2014-02-19
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 2 pm.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to insert new offences into the Criminal Code Act specifically addressing identity theft. The creation of new specific identity theft offences will fill the legislative gap regarding preparatory identity theft offences, such as the act of obtaining identifying data belonging to another person through the use of credit card skimming devices.
Identity crime is a major concern for this government. It is also a significant national and international issue with the Australian Crime Commission reporting identity theft as a key enabler for serious and organised crime.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Fraud Survey for 2010-11 found that Australians lost $1.4bn due to personal fraud, which included credit card fraud, identity theft and scams. Based on the results of the survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated 1.2 million Australians, forming 6.7% of the population, were victims of at least one incident of personal fraud in the preceding 12 months. As a result of advancements in technology, globalisation and the anonymity of the internet, identity crime is becoming easier to commit.
Identity theft can be perpetrated in various ways and includes the use of a skimming device to obtain credit card data from an ATM or EFTPOS card, using identification information to open a false bank account or obtain a loan, or the use of credit card information to purchase items on the internet.
The impacts of identity crime are considerable and are not limited to direct personal financial deficit. As the owner of a skimmed credit card or debit card is rarely liable for the fraudulent transactions, the relevant financial institution has to bear the loss, and ultimately the community will suffer adverse effects through high banking costs.
Other indirect consequences of credit card skimming include: adverse credit card ratings; a loss of reputation or security for legitimate businesses; higher prices for retail to cover losses; increased business costs of managing and preventing identity crime; and psychological stress for victims. A person’s identity is central to who they are and, in the technological society in which we live, it is vital to one’s ability to carry out transactions and everyday tasks. The theft of a person’s identity can suspend their ability to engage in everyday tasks and carry out transactions, which can lead to emotional upheaval.
Northern Territory residents are victims of identity theft and fraud just like any other jurisdiction and, typically, offenders are located outside the Northern Territory. In March 2008, the Model Criminal Law Officers’ Committee released its final report on identity crime. This report found, at the time, the criminal law across the states and territories did not fully address the range of conduct which can be attributed to the misappropriation and wrongful use of identity information. Although the Criminal Code Act contains a number of general stealing, forgery and criminal deception offences which might apply to identity theft and card skimming, these offences do not cover preparatory offending such as the act of obtaining or identifying data belonging to another person.
Under these general offences, a person who obtains identification information cannot be prosecuted until, and unless, a further offence is committed, for example, where financial information is used to purchase items over the internet. Because much of the data obtained through credit card skimming is sent overseas, those further offences may not occur for a significant period of time and are much harder to detect and prosecute.
A national response to combat serious and organised crime, of which closing legislative gaps with respect to identity crime is part, was agreed at the April 2009 meeting of the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - now the Standing Council on Law and Justice, with the unfortunate acronym of SCLAJ. It is also agreed that the identity crime offences, including credit card skimming, should be a short- to medium-term goal. Most Australian jurisdictions have now implemented this goal.
The provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill are largely based on the Model Criminal Code provisions proposed by the Model Criminal Law Officers’ Committee in their 2008 Final Report on Identity Crime to comprehensively cover all forms of identity fraud and theft.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill inserts Part 2A into Part VII of the Criminal Code Act, creating three new offences:
(a) section 228C - dealing in identification information
(b) section 228D - possessing identification information, and
(c) section 228E - possessing equipment used to deal in identification information or identification documentation.
The Local Court hears matters in the civil jurisdiction, and section 28C(1) specifically provides that the standard of proof to be used with assessing an application is on the balance of probabilities. Although the Local Court will be determining whether or not an offence has been committed, it is not a prosecution and the finding will not result in any detriment to the offender and so the court will not need to be satisfied of this fact beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the Local Court is, therefore, a finding of fact and not a finding of guilt.
Providing for the Local Court to assess an application on the balance of probabilities is extremely important in assisting the victim, as the provision does not require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt an offence has been committed, rather, on the balance of probabilities an offence was committed.
The same test is to be applied by the sentencing court when determining whether the certificate may assist the victim in section 97AB(1)(c). However, unlike the Local Court, as a certificate may only be issued by a sentencing court when they are sentencing an offender for one of their new identity theft offences, there is no need for the court to be satisfied an offence has occurred.
The grant of a certificate by the Local Court prior to a finding of guilt will not impact on the sentencing process and will not prevent a sentencing court from ordering an offender to pay full restitution or compensation to the victim. Further, if the offender pleads not guilty and proceeds to trial, the issue of a certificate by the local court cannot be used as evidence against the defendant in a criminal trial to prove the offence occurred.
Although a number of other Australian jurisdictions require a conviction prior to a certificate being issued to a victim, and will only do so upon sentencing an offender for an identity theft offence, we - as a government - have decided to allow for a victim to apply for a certificate at any time, irrespective of a prosecution whether or not:
(a) the person who committed the offence is identifiable, or
(b) criminal proceedings have or can be taken against a person or are pending.
This position is consistent with that taken by the Commonwealth government. It is also the most supportive of victims because prosecutions may take some time to finalise, may also result in an acquittal on technical basis, or the offender may be overseas or unable to be located.
This government is very concerned about the impact of offending on both the victim and the community. It is important the victim be able to remedy the serious effects of identity crime as soon as possible, so they can resume their lives. If a victim is forced to wait until a conviction to obtain proof of theft or their identity, then their psychological stress and financial detriment would be significantly exacerbated. The Final Report Identity Crime, referencing and article by Mike Hatch in the William Mitchell Law Review, noted victims of identity crime spend an average of two or more years attempting to fix their credit report and restore their credit rating. By providing victims with the opportunity to obtain a certificate confirming the theft of their identity as early as possible, we are aiming to reduce the detriment of the crime and allow the victim to move on sooner.
By targeting preparatory offending, banks, financial institutions and businesses will also be able to be protected. As offenders will be targeted prior to using identification information, financial detriment will be mitigated as business will not have to remedy the fraud by reversing transactions or reimbursing the victim.
The introduction of specific identity crime provisions will fill the legislative gap regarding preparatory offending and will allow the prosecution of all acts relating to identity theft, including credit card skimming and possessing a device or information used to commit a further offence. This is an important step towards ensuring the safety of Territorians and assisting the national response targeting serious organised crime. By addressing gaps in our legislation consistent with the model Criminal Code we will ensure the Territory is not a safe haven for criminals seeking to escape other jurisdictions.
Finally, the bill also amends the private security regulations regarding crowd controllers, security firms, and security officers’ licences. The bill adds each of the new identity theft offences (sections 228C, 228D and 228E of the Criminal Code Act) to the list of disqualifying offences for obtaining a security provider licence. As a result, persons who have been convicted of identity theft offences will not be appropriate persons for the purposes of section 15(7) of the Private Security Act and will be precluded from obtaining a security provider licence. Given the business conducted by those who hold security licences, it is important to ensure proper screening of applicants and those persons who have been convicted of identity theft offences are precluded from obtaining a licence.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2012 was assented by the Administrator on 27 April 2012. This bill addresses several issues which have been identified as requiring amendment prior to the act’s commencement.
The health practitioner National Registration and Accreditation Scheme commenced on 1 July 2010. This scheme is controlled by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act. When Aboriginal health workers joined the scheme on 1 July 2012 this law and the Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act were amended. It was identified at this time an amendment would be required to the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act prior to its commencement to reflect the changes. The title ‘Aboriginal health worker’ was changed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioner. Relevant sections of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act are amended under this bill replacing the old title with the new one.
Several inconsistencies with the act were identified during drafting of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations. This bill addresses these issues. The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act also implements the outstanding recommendations from the Galbally Review which were agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in 2005. Recommendation 13 was to repeal provisions in state and territory legislation applying to licences for Schedule 5 and Schedule 6 substances.
Under sections 34 and 35 of the act, manufacturers and wholesalers of Schedule 5 and 6 substances are required to be registered, which is contrary the Council of Australian Governments agreement. These two sections are amended in the bill to exclude Schedule 5 and 6 substances, thus reducing the red tape and cost to manufacturers and wholesalers of these substances, which are contained in everyday products such as hair dyes, detergents and insect sprays.
Dental hygienists and oral health therapists are required, within their clinical practice, to administer Schedule 4 substances such as local anaesthetics and oral fluoride gel. Dental therapists are already catered for under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act. Dental hygienists and oral health therapists are being included to let these professionals work to their full scope of practice as allowed in other states and territories. This will make the Northern Territory a more attractive workplace.
The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Australian government includes three initiatives which require legislative change prior to their implementation across the jurisdictions. The implementation of two of these initiatives is addressed in the regulations. Clause 8 of this bill provides the framework to implement the continued dispensing initiative allowing pharmacists to supply unrestricted Schedule 4 substances provided the supply of those substances is permitted under section 89A(1) of the Commonwealth National Health Act 1953.
This initiative currently applies to oral contraceptives and lipid-lowering medications. It means if a person runs out of their medication over the weekend and is unable to see their doctor, the pharmacist can continue their supply for a period of time until they can see their doctor for a prescription. In this way there will be no interruption to their medication.
Section 5 of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act includes definitions for ‘record’, ‘sign’ and ‘written’ to include electronic methods. Having these definitions is inconsistent with other Northern Territory legislation which uses the Electronic Transaction (Northern Territory) Act. These definitions are, therefore, being removed to ensure consistency. The definition of pharmacy was linked to schedule 8 of the Health Practitioners Act. When the Health Practitioners Act was amended, schedule 8 became schedule 7. The bill corrects this matter.
Section 62 of the act will create a capacity for pharmacists to administer vaccines, whilst ensuring the pharmacist must first hold an appropriate vaccination qualification. The current wording of this provision provides the Administrator with the power to approve a regulation on this matter. The Office of Parliamentary Council has advised the Administrator is not able to delegate this power. To enable timely approval of courses, it is provided the Chief Health Officer will have the power to approve qualifications regarding vaccinations.
Section 63 and 65 will also be amended to ensure only registered nurses, midwifes, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners - who have completed vaccination education prescribed by the Chief Health Officer - are able to administer vaccinations. This change will provide a safety net for Territorians by ensuring health practitioners who visit on a fly-in fly-out basis have the appropriate training to provide immunisation services in the Northern Territory.
The Poisons Standard has banned paint containing 0.1% or more of lead, thus making Sections 109 and 110 of the act redundant and therefore these provisions will be appealed. The intent of Section 281 is to allow for regulations describing the storage, destruction and transportation of regulated substances. However, the current wording is ambiguous and is being amended to make the intent clear. The reference to penalties in regulations not exceeding 100 penalty units is being removed, as this is already stated in the Interpretation Act. Amending the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act will address these issues, providing certainty and clarification for practitioners and others who are covered by the act.
I commend this bill to the honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill was approved for drafting by Cabinet on 17 December 2013. This bill addresses the need to amend legislation to allow privately practising midwives to practise in the Northern Territory.
At the time of the Northern Territory adopting the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act in 2010, midwives in the Northern Territory were required to hold professional indemnity insurance, regardless as to whether they were practising in the public or private sector, as no distinction was made between the two categories. Because of this requirement, an exemption under the National Law did not apply in the Northern Territory to privately practising midwives. Hence, an amendment to the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) is required to allow midwives to practise privately in the Northern Territory.
Certain strict conditions will be in place in order to protect the public, including the requirement for the privately practising midwife to notify the mother they do not have professional indemnity insurance to cover intrapartum - birthing - care in the home. The Office of Parliamentary Council has drafted an amendment which I will now present. This bill addresses the issue of inconsistency between Northern Territory legislation and other jurisdictions. The act amended is the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act. The amendment will allow midwives to practise as private midwives in the Northern Territory without contravening section 129(1) of the National Law, which states all health practitioners must have professional indemnity insurance. The amendment will give privately practising midwives in the Northern Territory the coverage from section 284 of the National Law.
The effect of section 284 of the National Law was midwives, for a nominated transition period only - currently up to June 2015 - can practice private midwifery. This is defined as providing services to a mother to give birth at home or another’s home without appropriate professional indemnity insurance in place and in their private capacity. Provided that the practice occurs in a jurisdiction where immediately prior to operation of section 284:
See section 284(1)(a). The amendment will mean the previous impediment to practice has been removed.
Midwives practising in a private capacity will be expected to access professional indemnity insurance for antenatal and postnatal care. They must inform a woman wishing to have a homebirth they do not have professional indemnity insurance for intrapartum care so the woman can make an informed choice. The woman will be required to give informed consent to proceed with the homebirth, knowing the midwife does not have professional indemnity insurance.
The amendment includes the requirement for midwives who intend to practice privately to notify the Chief Health Officer of their intention to do so. This must be done for the first time and then annually on or before 31 May each year. The midwife must give the Chief Health Officer a written report in relation to each private midwifery case attended, in accordance with the requirements of the Northern Territory Perinatal Data Collection through the Midwives Collection. This must be done within 20 days of each case and not longer than 60 days.
These measures, in collaboration with the Nursing and Midwifery Board Safety and Quality Framework for Midwives, will provide protection for the public accessing this birthing choice. Failure to comply with these requirements would be reportable to the Nursing and Midwifery Board, under Part A of the National Law performance and conduct. Amending the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act will address these issues, providing certainty and clarification for practitioners and others who are covered by the act, and provide further birthing choices for Northern Territory women.
I commend this bill to the honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 9 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. This legislation does not change the way the Mental Health Review Tribunal operates, it simply clarifies it can continue to operate the way it does. We essentially have this bill, a small and non-controversial amendment to the Mental Health and Related Services Act, which confirms the rules of evidence do not apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the rules of evidence are not conducive to the aim of ensuring therapeutic justice or to the general comfort of such vulnerable patients. The Attorney-General outlined examples such as avoiding the strict rules around cross-examination, which should not apply in these sorts of cases. It might sound strange to say the rules of evidence do not apply. The Mental Health Tribunal makes very important decisions. It makes decisions about the care and treatment of people who have a mental illness. In the majority of cases, the tribunal determines whether someone should be treated involuntarily, against their will. These are decisions of great importance and magnitude. It might sound like the Mental Health Review Tribunal does not rely on evidence to make its decisions, but this is not correct. It simply means it does not have to treat evidence in the same way a court might in a criminal trial, and we had two instructions just before the Attorney-General talked through some of that detail.
The rules of natural justice still apply and procedural fairness is upheld. The amendments do not mean the rules of evidence cannot apply; they do not have to where it is not appropriate to do so. In other words, the tribunal can engage in a more relaxed manner to reach a therapeutic result.
The amendments are consistent with processes in other jurisdictions and the opposition is very happy to support this bill. I am sure it comes as no surprise to the Attorney-General that we are able to deal with this so efficiently.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the crossbenches will also efficiently deal with it. It is not very difficult, is clear to understand and can be summed up in the third-last paragraph of your second reading speech, minister, which says:
What more do you need to say, minister? It is a perfectly sensible change and will get the crossbencher’s support.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised at the support of the members opposite, because what we are doing is, in essence, reaffirming what has always been done.
An uninitiated person could possibly suggest this is some sort of licence for the Mental Health Tribunal to frolic in the tulips in pursuit of determining a person’s mental health condition. However, it is no such thing at all. Let us be practical about what a Mental Health Tribunal is trying to do. It is trying to assess the mental health of a person. I was hoping to table a copy of the annotated uniform Evidence Act, a tome of some 1000 pages. We would not ask a tribunal to wade through the tome in an effort to come to a conclusion as to a person’s mental state. Surely the wise doctors and people who sit on such a tribunal are capable of determining the probative value of any particular evidence, even if it is contrary to the rules of evidence?
It is not exclusive to this legislation that the rules of evidence may be side-stepped. The coroner has a similar liberty under the Coroners Act and, if I am not mistaken, the rules of evidence do not bind a person or a court determining bail. The capacity to listen to hearsay evidence and such other forms of evidence can be availed in those two circumstances as well.
As honourable members have said, common sense prevails. Common sense has prevailed; let us get on with it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Disability Services in the Northern Territory
Mrs LAMBLEY (Disability Services): Madam Speaker, I present a statement on Disability Services in the Northern Territory.
On Monday 3 February I was sworn in as the first ever Minister for Disability Services in the history of the Northern Territory. This was a significant event for not only the Country Liberals government and me personally, but for the approximately 27 000 Territorians who have a disability, their families and their carers. On 3 February, this Country Liberals government, for the first time ever, formally acknowledged and recognised that the needs of these Territorians and their families should no longer be seen solely as part of a health portfolio but as a discrete and distinct area of government responsibility.
Let me be clear for the Country Liberals government. This is about more than only a change in title; it is a change in thinking. We are already receiving positive feedback about this important change. In the 24th issue of the Integrated disAbility Action Inc Newsletter issued on 6 February 2014, you can find the following article titled A Minister for Disability Services at Last:
I am scheduled to sit down with the Integrated disAbility Action Group soon to progress the work I have committed to, but I will say more about it later in this statement.
Another strong advocate for Territorians with a disability and a very professional, strong and capable Territorian in her own right is Ms Vicki O’Halloran, President of the National Disability Services National Board. She told the media on the day of the change this was something very near and dear to her heart, and an important change she had wanted to see for the last 20 years.
This is a huge opportunity to blow away barriers and help the 27 000 Territorians who have a disability, their carers and their families. In this role I will be responsible for increasing access to education, training, employment and independent living.
Even more, I want people with disabilities to have greater control over the services they access so they may choose the best ways to overcome their challenges. This is a period of dramatic change in our approach to helping Territorians with disabilities.
This government is committed to ensuring people with disabilities get greater control and management over their own lives. The focus now is on individual packages and we need to change the way we are working, change policies and procedures and, importantly, change the way we are thinking.
Gone are the days where Disability Services should be seen as merely programs delivered by the Department of Health. It is a whole-of-government responsibility to ensure Territorians of mixed ability receive support and services, access and opportunities they need and deserve.
Many people with disabilities need a certain level of support, but the level of support required should not define them. All members of our society require support or government services at some stage in their life, be it access to healthcare, education, or even public roads, but none of us would like to be labelled or boxed in to a category by virtue of the services we consume. So too it is with Territorians of mixed ability.
It is a great challenge to undertake the demands of this portfolio. There is major reform and opportunity for Disability Services across Australia. The Country Liberals government has recognised major reform in this space is upon us and we have embraced it. In our Framing the Future blueprint, released on 20 August 2013, we specifically mentioned that supporting Territorians with a disability is a whole-of-government responsibility with the number one aim being to increase access to education, training, employment and independent living.
The Framing the Future blueprint also directs government to work with the sector to maximise future benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to work with stakeholders to implement the NDIS trial in the Barkly region.
All governments in Australia are committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As the future of support for people with disability, it still requires much fleshing out of the details.
The NDIS is a substantial reform which aims to fundamentally change the nature of disability support in Australia. The NDIS is based on the principles of choice and control, and will provide long-term, high-quality support for people who have a permanent disability to ensure they get support which is reasonable and necessary to meet their needs.
This could include an individual plan and an individually funded package. People eligible for the NDIS will be those who have a permanent disability which significantly affects their communication, mobility, self-care or self-management.
These Territorians, their families and carers will have control over the care and support they receive based on need and will be able to choose their service providers. The NDIS will also focus on early intervention for people where there is good evidence that early intervention will deliver substantially improved outcomes or lessen a decline in functioning.
In May 2013, the Northern Territory signed the current agreement for the full NDIS. In principle, agreement was reached to trial the NDIS in the Barkly Shire from 1 July 2014.
Disability Services has been working through the details of the trial to ensure the transition is a smooth one. Reaching the goals of the full NDIS in the Territory will be a challenge, especially in remote communities. To meet this challenge, Disability Services, along with the Departments of Treasury and Finance, and Chief Minister, have been working with their colleagues around Australia on the finance, governance and structure of this scheme.
There is a great deal of work to be done between now and 2016. One of the reasons the ministry of Disability Services was created is to focus government’s attention on, and help facilitate, the Barkly trial starting on 1 July and the future roll-out plans negotiated with the Commonwealth.
The Disability Services portfolio is broad and includes intergovernmental relations, sector readiness in non-government and Northern Territory government providers, education, and stakeholder engagement work within government and non-government sectors.
