives of all Territorians, including women, but the best way to do that is with the cooperation of our men and I want to work together with them. I thank Suzanne Everingham, Nathan Evans and their teams. We have a massive policy agenda to deliver next year and I cannot wait to start on this.
To David Alexander and your teams of interpreters, including Aboriginal interpreters; I have worked as an interpreter. I translated for many years and I am aware of the challenges you face, so thank you all for the hard work.
To Peter Campos and his team looking after remote programs and essential services. I was born and raised on a remote community and I have lived and worked on several others. I know how difficult it is to maintain services to these communities, to keep them connected.
Also under community services is the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Thank you, Ben Scambary, Marlene, Clive and the rest of the AAPA team. You have had a huge year with many major projects and pressing deadlines. Thank you for your efforts and keep up the hard work.
Last but not least, I thank my statehood advisor, Russell Keith in the Legislative Assembly, who continually reminds me he cannot give me any advice, but is merely there to help.
To Robert Bradshaw at the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, thank you for your policy assistance and I look forward to working with you next year on advancing the issue of statehood.
I will do my best as minister in all these areas, but I will not forget the people of Stuart. You are always in my mind and my heart. Karen and Jodi in my Alice Springs and Katherine offices work very hard and, most importantly, care about the welfare and wellbeing of the people of Stuart. They are always available to answer questions and to pass on requests and concerns to me.
To the Chief Minister, thank you for your confidence, trust and faith in promoting me to the Cabinet. I will return that confidence in achieving results for the Territory. I will return that trust in being true to my oath as a minister of the Crown, and I will return the faith in working with my Cabinet and backbench colleagues to make sure every voice is heard.
To the rest of my Cabinet colleagues, thank you for helping me out as a newie and showing me the ropes in Cabinet. I promise you I will be knocking your doors down next year and trying to get more for Territorians, especially those in the bush.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance and support, and the Deputy Speaker, the member for Daly. You are both great people and I appreciate your friendship and support.
I have two families left to thank. First, there is my Darwin family, my ministerial office. To Ana Elenis and Tammy Voukolos ,who run the admin side of my office, thank you for your hard work, laughs and constant care. To my department liaison officers, Vicki Campbell and Tracey Duldig; you are a fantastic asset for the department and I am so lucky to have you working in my office and being the key link between my departments and my office. To Joshua Higgins, my advisor, and communications adviser, Lauren Crawley; thank you both for your support and assistance over the past three months. Joshua, I am so glad I stole you from your father, the member for Daly and thank you for your help, support and laughs. Lauren, I am so grateful to the Chief Minister for letting you take this opportunity. Thank you for your craft, which you do so well. We have a big year next year, so get ready.
To my Chief of Staff and senior advisor, Paul Mossman - what can I say? You are a godsend and a great asset. Thank you, Ron for recommending him to me, thank you to my Darwin family. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Jacinta, my daughter, Colin Lillie, my son-in-law and my grandsons, Ethan, Leland, Declan and Kincaid. I am so proud of you all, especially, Jacinta, who launched her first album, Dry River, a few weeks ago and which can be downloaded from iTunes. I wish to mention my niece, who tragically died last Friday in a car accident in Alice Springs. I want to thank the Alice Springs police, especially Detective Sergeant Mike Schumacher and Senior Constable Phil Brooks-Anderson, and the Alice Springs coroner’s office for all their help. They treated my family like their own. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Dave Price, who is my world, my rock and everything to me. Thank you for your patience, love and support; without it, I would simply not be able to do this job.
I have been told to say Merry Christmas in Warlpiri, but we do not have a saying, so I will say Merry Christmas (member spoke in language). Thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My grandparents love stories starting with a bunch of bananas.
- In Katherine, returning from Darwin, I was checking my tyres when a fellow approached me and asked if I was going to Tennant Creek, and if I was, could I do him a favour and take a bunch of bananas to his girlfriend? Her name was Ellen and she lived in the house opposite her father’s butcher shop. Yes, I could do that for him.
- A large bunch of bananas occupied the passenger seat, growing steadily riper as I travelled south. I wasted no time, on my arrival, in getting them delivered and upon meeting the recipient, who could only be described as stunning, I promptly decided she was being wasted on a fellow who dealt in bananas and on the spot, I commenced to wax lyrical and cut the fellow out. I was doing pretty well but trips away were playing havoc with my progress.
I spent my 21st birthday in Larrimah loading drummed fuel. I had started in half-light at dawn and finished about noon, I had no food left in the tucker box and was well and truly knackered. To my delighted surprise, the first wagon I slid the door back on held rations for Beetaloo Station. I bashed the lid in on a tin of bully beef and brewing a billy tea, had a birthday party.
I was 21 when I returned to Tennant Creek, where Ellen presented me with a copy of Banjo Patterson’s poems. I was deeply touched. I do believe it was the first birthday present I had received for close on 11 years. Saturday nights would find Ellen and me heading for Seven Mile Creek, where we would do some canoodling and discuss getting married and how many children we would have and all the other things young people discuss who find themselves deeply in love. Ellen told me her dad, Con Perry, was in Alice Springs from the Granites, where he was mining. He was staying at Lye Underdown’s hotel. I was going to Alice and I told Ellen I would do the right thing and call in and see her father and ask him ‘could I marry her’.
Ellen thought this was risky and doubted that I would be received with any favour. Five years with Nugget Morton had given me a misplaced confidence in my abilities, and when I phoned Ellen later that night and told her that her father seemed to accept the idea, she told me that knowing her father, she had her doubts and rightly so. He gave her fifty pounds and told her to go away for a holiday and forget all about me. Fifty pounds to two young people, with a prospect of a long wait to accumulate enough finances to marry was a temptation too hard to resist. Not wishing to awaken any suspicions, we travelled separately to Adelaide and were married on 7 November 1951. To put it bluntly, we had eloped. I never knew getting married involved so much. When I met the priest, Father Vince Tyler, I told him I wanted to be married on Tuesday. He soon put me in my place, and we would be getting married if and when he decided we could. For me, who could only be described as a well lapsed Catholic, it meant a complete run through of all the rules and ordinances before he would judge me ready for the big day. To say that I was nervous would be putting it mildly, you would have needed exceptional hearing to hear my responses and I was vibrating like a tuning fork.
A while later, we stood outside the church as Mr and Mrs Gunner. The wedding supper out of the way, we started life together with a honeymoon at Glenelg.
Grandad and Nana stayed on in Adelaide, I suspect, to avoid Con. They re-established communications with the family after Nana fell pregnant.
- After the birth of our first set of twins, her mother came to Adelaide and before we knew what was happening, our idyllic exile was over and we were on our way home to Tennant Creek.
Life in [Tennant Creek] was proving a marathon of discomfort; everything was a major undertaking and very hard on Ellen and the twins.
I took Ellen up to the hospital as she was having pains. It wasn’t the fashion in those days for the husbands to take a morbid interest in the results of their endeavours and later that night, I received a phone to say that I was now the father of twin girls; my initial reaction had the nurse requesting an apology for my language before hanging up.
I was all into being a father but this was pushing the pace a bit so we were both a bit wary about trying for any more.
Our not so little family required more money to run smoothly, so I began casting around… I became friendly with a fellow named Dinny Devaney [who] had acquired a contract to dig graves at the cemetery and was looking for someone reliable to share the work and the income. An increase in the number of mine works at Nobles Nob and Peko mines and an establishing of a watering hole at the Three Ways north of town, meant that speed and drink unfortunately kept us busy.
In 1956, we returned to Adelaide, where Grandad worked for John Kenelly, who became known as Kenellys Transport, starting as a driver and finishing as a manager.
In 1961, following the death of our son, Connie in an accident on Woodville Road, we returned to Tennant Creek. I ran the stock camp for old Con for a while, but the country was suffering a severe drought and despite my putting down a successful bore with plentiful sweet water in an area of good dry feed, it was decided that due to the combination of drought and debt to Dalgety’s, there was no choice but to rid the property of cattle and after a final mustering and branding, six thousand head went off to Seven Mile and at depressed market prices, only just covered transport cost to Dry Creek in Adelaide and Dalgety’s account. Con and Nell continued to live at the homestead, [Tennant Creek Telegraph Station] but eventually sold it to the National Trust.
In 1964, I was approached by Denis O’Neil with a proposal for employment running the camp for him at Number One Bore on Wave Hill Station.
There, Grandad coordinated the carting of stock for Vestey’s. Once the contract with Vestey’s ended, the O’Neil’s offered Grandad work as their foreman at Fleetowners in Alice Springs, within a year he was the manager of their operations.
- I held the position from 1964 until 1976 when due to a need to place younger members of their own family in management, I was found surplus to requirements and terminated.
Grandad’s employment career was similar to many pioneering Territorians – you do a variety of jobs in a broad range of places. It is a career path very few would share today.
Grandad was one of the fathers of the Finke Desert Race. What is now an iconic event in the Northern Territory had very humble beginnings.
- I had, along with Barry Taylor and a few other enthusiasts, taken over the running of the Alice Springs Motor Cycle Club. My part in this was to dream up crazy events with equally crazy names to generate interest and get new members. Barry did all the serious work, especially with the money, but the pair of us being likeminded meant that we did an excellent job and the club grew like topsy.