To progress the Barkly trial, a Site Implementation Committee has been established to ensure clarity in the strategic and policy framework for the implementation of the NDIS and the Barkly trial. Membership includes representatives from the National Disability Insurance Agency and NT Disability Services, with meetings being held monthly. The committee oversees and monitors progress, and facilitates access to information required by the National Disability Insurance Agency.
Disability Services has been delivering information sessions since June 2013 on the NDIS to a range of stakeholders. These information sessions will continue with the NDIS implantation team now seeking to meet with stakeholders based everywhere in the Territory to provide them with information on the trial and full scheme roll-out, and how they could benefit from developing innovative service models to the Barkly region.
Over the course of the pilot, 103 residents of the Barkly Shire with significant and profound disabilities will have their needs assessed and will begin to receive individual support packages under the NDIS model.
By 1 July 2019, under the current agreement, the intent is for all eligible Territorians to have been assessed for, and begun to receive, individualised NDIS packages.
The creation of the portfolio is important, and while the new portfolio increases the profile of what we are doing, I have long felt the need for broader input into the Disability Services reform. The people working in this area within my department do a tremendous job, but I believe with the creation of a dedicated portfolio the ability to garner the community and sector’s views has increased.
This is a proposition supported by the community advocates operating in this sector. To give some structure and pathways for community and sectorial engagement, I am pleased to announce the creation of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Disability Reform.
The purpose of the council is to bring together people with a variety of knowledge and experience to provide strategic advice to the Northern Territory government on the planning for, and implementation of, the NDIS in the Barkly region and the remainder of the Northern Territory.
The inaugural membership of the council comprises Vicki O’Halloran of National Disability Services NT - she will be the Chair of the Council on Disability Reform - with other members including Greg McMahon of Carpentaria Disability Services; Jo Smith of Step Out; Liz Reid of YouthWorx NT; and community representatives, Mr Bruce Young-Smith, Ms Suzanne Cavanagh, and Ms Karen Stewart.
I am looking forward to working with the council. Work has already commenced between the department and National Disability Services NT, the peak body for disability NGOs, to ensure the disability sector is ready for the commencement of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
National Disability Services NT has been working with organisations on contemporary disability service provision and business readiness for the NDIS. In addition to this, National Disability Services NT is working with Professor David Gilchrist on unit pricing for disability supports within the NDIS in the Northern Territory.
This project will ensure the unique factors which make up service delivery costs in the Territory are measured and incorporated into the NDIS in the Northern Territory. Setting up this program and making sure its implementation goes smoothly is great work and will have hugely positive outcomes. We have plenty of evidence in the Northern Territory of people who have made significant contributions to our Territory lifestyle, and whilst I do not propose to single any individuals out, it is safe to say there are many past and present high achieving Territorians who have a disability of some form or another.
These Territorians have not let their challenges limit their ability to succeed, and it is the strong intention of this Country Liberals government to ensure their ranks increase into the future. The most pressing issue for the Advisory Council, in the first instance, is to ensure a smooth Barkly trial is achieved. Over time, I see the council advising me on a broad range of issues and concerns which affect Territorians with a disability, their carers and their families. My consultation and engagement with the community and the sector will extend beyond the Advisory Council. I have already initiated a swathe of community and sector meetings across the Northern Territory. These will be occurring over the coming weeks and months as I seek to promote an advocate for this sector both at the Territory and national levels.
Already it has been made clear to me that Disability Services is about a great deal more than the NDIS, as important as this single reform is. It is also about ensuring access to government services and opportunity to participate throughout the Territory community. This is a whole-of-government issue I will not shy away from and, where necessary, I will bang down the doors of my colleagues on behalf of Territorians with a disability. I am committed to ensuring Territorians with a disability, their carers and their families are given a fair go. To this end, I have instructed work to commence on a Strategic Plan for Disability Services. The idea behind this will be to make sure that while we wrestle with the huge challenge and change of the NDIS, we do not forget all the other programs and details. The programs and details ensure Territorians with a disability, their families and their carers get the support they need, the opportunities they deserve to gain meaningful employment, and otherwise fully participate in our vibrant Territory society.
Work is in the initial stages, but once I have a draft I am satisfied with I will engage the community, peak bodies, NGOs and individuals over the coming year to help build a comprehensive five-year road map for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. Disability Services is not just about programs so I would like for the strategic plan to look at how we can help carers and what we can do better. I have already announced a review of the Carers Recognition Act, which is progressing well. I am on track to say more on this later this year. Additionally, our Adult Guardianship Act is in need of modernisation. Work is well progressed and in the not too distinct future, I will commence consultation with the sector on this important legislation. Equally, I have had a strong representation from parents and guardians of school leavers, who are advocating for post-school options for their children with disabilities. I see the strategic plan as a way of making sure the direction of the new portfolio of Disability Services is firmly focused on whole-of-government programs which remove barriers for people, encouraging self-reliance, self-fulfilment and empowerment for people to take control of their lives and participate in the workforce.
In addition to policies and programs which advance people with disabilities, the Country Liberals government is proud to be a continuing sponsor of the Northern Territory Disability Services Awards. These awards recognise and reward the achievements of disability sector employees and mainstream services and businesses which have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to improving the lives of people with disability. The awards are now entering their fourth year and I am pleased to say they have continued to grow. The 2013 Disability Services Awards celebrated the achievements of some outstanding people working in this field. An example of the kind of great Territorians who were honoured at last year’s Disability Services Awards is the case of Rachel Kroes. In her awards citation, it said:
I congratulate all previous award recipients and nominees for their contribution, dedication, and hard work, and I look forward to launching this year’s awards and promoting some of the stand-out performers in this sector.
The government is also the sponsor of the Young Carers Award as part of the Young Achievers Awards. The awards cover people in a range of fields of endeavours, business, community work, and sports achievements. The fact they also include young carers of people with a disability is evidence we recognise people for their contribution where it is above and beyond.
It is an exciting time for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. The NDIS is a major reform. The Disability Advisory Council is a huge development in giving voices to people, the Strategic Plan for Disability Services will make sure programs and services are coordinated across government, and the awards provide some profile raising.
I am also cognisant of the fact that while we are working on all these great initiatives, we must also work with our neighbours: Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The Tri-state Disability Strategic Framework is an agreement between Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and South Australia, agreeing to a joint approach to assisting the delivery of quality disability services to the people of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara - NPY - lands in the central region of Australia. The framework has allowed these processes to recognise its state and Territory borders should not be an impediment to accessing disability services. The three jurisdictions have recently signed the Tri-state Disability Strategic Plan 2013-15 which continues this cooperation and prepares for a future roll-out of NDIS in the NPY lands. This local level interstate cooperation ensures people with disabilities are not disadvantaged because of a line on the map.
Similarly, I look forward to engaging with my Queensland counterpart to ensure our eastern communities are not facing any cross-border issues with regard to disability services.
In closing, I have outlined how I see the new portfolio operating and have identified the way in which I, as minister, will operate within it. I have also outlined some of the significant reforms and work flows which are under way or commencing to ensure we improve the lives and opportunities of Territorians living with a disability.
On a personal note, it is a great honour to be named the first ever Northern Territory Minister for Disability Services and one which I do not take lightly. Now is the time of major reform in this area. I shall endeavour to be the very best Minister for Disability Services in the Northern Territory, and establish a high bar which my successors will hopefully build upon. I am looking forward to working with Territorians with a disability, their families and carers, non-government organisations and all levels of government to make a brighter future for these important members of our community.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this important statement on disability services and wish her well in her new role in this extremely important area. Disability services are deeply important to the 27 000 Territorians affected by disability and, of course, their families and carers who support them.
Advocacy for more support for disability services and coordination of a whole-of-government approach will require a very strong voice in this government. I wish you well with the challenge, minister, as we know you have some very strong personalities in your Cabinet, some determined to cut budgets no matter what the consequences are to the people those cuts will affect. The minister is part of a government determined to reduce departmental budgets, cut government services and find ways to cost shift and privatise wherever it can.
As I said, I welcome this statement, but one area I am keen to hear more about is what additional resourcing or rearrangement of the department priorities will occur to support the minister’s new role. The statement is silent on resourcing and the departmental support.
There is also the key question of how the already stretched and hard-working NGO sector will be supported in further developing its role in this sector. This is important, particularly with the current environment of ever-increasing cost. We know CPI is galloping away and key issues like the cost of power and water are impacting on the budgets of non-government service providers.
Let us not forget it was in November last year that the disability sector was thrown into some confusion with the threat of budget cuts to flexi respite programs, low-cost support for families caring for disabled children through Carpentaria Disability Services. The sector is looking for a strong voice in government and a real ability to tackle whole-of-government issues, such as access to medical services; housing; supported accommodation; special education; support for disabled children; access to rehabilitation; and sport and recreation facilities.
The carers of people with disabilities want a strong voice around the area of respite for the hard-working families and the carers who do such a great job in providing care for their loved ones and the ones around them with disabilities. From what I have seen as a local member, when I meet residents and find they are caring for a disabled member of the family or for children with disabilities, respite is an issue which comes up time and time again. There is always the question of more access to additional respite care and not saying there is plenty around. This is certainly an issue I hope the minister will be passionately pursuing as part of her new role.
The sector also tells us of its real concern that this government will make cuts which will hurt them. The people I talk to in the disability sector say they are concerned this government has some wrong priorities. For example, it has increased its Health budget by $45m to accommodate its political agenda of mandatory detention for problem drinkers, but at a cost of growing the Health budget, as Labor did, to keep pace with inflation. The result is an already evident decline in health infrastructure and disability services, including those necessary to properly support Territorians with disabilities.
By contrast, disability services and support for families was a key focus of work by the previous Labor government. We committed to a range of measures to hear the voice of Territorians, to hear their priorities in this area and progressively improve disability services across the Territory. In late 2005, we commissioned an independent review of the Territory’s disability services: a comprehensive review of the activities and priorities of the disability sector then; how services fit together; how to best manage increased demand; the better targeting of services; the development of new partnerships; and how to increase access, infrastructure and capacity right across the Territory.
We supported and implemented a Tri-state Disability Strategic Framework to provide the best possible services for people with disabilities and their families on the NPY lands. We committed to the key 2030 targets, which included that services for senior Territorians and people with a disability, or requiring rehabilitation, will be accessible at the same level as elsewhere in Australia, and to increase the proportion of Indigenous Territorians with a disability receiving disability services.
One of the useful results of all the work which went on into 2030 was the identification of gaps in the information government requires to fine tune investments and make sure they aligned with real priorities of Territorians. Territory 2030 identified gaps which would enable better monitoring of progress in this area. We were working to address those gaps and we hope the minister will continue the work to ensure it is not lost in rearranging the department.
We tackled the preventative side as well, with our ground-breaking work with volatile substance abuse and support for low aromatic fuel in regions affected by petrol sniffing. There was work to better understand the extent of the consequences of foetal alcohol syndrome and the impact in the Territory. We appointed long-term disabilities advocate, Robyn Burridge, to be a staff member in the member for Casuarina’s office when he was the Health minister. She had a very strong voice and direct access to other senior ministers in the government to advocate for the disability sector.
We established a one-stop shop model for disability services so disabled Territorians and their families could better access information about available services. We were committed to providing quality and affordable healthcare close to where people live. Our headline remote services and remote economic development policy, A Working Future, included local implementation plans, addressing the health and disability service needs in our remote growth centres - plans developed with local people for their local priorities.
We understood the importance of mobility and access to services for the disabled and ensured more access to purpose-built taxis with the Lift Incentive Scheme to give drivers more incentive to pick up people who were wheelchair bound.
In 2009, we announced $30m over five years to build and upgrade special schools across the Territory. The highlight of this major infrastructure program was, no doubt, the building of the new purpose-built, state-of-the-art Nemarluk School you see in Alawa now. It is a fantastic facility for primary school children in Darwin with special needs.
The school was purpose-built to ensure students could access quality care, therapy and, most importantly, education. I have not heard any reports coming out of the school – when students start school for the first time, their parents and carers love it, and the students love it. It is a wonderful facility and it was a real highlight to be involved in and working on.
We know our remaining special schools are extremely aged and infrastructure is a real challenge across the Territory. There was certainly a bit of work done in that regard to the established schools, including millions invested into the Acacia Hills Special School in Alice Springs for upgrades, including classrooms, the gymnasium, the all-abilities playground and the hydrotherapy pool. There was work also done in Palmerston - I think in Woodroofe - to the primary school special education unit, and to Kintore Street Special School in Katherine.
However, as we know, there are still major deficits in schooling infrastructure in the Territory for students with special needs. I have raised the issue of Henbury School on numerous occasions in this Assembly. Henbury School sits in my electorate of Wanguri. It is an extremely old school. Labor went to the last election with a commitment to build a new, purpose-built Henbury School so the students going through Nemarluk today will be able to look forward to going to high school in another purpose-build state-of-the-art special school giving them access to the best therapy and education, and making the jobs of the staff a hell of a lot easier.
Henbury impresses me as a school community. The teachers and support staff are incredibly dedicated. There is a passionate school council and very caring parents and carers, and the children are fantastic. It is always a real joy to go to an assembly at Henbury and see the good work of the students and how they are developing. It is an amazing place.
The school has some real challenges at the moment, because it is well and truly over capacity. The new suburb of Muirhead is coming on board in my electorate, which means more houses coming along all the time. We know Darwin is growing, which means the demand for that school is growing and the staff find it very difficult to cater for the numbers. If you look at the staffing situation and where they are all sitting at the school - they are jammed in some very limited spaces. They have some very aged equipment, an area I hope the government looks at in the upcoming budget. We need to see some major improvements to the Henbury School. I will certainly keep pushing for it. Those kids deserve a fantastic school; it is too full. Something needs to be done.
Labor had plans to build another purpose-built school in Palmerston for children with special needs. I have not heard where that is at or what is going on with the investment and development. I am very keen to hear from the minister in the wrap about work the government is looking at around special school education and the infrastructure to support those students, because, unfortunately, demand is not going down; it is growing. It is an area we must look at and we must ensure we try to support the families with special needs children as much as possible. The children get so much out of the program and going to those schools. This is certainly something I hope you will advocate very strongly and will work on with your Treasurer and Education minister in your new role.
The minister has been working very closely with a group of parents, and, of course, Pastor Geoff, on post-school options. I know other members in this Chamber on both sides of this parliament have been working with them as well. I certainly appreciate that work. We know this goes into the issue of there being some challenges for some of the students at Henbury. I am hoping, as part of this portfolio, these gaps can be filled and we can pick up when there are students who are profoundly disabled coming to the end of their schooling and going out as young adults into the world. However, there are not enough programs in place for them, or the right programs, and there are limited job opportunities. This is something I welcome, hearing about more work taking place. It will certainly alleviate a lot of stress on families affected, but, more to the point, on the young Territorians this impacts. They go to school in a pretty engaging, stimulating environment, day-to-day. To then leave school and have very limited options makes it tough.
I know it is very tough on Henbury as well, because there are real pressures on numbers there. It limits the opportunity for how many students they can keep in Henbury for a certain amount of time. This is certainly something which has had an impact. I am very glad to hear you are continuing in your work. I welcome it and look forward to seeing some outcomes in this area.
I want to look back on some other programs for disabled Territorians. Looking back in Alice Springs, when Labor was in government we recognised the role Riding for the Disabled plays. It plays a major role in providing recreation and therapy to children and adults with special needs. The riding therapy gives extra mobility to people who have restricted movement, improves motor skills and, most importantly, brings a huge amount of enjoyment to participants. You only have to see the huge smiles on kids’ faces as they ride the horses to see the benefits of this program.
The Territory Labor government invested a considerable amount in funding for Riding for the Disabled in Alice Springs. With the support of the Labor government, Riding for the Disabled was able to invest in a brand new clubhouse, and stable and paddock facilities. Most recently, families in Alice Springs have been calling for an all-abilities park to be made available for children with special needs. It is not a huge ask, basically some secured fencing and appropriate play equipment. Many members in government are from Alice Springs, so it is something I hope you will be considering as part of your budget submissions.
Back in Darwin, we have also seen the development of the innovative Project 21 inclusion program, supporting those with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities to develop skills, and supporting workforce participation. We all know that Rachel Kroes is an amazing Territorian. She works extremely hard with disabled Territorians and her work was recognised when she was awarded the Employee of the Year Award at the 2013 Northern Territory Disability Services Awards. This was for her work with ‘Walking in my Shoes’ and the Project 21 program. It would be good to hear from the minister about how the government will support great low-cost programs like this one, and expand them across the Territory to give people with disabilities more access to employment and training into their adult lives.
When Labor was in government, we worked with our colleagues in Canberra to ensure the Territory was one of the first places in Australia to benefit from the NDIS, with the trial of the project in the Barkly supporting over 100 Territorians. An NDIS scheme was something Labor was very proud of. I hope under the new Liberal government, and certainly here with the CLP, they will be working to ensure what was initially agreed to with the NDIS is fully delivered. It is essential. We all want to see the program rolled out and people with disabilities really benefiting from it.
Labor was very strongly committed to working to address the incredibly debilitating Machado-Joseph Disease, particularly in Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land. It is a distressing genetically transmitted condition, with massive impacts on affected families and close-knit communities. Some of the work they are doing on Groote Eylandt is amazing because it is a horrendous condition those people have to live with.
I was horrified this week to hear the mean-spirited Abbott government turning its back on those patients, rescinding the ABA support for much needed improvements to services on Groote Eylandt. I hope the Territory government and the minister go to their colleagues in Canberra and have a very good discussion with them about this, because it is a terrible decision.
The last Labor budget included a record $1.2bn for health, which was 152% more than 2001-02 when we first came into government. Within the global health budget, we provided a $48m increase in funding in the health and wellbeing output, including a $12.7m increase to our ongoing commitment to Territorians with a disability, particularly those with exceptional and complex needs.
Today, although we have heard there has been a welcoming of the introduction of the new Disability Services portfolio from the sector, it is not to say the sector does not have some concerns about the future. They have raised their concern about the impacts of the rising cost of living on disabled pensioners and the impact of rising operational costs on the NGO sector for providing services to people with disabilities - a very tough, ongoing issue.
The location of the new Office of Disability Services is still buried within Health House, a difficult place for disabled Territorians to access. There is a need for continuing upgrades to health infrastructure, for example: updated MRI scanning technology and other diagnostic services required to keep abreast of developments in diagnosis and treatment of disabilities and associated health conditions; and aged public physiotherapy and rehabilitation services which are limiting the ability for disabled Territorians to access rehabilitation programs. These are just a few examples of issues I hope the minister will be able to cast her mind to and use her influence on.
There were some other issues within the sector more broadly. One which comes up is the issue of housing and supported accommodation. We are told Territory Housing is increasingly telling the sector it has no money for necessary repairs and maintenance to support disabled people and pensioners in public housing, let alone support more accommodation.
I have heard examples of some organisations with access to industry houses which Territory Housing leases to NGOs to use for supported accommodation. They are sitting there with no one in them. They need repairs and maintenance funding, and funding to support programs to get people into them. This is an area we would like to see the minister do more work in, with the Housing minister, to tackle the issue of accommodation for people living with disabilities.
Another concern which has been raised is threats to the financial situation of the regional councils, failure to recognise the role they have in supporting the aged and disabled in our remote communities, and the proposed changes to the NT Workers Compensation Scheme severely limiting access to the appropriate compensation income support for workers injured in the workplace.
There are questions about this government’s commitment to delivering necessary health services through our remote health centres, instead of requiring more people to leave their home communities and families to travel to major centres for treatment in Darwin. As we know, getting accommodation when they come to Darwin, and getting into the hospital, is also an issue.
I have a few questions about what has happened to the Territory Independence and Mobility Equipment Scheme which provides equipment to people in the Northern Territory to help them to live and participate in their community. A link to the information page for the program on the Health department’s website is currently saying the file has been removed from the system. It would be nice to see where that is at. There are a few issues.
I welcome the establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Disability Reform and congratulate the members who are participating, standing up and advocating for the sector. Well done to the inaugural members. I look forward to hearing about the work you are doing in advising the government on what is needed in this sector. The minister is well placed to go in with her Cabinet colleagues and fight for the funding, programs and support that is needed.
The disability sector had a strong voice in the previous Labor government. It had confidence in a response from our government to the issues which were important to them. They knew we had influence with our Labor colleagues in Canberra and would work hard to win more Commonwealth support for disability programs in the Territory. We worked with the sector and Territory families to provide opportunities and choice for the disabled, working to support their priorities. We supported early intervention and prevention whenever possible to reduce the impact of disabilities on Territory families.
I wish the new Disability Services minister well with her new portfolio and her good intentions. She certainly has some challenges ahead in Cabinet, as we have seen some of the ministers with the attitude of cut, cut, cut. It is a big job she has, but a very important one. Territorians with disabilities deserve our support and the government’s. Their carers deserve support as well.
I am looking forward to seeing the work in the Barkly and how the trial goes. We will be watching that closely, and I know the member for Barkly is very interested in the outcome of the trial there.
There are many challenges in the disability sector and I wish the new minister every success and hope she is able to achieve all the changes she has aspired to make and mentioned in this statement. We need to see further growth in our disability sector to support Territorians who are doing it very tough.
I commend this statement and thank the minister for bringing it forward.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on disability services in the Northern Territory. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister. I heard the shadow minister talk about the things Labor did. It is not about what Labor does or what the Country Liberal Party does, it is what we do as politicians for people with disabilities. We should not highlight what you do and what we do; it should be part of our human element to do things for people with disabilities, especially in the Northern Territory.
As we know, we have lots of children with disabilities. This government initiative is to make sure Health is not delivering part of disability services. It is the first time we have a stand-alone Disability minister. I take this opportunity to not just congratulate the minister, but congratulate this government, because it sees the importance of having a minister for people with disabilities. This minister will do a fantastic job. I do not want to embarrass the minister, but it needs to be on the public record that she is a very enthusiastic minister.
I know her background as a social worker. She has seen many kids with disabilities. Many adults with disabilities come through the Alice Springs Hospital where she worked. She is a member of the Alice Springs community who gets around at markets, in the streets and sees all the people. She has very good Aboriginal friends. She has good friends in the business sector, because she is a business woman as well. When I go to some of my communities with her she is on the go. She is really interested in looking at the health clinics and not only focused on Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. She is getting around with all the MLAs and going to all the electorates to see what the renal patients and the community think about renal dialysis. These people are giving her messages.
She goes to health clinics, and if you follow me on Facebook you would have seen me and the minister at Hermannsburg, Titjikala and Santa Teresa. It is fantastic to see this kind of enthusiasm in a minister. We know, and you would know, as ministers you are very busy people. This minister has taken the opportunity to see for herself what her clinics are like, hear her staff’s concerns, and see what the community looks like so when she is in parliament she can piece the two together. She can say, ‘I have been to Santa Teresa and spoken to the people there. I have been to the renal dialysis unit in Hermannsburg.’ At the time, two patients were hooked up. They were pleased to see the minister and took the opportunity to talk to her. It is fantastic, and is the kind of thing we should be doing.
As we know, with foetal alcohol syndrome we are getting a lot more children with disabilities and we have to take every opportunity to make sure services are accessed, even out bush. We have lots of young people who, from petrol sniffing and kids with foetal alcohol syndrome, who have disabilities. There are no bitumen roads in most of our communities to go to the clinic or the shop, and if we are talking about making sure our children and adolescents all go to school - if they have disabled grandparents, some children stay home to make sure their disabled grandparents are looked after if there is no other adult in that household. These are the common things we have to take in as a government, opposition, leaders and spokespeople, and make sure we identify the great needs remote bush people have.
We have aged care centres in some communities, but in my electorate we have live-in aged care centres in only three communities. Docker River is fantastic, but I suggest to the minister that we have young disabled children, and there is so much space in these aged care centre that we should be looking at a transition for these young adolescents with disabilities to ensure they are cared for in those aged care centres with lots of rooms. They can get the contact they want, need and love from their communities and parents, see their parents and grandparents again. These are some of the suggestions we should be coming to this House with.
How can we provide a better service in remote communities and give those ideas to the minister? Because this is the minister who will make sure things are done. She is very open minded about the things needing improvement and is looking for new ideas.
Disability Services deserves its own portfolio. Disability recognises no boundaries, nor does it recognise any colour. Disability can affect you whether you are young or old, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, remote or urban, therefore, it is important that Disability Services has its own focus.
Remote living can be hard for even the able bodied. Disability in remote areas, like my electorate, can be especially difficult. Buildings and services are still too often inaccessible to remote residents with disabilities. Even an employment and training building in my region remains inaccessible to people in a wheelchair. I have also seen remote residents struggle because their homes are not equipped to enable mobility between rooms.
I know of cases of community women who have had to crawl from one room to another in their own home because there was no wheelchair access. Outside the home without footpaths, in most communities, it is difficult to get around by wheel chair, motorised or otherwise.
Remote residents affected by deafness, blindness or other disabilities have to rely on their family members for all of their needs, while there are some remote aged and disabled care services which work very hard to provide help to affected families.
It is very difficult to lead an independent life when you have a disability in a remote area, this is where I come in to congratulate agencies such as Life Without Barriers, which takes good care of our young women and men who come from communities. They do a fantastic job with a young woman from my community and she is often my passenger when I visit my electorate. She loves coming to my electorate. I take her to Papunya where she sees her first cousins, aunties and uncles, and I take her to Docker where her mother’s side of the family lives, and to Mutitjulu and Imanpa, and she loves it. Even when we go to Harts Range she has family there, she loves picking up Ininti beads and having contact with her relatives again. When I take her on a more than one week trip, she says, ‘Alison, it is time for me to have a rest’. She loves to go back to Life Without Barriers, and it is fantastic to take her back to her country and her communities. This is the bit we can give back to these kids with disabilities and to society.
I agree with the minister; reaching the goals of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be a struggle in remote areas, but it is the challenge we must take up. We must work hard to ease the burden on people with disabilities and their families. A stronger focus on working with individuals and families to determine their requirements and provide appropriate care is much needed. This is not only about funding more programs; it is about providing resources to all people so they can live productive lives. It is about making people’s lives that bit easier.
I do not think I have ever heard a person with a disability ask for too much, but they do ask for a little, just to make their lives pleasant and easier. I know how hard it was for my nephew - my brother’s eldest son - when their son was born with meningitis. When he was small, we had him at home in Papunya, but as he got older and was growing, we did not have the facilities to bathe him or exercise him. It was really hard for us, as a family, to eventually move him into St Mary’s in Alice Springs. It really tears you to bits as a family to see someone you love move because you do not have the services in a remote Aboriginal community. I know the marriage of my nephew and his wife, when their young fellow moved into Alice Springs - he has passed away now but it is sad this kind of stuff still happens.
One area of concern I hope the minister will tackle sooner rather than later is the issue of Machado-Joseph Disease, or MJD as it is known. It is not only in Arnhem Land; it is at Papunya, Hermannsburg and Santa Teresa. A family in that area has been affected by that disease, and I want to put on public record how disappointing it was to see the federal minister withdraw that money from people who really need it. These people are not going to fight him. We must make sure we look after those people, because they do not have a very long life span and younger and younger people are affected by this.
I know a lady in my community who is 48 and her life - whatever is left - is a death sentence, and she knows it. She had to move her mother into old timers and leave her job at the hospital because it affects the way she moves; all of her bones are aching. We need to make sure, as governments, we have the element, not of sympathy, but of respect, knowing these people do not have long on this earth. We need to take into consideration that it is not only them; their children are also affected.
What you see in these communities is that the whole family is affected. The kids have to work for their grandmothers and their mum. There is a young woman in my community. She was once very energetic and her children do not even know they have the disease. It is really sad to see this happening, and I am certainly asking the minister if together we can talk to the federal minister to ensure we do not touch money in that area. We look at these people lives and we look at them as human beings. We look at them as contributors to life; at one stage in their lives, they have worked, contributed to their community and to their family structure. It is really sad to see how debilitating this disease is, not just for the person who has it, but on the family, extended family and the whole community. It is the role of people like us who come into this House to ensure we get our priorities right in the services we will fund and look at the seriousness of the services. This area of disability is very serious.
As I said, most of our children have to go into Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to access these services because we do not have these services in our remote Aboriginal communities. More and more of our children with disabilities are going into Alice Springs. Like the renal patients who lose contact with their grandchildren, their communities and their families, we see those children also not have contact with their grandmothers and their mums and dads. Maybe, as I suggested to the minister, we look at the aged-care centres and the facilities they already have on communities. At Mt Liebig they have a live-in aged care and there is plenty of room. I know they have plenty of room at Docker.
Maybe this gives us stability to move some of these young kids back to their communities, not necessarily the ones requiring special care, but the ones who can cope there. It will put them back on country, in connection with their identity, language, law, and their mums, dads and grandparents. It is so sad to see their eyes some days, when you rock up to see these children and they do not to let you go because they know they have contact with you. They want you to stay longer, ‘Please stay’. It is sad and emotional for people like us when we visit these children. In every aspect of our lives, we should try to make the lives of these people a little easier.
If anyone can do it, it will be you. You have a heavy caseload with Health and Disability Services. Minister, you are very enthusiastic; you are true to people, to yourself, and people know it in Alice Springs and in remote Aboriginal communities. When you visited with me, they saw the sincerity in your heart. As I said, if anyone can do it, you will.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Disability Services for bringing the statement to the House. You have a title, but with the title comes a great weight of responsibility, and I wish you all the best in putting the spotlight and focus on disability services
As you have heard from the speakers already, disability services really is a life journey. It is a life journey which affects not just the individual with a disability but also their carers quite significantly, their families and their community. It is a holistic approach which needs to be taken when you look at disability services. You talked about the importance of early intervention, which is the most critical stage in disability services, without a doubt. A wealth of studies have proven the more access there is to early intervention for people with a range of disabilities, the better their life outcomes are.
In the Barkly trial, it will be interesting to see - in a very remote location in the context of our nation - how you can provide a range of services and interventions, because disability covers such a breadth. It is mental, physical - and within the physical there are sensory disabilities such as hearing loss or are blindness - and intellectual disabilities. When you think about people with complex care needs – often in the Territory you have heard people talk about foetal alcohol syndrome. You have heard my colleague, the member for Wanguri, talk about people with disabilities as a result of petrol sniffing. These are multiple disabilities. There will be physical, intellectual and psychological disabilities within those two examples. They take complex care interventions and education. The debates around disability in the Territory have always gone to how you can, in regional and remote areas, provide a range of services that plug into meeting the significant variety of disability we have in our community where you have a small population base. It never stacks up economically.
Disability services never fit within an economic scenario. If you could take a fiscal parameters approach to it you would never get there. A holistic approach is a better pathway, but far more difficult. There is a variety of approaches from the systemic, which is saying, ‘Okay, set up organisations such as Somerville, Carpentaria Disability Services, and Life without Barriers, so you have a systemic delivery model where government funds money into organisations which then provide the services’. You can also have an individualised funding model where government says the money in disability services will follow the person, because they have their own disability needs. The money, for example, would attach to the individual who has Machado-Joseph Disease and they then broker what they need. They broker their education needs, their aids and equipment needs and their housing needs. This has been the complex tension and argument between federal and Territory governments over the delivery of disability services. Is it individualised funding or is it systemic funding?
In my experience, it has been a mix of both that delivers an outcome for the person with the disability. When I say person I mean 0-3 - early interventions - then education settings - primary, middle and senior - and then you have the tranche of post-school options. Post-school options only existed in a very narrow way in Darwin and then ceased to exist in the Territory. When we talk disability services, we talk unmet need.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in the 1990s, had unmet need in disability services running into billions of dollars and, folks, we have not come a long way since then. When you talk about unmet need it is a mountain; it is significant. Small wins occur along the way, wins we should champion - the $10m announcement from the former federal government in the run down to the federal election, which was championed at Garma - the $10m from the ABA account towards Machado-Joseph Disease was a small win. It was a significant win for people who have Machado-Joseph Disease. Seeing the aged care facility on Groote Eylandt shows you can have genuine care arrangements to keep people on community, as we heard from the member for Namatjira, but also recognising there is a long way to go in delivering care and service to people with MJD on country all through Arnhem Land. We do not have an MJD service provider, respite or aged care facility in Nhulunbuy and - as you heard from the member for Namatjira - there are people on her country with MJD.
It was shocking and appalling to overturn the $10m announcement. I cannot understand why Senator Nigel Scullion did it, to be honest. He would have met MJD sufferers in his travels in the Territory. It is beyond me as to why he made the decision. The ABA is drawn from royalties money, and if you want to look at the major contributor to royalties consistently through the decades – ‘Hello, Groote Eylandt’, where you have the highest concentration of MJD sufferers in Australia. If you want to look at it in a purely rational perspective of who has contributed the funds, and therefore should receive them, it is MJD sufferers on Groote Eylandt. It is not as though you have taken those ABA account monies which might have arguably have been from somewhere else.
There was a direct correlation and to me it made sense, because there is always a tension as to where top-up funding in disability will come from. It is and always has been the poor cousin of the health service delivery system. When we had an opportunity like the ABA coming along to focus on MJD, it was fantastic. It is shocking it has been removed and I am heartened to hear members of the government today talk about the need to lobby to ensure Canberra overturns that decision. All power to you! It is one of the most critical things you can do to help people in our remote communities with MJD.
In the continuum of the life cycle, access to education is critical, and we heard from the shadow minister many of the initiatives which have occurred in the past but came to a stop. We are keen to hear from the government what its plans are for the all-important facility in Palmerston and the upgrades which still need to occur. We have done some work at Kintore Street and in Alice Springs, but I assure you there is more work needed in the facilities there, and we are in dire need of a new facility to replace Henbury as well.
These are not optional extras; these are genuine basic needs which exist in the disability services sector, and education is critical to ensuring people with a disability maximise their abilities. It is about interventions and education opportunities to maximise abilities, and giving people a chance to become productive Territorians.
I have seen this happen; I have seen young Territorians go through an education system, in and out of the mainstream system where they get ISAS support - and I will touch on student services in a moment - but have relied on Nemarluk and Henbury. These are young adults who are working with Rachel Kroes at Project 21. They are exceptional young people with a disability, proving they have a variety of abilities. If anyone is in any doubt I urge you, on World Down Syndrome Day, to get along to the Darwin Entertainment Centre and witness 21 The Journey.
It is on 21 March, in a few weeks’ time, and is the Friday between sittings, a fair amount of the members might still be in Darwin. It is a journey about Down’s syndrome, written by the mother of someone with Down’s syndrome, Rachel Kroes, who was the disability award winner. She wrote the journey of her daughter, Molly, performed by young adults with Down’s syndrome, with some non-Down’s syndrome young adults and kids mixed in, because they have been working together for the best part of a decade doing sign language class.
I saw it the only time it was performed, late last year. There was a standing ovation at the end by everyone in the hall. It was a truly life changing experience to witness the ability of these young adults, explaining what it is like to be a Down’s syndrome person, and the parent of a Down’s syndrome person, trying to struggle through life; it was quite breathtaking. I think it should go national, get some arts funding and tour. It would be informative for the Minister for Disability Services to see it. It would be a great thing for the disability sector to see her there, and to see she is open to hearing the stories of what their journey is like and the challenges they meet.
The challenges go as far as access to transport, and whilst we did what we could by putting accessible taxis into the system and requiring more of them, it is only tinkering at the edges when you look at access to transport in the urban area of Darwin. It is not helping people in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs or the remote areas. Through the Community Benefit Fund, I urge the government to keep a keen eye on accessible transport, which will help organisations like NT Carers move people with physical disabilities through our regional and remote areas. It is somewhere you can genuinely make a real difference if you provide a form of transport.
We heard the member for Namatjira talk about the joy of someone she knows with a disability, when they go on bush trips. Having worked with NT Carers previously, a big part of the good work we did in program delivery was getting people out and accessing country. You can only do so with accessible vehicles and with the staff and support.
I want to raise the concerns I am hearing in the sector about respite. Respite funding has been reducing. This is not a purely political debate, but it has been reducing with cuts made to the disability sector in the mini-budget of 2012. In a very real way, having respite is the difference between make or break for a family. We heard the member for Namatjira talk about the stress of a person needing to go into a permanent care facility, and what it did to a family, and how it broke them up.
I know many families who struggle every day to cope with the high-care needs of their child, in many cases now an adult, and respite is the difference between keeping it together or the child or adult going to a permanently supported accommodation environment. A permanent supported accommodation environment - which is where the family has broken and they cannot cope anymore – comes at high cost to the taxpayer. While respite is - as I said, disability is the poor cousin with funding in health service delivery - mostly the responsibility of the Commonwealth, any Territory government which takes its eye off the respite ball is bringing home real problems to itself regarding pressures on the housing and care systems. Do not underestimate the importance of respite.
Respite has to happen in the regional and remote areas, which is an extra cost, flying people in and out. The suggestions coming forward from people like the member for Namatjira, saying, ‘Well, if we have capacity in aged-care facilities in places like Docker, do you establish respite beds in there and not necessarily limit yourself in terms of age for the respite?’ These are all in the mix.
The work I did in the disability sector in Victoria was about taking children out of aged-care facilities and giving them appropriate supported accommodation homes. You do not always have choices in the Territory, particularly in very remote areas.
Independent living support is crucial. It is fairly high cost. It is fairly difficult and, as we heard from the member for Wanguri, we have genuine concerns about supported accommodation homes laying idle because the department is not providing repairs and maintenance for those houses. I urge you to do an analysis of what accommodation is available and currently untenanted, and what you and your colleagues can do to ensure you are working to get supported accommodation operational as much as possible.
It is as rare as hens’ teeth, so the accommodation you have needs to keep turning over. There needs to be the opportunity for people to go into the supported accommodation through the non-government organisations that manage it for you.
I flag real concerns with changes to the workers’ compensation scheme. You are being set up to take on a significant cost. Workers’ compensation is if the worker is injured, the employer has to foot the cost. The workers’ compensation scheme changes will see people with significant injuries cut off from workers’ compensation after two years. Guess who will foot the bills once they are cut off from the employer through their insurance payments? The government. It is a cost shifting exercise from employers to the government.
I urge members opposite to have a thorough briefing on the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It might sound like you are doing a good thing to lower insurance premiums for employers, but guess where they will go into the system after two years? They will become your collective cost burden, because they will still have a significant injury. They will still need health system support, and at times transport and housing support. You are taking on that burden, instead of the employer in whose workplace they were injured. You might want to have a closer look at this one before it gets through all the hoops and loops.
With regards to the Carers Recognition Act, which our government introduced, it is timely for the Minister for Disability Services to ensure her new Advisory Council is asked to consider how effective the Carers Recognition Act has been. It is only as good as a government’s will, and if the will is seen to be lacking - and carers are then often shut out of the advocacy they need in the system. It is particularly important to understand what access people from remote communities have as carers, such as the travel assistance schemes which exist, and access to the interpreter services in the hospital and healthcare systems. The Carers Recognition Act is there and gives them very clear powers. I do not know whether they are getting the benefits of the act. Darwin-based carers who are aware of it will use it, but I am not sure remote community people have real access to the benefits of the Carers Recognition Act.
I am pleased we added carers to the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. It is a recognition of it being such a high cost burden to be a carer. You often give up employment or, at the very least, you are only in part-time employment to care for a relative with a significant disability. The least we can do is recognise that it causes significant financial burden on the family and gives them access to those concessions. I urge the government to ensure it keeps a watchful eye on not reducing those concessions. They are, as I said, often the difference between a making or breaking environment, where people have to literally hand the person they are caring for over to what I call ‘the system’.
I want to ask a question at the end and I hope it has a positive answer. It ought to be.
Project 21 is the reason Rachael Kroes received the Disability Services Award. It is a group of young adults with a range of disabilities – mostly Down’s syndrome, but others are intellectually disabled – who have been undertaking training and employment. It is exciting to see the value it is adding to their lives and the way they are linking into employment opportunities as a result of Project 21. It is a post-school options trial and the government funded it. There is a question mark about whether or not it is being funded. Some good news was received a few weeks ago. Yes, they will receive the grant funding. However, the young adults with a disability have recently told me they heard the program will not be funded, and they are worried.