- We held hill climbs with a cheque in an envelope at the top for the winner, Mexican motor cross using native ground on which no track existed, Hare and Hounds with the race entrants attempting to track the hare via tissues discarded to an unknown finishing place. As well as these, we still held pure motor cross and endurance events. Then came the one to top them all off, an event called ‘The There and Back’, an enduro event in that competitors had to race from Alice Springs to Finke township, rest overnight, and then race back using the position they finished the first leg in as their starting place for the second leg. We made the decision to hold this in the kitchen at my home, but no one was going to hold it, for as Viv Johnston wisely pointed out, the potential to lose permanently a large number of competitors was considered damaging to the organisers reputation. Peter Kittle was for it and Taylor and I had already decided to do it and only asked for opinions through courtesy. So whether we like it or not, Barry Taylor and I became known as the Fathers of the Finke Desert Race.
- What we needed was motivation and this was supplied by Barry Taylor arranging for the printing of the very first posters in brilliant red lettering on a white background and our subsequent pride in plastering them all over town and other far flung centres. We had a destination, we knew we would have contestants, but we didn’t have a course. A Suzuki four-wheel drive was borrowed from Paul Delahunty, along with a car trailer and with it hooked behind a Falcon utility, Barry Taylor, Peter Gunner and Benny Gunner, as well as several hundred triangular flags cut from builders orange plastic sheeting, a staple gun, crow bar and shovel set out via Kulgera to Finke to mark the course.
We unloaded the Suzuki and drove up the track to where the proposed course first became a challenge to follow, the railway was still in operation and the fettlers still inhabited the camps that had not fallen into ruin. Over forty years of operating a rail service had given the Commonwealth a vast area of desert in which to deposit sleepers, lengths of rail and other surplus equipment. There was no recognised road and what did exist was prone to unexplained deviations and turnoffs. The one stable feature was the Overland Telegraph Line, so we festooned poles and sleepers with stapled orange flags all the way to the Finke River and the course was born.
This was a deadly serious endurance event in which the possibility of severe injury was high. The course, as a pre-race track was non-existent, and as was conveyed to the entrants at the first pre-race meeting, they were totally responsible for everything to do with their own welfare. A recommendation was made that they carry every basic need, including water, to be decent fellows and check on any riders they found sprawled along the way.
The pre-race inspection performed had one aim only, to determine whether the machine looked capable of taking its rider safely there and back.
Geoff Curtis was the winner of the very first event in June 1974. Hayden Bentley won it this year in a buggy. The Finke Desert Race has become an iconic event.
My family still remain involved through the Desert Edge racing Team, my cousin Giselle works in the Finke office and my uncle, Peter Gunner, who raced in the inaugural event, has raced the last two years, this year with his son, Samuel. The Gunners will remain a part of the Finke Desert Race for a while to come. I thank the contributors to Wikipedia for some of my material on the Finke.
Grandad quit the Alice Springs Motor Club after:
- The ever present problems of objectors to our open handed method of handing all the proceeds back to the competitors and spectators in prizes and barbecues instead of building edifices, finally broke me of my addiction.
I had always enjoyed cooking and playing the part of a good host so we took up the lease of premises in Todd Street, outfitted them with the best in equipment and opened a takeaway restaurant known to all as The Kitchen. I hired a chef but after a few months of absorbing everything I could about a more upmarket style of preparing and presenting food, I took on the cooking myself. We operated a very popular establishment for three years.
Food remained in our veins after The Kitchen.
Gogs, Stephen Gunner, one of Grandad’s first set of twins, ran the chicken shop in Tennant Creek for a long time in the 1980s and 1990s. Benny started an ice-creamery in Tennant, and a pizza shop, and had Sammy’s in Alice for over a decade before selling up this year.
After selling The Kitchen, Grandad and Nana moved to Cairns for a while. This was the late 1970s, early 1980s.
- Although I had enjoyed immensely the years we spent in Cairns, I returned to Alice Springs and believe me, when my daughter Janine and I crossed the border back into the Territory at Camooweal, I could have got out and kissed the ground.
Granddad spent some time managing Buntines and the Outback Motor Lodge before starting a contracting business in Tennant and taking on tender for the welding duties at Nobles Nob, White Devil and Warrego. In 2002, Grandad retired. Grandad had some form of employment from 12 to 72. Retired in Alice, ill health saw him move.
- In June 2010, we moved to Adelaide. I never thought I would leave the Territory, but what we knew has gone and no longer exists. All those once familiar names are fading away: Nugget and Kay sold Ammaroo; Dinny Hogan returned to his beloved Blue Mountains; Jack, my droving companion, was killed in a fall from the back of a semi-trailer; his sister, Edna, died in Mt Isa; their brother, Andy, died in Tennant Creek, a hermit who after his death was eaten by his own dogs; Mick drowned in the Katherine River at the low level and Jimmy Roberts, Elmore Lewis and Sandy McIndoo are all long gone.
I have to be careful at times that I don’t get maudlin. People say that with a nature like mine I don’t need to worry too much about it happening, but with the experience of a lifetime, I can recognise sarcasm when I hear it.
Sixty seven years since I set foot on Ammaroo, and I have been in a lot of camps since.
Life continues for Ellen and I and this year marks fifty nine of them since we sent off on our journey together and our direct descendants at the moment number seventy four, not bad for a couple of kids from the bush.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, my electorate officer Angie Walker is an absolute miracle worker. I love her and am so blessed to have her in my office. From day one, she has made an enormous impact, not only on my capacity and capability, but also on the electorate. I praise her because I see the work she does in my office, but when I hear contributions from members of my community, I know I have an excellent electorate officer; constituents say they do not need to see me as Angie has dealt with their issue or they want to see Angie, not me. Thank you, Angie, I have really enjoyed our last 18 months together and look forward to serving the rest of the time with you by my side. You are my right hand, we work extremely well together and I cannot thank you enough.
Justin Murphy has come on board to help me with the whip role. He is whip officer, and I am extremely grateful to have someone else carrying that load. Being whip is a thankless and tiring job, as the member for Fannie Bay would no doubt agree. It is very nice to have Justin by my side going through the torturous journey in the role of whip.
Serena Staines is our EOA and she has been wonderful. She has really helped take a lot of the administrative burden from Angie, because Angie has a very varied job and needs that support. Serena has been able to take away a lot of jobs that are very important but very time consuming. Thank you to Serena, and Jinx Smith, my regular electorate officer temp when Angie is away. Jinx, you are invaluable, a wonderful part of our office and I enjoy spending time with you, even though it is limited throughout the year.
I have to thank my parents, who have been great. They have relaxed a bit now I am a politician and the sky has not fallen in and I have not been crucified on the front page of the NT News. According to my parents, all is going well so far, so I will keep it up, Mum and Dad, do not worry. It probably will come, but it has not yet, so fingers crossed everybody.
I also wish my sister, Jessica, a fantastic university graduation. Thank God you are finishing uni after what feels like a million years. You are way too old to still be there. I am looking forward to escorting you into the new world in a couple of weeks’ time at your graduation ceremony.
My partner, Sam, is absolutely amazing. I am glad Denis and Annette put him through the wringer when he was a child because he has grown up perfect to be my fianc. That was training in the making of a politician’s husband-to-be. I love you and it has been a great journey. This has been our best year yet and I look forward to many more. I look forward to doing an adjournment, telling everyone about our wedding next March. Thank you very much.
The Gray community garden is an amazing project and has been kicked off by the City of Palmerston. I have to thank Brooke Kimberley; we held a meeting in my office on Sunday to put together the structure of incorporation. I publicly welcome and celebrate Naomi Lacey, who will be the Chairperson of the Gray community garden; Mary Peterson, who will be Vice Chair; Courtney Skye, who will be Treasurer; Laura Bachman, who will be Secretary and general committee members, Mark Green, Kathryn McWilliams and Paul Heskins. It is a brilliant project, in its infancy, but by June next year will be a fully-fledged community organisation. It is exciting this will start to happen on the ground soon. I am proud to be the local member and to be involved with all of you with such an amazing project.
This year has been fantastic. I have managed to squeeze in four or five mobile offices, which is much harder than it sounds when you have a 3m2 tent that weighs much more than I thought it would when I ordered it from the Internet. We have also held a number of barbecues. We had four community barbecues and my big Territory Day barbecue, which had in excess of 300 people attend. We had the jumping castle, face painting, climbing wall, barbecue - it was awesome. That is the second time I have held that major whole of electorate and whole of Palmerston event. I am very much looking forward to running that again for as long as the people of Drysdale keep me in this blessed and honourable position.
I was proud this year to be the patron of the Palmerston football club, University of the Third Age and Probus Palmerston. I take these roles seriously and am a very active patron. I love being involved and thank you very much for having me.
I love spending time in my schools. I get to as many assemblies as I can. It does not help that all assemblies are at the same time on a Friday; I cannot divide myself into six. I would love to, but I cannot, so maybe the school councils can rearrange assemblies and that would just be perfect for me. Until then, I will do my best to get to every one. This year, I trialled the Drysdale All Rounder Award for all-round excellence and that has been well received by parents, students, and teachers alike. Thank you for letting me present that award, which is very important to me.
XXXXXXXXXXX hard copy read to here.
I have also made various book presentations to schools, and get to as many school council meetings as possible. I enjoy hearing your grassroots commentary on our education system and what is happening in schools. I also like to be to be able to assist you, give you a leg up and get information as and when you need it.
It was very exciting to celebrate Vic Ludwig’s 85th birthday on 10 October this year. Vic frequents my office and has Angie doing all sorts of activities, which we love doing. Vic, you are welcome any time.
On a sad note, we said goodbye to a true Territory hero and visionary, Hans Vos. I only had the pleasure of knowing Hans for a couple of weeks, but in the small time I knew him, he blew me away. It was only a couple of weeks ago at the Chief Minister’s State of the Territory lunch I was sitting next to someone who mentioned Hans and what a visionary he was. He was a huge loss to the Territory this year.
We had a bumper year with activities such as Palmerston markets every Friday night; Clean Up Australia Day; Red Cross market day; City of Palmerston citizenship ceremonies; my advance personal planning consultation; Climate Change Forum; the Kids Brigade; national tree planting day where I organised US marines and ADF personnel to do a back yard blitz on the front yard of the childcare centre. We had the Palmerston Festival; SIDS and Kids Red Nose Day; Walk 2 Remember and balloon release; YChange?, where I represented the Chief Minister and we had the NT baking awards in Palmerston. I taught various Sacred Heart students about the three tiers of government. I am not sure how successful that lecture series was but I enjoyed it nonetheless. We had McHappy Day; two Palmerston hospital community consultations; the opening night of the travelling film festival; Northern Territory Board Of Studies awards; International Women’s Day; open garden programs; NT Space School awards; Total Recreation open garden; Duke of Edinburgh Awards; Women in League dinner; AIOP breakfast; the Italian Festival; the Mother’s Day Classic; Tropical Garden Spectacular; BPW golf day – my list goes on. It was all wonderful.
I was also able to organise some of my own events, including a barbecue at Oz designs for the guys who work for HPA. That was fantastic.
It has been an amazing year. It was also the year I became the youngest minister in history. I then unceremoniously became the shortest term minister, the shortest legs minister in history. However, they say all these things are character building, so I do not regret it. It is all part of the bumpy journey over the last 18 months.
I would like to talk about World Teachers’ Day, and thank a dedicated and professional group of people tonight. I offer my gratitude to the teachers of the Northern Territory for their contributions to the education and development of our young people during 2013. One significant day when we take time to recognise the great efforts of teachers is World Teachers’ Day. This special day is celebrated worldwide and in over 100 countries on the first Friday in October. However, in Australia, this date corresponds to the Term 3 break. To ensure all educators can make the most of this day, it is celebrated on the last Friday of October. This year, it fell on 25 October. Across the Territory, schools rightfully took time to pay tribute to the great contribution teachers make to our society.
Young children spend so much time in the classroom with their teachers and develop strong relationships that endure for years. Much of a child’s early development is attributed to the work put in by their teacher. Even today, Sacred Heart Primary School students were in the gallery, and I took them to the Chief Minister’s office. Their teacher was my Year 6 and 7 teacher, who has had a long-standing impact on my life.
Even in middle and senior secondary schools, teachers are a massive part of a young person’s life, as they model positive behaviour, share worldly experiences and teach skilfully according to the curriculum. I had a very strong role model throughout my time at school and I attribute much of my success to their guidance and perseverance.
I have some more remarks in relation to World Teachers’ Day and I seek leave to table and have my comments recorded in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Let us consider the hours spent preparing classes; general staff and faculty meetings; constant informal staffroom discussions; yard duties; dealing with tantrums of young students or the emotional rollercoasters older students are sitting on; the creativity and resourcefulness summoned to have the next lesson make an impact and the extra effort put in that makes sporting, debating or drama groups succeed within and outside of school hours.
Teachers are essentially learning and development facilitators who care for our students and it is right we honour them every day, especially on World Teachers’ Day.
As a small token of appreciation, I arranged for each school in my electorate to receive a delicious cake from Ben & Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse to help with their morning tea celebrations. This is the least I can do for the dozens of teachers in Drysdale helping our community.
As the member for Drysdale, it is paramount I give special mention to the wonderful schools in the electorate. I have worked hard to build strong relationships with Driver Primary School, Good Shepherd Lutheran College, Durack Primary School, Gray Primary School, Palmerston Senior College and the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre.
I try to get to every school assembly, as these provide me, and all parents, a snapshot of what the school is doing and what magnificent student accomplishments are occurring. I enjoy handing out the Drysdale All-Rounder Award, which is my way of showing the students teachers can see their great work and the community also values their efforts. I love to get to as many school council meetings, sports days and other events at the schools as often as possible.
Firstly, Driver Primary School, with 484 students, is an integral part of the Palmerston community. One example of the great work happening at the school is the farm, an initiative I am always glad to volunteer with. The students are learning about agriculture and food production in a hands-on, meaningful way and you can see the delight on the faces of children when they see the product of their hours in the sun and soil.
In many ways, Driver Primary School’s farm represents their vision. That is, to be a hands-on, vibrant and engaging learning centre that implements new and innovative programs in a secure, collaborative and sustainable environment. Students, staff and parents involved with Driver Primary School communicate and operate within four key values, which are:
respect – respect for oneself, others, property and the environment
community of learners – learning is lifelong and done together, in partnership with one another
safe learning environment – everyone bands together to create a fair, positive and trusting learning community – something absolutely necessary for the high-quality learning that Driver Primary School teachers strive for
excellence – students and staff always their best at everything they do.
These four values underpin the education delivered to students at Driver Primary School.
I know how important it is to produce well-rounded students and I thank Gray Primary School for the time they invested in me. Gray Primary School, my old school, is in the heart of our great city and does a great job of providing a quality education to their 332 students.
During the Dry season, Gray Primary School welcomes the US marines on Friday mornings and this is a program I am extremely proud of helping to get off the ground. The marines work really well with the students and having such positive role models attend the school is fantastic.
Gray Primary School was the first school to be built in Palmerston, opening in 1984. Many students of Gray Primary School face disadvantage, but the school works tirelessly with eight non-government organisations in a group called Partners Engaging Gray School that enhances students’ experiences in school.
This school is a great example of a community working together for the benefit of our little Territorians, and I commend the staff and community groups for their dedication.
Palmerston Senior College originally opened in 1986 as Driver High School, catering for Years 8 to 10. Two years later, the school expanded to offer Years 11 and 12 to Palmerston residents.
With over 500 enrolments for Years 10 to 12, Palmerston Senior College continues to provide a safe and enjoyable learning environment for our community’s young adults. This is aided by such programs as the Palmerston Girls Academy; Clontarf football academy; a centre for excellence in the arts; an internationally recognised information technology course and a flexible skills centre, catering for disengaged students. Great things are happening at Palmerston Senior College and I hope to become even more involved with the school in 2014.
I also hope to become even more involved with Good Shepherd Lutheran College. Tucked away on Emery Avenue, Good Shepherd is an important school for our area and I hope to work closely with them in the New Year. With just 18 students when it opened in 1998, Good Shepherd has expanded to now include a middle and senior school in Howard Springs, with a combined enrolment figure of 1100 students. I recently attended the school’s senior campus for the 2013 Pedal Prix presentation, recognising the great work done by staff, students, volunteers and sponsors – including the Northern Territory government – in getting students to Murray Bridge to compete so well at the Pedal Prix.
The Special Education Centre at Palmerston Senior College, first opened in 2002, still works hard to provide a quality education to students with special needs. Life is tough for many people with a physical or intellectual disability, but there are organisations that can help and I am glad to have met many of them when I attended the 2013 Northern Territory Disability Services Awards ceremony in November.
The most important phase of life for a person with a disability is their childhood and learning experiences. Palmerston Senior College’s Special Education Centre does its best to teach students important life skills to make the after school transition smoother and help them become more independent of carers. Staff at SEC tackle each day with enthusiasm and patience, and I enjoy visiting them every chance I get.
Strong school values help make strong students, and Durack Primary School’s values aim to achieve this. Getting along, confidence, organisation, persistence and resilience are values our young people need, and I am thrilled Durack is striving for these.
Durack Primary School opened in 1998 with 185 enrolments, which has now grown to 392 students across primary and preschool years. Over 40% of these students are from defence force families, and students of these families are specially supported by a defence force transition aide. As we all know, defence force members and their families are often required to uproot and start again in a location far away.
This school has also had a fantastic year, with the cherry on top being teacher Sally Bykowski winning the Palmerston and Rural Region Primary Teacher of the year award, on World Teachers Day here at Parliament House at a ceremony hosted by the Minister for Education. I am happy to say that Kat Gronholt was an NT finalist at the National Excellence in Teaching Awards. Sally and Kat are assets to the community, and I congratulate them both on receiving such prestigious accolades.
To Rob Presswell, Magdalene Mahomet, Shiela Delhay, Wally Mauger, Julian Denholm, Lynne Pokela, Sue Beynon, Susan Bockelman, Sue Healy, Frankie Maclean and Robyn Bryant; thank you for your leadership in our schools, and I commend the professional contribution you make to the education of our Drysdale students.
Lastly, to all teachers and support staff in Drysdale and right across the Northern Territory, I congratulate you on another year almost completed. We are privileged to have such innovative and hard-working professionals, and I am looking forward to building on the great relationships we have already formed.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I put on the record my thanks to the people in my electorate, at work and in my life who have helped make 2013 one amazing year. It has been a huge year for me work wise and a year I will never forget. To be given the privilege and opportunity in February to be the member for Wanguri was extremely humbling. Every day, I am grateful to all those who put their faith in me. It has been a lot of work, but I have enjoyed it. It is very rewarding personally when you are able to help make a difference in some of your constituents’ lives, and is something I will keep striving to do. I have been overwhelmed by how welcoming everyone has been, and the time they have given me as we have worked together. I thank them for their time and look forward to getting back on the doors next week and keeping up the doorknocking, community barbecues, events, mobile offices, and just having chats with people as I am out jogging or at the shops.