I have the good fortune to know them, simply because my children have spent most of their lives working with them. If there is any way, minister, you can ensure the grant funding continues - if you are not sure of the value of it, go and visit. Get out of Parliament House, get down to Rapid Creek and engage with this exciting project. Little things can go a very long way to enhance the lives of Territorians. This is a very little grant which is enhancing the lives of a group of awesome Territorians. They are doing it on the smell of an oily rag, but they are doing it. It is exciting to watch them. If you are not so sure about how exciting they are, go and see 21 The Journey on 21 March.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Disability Services statement.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Minister for Disability Services for bringing this to the House.
Disability in the bush has been a really big issue. All we can do, as members of parliament, is give the minister some ideas on how to help her and support her in the right direction, regardless of what side of the House we are on.
Disability for me and my family has been pretty tough. During my time at university and my first job, work experience and everything, I had to look after my uncle because my mum would not do it for cultural reasons. My father was not around, he passed away. My brothers could not do it because they were all married and had moved on, so it was left to me and my sister. we had to get a house together to look after my uncle. Our partners helped us out, because he had to be carried into the shower, bathed and fed daily. It is really hard, especially on us. We had to carry this responsibility of looking after him from such a young age.
Not only this, I have two sisters who have children in wheelchairs - one girl and one boy. The responsibility is shared around in the house. One of the girls is about 25 years old and she had to move to Katherine. Luckily, I have now moved to Katherine and I spend a lot of time with her. My other sister’s daughter had to give up her life to look after her, to become a carer. This is what we do within families.
It is hard to let our kids go and send them to town; it broke my sister apart. She can never forgive herself for letting her daughter live in town, putting her in a house where she does not even know the family, in a carer situation. She had no options; she had younger children to look after. I look back and every time I talk to her about it, I say, ‘You are pretty strong. You are an amazingly strong person. For you to let go knowing you do not have the capacity to look after her, you should put her in care.’ It is the hardest thing a mother can do to her first born child. With our support - there are seven of us sisters and we supported her through it. Three of us live in Katherine so we split the care of my niece, help her out and take her out when we can.
The biggest surprise to us is when she sees her little cousin sisters. There is laughter on her face. She cannot talk. You are constantly walking around with a towel to wipe her face down. She cannot even drink from a bottle, she cannot lift food. You have to mash her food. She is really high maintenance, but when we have the kids around her she loves it. She enjoys it, but the minute we tell her we have to take her back she cries. Even as a 25-year-old girl, she cries; she does not want to let go. Sometimes it breaks my heart because my girls grab her and will not let her go. It is something we have to deal with.
Services are needed in the bush; they are crucial. This government might not be able to do it in time, but as long as we look down the road with the vision of improving the services in the bush, then at least we are going somewhere. It is important we look in that direction.
We lobby the federal government to support it. My biggest disappointment is the federal minister, Nigel Scullion - I am appalled by his action, disgusted. I am related to the Groote Eylandt people. Pulling that funding is the worst thing you can do. These people only have a 20-year life span, which is devastating. They will not live for long. It comes to a disability point where they start dribbling; they will not be able to hold their bodily fluids in. This is what MJD is. They cannot eat anymore. Pulling the services is the worst thing to do. You have to have a heart when you walk into this business. You have to stay true to yourself.
Politics does toughen you up but you still have to have a heart. I am sure there is something inside that rock. I have not been consulted on any of this. All I heard is what was on the news. I do not think my constituents were consulted in regard to this, and that is worse. That is disgraceful and puts me back, because they voted me in plus I am their family member - I am related to these people. They are not only my constituents; they are my family. I am the one who will put them down when they die. I am the one who will comfort the family members. I wonder who else in this House will follow me.
This is how important MJD is, especially to people in the bush. Disability services, how important are they in the bush? There are hardly any resources in place to date. The aged-care facilities in Barunga stopped operating in 2005. The one in Beswick, the live-in aged care, is brilliant. If we could have more of those it would be awesome. In most of my communities - the only place is probably Groote Eylandt. There are services in Gapuwiyak, but there is not an in-home care centre where disability patients can live. There is only one on Groote Eylandt - Angurugu from what I can remember - not even Umbakumba and, at the moment, Umbakumba is cut off.
Minister, I commend you on your efforts of the stand-alone department. It is a great effort and I am happy to support you, because you are doing a fabulous job. Coming out, talking to the people, and seeing it first hand is what a minister should be doing, and you have done so well.
I rise today to also present a statement on a major issue affecting my constituents on Groote Eylandt in regard to disability services. I want to talk about MJD. The disease is a major disability disease affecting my constituents in the seat of Arnhem. This issue has developed in a role about who will fund medical research and medical treatment of MJD. It is a disease which attacks the nervous system of the body, making it difficult to eat or walk. Sufferers of this disease have been found throughout northeast Arnhem Land and Central Australia, and it has, for a long time, been misdiagnosed with conditions like arthritis. Anyone apparently carrying the MJD gene has a 50% chance of getting it. I quote from an article in the Australian, by Amos Aikman, 17 February 2014:
That is exactly what the member for Namatjira just stated in this House. He went on to say:
This is devastating. My brother had to go on ABC news to say how bad this is. What kind of leadership are we showing in the bush? We have to ask ourselves that question. I have not been so disappointed in my whole career as I am now, because of MJD.
Senator Nigel Scullion, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, has decided the grant made out of the Aboriginal Benefit Account - ABA, of which Groote Eylandt is the main contributor - should stop and research into this disease should not be funded any longer from the ABA. This has turned into an ugly spat over funding research into MJD. I, as the member for Arnhem, would like to know who will pick up the funding shortfall? Will it be the Northern Territory government, under its disability services provision? Or will this descend into a more practical solution to an otherwise critical medical issue? We have to ask ourselves this question.
MJD has been discovered to be more widespread amongst Aboriginal population than previously thought. In other words, this is not a disease only of Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land, but across the Northern Territory. Our Country Liberal government needs to include this as a large component of disability services in the Northern Territory. Wherever the money comes from, one thing is for sure: finance for the continuing research and medical treatment needs to be ongoing. It could be we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in relation to the effect of MJD across Aboriginal populations of the Northern Territory so far.
I urge our government, and this parliament, to lobby Senator Nigel Scullion to either reinstate ABA monies - as was previously the case for ongoing funding for the medical research and treatment with regards to MJD - or have federal monies made available to the NT Department of Health to facilitate ongoing research into MJD and medical treatments for patients within the disability services division. I understand that once there was a handful of MJD patients on Groote Eylandt, and some areas within northeast Arnhem Land. It is estimated that now up to 5% of the population is considered at risk. In some areas, there are now diagnoses of new cases emerging. Medical practitioners are finding the onset of the disease is earlier than first recognised. These are kids being affected.
MJD is a chronic disease which may well have more significant ramifications for many more Aboriginal people across the Territory than medical officials and others have contemplated. This is a major disability which will have a significant impact on medical provision in the Northern Territory. Further research is critical to understanding the nature of MJD. Our response, in terms of medical treatment, will be based on what we know about MJD and how to treat it. It will also be recognised by the Health department and medical practitioners as one of the major diseases affecting the population of the Northern Territory. Our Health department and disability services will need to deal with it.
I have no doubt, as a former medical worker, this disease and its symptoms need to be recognised as early as possible, because the diagnosis of such a serious ailment as MJD is needed early, in order for us to tackle it and come up with treatment solutions as soon as possible. We all know early diagnosis of a medical condition is the best way for medical personnel and our medical systems to give the most effective medical treatment to potential patients.
I ask my colleagues to help lobby federal counterparts. If we can find solutions into funding MJD - it is critical; my people are already dying in droves. What are we trying to do? It is crucial.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate her on her new appointment as the Minister for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. It is a great job, a job I envy because you will be able to support very vulnerable Territorians in urban, regional and remote areas.
However, as a teacher of 35 years, I will take a red pen to the statement and correct Barkly shire council, because it is the Barkly Regional Council. There have been considerable funds appropriated to change the names, logos, signs and uniforms, so I could not overlook that. As a teacher of 35 years - many of those years working with students with special needs - I will share one of my learnings from a famous lecturer at Armidale Teachers’ College. My term was in the mid-1970s; Margaret Mackie was a lecturer in child growth and development, and child psychology. She shared in a lecture one day - a day I will never forget - about children with Down’s syndrome and she challenged us, as education students. She said she wanted us to research anywhere in the world where a Down’s syndrome person had caused conflict, separation or war. She then followed up by teaching us about the nature of Down’s syndrome and the challenges we would face in dealing with children with Down’s syndrome and their families. She reminded us that Down’s syndrome children will bring care, compassion and love, with a great sense of humour.
I will share with colleagues some hot-off-the-press news in support of the statement, which is courtesy of the Barkly Electorate Officer, Ms Ktima Heathcote. She attended the forum in Tennant Creek today and prepared this report for me. The first Northern Territory trial of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is on track to be rolled out in the Barkly region. With the Barkly region selected as a trial site for the roll out of the NDIS from 1 July, people with a disability, their families, carers, service providers and community leaders turned up for two community forums on the NDIS in Tennant Creek on Wednesday 19 February. The innovative scheme works on an insurance principle, similar to the way the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme works in the Northern Territory. Prior to the NDIS, people with a disability would have been given an off-the-shelf assistance package, partly funded by the Commonwealth and state bodies, with very limited scope to be tailored to their individual needs and aspirations.
Ms Cath Halbert, General Manager, National Transition Office, National Disability Insurance Agency, told locals at the forum that NDIS is a new way of funding individualised support for people with disability which involves more choice and control and a lifetime approach to a person’s support needs. It focuses on early intervention to minimise the impact of disability and will support people with permanent and significant disability, their families and their carers. Its primary aim is to increase participation.
At the helm of the Barkly launch is Archie Baker who, since moving to Tennant Creek in October 2013, has spoken to various service providers in the region, visited remote communities and set up a local reference group which holds its first meeting next week. Mr Baker, who is the Director of Service Delivery and Engagement, NDIS, in the Barkly has many years’ experience in the field as a senior public servant specialising in statutory social work and Indigenous affairs policy delivery in South Australia and Top End communities.
Mr Baker said, in a nutshell, the NDIS will enable people with a disability and their families, for the first time in the history of disability support in this country, to have a say about the support they receive. Mr Baker also said it will be a hard road ahead with many challenges specific to the Barkly, such as the tyranny of distance and dealing with a small number of people in a large geographical area, but the NDIS will be something the people of the Barkly can be proud of and passionate about. His team, which includes Sue Lewis, Senior Local Area Coordinator, also needs to ensure the NDIS is delivered in a culturally sensitive way which takes into account linguistic diversity, local expertise and the community needs of the largely Indigenous population of Barkly.
The Barkly region is one of three new trial sites, which will commence on 1 July this year, before nationwide roll-out of the NDIS follows in 2016. Previous sites which have already been rolled out include the Hunter area of New South Wales for people up to age 65, the Barwon area of Victoria for people up to the age of 65, South Australia for children aged 0-6, and Tasmania for youth aged 15-24.
An increase of 0.5% from 1 July 2014 to the Medicare levy, taking it from 1.5% of taxable income to 2%, will be used to fund the scheme.
I also acknowledge the minister’s question today in Question Time where she said she is looking forward to visiting Tennant Creek to meet with stakeholders and provide important leadership and vision. That is the way to do business, and I congratulate you and offer any support I can.
I will share a couple of quick stories to try to influence your thinking around dealing with disabilities. The first one is an arts award win for a local man. Tennant Creek local, Jameson Casson, has won an award for his ongoing community participation. Jameson, who is a valuable contributor to his community, even though he has a disability, received a certificate of commendation from the NT Arts Access Awards for excellence in inclusive arts practice through community partnership. The 28-year-old was nominated for the award by Corinne Berry, Visual Arts Outreach Worker, with local arts organisation, Barkly Regional Arts.
I cannot encourage the minister enough to look at that incredible connection between the arts, education and disability support.
Another famous story from Tennant Creek and the Barkly, ‘Boulter Wins Lions Award’:
Tennant Creek local, Joie Boulter, has taken out the coveted 2013 Lions Community Service Award. Presented by the Lions Club President, Kate Foran at a ceremony in late December 2013, the award acknowledged Joie’s support for Dion Beasley and the Cheeky Dog Enterprise. Dion has muscular dystrophy and is profoundly deaf, but despite these setbacks he has risen to become one of the town’s – and, dare I say, the Territory and Australia, and overseas through the backpackers who take the Cheeky Dog products abroad – most celebrated and well-known artists. His depictions of camp dogs have made their way into exhibitions and emblazoned across bags and t-shirts and now books. Behind his success is Joie, along with her husband Tony, who started out as Dion’s tutor when he was still at primary school. While many are well aware of the hard work Joie does to support Dion, the award was also in recognition of her support for many other young people during her many years as a teacher.
Joie is a highly respected member of this community and we sincerely appreciate her many years of commitment to Tennant Creek, said Kate Foran.
I think, minister, you will have an enjoyable time meeting with Joie and Tony, and, of course, Dion, and you will learn lots of lessons in sharing this with the rest of the Territory and with the national NDIS roll-out project. Dion has shifted to the next level of self-sufficiency and sustainability as an artist who really exhibits all those basic levels of support. These include psychologically, physiologically and in regard to the pathology needed to support this young man with his disability. When all those things are seen together in great management, great love and great care, you can see the outcomes that can be truly achieved.
I hope to influence your thinking and I hope to be of any assistance I can. In conclusion, I ask for your assistance. I have put this on the public record before: Victor, Zulu, Eight, Charlie, X-ray member for Barkly to minister Lambley’s senior advisor, do you copy? I put this on the record last year, on behalf of Colin Hardaker, a disability advocate in Tennant Creek. Colin is a Tennant Creek senior, and he does amazing work in disability advocacy. His request is very simple and is about disability access to the new GP clinic within the Tennant Creek Hospital. It is about the double doors, and there are very easy solutions. It could be managed under a maintenance program or minor new works program - existing money. It needs a bit of attention and I am sure the minister will follow through. Talking to Colin before coming to parliament, he advised me it still has not been corrected. It can be done in-house. Many talented people work in the hospital and I ask the minister for her support to ensure it is addressed.
Once again, congratulations and good luck on the road forward.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only five minutes and want to cover off on a couple of areas. The member for Wanguri raised in her contribution the importance of infrastructure and the reality of having some challenges in the Northern Territory when it comes to how we educate and provide adequate pathways for children with disabilities. She rightly pointed out that Henbury School is quite full and has been for a few years. Staff there do an amazing job under very challenging conditions, but I have a passion for children with disabilities, particularly special education.
One of the very first pieces of work I had the Department of Education do for me - we are still going through the final stages at the moment - is an infrastructure review to look at the demographics across the Northern Territory, looking at where the growth patterns are for all children in the greater Darwin area and our more rural and remote areas. We have some infrastructure challenges in some areas and some different types of challenges in others. We have infrastructure which is quite full, at capacity in most cases. When you look between 2014, 2018, and 2025 you see some growth areas we have to meet with additional infrastructure. At the same time, there is infrastructure not being used to capacity. With good-quality government spending we should look at what infrastructure we have which could be better utilised into the future.
One of the things I have always been interested in, compassionately, is what happens to children when they have completed their education through the education system. One of the reasons Henbury is so full is we have children who go beyond Year 12 to Year 13 and Year 14. Often there is no other facility set up to provide an adequate pathway for these children to continue with their education or provide genuine job opportunities.
Some companies can do this, but there is so much we can do as a community. How we treat people with disabilities and what services we can provide to assist them is a good measure of the community. We have some amazing carers in our communities; they provide services every day. One would hazard to try to quantify, in dollar terms, what it would cost all the governments in this country if we had to pay the carers for every hour they provide care.
The member for Karama, the Opposition Leader, mentioned Project 21. I have been to Project 21 and I agree with her, it is fabulous. Some of the young people working there have such passion for the work they do, it blows me away. I sometimes wish the average person who was fully capable and did not have a disability could show the same passion in their work. The work ethic they have is fantastic. Project 21 is one of those pathways which can alleviate some of the pressures on schools like Henbury where we have children going into Year 13 and beyond.
We are a growing city; we have growing infrastructure needs and it is something this government is aware of. This is why I instructed the department to create their infrastructure plan for me and find out where the growth areas are so we can adequately plan for future needs. At the top of my list is a new special needs unit; we need one in Palmerston and we also need a new Henbury facility and new primary schools. Zuccoli would be a perfect opportunity for a new primary school, because schools like Roseberry Primary School are already at capacity. You have to provide the infrastructure in those growing areas.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this statement tonight about disabilities and how we can best set ourselves up as a government which can provide the very best facilities and services we possibly can.
Infrastructure is important, but we have to be smart at the same time. We have to look at the infrastructure we already have and see how we can best promote the infrastructure which is not being used, and build new infrastructure where the need is required. This is why I am thankful the federal government has given us additional money for the next financial year, which we can use for infrastructure and look at building much needed new infrastructure in the Northern Territory. By the way, that e-mail: I agree.
Debate suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
1. That section 24 (Limitation on challenge to decision of member) of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W (Limitation on challenge to decision of member) of the NT Planning Act be deleted.
Conflicts of Interest:
From time to time, a member’s personal interests may give rise to a conflict with their public duty as a member of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission.
The following principles for managing conflicts of interest are:
serving the public interest
To ensure the integrity and independent functioning of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission, members are to disclose to the NT EPA and/or the Planning Commission conflicts of interest and the nature of those conflicts in matters that are before the meeting of the NT EPA or the Planning Commission. Conflicts of interest may arise in the following circumstances:
a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before a meeting of the NT EPA or Planning Commission
The code of conduct requires that a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before the NT EPA or the NT Planning Commission shall, as soon as the matter member has a knowledge or is aware of the relevant facts, disclose to the NT EPA or Planning Commission members present at the meeting, the nature of the interest and this disclosure is to be recorded in the minutes. A member who discloses an interest shall not partake as a member in the consideration or discussion or vote on the matter.
An indirect pecuniary interest in a matter includes a reference to a financial relationship between the member and another person for whom an NT EPA or Planning Commission decision in relation to the matter will result in a financial gain, loss, benefit or detriment.
b) A member may have a non-pecuniary interest in a matter which will preclude the member from all discussion and voting on the matter if this non-pecuniary personal interest is considered to conflict with the member’s ability to perform his/her official duty in an independent and impartial way. If a member has such an interest, for example an apprehension of bias arising from association or former relationships with proponent on a matter before the NT EPA or Planning Commission, the member is to disclose the nature of the interest to the NT EPA or Planning Commission and, in the event that the member does not decide to preclude themselves from discussion and voting on the matter, the NTEPA or Planning Commission Chairman or presiding member may so decide.
EPA members will:
Comply with section 22 of the NT EPA Act and section 81U of the Planning Act by disclosing to the members present at the meeting any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before the meeting and providing the chairman or presiding members with a signed Disclosure of Personal Interest Form.
Comply with this code by disclosing to the members present at the meeting any non-pecuniary personal interest in a matter that is before the meeting and providing the chairman or presiding member with a signed Disclosure of Personal Interest Form.
I bring this forward today because it is an important debate which needs to be brought back to this parliament. It was a debate when both the EPA and the NT Planning Commission were first introduced and I had concerns then. I have even more concerns now, because certain things have happened which do not set us on the right path if we are to have statutory authorities making independent decisions.
My motion tonight is broken into two parts. One is to remove section 24 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act. I will quickly read what section 24 of the NT EPA Act says:
What I have also said is not only should they be taken out, but we should replace them with a conflicts of interest section. This clearly reminds members of the NT EPA or the Planning Commission of the principles for managing conflicts of interest. They are: serving the public interest; supporting transparency and scrutiny; promoting individual responsibility and personal example; and engendering an organisational culture which is intolerant of conflicts of interest. This is broken up into two sections; one is pecuniary and the other is non-pecuniary. These are from the Western Australian EPA, which has just been working through the same issues we have.
It has, from my understanding, similar issues with a member having someone on a planning board. It had to deal with this, so one thing which was asked for by the Western Australian government was to look at how it should be dealt with. I think there were some complications and they are introducing a code of conduct which covers conflict of interest. Its conflict of interest is in a matter before the Western Australian EPA and I have put the two together because we have a conflict either side.
They have to realise this is the Western Australian EPA and they deal with some pretty big issues. This is in addition to what is already in the act, so I am not asking for the section on conflict of interest in our act to be removed. This gives it more teeth, and it covers areas which may not be covered within legislation, or at least defines them more clearly if people have a concern about the meaning.