There are many people I thank for their work in the electorate, but also for working with and welcoming me into their networks and the community. In particular, I thank the local schools. I highly recommend any family move into the Wanguri electorate because the local schools are excellent. Staff are very committed to helping their students with their education and personal development, and school council members are passionate local parents and teachers wanting the best for their schools.
From Leanyer Primary School, I would like to thank principal Anne Tonkin, school council Chair Neal Cooper, and assistant principals Tania Kolomistev, Maria Albion and David Cocks - what an amazing team you have. Petula and the ladies in the office are always so helpful and professional too. This is a great school, always striving for high achievement and I look forward to seeing what you achieve in 2014.
At Wanguri Primary School, we have seen some big changes this year with principal of the last nine years, Jenny Robinson, leaving her job due to family reasons. Jenny had a farewell assembly last week, and all the kids gave her a huge farewell that included thank you gifts and every child had a Jenny Robinson sign to wave with a personal thank you note written on the back. Of course, we saw a musical performance with the song Mrs Robinson performed. Jenny, you will be missed by the students and parents. Thank you for your hard work over the last nine years and all the best for the future in Canberra. Our loss is Canberra’s gain. On a personal note, thank you for all your help.
At Wanguri, I would also like to thank the assistant principal, Pam Adam, teaching staff, Andrew Green, the school council Chair as well as other members of the school council who are all very passionate about education and have done a great job. Thank you to acting principal Jenny Nash for filling in for this term and good luck to her in her new job. Thanks to the fabulous Olga and the ladies in the admin team who are always great. Wanguri is a school that has been under real pressure due to outgrowing their infrastructure. They are bursting at the seams; I hope we see some new classroom space there soon. It is also a school that has had to deal with many challenges this year to manage big changes because of teacher cuts being driven by the government. The impact on contract teachers, support staff and teacher changes has been immense. They have been amazing at the school in how they have moved forward through these challenges, and I look forward to working with everyone in 2014.
St Andrew Lutheran School is going through some changes next year with principal Damon Prenzler moving. Good luck back in Adelaide with your family, Damon. Welcome to new principal Karen Koehler, and I look forward to supporting St Andrew where I can. Thanks to Amanda Peek in administration for all her help, and thanks to pastor Geoff Kuchel, a wonderful man who holds a great service, but also a man who has rolled up his sleeves in trying to help families in the community with post school options for their disabled children. Thanks for all your hard work and supporting the community, pastor Geoff.
One of my old schools, Holy Spirit, has also been a privilege to work with and support. Principal Bernadette Morris leaves the school next year to go to the Catholic Education Office. She is a wonderful strong leader and will be missed. Welcome to new principal Simon Duffy, and I look forward to helping Holy Spirit in 2014.
Thanks to Dripstone Middle School for all their work in what has been an incredibly difficult year there too. There have been huge job losses and the staff have done their best to cope, but there will be huge pressure on that school next year because of government cuts. Despite this, it has been another year of strong achievement at Dripstone and I am proud to see another one of my old schools giving Darwin kids a great education and future. Thanks to principal Jodie Green, assistant principals Nektaria Pikoulos and Gail Barwick for their hard work and being so welcoming. All the best to students, staff and teachers for the festive season.
Henbury School is also doing a great job, despite the challenges of aging facilities and overcrowding. Congratulations to principal Carolyn Edwards on all her hard work and recently winning the Darwin principal of the year award. That is a wonderful acknowledgement of all the effort she puts into her job. Thanks to the school council Chair Di Griffin and other parents on council. Di and her family will be leaving the Territory next year, and that will be a great loss to the school community. I thank her for tireless dedication to the Henbury community. A big thanks also to the other school council members who have been amazing. They are determined parents, not only wanting the best outcomes for their own kids, but also for the kids that will attend Henbury in the future. I also thank assistant principal Brenda Moore for her work this year. She filled in as principal for a term and has been wonderful to work with.
Henbury needs a new school. It is over capacity and Darwin is growing, with more children with disabilities needing to go there. This will become a bigger issue in the future. There is a petition in the community now, with over 400 signatures as of last weekend and there will be many more signatures to come. I hope the government listens to the school, the concern in the community and parents of disabled children wanting to see good education outcomes for their kids. Congratulations to all staff, students and parents on a great year at Henbury. I am determined to help you get what you need and keep this issue in front of government.
To all the staff and businesses at Hibiscus, thanks for welcoming me into the fold. It has been a great work place and I have enjoyed getting to know you all. Thanks to Laura, the centre manager, Gabby and Laurie, the cleaners - they are not just cleaners, they are terrific cleaners - but they take care and support a lot of the regulars that come into the shops and are wonderful people. Joan, Christine and Karen at Strawberry Fields; Tracey and the girls at the hairdressers; Nelson and the team; Matthew and his staff; Charlie at the checkout at Woolies every day; Tracey and the pet store crew, George and the framing shop guys; Robyn at the newsagency; Baby and Saji at Moneygram - all the businesses, it is a wonderful place to work and a great place to shop.
To the Tracy Village club and new general manager Gary Howkins, who is certainly bringing a lot of enthusiasm, experience and new direction to the club. It has been wonderful to work with you, Gary, and Paul Goggin, the president, for your leadership. It has been great to get to know you a bit better, Paul, and help the club where I can.
Thanks to Leanyer seniors village residents, who are wonderful and delightful people. I love seeing them out and about and around the place and we have some extremely inspiring seniors with some great life stories to tell. It has been wonderful being able to help where I can.
A big thanks to Pete Davies and Nick at Mix for giving me the chance to go on the show every month or so. Media is certainly not an easy part of the job, but to get the opportunity to have a chat has been terrific and also a lot of fun. The 360 show is great and gives locals a voice. I wish Pete and Nick well for next year.
Thanks to Mike Donnelly and Luke at Investa for their assistance this year and taking on board issues raised by residents. To Vim Sharma at the Wanguri shops; thanks for the friendship, the chats and letting me know what the issues are as they arise. You are more than just a shop owner, Vim, you are a terrific member of the community. You give great support to local residents and I am looking forward to working with you in 2014.
Thanks to Henry Gray for his wise words and good advice over the year, I always appreciate it.
Thanks to the local aldermen for their hard work and being so responsive, especially Rebecca Want de Rowe. She always gets back to you very quickly. It has also been great to work with Garry Lambert and George Lambrinidis.
Thanks to Nadine Douglas at the council because I have had to contact her a number of times about concerns from residents regarding Lee Point Road and she is always very willing to assist where she can.
To the Clerk and staff of the Legislative Assembly, and of course Hansard, thanks for all your help, guidance and professional service all year. Thanks to security staff and cleaners, who are always doing a top job at Parliament House.
To my Labor colleagues, you are such a wonderful team and family. Thanks for being great workmates and I am very grateful for being able to work alongside you all and learn something new each and every day. To the LOP staff, your support is invaluable. It is a tough gig resources wise in opposition, but your dedication and professionalism is always appreciated. I cannot thank you guys enough.
To the branch members at Casuarina, thank you. To my electorate officers, Jenny and Gracie, you have been absolutely fantastic. I could not do this job without you. The community adores you, you are so helpful. Thank you for all your support and best of luck for next year.
To my family, to mum, dad, Luke, the McNeills and my husband, Scott; you have been given so much support to me this year and I cannot thank you enough for your love, support, guidance and always steering me in the right direction. It has been great.
To my colleagues in the Chamber, I wish you and your families the best for the festive season. Take care.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I say thank you to my electorate of Namatjira and congratulate them on the things they have done this year. There have been many good things happening in my electorate - the sports grants we got for Hermannsburg, Papunya, Docker River and Santa Teresa. I want to thank this government for continuing to support Territorians and ensuring all the little things they do are supported and the things they feel are important are being looked at by government. It is fantastic.
I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks and Hansard for their support to us as politicians. We can sometimes get a bit grumpy and not really appreciate the good things they do, and they do wonderful things. When you are new in this House, they are the key to understanding how things operate in this place. I take this opportunity to thank my friends and the Alice Springs branch. I hope Jenny Lillis gets well soon. This is a special thank you to Jenny and all other branch members in Alice Springs.
I wish all Alice Springs residents a safe and merry Christmas. As you enjoy Christmas and New Year, make sure you have a Sober Bob and look out for your safety, as well as family and others.
To Chris, Rowdy and Barry, thank you very much for always supporting me and, of course, Cathy and Scotty. To my extended family in communities, I say thank you and congratulations to my young sister, Emslie Lankin, who was awarded a very special award by the Health minister. She works at Hermannsburg health clinic. She deserved that award. She has five children, and it is absolutely amazing to see someone so young achieve something. That happens because your mind is set, and the bar is set high enough for you to achieve. Congratulations, Emslie, and merry Christmas to you and your family. Of course, to my grandson, young Barry Abbott, Leo Abbott, Donna and the kids, I say merry Christmas to you and thank you always for your support, love and comfort on long trips, and the wisdom and guidance we share with each other.
To Max and Kathy and the kids at Wallace, thank you for the barbecues you put on during my tours when I was coming back from a long, hard trip to Docker, through to Kintore, Papunya, Areyonga, Hermannsburg and back to Wallace. There is always a warm bed and food for me at your place, Cathy, so thanks very much for that. Thank you as well to Val, Susan, Barry and Carita at Wallace.
Merry Christmas to my own family: Syd and his family at 5 Mile; Amos, Linda and their families at 3 Mile; the Raggard family; the Phillipusus; the Stockmans; the Paulsons and at Santa Teresa: Bill, Claire, police aide Phillip Alice; the Conways, and the Palmers, thank you very much for always supporting me, not just during the election but when you come into town. We have little laughs about what is going on.
I take this opportunity to thank all teachers, police officers and health staff in my electorate, who do so much with my people. We sometimes forget these people work long hours to look after remote clinics, police stations and schools. It is up to all of us, as politicians when we visit our electorates, to encourage our people and give them enthusiasm, spirit and fire back in the belly to encourage children to go back to school and adolescents to do some courses and get them focused on thinking education is important. We must always spread that message that education is the key to you stepping into any other world.
They can have the opportunity many people have had, experience of living in both worlds and stepping between two worlds, like most of us inside this House. Education has given the members for Arnhem, Arafura, Stuart and, of course, me that ability to move in, acknowledge, and understand both worlds. We must spread word of that experience around our own electorates.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my colleagues on this side of the House for fantastic support and the wise guidance we all have for each other, making sure we focus on leading the Territory forward. This is not just economically but socially in engaging with people, making sure all agencies are focused on working together to get the best possible outcomes for Territorians. It is a fantastic opportunity and I am glad Territorians have given us that opportunity to govern for the next four years.
I thank all Territorians for giving the Country Liberal Party this opportunity. Without you, we would not be on this side of the House. You have a safe one and make sure you look after your families and enjoy Christmas, New Year, and come back with a very positive message and outlook next year.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I say merry Christmas and happy New Year to both sides of the Chamber and the Independent behind me. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year if I do not see you until next year.
I thank colleagues on my side for supporting me. Being a first time politician in this House is pretty hard. I had a rough first year, but it has given me the strength to move forward. You always have to remember why you are in this House, and why you stood. I was appointed to the position. I did not just stand and say I could be the next great politician. It is the elders who had faith in me in my community. In the Jawoyn tribe, there are 16 different clans and they all came together at the elders council and said I would be the best candidate. Thanks to them for giving me the opportunity to sit in this House and represent all people in Arnhem Land and also the people of Stuart.
To my electorate, it has been a great first year to represent you in parliament. It has been an honour and I take that very deeply. I wish you all a merry Christmas and a safe New Year. Remember, family always comes first, regardless of what job you are in. You have to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ was born on Christmas Day ...
Mr Wood: I hope so.
Ms LEE: If you are not a Christian then, obviously, you do not believe it. My grandmother was a deacon, my father has always been around political arenas and my mother is a tribal woman so I have grown up with three different things in my life.
I thank my six sisters - Joyce, Helen, Anne Marie, Patricia, Levinia, and Priscilla - for always being there for my partner and supporting him when he needs you, especially with my three girls. My mum is a rock, life would not be possible without you, even to this day. Since dad left, you have always been there and supported us, regardless. In this House, the other party likes to often use the Lee name. We all know the Lee dynasty is pretty strong in the bush, because it is a tribal name and one that is well respected by the people in Arnhem. I take it as an honour to know I will always be a Lee. I was born with that name and I will die with it.
To my brothers, thank you for keeping my partner sane. It has been hard for him to look after three little girls while I am always away. It is a job no man would want to take up, being the mother while the mother is in this House representing the Northern Territory half the time. Thank you for all that support. To his family, thank you.
Most importantly, I thank the people in my electorate for having faith in me and helping me win the seat of Arnhem that had never been won by the CLP. It has been a really tough year, especially being in this House as a first time politician. I thank my colleagues for always being there and supporting me, especially the bush members, and in particular Alison for always mentoring me in the role and understanding why I am in this House, someone who relates to you at a grassroots level and shows you the example of why you are here.
We go over higher hurdles than anybody else. Being an Indigenous member of parliament is a tough gig. It is hard because out there it is even harder. We have to prove ourselves to the world.
Education is the key. It is the key for everybody. In the last 12 years there has been mainstreaming in the bush. I grew up with bilingual education, that was the key. We were taught to read and write in two languages. When I left Year 7, I went straight into mainstream high school. When I graduated, I was in mainstream,and that has taken away the lives and opportunities of these kids.
Merry Christmas to the people on Groote Eylandt, the Lalaras, my family, the Amagulas and the Marikas. Merry Christmas as well to the Yantarrngas, Duriilas, Bara, Tall Bobby, the Nunggumajbarr family in Numbulwar and Ngukkur, the Ngalmi family - there are too many families, so I will stick to a few. To the Hall and Rogers families, thank you very much for being there. At Lake Evella, I want to thank my brothers in the Wunungmurra family. Without you mob, it would not be possible. You are always there to support me. I know I am your little sister, but you treat me like I am on the same level now. That is a great honour, so thank you, I know where I stand, merry Christmas to all of you. To my family in Ramingining and Milingimbi, especially my cousin and her husband at Milingimbi, have a merry Christmas with your beautiful kids and I will see you all again soon. I will be coming out for two weeks, before I break for Christmas.
I thank the cleaners in Parliament House. I have never heard anybody in this House thank the cleaners. The cleaners do a fantastic job in this House. It is the greatest thing to have cleaners around you. Sometimes, I wish I had a cleaner. They make you feel at home and are always vibrant and friendly. Thank you to the security at Parliament House. Merry Christmas to Diem in finance, the Clerk’s office and Madam Speaker. It has been an honour to meet you all, know you and work with you. I look forward to the next three years in this House. Theyiwill be great. I will continue my hard work because I remember who voted me in and who put this government in power. We must not forget that. It was the people in the bush.
Being in this House takes you away from the reality of the outside world. You sometimes forget what you are really fighting for when you are in here, because there is so much influence. There are many talks about this and that and which direction to take or what you can be. You have to remember what you really want in your heart. That is what matters. It is about what really matters to you.
I was on the shoulders of my father and my father-brothers. They have all passed now. In the time when Brian Manning fought for land rights for Indigenous people,my father was there with him. That was a privilege. I did not speak during the condolences, but he was a really good friend of my dad. Being part of the land rights movement and being on my father’s shoulders made us passionate. It is the passion that drives us. We know we need to move forward.
I encourage all Indigenous people in the Northern Territory to go for education. Reach for the stars and go for the moon. Stand up because I would like to see more Indigenous people in this House. That is the only way we will find a balance in this House and do what is right for the bush. It does not matter which side of politics you are on, as long as you are true to your heart and stand for your beliefs. We are all equal. We may fight over legislation, and I will continue to fight for those rights for my people because that is who I represent. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about an outback identity who is well known in the cattle industry throughout the Northern Territory and north Queensland and is regarded as a pioneer for his time and a founding member of the live cattle export industry.
Alan Woods passed away in Townsville in November this year after a long battle with cancer. In 1980, Alan helped establish the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters’ Association. At that time, there were around 23 exporters and 34 ships based in, and operating out of, Darwin. Alan was also a part owner of a company called North Australia Cattle Company, which exported cattle into several countries in Southeast Asia.
In another major development for the livestock exporting industry and another first for the Northern Territory in the 1990s, Alan also helped establish the export and quarantine yards at Berrimah. He is regarded by many in the cattle industry as a significant contributor to the successful establishment of Australia’s cattle export trade into Southeast Asia. Alan served as Chairman of the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association from 1985 to 1995, as well as Vice President of the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council for a period in the 1990s. In 2006, Alan was inducted into the Australian livestock export industry’s hall of fame, and earlier this year was presented with life membership of the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association.
I understand Alan began his career in the northern cattle industry in the 1970s in Katherine. He worked as an accountant for the then Katherine Meatworks, later working for the Jimmy’s Creek buffalo and cattle abattoir at Point Stuart, located on floodplains east of Darwin. Those involved in the live cattle trade today have a lot to thank Alan Woods for. By his own estimation, Alan said that after 30 years in the live cattle trade industry, he had exported between 800 000 and one million cattle, as well as buffalo, horses, donkeys, camels, sheep and goats. Always helpful, Alan was well-respected by everyone in the live cattle trade in northern Australia.
Alan Woods was a great character and a great contributor to the northern Australia pastoral and live cattle export industries. On behalf of government and the industry as it is today, I want to place on record thanks and gratitude for the work he did in the live cattle sector, which we know is so vitally important to the Northern Territory.
As this is the final parliamentary sitting week before the end of 2013, I would like to acknowledge and thank those people whose work has provided me with support, information, encouragement and help to perform my duties as a member of parliament, the member for Katherine and as a minister in this government. First, I especially acknowledge Mrs Pat Witte, my electorate officer, and her offsider, part-time electorate officer, Alison Jacks, who essentially carry the load for me when I am not in the electorate office in Katherine. Pat’s wealth of knowledge of everything and anyone to do with Katherine and her ability to solve problems and find solutions has helped me enormously over the years. I have said it in this parliament before, and at our recent electorate officers’ dinner in Darwin: all electorate officers are the glue that hold members of parliament together. We recognise the significance and vital importance of the work that remains to be done in our electorates.