I am mainly interested in clause (b) of my motion which sets out a few things about filling in a disclosure of personal interest form, which happens in Western Australia. I will not go into it at the moment.
The motion I bring forward today highlights an anomaly which needs fixing. I cannot find this anomaly in any other legislation in Australia - that is, EPA legislation. I have looked in the legislation and in codes of conduct, and I do not find anywhere where one can be excluded from being challenged about code of conduct. The anomaly is found in the two NT acts where there are clauses which exempt any member of the NT EPA serving on the Planning Commission from being the subject of any charges of conflict of interest, and any member of the Planning Commission who is on EPA from similar charges.
A conflict of interest can have serious repercussions, as can be seen recently with the resignation of the chief of staff, Alastair Furnival, for the assistant Health minister, Fiona Nash. Sometimes it can be pecuniary and sometimes non-pecuniary, which is explained clearly in this motion using the Western Australian draft code of conduct as an example. This motion’s major concern is we have legislation which deliberately exempts people from coming under the normal requirements clearly expressed in both the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act and the Planning Act.
Imagine if the Commonwealth passed legislation which exempted Mr Furnival from any challenges to his conflict of interest. There would be an uproar! However, we have a legislation which allows it and the government thinks it is fine. It is like exempting someone from breaking the law. I have explained what those sections of the act are.
These are the only comments I could find in the second reading debates about this matter. For me, none of these statements make any real sense as they work against the argument. The minister, at the time, said the following:
The exemptions mean the NT EPA is not independent. To quote again:
This is fine, but it is not the environmentally responsible way for conflict of interest not to be challengeable. Again, this is a quote from the minister:
My comment is that enhanced strategic approaches are not an excuse to excuse anyone on a government authority from a conflict of interest. It can be done in other ways. Planning and environment experts can be on one other body, but, definitively, not both. Again, a quote from the minister:
No problem with the theory, but in practice you cannot do it without having a conflict of interest. It is one thing to have integration, but it is another thing to deliberately avoid conflict of interest by changing the rules.
The last quote is:
They are more than perceptions, by the way; that is my comment.
Unfortunately, it has increased them. Why do I say that? Because no other EPA in Australia allows for such an exemption. It goes against the whole concept of conflict of interest. In Western Australia, the code of conduct has been tightened more to cover clearly what non-pecuniary interest meant. It also dealt with the issue where there was no quorum because too many members had a conflict of interest. I think this came up in the Browse Basin deliberations of the Western Australia EPA.
Western Australia has made sure the EPA is truly independent, which is something our EPA can never be. I have the annual report here. All the EPAs I looked at do not have a relationship with anyone else; they are separate statutory bodies. They do not belong on another body; they are at arm’s length. When I spoke to the Western Australia EPA commissioner - I will not verbal him, but my understanding is this is exactly where they are. They are not part of anything else. Not only are they independent; they have to be seen to be independent. This is where we do not go, because we have an inter-relationship between development, which is the Planning Commission, and the EPA, which looks at sustainable development. It has to look at whether what has been put forward by the government, through the Planning Commission, is okay with an environmental protection agency. While they are linked and exempted from conflict of interest they will never be independent.
I am not making a judgment of those two people, but you will never be seen to be producing truly independent decisions, because they are not independent and are not split. They should be at arm’s length from one another; this is really the problem.
There is nothing wrong with having people with environmental credentials being on the Planning Commission or vice versa. One of the arguments I heard was we are a bit short on those people, but I am not so sure. Look at the people on the EPA; they are not all locals. I have a list of the board members here. We have Professor David John Williams, who is based at the University of Queensland. He has a doctorate in Soil Mechanics from the University of Cambridge. There is Dr John Chapman, who completed his PhD in Organic Chemistry at the University of Sydney and, subsequently, obtained a Diploma in Environmental Studies at Macquarie University. He has worked in New South Wales, although I am not sure if he still works there. We are able to get experts to come in from either side and talk about these issues.
After all, the chairman of the NT Planning Commission lives in Canberra and we bring him up to do the work. Why can we not bring independent planners here to work with the Planning Commission if it is what they need? This is where the problems arise, and this would be a far better approach. If the Planning Commission wants an environmental person, get someone who is not on the EPA. If the EPA wants someone with an understanding of planning issues, put someone on, but do not have them on both bodies.
I am not saying it is not a good idea to have some form of integration. You will have people with planning knowledge and with environmental knowledge, but I do not accept having them on the same board.
Those two clauses are not needed, because both the Chair of EPA and the Chair of the Planning Commission - as they are part of the decision-making process of each board - would have to remove themselves from these meetings if they were in other states of Australia. In the Northern Territory, it does not happen because we have an exemption not found in any other state or even the Commonwealth. We are the only place which exempts someone from a conflict of interest. It seems strange that with the Western Australia EPA looking at this, they have tightened it, and we have lessened it by giving this exemption.
What are the practical implications if we do not introduce a code of conduct like this in this motion and do not remove the exemption clause? It could not be more evident now than with the release of the Greater Darwin Plan. In this plan we have some major projects, and now it has come home to roost. We have Glyde Point decided by the NT Planning Commission - a major change to the Glyde Point peninsula moving from what the ALP wanted, which was a version between conservation and open space, to an industrial port. The people who made this decision are the NT Planning Commission, where you have the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Chairman of the EPA.
I presume, when this is up for discussion it will go to the EPA, because it is its job to look at development from an environmentally sustainable point of view. I will see if I can find each requirement, I am not sure whether it is stated in here. It says, ‘To promote ecologically sustainable development and protect the environment, having the need to enable ecologically sustainable development’, etcetera. Those are the main two functions, but there are other important functions.
You have the Chair of the EPA and of the NT Planning Commission making a decision about Glyde Point. The government says, ‘Yes, Glyde Point should go ahead,’ or they think it should at least be looked at, and then along comes the EPA to look at it. It says, ‘We will look at it under our objectives and functions’. Then the two people who made this decision pop over to the EPA and decide whether this is a good idea.
Surely this is a conflict of interest. If I was on the soccer club and the AFL club, and the soccer club was after some money, if I went over to the AFL club and told them all of the soccer club secrets, do you think I should declare I have a conflict of interest? I think it would be the right thing to do. I might say, ‘Listen, I cannot vote on this decision, because I have information which I am privy to from the other club. They expect me to keep it to myself and I do not think I can involve myself in this decision-making.’
This is the normal process for anybody who makes a decision where there could be a conflict of interest. We also have the Shoal Bay conservation reserve. Minister, I hope you give us more time when trying to help people sort through this document. I have been working my best through it, but this is the Shoal Bay conservation reserve as it is now. It is a fairly large conservation reserve.
In the new plan, you will be pleased to know that all of a sudden it has changed. Nearly three quarters of it has turned into open space and natural land, which I have never heard of. I have heard of open space and natural land, but never as a title. I have two areas here, one is what it is now and one is what it might be. This is a major change. The NT Planning Commission has made up its mind that this is a good idea. I do not know whose idea it was, but someone has clearly said this should happen. I am not saying whether it is good or bad, but I am saying there is a change. The NT Planning Commission made the decision with the Chair of the EPA and of the NT Planning Commission on the board.
This is conservation; along comes the EPA and says, ‘We had better look at this; this is a bit of a change.’ This was put in by Denis Burke when he was Chief Minister because there were problems regarding a possible prawn farm in the area, the barramundi people and AFANT people were not happy, so we made a reserve. The reserve is changing. Here we go again, across to the EPA. The EPA has sat on the board which made this decision, and will now make a new decision based on what they have decided before. Surely, this is an unnecessary conflict of interest. It could be easily sorted out by the normal processes for any authorities; bring on people if you need more independent expertise.
You have the damming of the Elizabeth River – oh, our favourite - I forgot to bring my picture, sitting in the Howard Springs nature park claiming victory. It has a little quote under it - I wish I had brought it with me - and has Denis Burke, the Chief Minister then, saying, ‘Listen to the people’. You would worry about listening to the people 10 years ago, because they are not listening now.
Up comes the Elizabeth River dam again. It is in here. It is a good one. If there is one project you will need a major environmental analysis for - which I did, 10 to 15 years ago, I will have to find all my files - it is this one.
The Chair of the NT EPA and of the Planning Commission have brought this out of the CLP’s document from when they were in opposition. It was not on the Labor Party’s one and had been knocked off by the previous CLP Chief Minister. It turned up on the last lot of the Greater Darwin Plan the Country Liberal Party brought out in about 2011-12. Elizabeth River Dam came up on it and, lo and behold, it comes up on this one. There is more; there is a new port at West Arm - Taranaki. If you can tell me whether that is a Chinese takeaway or a New Zealand dance, let me know where the name comes from. It does not exist in the Place Names Committee files, I looked. Maybe someone can e-mail you where the name came from for when you give us a sum up. I do not know where it came from but it will need – and it takes out a whole lot of mangroves in Darwin Harbour; I am sure the fishermen will love that - the same sort of assessment.
The problem is the EPA will be making these assessments and will not be at arm’s length from the NT Planning Commission. The chair will have been a member of the commission which put the Greater Darwin Plan together. When the EPA makes a decision on these projects, the Chair of the Planning Commission will be involved as he is a member of the EPA as well. My impression is other EPAs do not believe in the system we have in place. They shake their heads, and the act is not clear on non-pecuniary interests. This is why you need a code of conduct to back it up.
This part of the code will cover other interests which might conflict with decisions being made. There is a classic example in here, why, for instance, there is a development called the Noonamah Hughes development. For some reason, it does not look anything like the present zone; it has changed. It is all peri-urban with 1.4 ha to 1 ha blocks all the way from Elizabeth River to the bottom end of Hughes Airstrip and across the highway. This is not the same as what is on the zone and what the previous government looked at. It did not go that far; it was a bit milder. I think it looked at rural-residential. The Purick/Wood version of this was 1 ha, 2 ha and a district centre at Noonamah. It did not go all over the place and looked at making sure it did not touch wetlands. Here is a plan by Earl James and Associates, which I have known about for a long time; I talked about it in a meeting one time. It matches exactly the plan the Planning Commission put together, more or less. It has advocated here: 0.41 ha peri-urban - no relation to Perry Mason, it is a great name. On this document by Earl James, there are many small blocks and the same pieces of land covered.
I am not commenting on this; there are some good things in this plan. I have spoken to developers, but the Chairman did, once upon a time, work for Earl James and Associates. I am not saying he has done anything wrong or am even inferring it. However, under the EPA in Western Australia - under the non-pecuniary side of things - if you have an association or a past association with a company, you might have to declare it if you are making a decision about something. I am trying to find the part again; the non-pecuniary interest section is related to, as I said before:
Darwin is a small town and people will have relationships with other people. This is okay; if you have this non-pecuniary section in your code of conduct, then it simply has to be declared. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but this development is very close to the development the NT Planning Commission put forward. It is an area I know will come up for discussion. Most of it is in the member for Daly’s area. It is an area which caused quite a bit of discussion some years ago. It does not match up the previous government’s version, or the Purick/Wood version.
If there was a non-pecuniary interest caused by a relationship some years ago, it has to be declared so everything is up-front and we can move on from there. At present, unfortunately we are in a position where the excuse for having a conflict of interest - and not a clear guide as to what conflict of interest means when it comes to a non-pecuniary interest - needs to be fixed.
I have looked at all the other states. I cannot find any state which comes close to having a conflict of interest being exempted; it is the other way around. Everyone is so nervous today about conflict of interest that they have tightened up on their codes of conduct to make sure there cannot be any possibility of those things happening. Look at the person in the Minister for Health’s portfolio the other day. There is no saying the person had any direct pecuniary interest or received any financial gain, but the minister who was making decisions had to make sure they were seen to be neutral and independent when making a decision. It was over food quality standards, or some new program to make sure you know what you are eating. They had some concerns about whether a member of staff had some sort of interest in a company through shares. It might have been a very long bow to say they would have had any big influence on that decision, but they had to be seen to be squeaky clean.
Why do we have to declare our interest in parliament? To make sure we do not have a conflict of interest. I have Telstra shares – 400 of them, I think. They earn me a heap of money every year. I was doing the patriotic thing when I bought them. If we discuss whether we should have Telstra, Optus, Vodafone or someone operating the government’s communication system - and it was something to do with parliament making a decision - I would have to declare I have shares in Telstra. The decision might be so small and miserable the chairman of the board might say it is insignificant.
This is what would happen here. It is not saying these people could not sit and make a judgment, it is saying you declare your conflict of interest like you do on local councils. If it is a declaration to a major conflict of interest, you cannot stay at that meeting.
It is an amendment I am bringing forward, which brings it into line with other states, especially when it comes to environmental protection agencies. It is important we ensure there is no chance of decisions being made …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Government will make some pretty serious decisions in the future, whether it is the Halikos island, Elizabeth River damming or the port. Those decisions must be done through due process. The due process is we have the NT Planning Commission put these ideas up; how far they go forward afterward will be through public consultation. At the same time, we will have an environment protection agency which, we hope, will vigorously analyse these programs independently. It must be seen to be independent. We have these clauses which recognise the conflict of interest; it is why they are there. The government is saying, ‘Yes, there is a conflict of interest, but for the sake of integration’ - which is the only reason you can give and can be overcome by other means – ‘we will exempt you from challenges to the conflict of interest where you make a decision from one board to the other’.
I do not know of any other boards we have integration on. You have the Licencing Commission, other planning bodies like the Development Consent Authority, health boards and all sorts of things. I imagine if you are on a health board and have shares in a pharmaceutical group and a decision from the health board is required on something related to pharmaceuticals, you might have to say, ‘Excuse me, I have an interest’, and whether it pecuniary or non-pecuniary, it would be up to you to decide. You would probably not be allowed to vote or stay on the board when the decision was being made. This, to me, is the normal process; it is the normal process in local government. Even in good old Litchfield Council, at the beginning of meetings, someone asks if anyone has a conflict of interest because they all have their agenda so they know what is coming up. If you have a conflict of interest you cannot stay around for the discussion.
I remember - this is only a little thing - I finished my time on the Litchfield Council and asked them, ‘Is it possible to buy my old ute?’ They said, ‘Out the door, we will discuss this without you’. There was a conflict of interest so they discussed it amongst themselves, voted on it, got some advice - I think they got some quotes on the market price – and then I was allowed back in. I was not allowed to take part in the decision, even though it was the car I had been driving for four or five years. It was regarded as a conflict of interest. It is normal …
A member: Were you allowed to buy it?
Mr WOOD: Yes, but at the market price. It was a bit more than I wanted to pay, but I bought it. The point is it was due process. It had to be in the minutes that Gerry Wood left the meeting and they discussed if I could purchase that vehicle. This example should apply to all conflicts of interest. If the government wants an EPA which is seen to be independent and is independent, it needs to support the changes to both acts.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on the motion by the member for Nelson and the reasons I will not be supporting it. Everything the member for Nelson is asking for already exists. I can demonstrate clearly by the number of phone calls I have had from the Planning Commissioner, although more from Bill Freeland from the EPA where he has spoken to me about why he is removing himself from a meeting because of a subject. It happens.
The conflict of interest exists today and it works. We have the integrity of the Planning Commissioner and the Chair of the EPA. It is as though you question their integrity. I take offence to that because if you were to read the legislation clearly - and if you go back through the debates we had in this Chamber when the independent EPA and the Planning Commission were set up - you will see from time to time there could be a conflict of interest, whether perceived or real, and members will remove themselves from those meetings or whilst those things happen.
The legislation and meeting procedures for the NT Planning Commission and the NT Environmental Protection Authority adequately address potential conflicts of interest.
The Planning Commission and the NT EPA are made up of professional and suitably qualified people who understand where and when to declare a conflict of interest. Cross-membership of the chairs of both bodies ensures the best professional expertise and advice can be assessed and integrated.
In response to the motion presented by the member for Nelson, I will highlight the current legislative provisions and governance agreements in managing potential conflicts of interest. Against this backdrop, I will then explain the rationale for the limitation on the challenges to decision of members in section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act.
Managing potential conflicts of interest: many boards and committees are constituted with ex officio members. Potential conflicts of interest can be handled with proper disclosure and procedures. I draw attention to the legislative provisions under the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and Planning Act which articulate how potential conflicts of interest are managed. Section 22 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81U of the Planning Act are designed to deal with conflicts which may arise during normal courses of business. Members of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission are required to raise conflicts of interest in accordance with these provisions.
In the respective legislation for both bodies, personal interest, including a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter, or a personnel, professional, commercial or other interest are matters which have been noted in the motion and matters the member for Nelson seeks to address in the proposed code of conduct. I remind honourable members the issue raised considerable debate and discussion in 2012 when the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 and the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Bill 2012 were passed in this House. As the former Chief Minister noted, in relation to concerns raised by the member for Nelson and opposition as part of the debate, for the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Bill:
This is as true for the commission; if a member has a personal interest in a matter for consideration by the commission or the NT EPA, the member must outline the nature and extent of the interest to all members and the interest must be recorded in the minutes. The member must not take part in any deliberation of the commission or NT EPA about the matter.
The NT EPA and the Planning Commission have already adopted procedures which outline similar requirements in relation to the management of conflicts to the proposed code of conduct, presented by the member for Nelson. These are publicly available. As part of the meeting practice, both bodies have the identification of conflicts of interests as a standing item on their meeting agendas. Potential conflicts are identified and discussed, and steps to manage them are endorsed. In summary, the legislation in meeting procedures provides an adequate framework for managing potential conflicts of interest. The proposed code of conduct advocated in this motion is already practised by the chairs and members of each body.
I turn to the other issue raised in the motion, regarding the limitation on challenges to a decision of a member. I should emphasise section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act are not designed to allow members of the committees to participate in decisions where they would otherwise have a conflict of the nature contemplated by the member for Nelson. They are specifically designed to enable the Chairs of the NT EPA and the commission to fully participate in matters before each body. Section 81W of the Planning Act also ensures the Chairs of the Heritage Council and the Development Consent Authority can fully participate as members of the commission, council and authority. Membership of the commission has been designed to bring together the chairs of government’s key environmental, planning and heritage bodies. Without section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act, or section 81W of the Planning Act, the Chairs of the NT EPA, the commission, the DCA and the Heritage Council would not be fully functioning members of the commission and other committees.
This scenario would defeat government’s objective of bringing environmental, planning and heritage matters together in an integrated way to provide better outcomes for the Northern Territory community and the environment. The provisions are designed to ensure participating in a meeting as a member of the commission does not prevent the Chair of the NT EPA from participating in a decision about an environmental impact assessment matter. Similarly, being Chair of the commission does not prevent the Hon Gary Nairn from participating in a decision of the NT EPA regarding an environmental impact assessment, or a related matter before the commission. Dr Brian Reid, the Chair of the Heritage Council, is not prevented from advising me about a heritage declaration because the place or object under consideration was discussed as part of the significant development proposal before the commission.
If any member of the commission or the NT EPA has a conflict of interest arising, other than by their position on these committees, that member is prevented from participating in the deliberations of the relevant body by virtue of section 22 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81U of the Planning Act.
The member for Nelson talked about a couple of things, one being the Greater Darwin Plan. The Planning Commissioner released an idea towards a Darwin regional land use plan. The member for Nelson talked as if there was no other consultation, as if these boards do not consult with anyone and they make the ultimate decisions. This is wrong because these bodies are set to provide recommendations to government. Ultimately, it is the government making the decision based on the information presented, similar to how I would if the Heritage Council put forward some names for new streets in a developing suburb. I look at those reports as the former Lands and Planning minister, Gerry McCarthy, would have done.
You look at those reports, at the reasons behind why we will have that name in place, and if everything checks off, we give approval. It is the same thing when the EPA, or the Planning Commission, presents me with information. I take an idea or plan they have put together to Cabinet. Ultimately, it is the decision of Cabinet and this government whether or not to go ahead.
The member for Nelson also pointed out, in relation to a regional land use plan the Planning Commission has worked on, the damming of the Elizabeth River. I know you, Madam Speaker, have an interest in this as well. These are things we should not be afraid to debate. The fact it appears in the towards a regional land use plan does not mean it will be agreed to by this government. It puts out the opportunity for the community to provide feedback. The member for Goyder has provided feedback directly to me about her opinions on this, and it is fantastic we have professional, open debates about it.