Bearing in mind we often cannot be there all the time, and as ministers in government we are rarely there, our electorate officers really hold the fort for us and provide an enormous amount of support, probably more than we could ever give thanks for. I pass that on to my electorate officer Pat, to Alison and to all electorate officers for all members of parliament.
I thank my ministerial office staff in Parliament House, including those who have left to pursue more exciting opportunities or to have babies, which is very nice. Thank you for the hard work and dedication you have shown throughout the year. I run a very busy office, as most ministerial offices on the 5th floor are, and the challenge is thrown to my staff every day of the week. I appreciate the fact they all put in an enormous amount of effort. The support they have shown me, once again, is probably beyond what I am able to give thanks for. It is very much appreciated and you all do a fine job. We are a great team in my office in Suite 5 upstairs. I still like to refer to us as the best office on the 5th floor, which I believe is true.
I also thank the Chief Executives of the four agencies for which I am responsible: Alister Trier in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries; Rod Applegate in the Department of Land Resource Management; Scott Perkins in the Department of Mines and Energy;and, of course, John Baskerville, who is heading up the Power and Water Corporation.
I also thank all staff from these four departments. There have been tough times for all of us over the past 15 months since coming to government. I appreciate thatall public servants within my agencies have grasped the new thinking around government since August 2012 and really run with the new paradigm.
I spoke to my water staff the other day at Goyder House in Palmerston. We have a symbiotic relationship in that they support me through the chief executive and I support the work they do. Let me acknowledge and thank them for the work they do.
I particularly thank Bushfires NT staff for the work they do. You go through very tough times in our fire seasons in the Top End, and also in Central Australia. I particularly pay my regards to volunteers in the bushfire brigades spread out across the Northern Territory, remembering all of the folk who are involved in our volunteer bushfire brigades are just that - volunteers. They give up their time to make sure the people and the property of the people of the Northern Territory are well protected. I can tell you it is very much appreciated, so, on behalf of the Northern Territory community, I send my thanks.
I also acknowledge Gary Barnes from the Department of Chief Minister, who has also been a great support to me and all ministers on the 5th floor.
While it is difficult to single out specific community members, I have to acknowledge we have great community spirit in Katherine, which shows on many levels throughout the year. Thank you to community volunteers, particularly members of the Police, Fire and Emergency Services in Katherine, our medical staff, the doctors and nurses at the hospital, our teachers who work tirelessly giving their time and effort to generously support people and families of children they look after each day. I particularly mention the teachers because we rely very heavily on our teachers in our schools because they are the stewards of the next generation of leaders in the Northern Territory. They are the ones who look after our kids during the day and we appreciate - and I appreciate - the work they do.
My door is always open to the people of Katherine. I am happy to report my constituents are not shy in coming forward. I thank Katherine branch members, and particularly acknowledge the executive officers and management of the various industry associations associated with my portfolios: Katherine Sarneckis and Rob Fish of the NT Seafood Council, Luke Bowen, Tracey Hayes and David Warriner from the NTCA, Grant Fenton from the NT Farmers Association, Warren De With from AFANT and Drew Wagner from the Minerals Council of Australia Northern Territory.
To all colleagues on the 5th floor, I say thank you for your support. I mention the parliamentary staff here - the library, Hansard and everyone in the parliamentary precinct who bring our parliament together.
I particularly thank my lovely wife, Jenny, for her ongoing support. I am away from home probably four or five nights every single week, and she manages to maintain the house, run all the household bills, look after the animals and make sure our kids and my new grandson are all cared for, in amongst all that. It is a real joint effort and very much appreciated. I love you, darling, and I hope you keep supporting me as I will continue to support you. To my parliamentary colleagues I mentioned on the 5th floor, but all of my colleagues here in the House, even though we might disagree from time to time across the Chamber, that is the nature of democracy. I certainly do not hold any personal grudges towards members opposite and even though, as I say, we might disagree, it is healthy to have that robust debate and interaction here in this House. It certainly does go towards making up good government. To all and sundry, I wish a very merry Christmas, a happy New Year and a safe and prosperous holiday season and hope to see you all in 2014.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to read a letter. It is an appropriate time to read it as these people live in Darwin and it is Christmas. This is an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The ‘I’ is not me. I will say who it is at the end:
- I have just returned to my office from the Wickham Point and Blaydin Point detention centres here in Darwin.
Sadly, I have been involved with detention centres since the creation of the Woomera centre, followed by Baxter and now, over the last six years, with the various and expanding centres here in Darwin.
I experienced once again today, the suffocating frustration of the unnecessary pain we inflict on one another. I celebrated a Holy Mass with a large number of Vietnamese families, made up of men, women, children and women waiting to give birth. The celebration was prayerful and wonderful, until the moment of parting.
I was reminded of something a young man said to me during one of my visits to Woomera, all those years ago. I was saying something about freedom. He replied, ‘Father, if freedom is all you have known, then you have never known freedom’.
I sensed the horrible truth of that statement again today.
I was also conscious of that beautiful speech made when the UNHCR accepted a Nobel Prize in 1981. In part, it states:
- Throughout the history of mankind, people have been uprooted against their will. Time and again, lives and values built from generation to generation have been shattered without warning …
But throughout history, mankind has also reacted to such upheavals and brought succour to the uprooted. Be it through individual gestures or concerted action and solidarity, they have been offered help and shelter and a chance to become dignified and free citizens again. Through the ages, the giving of sanctuary has become one of the noblest traditions of human nature and communities, institutions, cities and nations have generously opened their doors to refugees …
I sit here at my desk with a heavy heart and a deep and abiding sadness that the leaders of the nation that my father, as an immigrant, taught me to love with a passion, have adopted such a brutal, uncompassionate and immoral stance towards refugees.
I imagine he would be embarrassed and saddened by what has occurred.
It occurred to me today that neither the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition know the story of any one of these people. Neither do the great Australian community.
I find that it is quite impossible to dismiss these people with all the mindless, well-crafted slogans, when you actually look into their eyes, hold their babies and feel their grief.
There has been a concerted campaign to demonise these people and keep them isolated from the great Australian public. It has been successful in appealing to the less noble aspects of our nation’s soul and that saddens me. I feel no pride in this attitude that leads to such reprehensible policies, on both sides of our political spectrum.
I cringe when people draw my attention to elements of our history like the White Australia policy and the fact we didn’t even count our Indigenous sisters and brothers until the mid-1900s. I cringe and wish those things were not true. It is hard to imagine that we as a nation could have done those things.
I judge the attitude of our political leaders through refugees and asylum seekers to be in the same shameful category as the above mentioned. In years to come, Australians who love this country will be in disbelief that we as a nation could have been so uncharacteristically cruel for short term political advantage.
It seems that nothing will influence your policy in this matter, other than political imperative, but I could not sit idly by without feeling complicit in a sad and shameful chapter of this country which I have always believed to be better than that.
Sometime I would love to share with you some of the stories I have had the privilege of being part of over the years. I am sure you would be greatly moved. Sadly, for so many, such a moment will be all too late.
Yours sincerely,
Bishop E. Hurley
I wanted to read that as it made me think about my own lack of compassion sometimes, or interest, in the plight of the refugees, especially those who live in our area. It also made me remember, as we are soon to celebrate Christmas, the time Jesus was born. He too was a refugee who was taken with his mother and father to Egypt to escape Herod, who was looking for him. I wonder, if Jesus was alive today, would we call him an illegal immigrant?
Next year, I would like to make myself more aware of those people. Bishop Hurley has offered to take me to see some of the refugees because we see them as a bland group of people. They are all either illegal immigrants or economic immigrants, and Australia is full and does not want them. Yet, we have no idea who those individuals are and we have a responsibility to look deeper into the lives of the people many of us say should not be in Australia.
I would also like to give my Christmas thanks. I thank a range of people and their families, especially Kim Lawlor, my secretary. She had to take over from my hard-working research lady, Michelle, who has gone to Alice Springs for drier pastures. With her new partner, she now works closer to her family. Kim does a terrific job. At the moment, she has to put up with what I call Myer Howard Springs because I have four trains going around a large white Christmas tree in my office at various times during the day. They make a bit of noise and sometimes have severe accidents, and she has to do something about fixing them. The smiles on the faces of kids who come by my office and bang on the window and enjoy some lights and trains – you do not see them much today – around a Christmas tree and a little snow setting and a nativity scene – it reminds us this is a special time of year.
I also pass on season’s greetings to some of my regular customers, Annie and Tom – Tom comes in regularly to get a handful of lollies when I have not run out – Vicky, who does the cleaning, Kim’s mum and also two special people, Di and Phil. Phil has been quite ill this year, and they always give me a hand with my newsletter. As Madam Speaker might know, I deliver my newsletters by hand, which takes a bit of time, and this wonderful couple, who are not young, always give me a hand delivering them.
Also, I thank people such as Mark and Belinda Brustolin, who are always doing wonderful work in the community but are always there to support me as well. As I said, I also thank Michelle, who worked from the beginning of the year but has now moved on. Sadly, I do not have a research person any more. Poor old Kim has to take a bit of that load as well, but she is certainly getting used to it.
I also thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the Table Office, the Clerks and their staff, the Hansard crew, security, the Parliamentary Library Service and the cleaners. I must admit, late at night when one of them pops in to empty the rubbish bin, fix the toilet and clean up the place, it is nice to have a quick little chat to them. After all, they are part of what makes the parliament work.