Is it okay to talk to you whilst you are in the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Of course it is.
Mr CHANDLER: The member for Goyder raised with me directly a valid modern argument about the Elizabeth River. It was that the impacts which were studied 20-odd years ago need to come back and we need to look whether it would stack up, whether it is a practical way to use our land. The regional land use plan is not in concrete.
It has not been agreed to by the government and is not locked in as a plan for the future. It is a concept for us to speak about. The conversation I had with the member for Goyder reminded me about those things studied 20 years ago. There could be people in Darwin who have just arrived or have been here a few years, they may look at a design or a concept like that and think ‘Whoa! Marvellous! Get on with it, let’s do it!’ They may not have any understanding of what was discovered 20 years ago, which is why it is important to have these things in the plan. The other thing at risk is if you put too much detail into an idea, you are then accused of not consulting. You have made a decision and will commit to it; that is it. When presenting the Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan to the top rock at City of Darwin a few weeks ago, we were accused of not having a space on the plan for a regional waste facility. You scratch your head and wonder how much detail you put into these reports, because if you put too much in you are accused of not being interested and not consulting when you have already made a decision. Then you could go with a blank piece of paper and say ‘There is the plan.’ That does not provide anyone any stimulus to raise concerns.
That is why this is a fantastic document. The reasons for having a second airport, and the place it will be - at the moment this is talking about the fact there will come a day in Darwin, whether it is 10, 20, 30 or 50 years from now, when we will require a second airport. Good planning, to me, dictates we should be talking about 50 years from now; well past my use-by date, although I hope to be around for a few years yet.
Good planning should not be restricted to electoral cycles. Good planning should be 10, 20, 30 or 50 years from now. Decisions we make today will help people in years to come. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan by the Planning Commissioner is one of the documents the member for Nelson referred to.
I argue to a T that our EPA today is far more independent than it ever was under the previous government. The member for Nelson spoke about the importance of due process. I agree, the systems we have in place, the fact we have a Planning Commission, an NT architect, the independent EPA and the way it is structured provides this government with a robust foundation to provide good planning.
I sincerely believe we need integration, but I also believe the legislation and the integrity of those people we have on our boards will ensure that whenever there is a conflict of interest, either the legislation or the rules of engagement our boards and commission include in general meetings will cover whether they are potential, perceived or real conflicts of interest. I know it works because I have had a number of phone calls. I have seen in minutes that members have been removed due to a perceived or real conflict. I have seen the evidence and it works.
The fact we have a robust system in place today, through the legislation introduced by the Country Liberals, should provide a solid assurance to the community; how we act today is far better than what we had before. As I have said in this House before, Bill Freeland can do things because of his legislation that a Chair of the NT EPA could never do previously. So much for the last government saying its EPA was independent. Truly it was not, because the minister could direct or prevent, and even have reports prevented from being tabled if they chose. If a report was a little dangerous for a government, they could pull it up and it would not go any further. Today, the NT EPA can table reports and report to the media. I cannot stop Bill from getting on the phone and talking to the media. I cannot stop him or the EPA investigating a potential or real threat to the environment and making those recommendations or making a report to the public. That could all be stalled under the previous regime.
We have made it truly independent, and I honestly think there is far better due process today than existed before. Under the previous government, if you look at the potential for major infrastructure such as Arafura Harbour – I think that was the big one. The fact is that political will pulled it up before it was allowed to go through any due process.
In my mind, whether that would have stacked up and been supported or not, it was never allowed to go through the process. It was as though the previous government did not trust their process and they pulled it up. To pull something up before it goes through due process and through their system undermined everyone who worked in those departments, as well as undermining their own legislation and due process because they did not have faith in it. I have faith in the system today and what we have set up will provide true guidance to this government, adequate protection to our environment, and will ensure whenever there is a development opportunity anywhere in the Northern Territory, the processes we have in place today provide independence. When those recommendations come to government we can be truly confident matters such as conflict of interest are adequately covered, either in the legislation or in the rules of engagement within these meetings.
I advocate we keep it the way it is, because the integration of advice from the EPA, the Planning Commissioner and the Heritage branch involved in this provides far more robust information to a government before it can make a decision. I need to point out that none of these boards or commissions make decisions. They make recommendations to the government, which then makes the decision.
In conclusion, the legislation clearly states the need to declare conflicts of interest and the two professional bodies are acting in accordance with the law.
As was stated during the original debate, this government took the time to ensure …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister, please.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Nelson. I only have a couple of lines to go.
As was stated during the original debate, the government took time and sought advice to ensure the legislation was able to withstand legal challenges designed only to slow down processes. The governance arrangements which underpin the NT EPA and the Planning Commission promote public confidence in the integrity of their work.
I commend the Chair of the NT EPA, Dr Bill Freeland, and the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Hon Gary Nairn, for their leadership since both bodies were established on 1 January 2013. Both chairs have demonstrated integrity and sound judgment as they objectively consider each matter on its merits.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I do not know who writes the notes for the minister, but it does not matter what is put in front of him or dropped on his desk, he will always deliver and peddle whatever is there.
I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. The members on this side and I know exactly where he is coming from. It is about accountability, transparency and something which goes to the heart of this motion. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it on. Those of us on this side of the Chamber will be supporting this motion.
In the debate on the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill in December 2012, the member for Nightcliff, who formerly had the shadow responsibility for Environment, raised the concern of the motion before the House this evening. The member for Nightcliff said:
In the committee stage the member for Blain, the then Chief Minister – a much better Chief Minister than the one we have currently - said the clause relating to the conflict of interest:
In what has become usual and standard practice for the CLP government opposite, they decided to reduce transparency and accountability wherever possible. How would this arrangement give greater confidence to the community? It is all about streamlining and removing the usual checks and balances which Territorians are entitled to. In any usual situation, a member of the NT EPA would exclude themselves if there is a conflict of interest in participating in a deliberation or decision of the Planning Commission. The minister said as much this afternoon.
Section 24 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act prevents the appeal against a decision where there may have been a conflict of interest. To explicitly enable conflicts of interest is not the way to be accountable. What happens when the interests of the EPA may be detrimentally affected by a decision of the Planning Commission? Similarly, what happens when the functions of the Planning Commission may be impeded by a decision of the EPA?
I and the members on this side believe it is in the interests of business to have sound decision-making and not short cuts, but how is the conflict between two statutes and two different agencies, with different objectives and functions, resolved? If it is the CLP, the solution is to ignore it. The CLP has exempted any real or potential conflict from challenge, and accountability is avoided, not only in this circumstance, but across many ways they are operating in delivering government services.
This is what we might call the head-in-the-sand approach; it is clearly at odds with what they said before the election. One of the CLP’s five points to a better Territory was to be accountable. Being accountable is a fairly straight forward promise, and it should have been easy for the CLP government to implement, but instead there are numerous examples of not being accountable. Let us list a few of those: commissioning, but not releasing, secret reports into no speed limits; hiding the $1m Renewal Management Board report from the public; disbanding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee …
Mr Chandler: What does that have to do with the EPA and the Planning Commission?
Ms WALKER: I am talking about the many instances beyond this motion where your government is not interested in accountability or transparency. Perhaps in the same way you wanted to answer a question about education today by talking about the environment, and a very dodgy e-mail. Somebody fiddled around with an e-mail which is very dodgy, minister.
We are now listing some of the many examples we have where this government is not interested in being accountable. I just talked about the $1m Renewal Management Board report, which was hidden from the public. What about disbanding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, which was overseeing implementations of the Growing them strong, together report? What about dumping the Independent Coordinator General for Remote Services, Olga Havnen? What about issuing a water licence to the CLP candidate, Tina MacFarlane? There was a perfect example today on the floor of the House, where I was able to table to members and anybody who wanted to view the ministerial briefing obtained by the opposition under FOI. In this document, any accountability and transparency around two constituents, horticulturists, who lodged an appeal to challenge the decision of a water licence handed to CLP candidate Tina McFarlane – in accordance with section 30 of the Water Act, the minister had the option to put it to an independent review panel and chose not to.
Here we have the minister opposite, thumping his chest and trying to tell us, ‘No, you have it wrong, we are accountable and transparent’. You are not. What about the secret reviews of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act? It came up in Question Time today. The minister responsible for that area of government service delivery through AAPA is not coming clean about what is happening with that review of the act. There is considerable mistrust about what is happening there.
Creating a conflict of interest in legislation and then doing nothing about it is not the way to be accountable. There is a wealth of precedence when it comes to dealing with conflicts of interest. The Northern Territory Public Sector code of conduct defines the expected level of conduct and provides guidance on a range of ethical and moral issues, which may affect public servants from time to time. The code is an intrinsic part of the terms and conditions of employment; it binds, and must be observed by, Chief Executive Officers, Executive Contract Officers and Northern Territory Public Service employees. The objective of the policy is to provide guidelines for application of an essential element of the code and the necessity to disclose in writing any financial or other interests which conflict, or have the potential to conflict, between personal interest and official duty.
Ultimately, the primary responsibility for declaring and managing a conflict of interest rests with an individual employee, but what happens when there is an inherent conflict of interest created in statute? The code applies to the public sector, but why should it not apply to the EPA and Planning Commission decisions? There are models for codes of conduct for commission members in other jurisdictions; the member for Nelson has talked about it. For example, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission code of conduct has a clear set of guidelines for members and deals with a range of conflicts of interest.
Another example exists in the South Australian Development Assessment Commission. Section 21A of the Development Act 1993 enables the minister to adopt a code of conduct to be observed by members of the commission. Members of the commission are bound by the code of conduct, which sets out procedures in relation to conflicts of interest.
It is reasonable for businesses and the community to have confidence in planning processes. There is no point setting up a mechanism which leaves a sour taste in the month. Ultimately, the real barometer on matters such as this is: what would the person in the street think about the current provisions in the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act, or lack of them? They would find it incomprehensible that conflict of interest is allowed in the legislation and any decision where there is a conflict of interest cannot be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called into question in any court or tribunal.
As I said at the outset, we support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson and commend it to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions and am interested in hearing what everyone has to say. I thank the minister for his response; you might be surprised I do not agree with you, but, can I put this way? To me, this is not about the names. I am concerned about the principle behind it and we have people in these positions. If I cannot ask hard questions, proper questions about real concerns with the process, and if I am told I am insulting the chairman of the board, it is a bit hard. I know both of those people and they do an excellent job. Do not forget they did not put this legislation together. It was the politicians who put this together. They work under it.
I am not saying they do a bad job, nor am I making a statement which is meant to reflect on their ability to do their job. I cannot debate some of these issues if I do not give examples of where I think there are problems. I am not making claims against anybody. As I have said before, the Chairman of the Planning Commission did an excellent job at Knuckey Lagoon. You will see two things in my debate: bring in a code of conduct which deals with non-pecuniary interests, as it is not clear in our legislation; and take away the exemptions.
I heard what the minister had to say about us having a code of conduct. I know we do; it is here right next to the exemptions - the two sections of the bill before it. I know members of the board have to abide by that. I mentioned a couple of people from the EPA. When they are in discussion, they would have to declare their interests, but it does not cover this case. This is a specific case which you have allowed that would not normally be allowed. I know members of both sides would declare a conflict of interest when required under the act. I am not in any way saying they would not.
However, you have to remember there are two people separate from all the other members of that body who are exempted from conflict of interest because of their dual role on these authorities ...
Mr Chandler: It does not happen, actually.
Mr WOOD: It might not happen and this was what concerned me. I am not saying the Chair of the EPA would not put his hand up and say, ‘I should not really be in this meeting.’ It is a voluntary thing which is fine, I accept that and it is a good thing. It is the same with the Chair of the Northern Territory Planning Commission. If he volunteers to say, ‘This is something I should not participate in or vote on’, it is voluntary, but we have provided legislation which makes it legal and this bit concerns me. It is not only about these two people. It could be Fred Nerk and Bill Smith, or Mrs Smith, who are in charge of these areas later on.
I am trying to deal with the issue and have given you some practical examples of where I think the legislation needs, in some cases, to be improved with the code of conduct, and by removing the exemptions from it. You mentioned the heritage body may have a conflict of interest, and the Development Consent Authority. I do not have it in front of me, but I am fairly sure the Development Consent Authority has a clause which says they have to step away.
You can look at the development of the Northern Territory in two ways. You could have an integrated Planning Commission which deals with all the issues you are dealing with: heritage; culture; environment; planning; socioeconomics; future housing; and all those sorts of things. No problem. I will give you an example - and they live in this parliament and work out of here - the little building next door should be the EPA and should have nothing to do with this building. But, the way you have set your legislation up, it has something to do with it. This group here should discuss all those issues about the proposed Lake Elizabeth, the port and Glyde Point, all those kinds of issues. When they have come up with their report, they give it to the minister, who looks at it, and it gets tossed out for the community to look at. They then come back with some recommendations to you, which is around the time you should be sending some of this stuff to the EPA.
The EPA has had nothing to do with this decision-making of the NT Planning Commission. It might in theory, because you said people volunteer to get off it, but they might be the people of today. What happens if the next lot of people who come on that board do not volunteer to get off it? If they volunteer to get off it, is it not sending a signal to the government saying, maybe they have a concern about this too. Maybe they think this legislation is a bit silly, because they are voluntarily getting out of that position. This does not give me the impression they support this clause, because they are concerned they will be seen as not independent.
I have always wanted an EPA which could make these decisions and the public felt confident it was independent. I am not saying the chair or the members of this board do not do a good job; they give an independent assessment. I am not in any way saying they do not do their job properly. Again, it hurts me when you say I put a slight on any of those members. I have not. However, the community does not know who is on the board or how it functions. If the community finds out some of those people on one board are on the other board, what will the average person think? ‘That is not independent.’ I am sure there are other bodies which have to be independent.
A classic example which concerns me is from the release about the water licence in Mataranka. There was an independent board which should have looked at the appeal, but it did not. Is there a conflict of interest there? People need to have confidence in government and that the authorities they are setting up are independent. I am a little upset in this debate, which we need to have and where you need to ask some hard questions, otherwise how do you have a decent debate? Sometimes people say, ‘Gerry Wood rolls over’. I try not to roll over, but I would like to put an argument in parliament which I think is fair and reasonable without being told, ‘You should not be saying that’. How else will we clear the air and see if what is happening is fair and reasonable?
I put these things here today, not to knock anyone on the Planning Commission or the EPA, but I made the effort to talk to other EPAs or send e-mails to other EPAs and say, ‘How does your EPA work? Do you have an exemption?’
I was talking to a fellow from CSIRO recently who knows a couple of people. He shook his head, ‘You do not have exemptions’. They do not exist in any other parliament. It is not just me thinking this is a silly idea. Other state governments, many of them Liberal, do not include an exemption from something most people would say was vital to independence when it comes to something like the EPA or any other statutory body. The section of the code of conduct about conflict of interest is the key to ensuring there is no corruption in a statutory authority. We know things have happened in some states which should not have occurred. The reason you have it is to make sure there is no undue influence in government decisions.
It is my job, as a member of parliament who thinks our present legislation is not the right way to tackle the issue of conflict of interest, to debate it and not infer anyone has done anything wrong - all I have done is give some hard examples why I think certain things need to change. Non-pecuniary interest - if someone has an interest in an existing or past association they may have to declare it. In a small town like Darwin it could be very important, even worse if you are in Alice Springs where you may have to make decisions and know everybody there.
That is one side of it. The other side is saying you should not have an exemption; you should keep the EPA as separate as possible so it is not only independent - in no way am I saying it is not independent – but is seen to be independent. How many times have we heard that in parliament? We ought to do things which are seen to be independent as well as being independent.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for supporting the motion. I will not call a division; we have debated the issue pretty well. People understand where we are coming from. There are times when people think everything is about politics. This is not about politics in the sense of saying it for the sake of trying to win some brownie points. It is trying to improve the processes on which we govern this Territory. That is what has been put forward. The process is faulty; you argue it is not. If it comes back in a year’s time do not be surprised.
I ask the minister to at least look at it and perhaps discuss it with other people like the Western Australia EPA Commissioner. Have a chat with him. The WA EPA is upgrading its code of conduct because it had some issues. There is the draft code of conduct, which, I gather, is not going to be adjusted anymore. They have been doing some work on it and it will be the draft code of conduct for the EPA. I borrowed it from them. It made good sense and I thought it would be good for the Northern Territory, but, obviously, it will not be supported. I thank members for their contributions.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the proposed split up of the Power and Water Corporation will have profound implications for Territorians. The rush to have the new arrangements in place by 1 July will create more CLP confusion and chaos for the corporation. Electricity, water and sewerage charges are a major contributor to costs of living pressures and a major concern for Territory consumers. Since coming to office, the CLP has punished Territory families and businesses with savage cost increases; electricity is up 25%, water 35% and sewerage 20%. These increases have hit Territorians hard. Families are leaving the Territory because the cost of living is too high, and businesses are closing their doors. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer have an arrogant disregard of the impact of these prices on ordinary Territorians. A recent national survey conducted by Mortgage Choice found that 64% of Territory consumers are worried about their utility bills. Over the Christmas period, Territory non-government organisations such as the St Vincent De Paul Society, the Salvation Army, Anglicare and Somerville reported increasing demand for assistance, arising from income stress caused by the government’s huge increases in utility prices.
In a recent briefing, a government consultant confirmed there was no analysis, science or evidence in calculating the savage increase in utility prices. He said the government looked at prices elsewhere in Australia and came up with the huge arbitrary increases which have punished Territory families and businesses. It was a cash grab and nothing else. We have seen the results of that cash grab. Power and Water Corporation has posted a $41m profit, literally taking the money out of Territorians’ pockets and fattening up the corporation. If an average family or business wants to know why they are paying the extra $2000 or more in utility costs, there is the Country Liberals answer. It is a cash grab; there is no underlying analysis. Is the Country Liberals government fattening up the pig for market day, ramping up tariffs to make privatisation a more attractive proposition for its private sector mates in the electricity sector?
On top of the savage price increases already imposed on Territory families and businesses, we know the Utilities Commission has recommended an increase of 43% in power network charges to cover a funding requirement led by the policy of the CLP, requiring a commercial return. That would be the equivalent of $1.1bn over the next five years.
The options open to government are: pass all or some of this funding requirement on to consumers on top of the savage prices hikes already imposed by the CLP; borrow $1.1bn; or substantially reduce capital works in maintenance in power networks, thereby threatening the reliability of supply to Territory consumers. This is the context of the bills introduced by the Treasurer to split up the Power and Water Corporation. The Treasurer said in this Assembly recently that privatisation of the Power and Water Corporation was not something the government had looked at. However, given the structure proposed under these bills and experience elsewhere in Australia, it is difficult to believe the Treasurer’s assertion. I will return to the privatisation issue shortly, but first it is instructive to look at the split up of the Power and Water Corporation, CLP style, and how you undermine and denigrate an organisation to justify splitting it up.
It is instructive to examine key elements in the CLP strategy to emasculate the Power and Water Corporation. Three years out from an election, you draw up a hit list of public servants to be terminated if you win government. You include on the list the highly professional, respected and committed managing director of the corporation. After coming into office, you terminate the employment of that managing director.
You replace him with a mate from the old days to oversee the cuts in the corporation; it will be a couple of years before he goes to retire again. You force out the chairwoman of the board, sack the experienced managers – ultimately sack the experienced expert board. You run a media campaign denigrating staff with continual references to inefficiency, bloated staff numbers and gold plated poles and wires. Within months of coming into government, you pay a razor gang $1m for six months’ work to take a wrecking ball to the Territory. You deliberately include on the razor gang, members with strong connections to the private sector electricity industry. You appoint one of the razor gang as a member of the Power and Water Corporation interim board. The respected and highly qualified former Under Treasurer and former head of the Chief Minister’s Department resigns when it becomes clear the Treasurer is hell bent on pursuing unsustainable plans to split up the corporation. You constantly deny you will sell corporations assets without first seeking a mandate from the people at a general election. A couple of days before introducing legislation to split up the corporation, you backflip on your promise to seek a mandate before privatising corporation assets. This is the groundwork laid by the Treasurer to soften it up for the split and ultimate privatisation of Power and Water.
Throughout this process, the Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the CLP ignore the pain they have already inflicted on Territory families and businesses through these massive increases in utility prices. The electorates will not forget these huge price hikes; all members opposite will be held accountable.