I would also like to wish all my parliamentary colleagues a very happy Christmas. Regardless of our opinions on matters - today has been a long day and I did not agree with lots of things that were said, but in the end when you leave this earth, will you get ticks for whether you were right or wrong in parliament? There are probably many other things that are important in life, and looking after your neighbour would be one good thing.
I thank you , Madam Speaker, for the effort you make in keeping us under control. You fit into that job perfectly. I appreciate it is not always the easiest job, but you do an excellent job and do it fairly. I have heard you tick off a few of your colleagues and make them sit down, and I have not seen that for a while in parliament. I thank you and the staff for helping us as well.
Of course, I thank my good wife Imelda, who never sees me but knows what I look like because I now have a photograph and a fingerprint on the door to let me in so I am safe when I get home. Also, I thank my daughters Angela, Caroline, Joanne, Jason, James, Wilhemina, and William – there were some grandchildren in there – and my sister Trish and Tony Butler, my brother-in-law.
A quick thanks and appreciation to Miriam McDonald ,who went to Sydney last Friday to receive the Award for Meritorious Contribution to the Profession from the Australia Professional Teachers’ Association. Only eight awards are presented nationally and she won one. She is Principal of Taminmin College and she does a fantastic job. As everyone knows, being a principal at the moment at any school is a fairly stressful job, especially a school of nearly 1200 students. I congratulate Miriam on a fantastic award, and one she truly deserves.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, on October 14 this year, national television program Four Corners raised serious allegations about corruption and related crimes concerning funds administered by the Jawoyn Association. If substantiated, these allegations would constitute serious breaches of Northern Territory criminal law. They are very serious allegations and the Territory community and members of the Jawoyn Association have the reasonable expectation that all these allegations will be thoroughly investigated by NT Police and, depending on the findings of the investigation, referred to the DPP. We have raised questions in this House on this issue.
On 15 October, the Chief Minister told the House NT Police had not conducted a formal investigation into the alleged allegations exposed by Four Corners, despite the fact police had received a complaint on these matters from Mr Ray Whear on 17 January 2013, supported by a statutory declaration. I seek leave to table a copy of the two statutory declarations.
Leave granted.
Mr VOWLES: One of the disturbing allegations mentioned in these statutory declarations concerns legal bills and Mr Whear says:
- There was approximately $60 000 paid in legal bills alone to Darwin barrister Peter Maley for representing Preston in a number of … domestic violence matters. This was also paid without the permission or knowledge of the board;
It is extraordinary there has been no formal police investigation into the alleged misuse of such a large amount of money. Mr Whear’s allegations raise a range of questions that must be answered, otherwise the community’s confidence that allegations of criminality will be thoroughly investigated by police could be undermined. All honourable members would be concerned at such a development.
Mr Whear’s statutory declaration contains many other serious alleged breaches of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act. I quote an example:
- Purchase orders were drawn up by Preston or he instructed staff to prepare these orders for furniture, televisions, stereo units, white goods such as washing machines, dryers, air conditioners and other household effects that were purportedly provided to Jawoyn members however when the purchase orders and invoices were examined, many were either picked up by Preston or later on delivered to Preston’s home address … or disappeared entirely. In numerous cases, the purported recipients of the goods, when questioned, claimed to have never received the goods …
In his statement, Mr Whear says there would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of Jawoyn funds used by Mr Lee for his own purposes.
Another former Jawoyn Association employee and former NT police officer, Ian McConnell, has made a statutory declaration I have tabled regarding allegations of fraud in the Jawoyn Assocation. Mr McConnell alleges:
From June 2010 to August 2012, I reported to the then CEO Preston Lee and during this time I suffered from extreme stress brought on by witnessing the corruption and other questionable activities conducted by Preston Lee, his family and members of the Jawoyn board of directors.
These are extraordinary and serious allegations, yet the Chief Minister tells us there has been no formal investigation into these matters by NT police. Everyone against who allegations have been made is entitled to the presumption of innocence. However, when serious allegations about breaches of NT criminal law are made, supported by documentation and witnesses, they should be thoroughly investigated by NT police. In this case, there has been no satisfactory explanation why there has been no police investigation. It is time for a judicial inquiry into all aspects of how these matters have been handled by the government and NT police.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I give the customary Christmas adjournment to recognise the people who I worked with throughout the year, and also to recognise the opportunities I have had to visit wonderful places across the Northern Territory. One of the great things I look forward to doing next year, as Leader of the Opposition, is visiting those wonderful communities across the Northern Territory. Going into the bush is what I have been thoroughly enjoying since taking on the leadership.
I love travelling with my colleagues. I get a great deal of bush learning from my colleagues, the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly. They travel into regions with me. We get into remote communities, but also our big regional towns. Whether it is the Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy regions or the Tiwi Islands and Groote Eylandt, the opportunity to get out and listen to people on the ground about issues that concern them has been a fantastic experience for me this year and I have a whole host of good places lined up to visit next year. I am looking forward to getting on the ground again and the friendships I make along the way are friendships I really cherish.
The work keeps me busy in the big fights that occur in taking the government to account about the cost of living, the dismantling of Power and Water and the education cuts just to name a few. I have managed to strike up a strong relationships and networks with some pretty incredible Territorians who have taught me a lot about the issues we have been delving into.
I acknowledge a dear friend of mine, Giovanna Webb, who won the national award for Rural Woman of the Year. I had the opportunity to recognise that with a luncheon hosted by the Administrator. I was one of a handful of people Giovanna invited, where we could talk about encouraging women across the Northern Territory to step up and be proud of the efforts they make in their daily lives to enhance their families, but also importantly around them in their community.
I have had the opportunity of doing charity work that at times has stretched me. I had to model at the ladies function on behalf of raising funds for Variety, but there were also wonderful events where funds were raised for the Filipino community to deal with the super typhoon.
Multicultural events throughout the year have been part of the highlight for me. I love going to the different multicultural functions, listening to the songs, the dance, strong friendships across the communities, enjoying their hospitality and seeing them involved. Each are getting more elaborate in the style and presentation of their performances. Over the years, they have all taken advantage of the multicultural grants to have people come and teach them more elaborate dance and performances. It is fantastic to see.
I thank my staff, a fantastic group of people working really hard for me and my broader caucus team. To my acting Chief of Staff, Peter Wellings, you are a legend. To Adele Young, who is headed off to sort out Adelaide for everyone, we miss you but I know you want to get down there to be with your mother and take care of her. That is understandable. Charlie Phillips is a massive legend, of course. Angela, you do such an amazing job taking care of your family and also taking care of me. Anna, your thoroughness, sense of humour and strength is an absolute joy. Halliday, you came in, worked flat out and I am indebted to the effort you are making. Thanks to Kerry and Ruth, for doing that more junior administration job but a very valuable and necessary one; Ryan and Cameron and the team working hard to campaign, I appreciate the efforts.
I also acknowledge the schools, the life blood of my electorate. I have the opportunity to give Literacy awards across my primary schools. I give awards to students at Karama Primary School, Nakara Primary, Malak Primary, Manunda Terrace Primary and Sanderson Middle School, who put extra effort into their school work. For the sake of Hansard, if I could seek leave to table the names of those students.
Leave granted
Ms LAWRIE: I would like to acknowledge, in Hansard the names of the students who have been doing very well throughout the year in the literacy and achievement awards.
I congratulate the following students for receiving a literacy award this year, 2013:
Karama Primary: Jacbo Reid; Kira Paech; Zaliah Rowan; Daniel Papel; Djamarlia Darr-Lade; Samantha Prosser; Yubina Dhungana; Alyssa Weribone-Francis; Frankie Felipe; Leah Seden; Sophia Long; Melody Seden; Jodianne Diaz; Mary-Claire Papel; Christopher Fraser
Malak Primary: Ezeqiel Dos Reis; Alvin McKenzie; Suryani Sumendra; Bessie Barrett; Brianna Crooke; Bernice Ortiz; Alysa Pancipane Statorre; Noah Bradshaw; Elle Chamberlin; Caleb Franey; Tyrese Talbot; Bo-Rita Chapman; Koko Pakwiset; Emily Wilson; Takira Stapleton; Maharani Hirschausen; Miguel Magabo; Amber Noll; Jaimie Mitchell
Manunda Terrace Primary: Jason Davern; Joaquin Arela; Janaya Roman; Aisha Hayashi; Natasha Causley Di Pierro; Jayden Konatic-Shepherd; Enock Mulume Nawej and Stamatia Kampourakis
Sanderson Middle School: Kira Jaenke, Corey Whit-Johansen; Dona Da Costa; Joao Lopez; Daniyal Amran; Eleazer Nathanael; Coleen Flores; Nhikim Thi Nguyen; Mahnoush Ziaratzadeh; Cassidy Gerken; Honey Say; George Ballah; Angela Mota Torres; Aisha Lay; Tahlia Nona; Cassidy Gerken; Honey Say; George Ballah; Angela Mota Torres and Aisha Lay
At the schools, you really rely on your leadership and I want to acknowledge the hard work done by the leadership teams in the schools. At Malak Primary School, I have been working closely with Peter Swan and Vanessa Haw. At Sanderson Middle School, we have had a big rotation at the helm this year. Settling in there is Liz Veel, who I know from back in the old days when she was assistant principal at Malak Primary. At Manunda Terrace Primary, we have had the fantastic Sally Winch, who has been on long service leave and Lisa Hirschausen has really stepped up as the principal there from the AP position. She is fantastic for the whole student and parent cohort. At O’Loughlin Catholic College, we have David Finch, who has shown enormous leadership at the college; I really like the flavour he is bringing to the school after coming in and replacing Lester Lemke when he retired.