Before I turned to the provisions of the bill, I want to share with honourable members some observations about corporatisation and privatisation of utility assets by highly-qualified researchers. Professor John Quiggin, School of Economics, University of Queensland, said:
Professor Sharon Beder of University of Wollongong on privatisations said, ‘Nowadays government tend to pretend they are not going to, because everyone is opposed to it, because they know it means prices will go up. So, it does tend to take a lot longer because they do it by stealth and by degree.’
It is not my intention to address the provision of the bills in detail during debates on the motion before the House, but I want to draw their significant implications for Territorians to members opposite, in the hope that some of them will have enough ticker to support the motion.
The proposed split up of the corporation will have significant adverse impact on the Territory’s budget position. Everywhere else in Australia, the split-up of public utility has incurred millions of dollars in additional cost to the bottom line. Whilst not exhaustive, the Treasurer’s proposal would include two additional boards; higher compliance and auditing costs; and division of assets, liabilities, legal instrument and staff needing to be allocated among the three new entities by 1 July. There will need to be separate branding of letterheads, websites, signage and stationary. There will be separate billing systems, front computer operations, call centres and credit control teams. A new metering system will need to be installed, power networks will require a new billing system and system control will require new despatch and ancillary service systems. Structural separation will involve hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs and burden their new entities and consumers for many years to come.
The Treasurer’s second reading speech indicated the power retail corporation will only be responsible for contestable customers - the 300 or so most profitable consumers representing about 38% of electricity revenue. This is a deliberate strategy to set up the power and retail corporation for privatisation. The largest customers are being cherry picked and a large amount of revenue will be taken away. However, you still have to cover fixed cost which will drive up power prices for the other customers, or require significant additional community service obligations. There is no way power prices can come down for Territory families and businesses under the CLP privatisation agenda, yet the Chief Minister and Treasurer will not refer the bills to the Public Accounts Committee so the full implications of structural separation can be examined on behalf of Territory families and businesses.
In other Australian jurisdictions, Liberal Coalition governments are moving to re-amalgamate their public utilities. Western Australia is a clear example. If structural separation does not work in states with millions of consumers, how can it possibly work in the Territory with a much smaller consumer base?
Stealth and lack of accountability are central to the CLP approach to the split up of Power and Water Corporation. In September last year, when questioned by the NT News about the split up, the Treasurer said, ‘We’ve been talking to a number of companies about investing in the NT and a number of companies have expressed an interest’.
Treasurer, in the interests of open and accountable government, will you tell Territorians who you have been talking to and what you have been talking about? In the split up of Power and Water Corporation, the CLP has broken solemn election commitments and subsequent undertakings by ministers. Before the last election, the CLP promised to reduce the cost of living and, on coming to office, you have slammed Territory families and businesses with savage price hikes for power, water and sewerage. The CLP promised to be open and accountable, yet you will not refer the bills to the Public Accounts Committee or the Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee, which would provide an informed debate about the merits or consequences of the proposed split up of the corporation. You have been speaking to mates in the private sector about the split but will not let Territorians know who you have been speaking to or what has been put on the table.
You promised not to privatise the corporation without a mandate in a general election but now, Treasurer, you and the Chief Minister have backed away from that commitment and will not rule out a fire sale of the corporation’s assets before the next election. The community has every right to view your bills to split up Power and Water Corporation with apprehension and suspicion.
I am calling upon the members opposite to do the right thing for their constituents and all Territory families and businesses. Support for this motion would mean the bills can be appropriately scrutinised and we could hear expert evidence led.
What has been significantly concerning for me is the lack of expert evidence. The Treasurer has not led …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: The Treasurer guffaws in his buffoon manner without having led a shred of evidence to support splitting up the Power and Water Corporation. There are no details on where there are much expressed efficiencies, or on where the additional costs will be borne so they will not, presumably, be passed on to consumers, even though we already know the Utilities Commission is flagging a 43% increase in the network price. That equates to a $1.1bn community service obligation if it is not passed on to consumers. There is not a shred of evidence.
If there is nothing to hide, why would you not allow appropriate scrutiny of such a significant shift in the structure of our utilities by experts who can come before a parliamentary committee? No, that is not the style of this Treasurer. He is rushing headlong into the split up of our public assets, which will have dire implications for Territory families and businesses. This parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those implications and truly test what is at stake and what the consequences will be. These are not consequences just in our urban environment; these are genuine consequences which will occur in regional towns and remote communities.
This is referred to as a token; it is what people in remote communities use to put into boxes to keep their power running. Since the power price hikes under the CLP, these are being churned through at twice the rate they used to be. They are being churned through so quickly that stores supplying these in remote communities are running out. They run out and people cannot access a token to keep their lights on. The consequences have already been dire.
Without evidence, as the government’s consultant said, the tariff increase was not based on data; it was based on what they saw as interstate tariff increases in the 25% we already have on power, the 30% on water and the 20% on sewerage.
This is affecting peoples’ lives, wherever they are. These tokens will have to be printed at a much faster rate. The most disadvantaged Territorians are already being impacted by your actions. The reality of this will be stark; it will be clear.
We are doing our best to ameliorate the damage being done by the Treasurer, who is not basing his pursuit on evidence, but on what suits his ideological agenda and, I believe, his agenda regarding mates in the industry.
I am genuinely concerned about what this will mean for Territorians. I am happy to be proven wrong. Send it to a committee and let experts pore over it. Let us be advised by experts as to whether this is dire. We have seen and experienced the consequences in every other jurisdiction which has done this - but done it in a market large enough to potentially support it – which, years later, resulted in massive increases in the power, water and sewerage prices. We are too small a jurisdiction for the level of competition for the small consumers. Major users have, and will continue to have, their place. There is competition in retail now and there could be competition going forward in generation, if there were some major users entering the market place.
We have heard so many incorrect comments from the Treasurer it is hard to know where to begin. He says we need additional generation; we have generation, times two. Two major sets can go down and we have still more than enough generation capacity. The strength of Weddell, the new sets and enhancements at Channel Island - in the Top End alone, let alone commenting on Owen Springs and Alice Springs - means generation is not an issue in the Northern Territory. We are fine.
Thanks to the gas purchased out of Blacktip; we are fine. The infrastructure upgrades which have been occurring to networks have been useful; there is still a long way to go, but they have been significantly useful in terms of improving liability - the new zone substations, the overhaul of the existing zone substations. There is a long way to go and if you live in the rural area, you would understand there are still significant outages there. Taking your revenue-making customers, putting them into retail and leaving the rest in another corporation is setting retail up for sale. Generation will be set up for sale; the two aspects of the Power and Water Corporation which can make money and profit will be set up for sale. What is left is the rest of us: the consumers; mums and dads of the households; small- and medium-sized businesses; and the consumers across what is referred to as Indigenous Essential Services.
They will take out the good, preparing it for sale, and we will be left with the rest. When we are left with the rest, to cope with it, prices will go through the roof. This is the disaster - the legacy - this Treasurer wants to leave in the Territory. I have deep and genuine concern about his colleagues, who do not seem to have pursued an evidence-based approach to this. It is incredible to think they are somehow in a bubble of comfort and do not interact with the families and businesses which are already backed to the wall, struggling. They somehow think the worsening situation will not touch them. Yes, it will: at an election. If I was here for elections and votes, I would be letting this one go through because it is a disaster which will mean seats will be lost to the CLP. It is a game changer, an election changer.
I am standing here as a Territorian, saying, ‘This is a disaster we should not bring upon the Territory’. You have not shown it today, but please have the decency to let proper scrutiny of this occur, because they are not your assets to sell. It is not your corporation to split up and sell. It is owned by the Territory. You are custodians of it for four years. You do not have a mandate to do this. Send it to a committee for scrutiny and try to justify your actions. I urge all members in the Chamber to refer this to a committee by voting for the motion before the Chamber today. The motion does not have politics in it, it is not condemning the CLP; it is a straight referral.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I wish to support this important motion, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Legislative Assembly should immediately refer the Power and Water Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, the Power Generation Corporation Bill 2014 and the Power Retail Corporation Bill 2014 to a committee of this parliament. Every member of this parliament knows power, water and sewerage services impact every Territorian.
We all have an interest in this debate today and the decision of the government to split the Power and Water Corporation, because it will impact every one of our constituents. Whether they are in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or in our remote communities, they will be impacted by the split of Power and Water.
We will all see our constituents impacted by this decision and everyone will hurt due to increased costs of power and water as a result. Referring the government’s agenda to split Power and Water into three new corporations is essential. It should be referred to a committee so Territorians can have their say and we can take an evidence-based approach to exploring the consequences of a split.
Many other jurisdictions have already been down the path of splitting their essential service utilities, so there are case studies which can be looked at to fully understand the implications of what a split would mean to Territorians.
Several academics around the nation have looked deeply into what happens when you split utilities and how it impacts prices, reliability, workforce numbers and investment into repairs and maintenance.
To date, this government has not released any solid economic analysis, data or research to justify why Power and Water should be split, or pointed to any evidence that a split would drive down the cost of power, water and sewerage for Territorians. It is little wonder we are yet to see anything in this regard, given all the case studies and experiences. Academics will say the same thing: splitting utilities and moving to privatise them does not lead to cheaper prices; it does the exact opposite. It will drive up the price of power, water and sewerage for the consumer.
On 13 February 2014, the ABC’s Vicki Kerrigan interviewed the University of Wollongong’s academic Professor Sharon Beder, who has studied the sale of public assets and the impacts. She said in that interview, What happens is that the government split up power organisations before they privatise them and governments are notoriously reluctant to admit that they are going to privatise, because it is very unpopular because everywhere around the world where the electricity has been privatised, prices have gone up and reliability has gone down.’
These are a few views of academics, based on their research. These are the types of views the government is ignoring as it moves to ram through its split of Power and Water to ensure it is in place by 1 July this year. The evidence, as it stands, points to a highly likely outcome; splitting Power and Water will mean higher power, water and sewerage prices for Territorians in the cities, towns and the bush. No paying customer will benefit from this.
We also have the government pushing forward with the split of the Power and Water Corporation with no mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to do so. In 2012, when the CLP asked Territorians for their confidence and vote, there was no mention of splitting Power and Water, let alone privatising it or its assets. This week, after constant denials by the Treasurer around the government’s intention with Power and Water, he would not rule out the sale of government assets. Most people see the split of Power and Water as a very thinly veiled move towards the privatisation of the utility. It is very much seen that the sale of Power and Water assets is in the sights of the government.
There is huge talk of the Weddell Power Station being the first thing the government moves to sell. What other Power and Water assets could be sold? People are wondering if Owen Springs Power Station is another asset the government is considering selling. This is what people on the ground are talking about. With regard to the power retail corporation, there are views that this is a move to look at selling off retail customers to another retailer, especially the more lucrative, contestable customers.
Make no mistake, there is no way power prices can come down for ordinary consumers. There will be savage price increases for Territory families and businesses under the CLP and its split-up and privatisation agenda. The decision to split Power and Water should be carefully examined to look at the facts and evidence readily available. The case studies do not point to better outcomes for Territorians’ power bills, yet this government is determined to ram through the split by 1 July and ignore the facts on the table around pricing. The end impact on the hip pocket of Territorians is a huge consideration, which a committee of this parliament should examine with the move towards a split of Power and Water, but there are also the logistical issues and the costs which will result from the split.
Staff at Power and Water are already reeling under the changes they have had to go through under this government. I have said it before and I will say it again: morale amongst the staff at Power and Water is at an all-time low. Talk to anybody you know who works at Power and Water. It is little wonder staff are feeling this way, after the treatment we have seen them receive from this government since they took the reins of power in 2012. It has gone about trashing the reputation of Power and Water Corporation and its staff; they have been called inefficient, bloated and a basket case. They saw the government sack their highly respected board and remove their managing director. Staff did not understand why the government removed such professional and well-respected business leaders; they were people Power and Water staff genuinely respected. The trouble has not stopped with the interim board. We have now seen highly respected former senior public servants walk away, which makes you wonder what they are being asked to do by this government.
We get to the point where the government has announced it is splitting Power and Water and creating three separate corporations: the Power Generation Corporation, which will take the generation business division with it; the retail corporation, which will take the retail arm of Power and Water; and the rest will remain at Power and Water Corporation. The establishment of these bodies will see that rather than one board, there will be three boards. There will be more director positions. We will see three managing director roles rather than one. There will be new senior management roles in these corporations, where previously there has been one person in this role at Power and Water. Roles which could be well and truly duplicated across these new corporations would be chief financial officers, chief operating officers, and so on.
In a recent briefing, we were told there would be some shared services between the three corporations, but those details were still being worked through. There seemed to be a lot of details still being worked out, and this process was being rushed.
Additional cost to government due to the additional senior staff, rebranding board members, additional board members, logistics and so forth, due to the split, should be clearly outlined by this government. How much will that add up to? What will it cost?
There was also very little certainty on offer to staff at Power and Water about their future as a result of the agenda to split up the corporation. With new boards and new senior management coming into positions, they will have some say in the future staffing of these three new corporations. Staff are still left wondering what lies ahead of them post-split. They have had a very rough ride over the last 18 months, and their journey does not look like it will get easier anytime soon.
Staff are not left feeling reassured about their future after hearing the Treasurer tell Julia Christensen on ABC radio, on 9 January, in an interview regarding the future of Power and Water:
He also said:
The staff at Power and Water do not have the support of the Treasurer who thinks there are too many of them, they have too much equipment and are not working on all cylinders at present. No wonder they are stressed out and upset with the government. Power and Water staff have gone through so much already. We have heard stories of workers embarrassed to wear uniforms because of the abuse they copped after the price rises started hitting people’s power bills.
Sadly, their future continues to look uncertain, and I hope this government decides to be up front with the workers about their future. For those being moved around, tell them what is going on early so they know what is happening and can have some certainty. It is critical they give staff the support they need to cope if the worst case scenario comes true and people are left without jobs as a result of this split.
Our Power and Water staff are unsung heroes in our community for the job they do, which most of us take for granted. They deserve our respect and support going forward.
I come back to the intent of this motion, which is the decision to split Power and Water into three separate corporations, and why members of this parliament should refer it to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny before it is too late.
A move to split should be based on sound analysis and evidence and, ultimately, should only happen if there are clear benefits to Territorians. This should not be happening if it means it will cause more hurt to Territory families and businesses. Unfortunately, all the evidence seems to point to the same conclusion - a move to split will only lead to higher power and water costs for people right across the Territory, in the bush, the cities and the urban centres.
The government should support this motion so there is clear and transparent reasoning if it decides to proceed with the split up of Power and Water, which I suspect it will do. If the government is sure the split will lead to more competition, meaning better prices for power and water, why will it not let a committee examine the split before it happens?
It will mean the experts could go before the committee to share the experience of other jurisdictions and look at comparable cases from Australia and overseas and what outcomes the split will deliver. You would get academics, industry experts, economists, utility companies and utility industry experts to put on the record what a split would likely deliver to the Territory. It would mean there is some reasoning for or against a split, rather than being asked by the Treasurer to trust him on heading down this road to the split, despite the fact it has never led to cheaper power and water prices anywhere in Australia. The committee would also give Territorians a say on the future of Power and Water.
I have learnt, as a member of parliament, that most Territorians have a view on the running of Power and Water. Since being elected into this parliament a year ago, I have kept doorknocking in the Wanguri electorate. One recurring grievance residents keep raising with me is, ‘What has happened to the price of power and water?’ They are still reeling at the prices they are paying under the CLP, despite the promises made to them in the 2012 election that the cost of living would be reduced under the CLP.
The Wanguri electorate made its views heard a year ago with the Wanguri by-election. Now the government is stuck with the stark reminder of me, in this parliament, telling them exactly what Territorians think when the promises are broken, particularly around the cost of living and power and water.
Territorians should have a say in the future of Power and Water. By referring the split to a committee, people from right across the Territory could have their voices heard rather than having to wait until 2016. Every member in this Chamber would have met a constituent with a story to tell about the impact of their power bills. In the bush, we are hearing about power tokens getting chewed through at a rate of knots and people have to keep buying them. Families have had to make big sacrifices to pay their higher bills and we have seen the flow-on effects to the cost of living to all of us, due to the power and water increases. Rates and rents have gone up, and shop owners have had to pass on price increases to their customers in order to pay their power and water bills.
There is a clear argument about how big the impacts of increased power, water and sewerage prices are on Territorians. The decision to split Power and Water Corporation should be looked at carefully by a parliamentary committee before it is too late. The committee would have to report to the parliament so the evidence is all on the table before the government determines whether to go forward with the split it seems so eager to execute.
I do not understand why the government would not want to hear the views of Territorians about this issue. Why would they not want to hear what expectations Territorians have about the future of Power and Water, no matter where they live in the Territory? I hope the government considers this motion, but I have a strong feeling they will go forward and ram this split through, despite the evidence pointing to the fact it will leave Territorians paying even more for their power and water, thanks to the CLP government.
I thank the leader of the opposition for bringing this important motion before the House. I commend the motion and I hope the members of this parliament fully understand how dire the consequences of the split may be for their constituents, before the government continues down this path of splitting Power and Water and its privatisation agenda.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I commend the motion. The implications of these three bills are profound. If passed, they will impact on the cost of living for Territory families and businesses, and lay the ground work for a fire sale of public utility assets. This is why we need informed debate on the bills and community consultation on their implications, and it is why the CLP government - particularly the Chief Minister and Treasurer - do not want an informed public debate on the split of Power and Water foreshadowed in the three bills now before this Assembly.
The split of the Power and Water Corporation will not reduce the price of electricity, as claimed by the government. Everywhere else in Australia, corporatisation and privatisation of public utilities has driven up the price of electricity for consumers. Let me quote some of the recent observations on the issue by eminent researcher and author, Professor Sharon Beder, who was mentioned earlier, ‘The government may not be putting Power and Water Corporation up for sale, but by enabling and facilitating private businesses to generate and sell electricity, it is essentially privatising electricity. In this way, the government is turning electricity provisions over to the vagaries of the market and stepping back from taking responsibility for affordable, accessible and reliable electricity supply. When you have an electricity market, there is enormous scope for generators to manipulate the price, it has happened everywhere else leaving huge fluctuations and wholesale price, which in turn increases retail prices.’
These are not my words; it is informed commentary from an eminent researcher and author who is an expert on privatisation of public utilities in Australia. As I said earlier, the implications of these bills are profound, and I would like to share with this Assembly, particularly members opposite, some additional observations of the potential impact of the Power and Water carve up.
The Treasurer’s second reading speech indicates the Power and Water Retail Corporation will only be responsible for contestable customers, the 300 or so most profitable consumers, representing about 38% of electricity revenue. Why do it this way? I will give you an answer: because you want to sell off this retail business to another retailer. The largest customers will be cherry picked and 38% of revenue will be taken away, but you still have to cover fixed costs which will drive power prices up for other customers and require ongoing CSOs. Make no mistake; there is no way power prices can come down for ordinary customers. There will be savage price increases for Territory families and businesses under the CLP slit up and privatisation agenda. Informed public debate will also expose the huge cost involved in splitting up the corporation, something the CLP also wants to hide from Territorians. It will cost in excess of $100m to duplicate billing systems, IT, HR, finance, purchasing new meters and employing a myriad of consultants and advisors.
These costs can only be passed on to consumers. No wonder the government does not want an informed community debate on the split up of the corporation. Why not refer the bills to a parliamentary committee in the interest of informed public debate? Why not provide an opportunity for Territorians to tell you what they think about your plans to carve up Power and Water? Will the Chief Minister at least show some leadership, abandon his arrogant approach to government and consult with Territory families and businesses on his plans for the Power and Water Corporation? The Treasurer should advise the Assembly of the estimated total cost to divide up Power and Water.
What cost will consumers be up for and how much has been spent so far on consultants, advisors and other activities? Where is the accountability and public consultation? Before the last election, the CLP made some solemn promises; two of them are directly relevant to this debate. There was an unequivocal commitment to reduce the cost of living. This promise has been shattered by the huge price increases in electricity, water and sewerage already imposed on Territory families and businesses.