There is Shane Donohue at Holy Family School. David and Shane have been fantastic new leaders at our Catholic schools in the electorate and are working really hard, not just with the student cohort but with the broader family community. At Marrara Christian College, John Metcalfe is the principal there and does a really fantastic job; it is an unusual school in that it has pre-schoolers right through to Year 12, as well as the trade training school and what an incredible mix it is. Every time I am there, I see a fantastic array of talent and John’s leadership is quite stellar. I would like to especially acknowledge Marg Fenbury at Karama Primary. Marg is retiring from Karama, she is going on long service leave and looking at semi-retirement. She has been the principal at Karama Primary for the last 10 years. We are having a special farewell for Marg and I know the school community is in somewhat of a bereavement phase at the thought of losing Marg. She has been an incredible stalwart at the school, a very strong leader. She has been ably supported by Mary Harman and Jane McQueen in the AP roles, but Marg is a really stand out principal in the Northern Territory.
It is not just me saying it, as this year she won the national honorary fellowship from the Australian Council of Educational Leaders. She was the only Northern Territory recipient. She also won at the Teaching in the Territory Excellence Awards, as the Primary Principal of the Year for 2013. Not a bad way to cap off a very distinguished career as an educator of some 35 years across the Northern Territory. Marg has taught in remote communities from Kalkarinji to Borroloola, in addition to the regional centres of Katherine and Darwin. She has certainly taken the school through interesting and exciting partnership phases, working with the Smith Family to establish the Tata family centre at the school, under Marg’s leadership. Given we are in a low socioeconomic, disadvantaged area, she has been incredible in stepping up and carving out excellence for our student cohort. In 2007, the school was selected as the Northern Territory school of the year and this was followed shortly by a national ‘Dare to Lead’ award for excellence in leadership in Indigenous education.
In 2009, Karama and the Smith Family won the inaugural NAB Schools First Territory Impact Award for its successful school community partnership. The partnership included the early learning and parent education through the Tata family centre, sport and all. Marg, we will also you, but we will also miss our fabulous Noel Long, the AIEW of Karama, who is retiring after 14 years. I want to finish by acknowledging my family, my darling partner Peter Hillier. Thank you. Without your support, I would not be standing at work every day with confidence. Thank you for taking care of my beautiful children, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac and giving me love and support. Thank you to my mother, Dawn, who continues to be an incredible inspiration and a wonderful support as well. Bronte would not be excelling in the harp in quite the way she is, if that had not been for Dawn’s dedication to getting her to lessons all the time. To my beautiful children, growing up in a political family, they know there are long, hard yards; long hours with their mother, but they stand by me and as they enter adulthood, with the first one turning 18 at the weekend, they are appreciating more and more the efforts I am making. Thank you to all of them for their support.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, some good news stories from the Barkly.
Youth Raise Concerns at United Nations Assembly: concerns identified by Tennant Creek youth were raised at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in October. Australian youth representative, Adam Pulford spoke about education, community safety and called for an end to discrimination when he addressed the UN member states. Adam visited Tennant Creek in May as part of a five-month trip meeting with and listening to Australian youth. In Tennant Creek, local youth were particularly interested in the value of education because they saw it as a path to a better future. They also voiced concerns about community safety and the continued existence of discrimination.
Family Day Promotes Healthy Messages: The Elliott Families as First Teachers team collaborated with other service providers in the town and Tennant Creek to deliver a family day recently to promote child safety. The event was a huge success with schoolkids, their families, and other community members who enjoyed activities and treats while learning the important messages of health, hygiene and safety.
Five Gardens in Tennant Creek: five gardens in Tennant Creek were winners of the recent ABC radio garden competition:
- Jenni Kennedy’s Ambrose Street yard won the Best Garden in Tennant Creek with the mixture of showy native shrubs, shade trees and tropical fruit trees creating a cool retreat from the warm weather. Heidi Hopkins won the Best New Garden for her impressive garden in Blain Street.
Best Water Wise Garden went to Kevin Diflo, with Best Arid Zone Garden going to Battery Hill Mining Centre (Roddy Calvert) and Brashy’s Pot Shot prize going to Bob Baker.
The ABC Central Australian garden completion saw 20 gardens judged in Tennant Creek, and more than 30 in Alice Springs. Barkly Shire president Barb Shaw said:
Congratulations to all Tennant Creek and Alice Springs winners ... It’s great to see keen gardeners transforming their yards into beautiful outdoor spaces they can enjoy and share with others.
Locals Dig Deep For Typhoon Fundraiser: Tennant Creek has proved, once again, it really does have a heart of gold with around $17 000 raised at an appeal for victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. An event held at the civic hall attracted hundreds of locals whose bulging wallets were quite thin by the end of the night. A quiz, singers and local bands kept everyone entertained as they bid on various items donated by individuals and businesses, and nearly any excuse was used to contribute to the cause.
A special mention to Caren Monkton and Natasha Civitarese, two local young people from Tennant Creek who organised the event; Randall Gould, the famous Tennant Creek quiz master; Kate Rush, the quiz master’s technological support on the night; Peter Davenport, the master of ceremonies; the musicians; the community organisations and the community volunteers who made the event such an outstanding entertainment event, as well as community gathering. The unbelievable outcome was $17 000 raised on a Saturday night in Tennant Creek. The benchmark set by the Northern Territory government was a cheque donated for $10 000. When a group of community people can come together in Tennant Creek and pull off a very entertaining and very enjoyable night, and also raise $17 000 for the same cause, it is pretty extraordinary.
For people who do not know, Tennant Creek is known as the town with the heart of gold. This is not so much for the power house in its mining history and the gold and copper that produced more gross state product in the Northern Territory than any other town, but for its generosity, caring, collegial nature and support of other Territorians.
The heart of gold title comes from Cyclone Tracy. When the Darwin community was being evacuated, many were evacuated down the Stuart Highway. The plan was to relocate them with accepting families to look after and nurture them after the incredible trauma of Cyclone Tracy. Tennant Creek opened its arms and took many people and families in, and set about a fundraising campaign that raised significant funds for the people of Darwin. From then, it never really lost its touch in being the town with a heart of gold. I have seen some incredible events in my time there.
I remember a Relay for Life, another fantastic evening on the sports oval at Purkiss reserve, where the rock and roll bands came out, the costumes were quite dazzling and the food stalls and community gathered in a carnival atmosphere. They had an objective and the last one I attended raised $24 000 in one night. It was well planned, well executed and a great talking point for the town. It never ceases to amaze me the generosity in a town that is doing it hard.
The tragedy that is unfolding in Nhulunbuy reminds the people of Tennant Creek about what happened to us. That was a different era, but they were essentially the same challenges, where a town of 5500 people was reduced to 3000. In an era where government did not get involved and did not care because it was a different era, there were different priorities and different values. What happened to Tennant Creek was the loss of its skilled workforce and the closure of the mining industry, the export abattoir and the loss of an incredible amount of talented people in the community who left to pursue work in other areas. Tennant Creek flatlined economically and has remained challenged economically for the last two decades.
We saw the closure of a primary school, the downgrade of our health services, the sell-off of public housing stock and witnessed the world travelling past us, but there was no real will from government to stop what was happening. It was just accepted as another period in history, a most unfortunate aspect of the town’s economic decline. It should paint some very serious lessons for the Northern Territory government in 2013 about what they can do in Nhulunbuy and how they should be working together with Rio Tinto to deliver the best possible outcomes to the community of Nhulunbuy. That community will have a tough Christmas and New Year, and I ask them to reflect on other Territorians that have been through hard times, like Tennant Creek in that era, and to keep the faith. I seriously ask the Northern Territory government to take a leadership role and work with a major company, Rio Tinto, in organising every opportunity to preserve that very important community of Gove and those very important community elements.
For Gove, take heart. Tennant Creek never lost the faith and is continuing to show resilience. There is no doubt we have our rough edges and our challenges. We live with our adversity and we mourn the loss of our loved ones, but people ask why you would stay there. I sum it up with a very simple explanation that the town has a real sense of community and you have to get off the main street to experience that. Knowing Tennant Creek is a major regional service centre, we also share the town with lots of regional visitors. There are lots of people coming and going for all sorts of reasons and we still manage to share that underlying sense of community. We are a robust, articulate mob. We do not back down from a fight and we are looking forward to signs of a recovery, with major exploration going on around the town and region, surrounded by the best pastoral country in the world. With the toughest and most resilient characters among Territorians, we have a good future. We want to share that story with Gove. I am sure the old guard of Tennant Creek who represent that incredible pioneering and mining history, and that resilient community, will be thinking of those residents in Gove. They will be sharing a thought and a beer around a barbecue and giving those people of Gove the support they need in spirit.
The Territory opposition has put some very pragmatic suggestions to government. The government needs to show leadership and, in a bipartisan sense, take on board suggestions from all members of parliament, all sectors of the Northern Territory community and dig deep for the people of Gove this year and the years beyond; what they will go through will be very challenging. Merry Christmas, but remember that sun will still rise over that incredible sea to the east and will still set in the west.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016