As the member for Johnston, my electorate office is open on Sunday mornings from 8 am to 12 pm. Many people come in during those times and say to me, ‘We are struggling. ‘The power and water price increases are killing us. How can we stop it and boot this government out? ‘They promised to lower the cost of living, and straight away the power prices went up. We are considering moving.’
Some schools in my electorate have lost 20 or 30 students. Their parents have made the decision to leave because they cannot afford to live here anymore. The split up of the Power and Water Corporation would drive up prices for Territory consumers yet again - so much for the promise to reduce the cost of living. The solemn promise to be open and accountable has been a farce from the beginning. The CLP five-point election plan said:
What is the deal with these bills? Is it a fire sale of Power and Water assets to pay for unfunded CLP election commitments? The government is run in secrecy by an arrogant Chief Minister who treats Territorians with absolute contempt. That is why they do not want the bills referred to a parliamentary committee. That is why they do not want the public to be informed on the implications of splitting up the Power and Water Corporation. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thought the minister might give us a few words to see what his opinion is on this matter. He is waiting to pick off the bits and pieces so he can have his say without too much competition. I have a feeling this motion will not get anywhere, and I understand why, but I will read my letters to members of parliament, which I put forward as a good proposal and backs up the Leader of the Opposition’s motion tonight.
It says:
Here is what the Australian parliament website says about committees:
To emphasise this point, it goes on to say:
In Queensland parliament, where the majority party is the LNP, all legislation goes to the relevant committee. This came about after reforms to the committee system culminated in a Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Act 2011, which was introduced on 5 April 2011 and received Royal assent on 19 May 2011. The act implemented a number of key reforms to the committee system, including the establishment of a number of portfolio committees under standing orders, to cover all areas of government activity, examine appropriation bills, other legislation, and public accounts and public works. Committees:
That is from the Queensland parliament website.
This is why our Parliamentary Accounts Committee should be able to scrutinise Power and Water bills. Committees are part of government, and not, as some critics of this motion would try to make us believe, separate from government. There is a great amount of public interest about the future of Power and Water and the only way for the public to understand what is happening and have a chance to put their views to parliamentarians is through a committee hearing.
The second argument put forward opposing this process is the government should not be run by committees. Firstly, no one is saying that. Committees are part of the parliamentary process, are run by members of parliament, and reported back to parliament, which then votes on the recommendations or any proposed amendments.
Queensland parliament, a unicameral parliament like ours, knows by using committees you are more likely to achieve better outcomes and foster bipartisan support. Here is an example of what Queensland committees are doing, and I will just run through them quickly. They are dealing with: the Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014; the Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2013; the Fair Trading Inspectors Bill 2013; the Agents Financial Administration Bill 2013 - I could go on. They are also dealing with the Auditor-General’s report and the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee oversight of the Queensland Ombudsman. It deals with a mixture of bills and general reports, as we have in our parliament.
From the above list, you can see Queensland parliament, through its committees, looks at bills and other matters. There are reporting days and a submission date for each bill. Of the 59 matters before the committees at the moment, 24 of them are bills. Queensland politicians do a lot of work, but it is, of course, a larger parliament.
This motion is not about taking every bill to a committee. It is about taking one bill, the bill to split up Power and Water, and giving it thorough scrutiny before it goes back to parliament where, if the government does not like the recommendations of the committee, it can still reject those recommendations. Why is it most important to take this bill to a committee such as the PAC?
(1) It would allow members of parliament and the public to hear from independent experts who have a background in the splitting up of public utilities.
(2) It would allow the public and PWC workers to have a say in the proposed splitting up of their public asset, the Power and Water Corporation.
(3) It would allow members of parliament to question the PWC Board and ask for their reasoning behind this decision, and to ask the PWC Board and Treasury how this legislative change would make PWC more efficient, as the Treasurer said it will.
(4) It would allow questions to be asked about the background of this legislation; for instance, who put this legislation together, has this been done elsewhere, and what benefits or negatives will come about from these changes.
(5) It would allow the committee to investigate whether there has been any lobbying by private companies which may find it financially advantageous to support this legislation.
(6) It would allow members of parliament to question whether this legislation is just the first step towards the eventual privatisation of our essential services.
There may be other matters to be investigated, but this gives you some idea of why this legislation should not be rushed through.
To say the government was elected, too bad, it will be passed and it does not matter is disrespectful of parliamentary process and Territorians. I am not asking for every piece of legislation we look at to go to a committee, but at least we have some time to look at the important ones, and this is an important one. Most of what is in the above six points could not be done on the floor of the House in parliament; it could only be done through a bipartisan committee hearing of parliament held in public. The usual parliamentary process, including the committee of a whole stage during the debate on this bill, allows only the minister to be questioned. There is no chance to question experts, listen to the public servants who work for the PWC, for the public to have their say, or to question the board of PWC or the Treasury. Some of this could be done through departmental briefings, but those briefings are not open to the public.
A committee like the Public Accounts Committee, in most cases would be open to the public – an important part of open and transparent government. As for arguments this would delay this bill, we are only into the second month of the year, so there is plenty of time for a committee to do its job and report back to parliament. I am asking you, as a member of parliament, to please support a motion that does not take away the right of government to make decisions, but shows it is willing to listen to and take into account the views of Territorians, workers and experts before a final decision is made on these very important bills.
The move to break up PWC, a publicly-owned asset, needs to be thoroughly scrutinised and tested in public. The only way to do this is through the PAC. Please support this motion or, at the very least, bring in your own similar motion to allow our parliament to deal with these bills in a manner which reflects their importance by sending them to the PAC.
From what I have been told by members of the government, they will not support this and it is very disappointing. From my point of view it is not about politics. This government and the member for Fong Lim would not support anything coming from me. If you want to get to the tone of the argument - I put this out as not knocking the government – you only have to hear the tone of the argument when I ask for a suspension of standing orders. There was everything about me they could find. Whether I was Labor, the Independent Labor, I had the CTC, I had swimming pool problems; it was all about me. The impression you get is it is a diversionary tactic. I do not care what you say about me; I would rather we had processes which allowed the public to have a fair say in what will happen to Power and Water in the Northern Territory.
I have not run in to anyone who agrees with the government on privatisation of our Power and Water. I have no doubt this is what it is leading up to. This came listening to the Minister for Transport today, talking about privatisation of buses. The key word in this party is privatisation. We have a smokescreen, so if we can divert the issues to personal comments about me fair enough, but if the argument I put forward can only be debunked by personal remarks about me or what happened in the past, then you do not have an argument at all. In fact, I think you are simply hiding the case you have someone lined up right now to set up a power plant in or near Darwin and you want this legislation passed as soon as possible. Even if I was wrong, through a committee I would be able to ask the minister. The minister will not be in a position, unless we get to estimates – by which time it will be far too late – where we can have a proper discussion about this. Unfortunately, this is the way the government goes at the moment.
It is not really interested in good processes. It can argue this is the normal process, although only part of the process. Other states and the federal government do things slightly differently when it comes to important bills, so I am not asking you to do something not in keeping with normal parliamentary processes.
I ask the government to think about the people of the Northern Territory, the owners of these assets, before you go down the path of changing the rules and setting them up for some private companies. When you start talking about competition you are giving courage for privatisation. We are only a little part of Australia and I would love to know what will happen to Power and Water if we split it up. Will it simply fold because it will not be able to compete with private enterprise which will skim off the best parts of the Northern Territory’s power?
While I have time, I could reflect on an article in the Canberra Times on 10 January by Sharon Beder who is a Professor at the University of Wollongong. She has a PhD in Engineering and a few other qualifications in that vein. I will quote this article. Most of it summarises my concerns about where we are heading and how little discussion we have had on this issue, but it will probably be like water off a duck’s back to those who are intent on going down this path. The article is headed, ‘Privatisation provides no dividends for the poor’:
I have heard that here before.
There is that word again.
And again!
I will go on a little further.
This is from Professor Sharon Beder, from Wollongong University. She has a number of papers out on the same issue. I read it because I am not an expert on these matters by any means. I have been listening to some of the claims by the member for Fong Lim about efficiency. I have asked the member for Fong Lim to show us A+B=efficiency, but we do not get it and we will not have a chance to get it. Debating this in the House means we cannot ask other people what they think about his opinion on efficiencies.
Sharon Beder, an expert in privatisation and the effects it has had in Australia and overseas, is saying efficiencies are more about rhetoric than actual. This concept we have to take these bills to a committee so we can discuss these issues and hear from experts - it would be nice to ask Power and Water workers what they think because it is their company being cut up. It would be nice to ask the community what they think; I speak to people at the footy, when I am sitting on the corner, who do not want Power and Water privatised.
Again, it will be like water off a duck’s back, because the impression I get is no matter what you say in this parliament, no one cares, because it is about efficiencies. We may never find out - has some company been lobbying you in the last year or so since you got into power? Has more than one company been knocking on the door saying, ‘We are interested?’ The Treasurer says, ‘Do not worry, we will get that legislation set up perfectly for you’. What about the people?
I have a classic example for the Minister for Transport: who asked anyone about selling the buses? It might be good, but did anyone ask the people if their bus company should be sold? It is a government asset. I thought it would be polite. The government might say, ‘We are thinking of selling the bus service. We will have an inquiry into it and people can make their contribution on the sale.’ They would not have that because they are an efficient government and will make the changes. ‘Trust us, we know best. Do not worry about the questions.’ How arrogant! They can sell off the buses with no discussion with the public. There are no figures to show this will be profitable for the Northern Territory. Will it make a better bus service? Will it still cost the same? After all, if we get a private bus company to run it, we have to pay them, because they do not make money out of buses, not at two or three dollars a ticket. It is subsidised. We subsidise it so why get a private company to do it? They will ask you for the amount of money to run it, and we will still have to subsidise it. Even if the Minister for Transport is right, why has this parliament not …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time so the member may finish his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama. The point we are trying to get at is, there has been no discussion about the bus service, which might be relatively small when you are talking about Power and Water. The government says no discussion is fine and not to worry about it. They are from the government and that is exactly what they will try to do with Power and Water. They do not want discussion. They want it to happen, and we ask you for an opportunity to discuss something …
Mr Tollner: Stella Maris.
Mr WOOD: As I said before, it was me, the CTC, the swimming pool. ‘Gerry Wood is Labor, even though he sat with the CLP for 12 years, even when they had four members there. He forgets he went around Parliament House several times against the Labor government’s amalgamation of council.’ They forget all that. They throw it in, disguise the argument with smokescreens and bulldust to avoid – and what do we get? Stella Maris comes up. What does Stella Maris have to do with this argument? The argument is whether …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We have the member for Fong Lim saying, ‘Haw, haw, haw, oh Stella Maris’. It is trying to take away from what is being debated. The debate is about the possible sale of an asset, Power and Water, which we think the government is trying to do by splitting it up. We are asking, if that is your intention, that you give us a bit more time to discuss it than we had to discuss the selling of the Darwin Bus Service. You are also guilty of selling the Government Printing Office; there might have been good reasons, but you did the same thing. You could not be bothered telling this parliament you were going to sell the Government Printing Office, another government asset. What did you do? Brave man, the member for Fong Lim, he announced it on the Friday when we left. Good man, government asset - freedom to do what he likes. ‘Trust me, I am from the government. The printing office does not work anymore, let us sell it.’ Was there any discussion? No discussion. Your track record is, ‘Sell the bus service, trust us, we did not need it. Government Printing Office – sell it, did not need it.’ Announce it when? Announce it on the day after parliament stops sitting. No public discussion ...
Mr Tollner: We did not sell it. We simply closed it. Where is the sale?
Mr WOOD: You will sell the building and probably put a big building of multistorey flats there. You will sell off the business. It does not matter what you ..
Mr Tollner: The business has not been sold. There is no intention, it has been closed.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me. That is right, but did you announce it to the parliament? It is an asset we had and you could not be bothered announcing it to parliament, because the Treasurer knows best.
Mr Giles: What was the asset?
Mr WOOD: The Government Printing Office printed your budgets and annual reports, and you did have …
Mr Elferink: It was an election policy.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order?
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I speak?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the floor. All read Standing Order 51 again, thank you.
Mr WOOD: It is amazing how the three wise men, when life gets a bit difficult, all work together, it would seem. It was not about going to a committee when I criticised the statement on the printing office. It was that you could not come into this parliament and say what you were doing, regardless of whether it was a political election promise. You were getting rid of a government asset and you could not tell us. You are getting rid of the Darwin Bus Service and you could not tell us in parliament. I reckon, through stealth, you will try to get rid of Power and Water. You have been introducing legislation.
We ask for the legislation to be looked at thoroughly, because we are concerned for the same reasons you got rid of the other things: ‘Trust me, do not ask questions.’ I bet you by the blink of an eyelid we will find Power and Water gone and people will not have a say in it, which is my concern. When you read articles from Sharon Beder, who raises important issues about what you are saying …
Mr Elferink: A professor of social science at the University of Wollongong.
Mr WOOD: She also has a degree in engineering. She knows a bit about the work. But, the point is …
Mr Elferink: I am not saying she does not; she may have a particular slant.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will members please direct their comments through the Chair.
Mr WOOD: Anyone can look up what she has written. At least it is another point of view we have the chance to find out about. It would be nice to have someone like her, a few experts, challenge the statements. ‘No, no, we cannot have that because we are so comfortable in our position of having the majority in this House. We know best.’ If anyone says, ‘Hang on, there are a lot of people out there who do not support what you are doing’, you will go ahead and say, ‘We will do it anyway’.
The member for Port Darwin says the disposal, or whatever you want to call it, of the Government Printing Office was an election promise. Was the privatisation and splitting up of Power and Water Corporation an election promise? No. If you want to …
Mr Elferink: Who said privatisation?
Mr WOOD: It does not matter, you said …
Mr McCarthy: Is selling the buses an election promise?
Mr WOOD: I did not hear about it. Regardless if it is an election promise …
Mr Tollner: We sold the buses.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but did you tell anyone you sold the buses? You told the media. You did not give us the courtesy of telling the people in this parliament, and that worries me. You do not care about the process. You do not care about putting it back to the parliament for release from scrutiny. You do not care, because you have the majority; you won at the last election, you have the numbers in this parliament, which you think is the only important thing in this world. I do not care whether you have the numbers in parliament and I do not care what you say. Arrogance is one of the things that killed you in the 2001 election. I was around then; the arrogance was there, and it is coming out now. Do not ask me for an opinion. I had a CLP supporter say, ‘Arrogance’. I can see it now. Yes, you will drop this motion. You might say some nice things, but I doubt it. The member for Fong Lim will say it is a load of rubbish. He will drop it, which will be the end of it.
When they have an opportunity to do something for the community: take this piece of legislation; scrutinise it properly; give people a chance to say what they think; bring in some experts on either side of the debate; ask Power and Water workers what they think about breaking up their company, the one they work for. Are they not worth asking? Tell us whether there are other players in the field behind these changes, or is efficiency just code for privatisation?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. I am sad the CLP - at least some of the members - could not find the guts to put this to a committee. They are not doing it because they disagree with it, but out of spite for the people who put this forward, which makes this a very sad day for politics in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the member for Nelson, and I believe he deserves - okay, he has gone - the courtesy of a response within the frame he describes. He says it is all about personal attacks on him. It is not. I have criticised his passionate love for the committee process, because the process he continues to promote endlessly in this House is an extension of the notion he had when he created the Council of Territory Co-operation. I refer to the Council of Territory Co-operation because I sat on that committee, which was part of the deal he had struck with then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, so Paul Henderson and the Labor Party could stay in government, ably supported by the member for Nelson.
This committee went up hill and down dale, inquiring into all manner of things, whilst the Northern Territory government kept governing. Attached to the deal to establish the CTC was a document of about 15 pages, which bound the Henderson government to a number of agreements with the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson approaches governance from a purely consensus point of view. That is how you have to govern, hence his passion for committees and for driving things into a constant state of, ‘Let us look at it and make sure everybody, including their grandmother is consulted’ process.
The effect of a person who is consensus driven is they are also driven by compromise. We looked at the 15-page document from time to time, which was the agreement between the Northern Territory government and Gerry Wood – in fact it was between Paul Henderson and Gerry Woo -, and many of the items on the list of things to do were never done, which is the reason I refer to the pool.
The problem with governing in the fashion the member for Nelson advocates is nothing ever gets done. Everybody talks about it; we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars talking about, rehashing and visiting things, calling evidence, travelling up and down the length of the Northern Territory, listening to what people have to say. Nothing got done. The government continued to govern with the support of the member for Nelson, who was kept happily occupied learning all sorts of interesting things. They were interesting, but I finally withdrew from that committee, because I realised it was spending an abundant amount of taxpayers’ money and was being used by the government of the day to keep members of parliament occupied and their eye off the game. The member for Nelson thoroughly bought into that approach. When I wanted to have a parliamentary committee look at a specific thing, namely the Mataranka cattle deaths, the only way I could get it back in there was by going back to the CTC. We went up hill and down dale. We travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory, talking about the Mataranka cattle deaths, only getting to the point where we could not have been better informed and were no better informed than when we started.
We knew a lot more of the details, but the committee advanced very little. It came back with recommendations, which the government adopted, and it meant there was some legislative change. This could have been achieved through the processes of this parliament, which is why I have always argued that this parliament is the ultimate committee. We are a committee. We meet and pass the laws of the Northern Territory. We lay legislative instruments on the table in this place. They are there for any person who wants to see and inspect them. This is how the parliamentary process works and, from time to time, parliament will look at committees, but this parliament has not historically sent legislative items off to committees of the house.
The member for Nelson is enraptured with the belief the Queensland system is better; the Queenslanders will have their systems in place and bully for them. We are a smaller jurisdiction. Our members of parliament serve smaller electorates. As a consequence, we are able to proceed with the full knowledge that if a person wants to speak to their local member of parliament, in every likelihood they will have an opportunity to do so. The people of my electorate have many opportunities to speak to the member for Port Darwin for no other reason than you will find him sitting on a street corner most Saturday mornings, and many other days, or sitting around the mall with some camp chairs. I get what he is saying, but I believe the checks and balances of this system are appropriate.
The second thing is this constant assertion the bill is - at the risk of pre-empting debate - about privatisation, which has not been suggested by this government.
Ms Lawrie: Yes it has.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it has not. This is the point; you are placing words in his mouth, which is something you do all the time. I have heard the member for Nelson and other members do it, and it is demonstrably wrong. You hear what you want to hear when a member of parliament says something, not what they say. What is being said by the Treasurer is something fundamentally different to what you hear, but, sadly, repeat. What you repeat is what you hear and I would like to think it was a mistake, but sometimes I suspect you are altogether more sinister in your intent when it comes to representing the words of ministers in this House.
Not only that, but continuing attacks on public servants when you cannot land a punch on the minister. The attacks continue to tax on people like the water controller of the Northern Territory, asserting he is corrupt. This is part of the reason I am disinclined to try to expose those public servants to your scrutiny, because you will continue to slander them as you have done in this House. If you want to say what you want to about the water controller, say it outside of this House. Stand in front of the camera, grab a microphone and say it so the water controller can take some action against you. You do not, because you are more than happy to sit in this House and slam the public servants, and you use those techniques into the future. You have been relentless in that approach. You have done it with a number of public servants, named them under parliamentary privilege and refused to restate those allegations in the public domain, where you would be liable for defamation.
We will not talk about that, because it is the technique of the Labor Party. On this side of the House, we are interested in the good governance of the Northern Territory. Government means - and the opposition members know this from their time in government - you occasionally have to make courageous decisions. As much as we would like it to be about the process of carefully working with the community and having nothing but praise heaped on us - it would be lovely, but it does not happen. We have to make tough decisions, particularly when we inherit projected Territory debts of $5.5bn. I consistently hear comments from members opposite, where they say, ‘The government should do this and that’. I hear them spending tens of millions of dollars every time. They say the government should roll over to the wage claims of the unions. Cost that out! It would cost $34m. Where would the money come from? Which school would we have to shut to pay public service wages? We would not shut down schools; we would rack it up on debt.
I look at those little school kids who come here at 10 am to watch the parliamentary process. I think to myself how they will be paying off the debt of a government, be it Labor or Liberal, if it keeps borrowing money.
It is not me; I will be retired by the time some of this debt matures. My seven and eight-year-old daughters will have a debt to pay off if they continue to live in this jurisdiction. It means the government which serves them will not be able to borrow any money for any purpose, no matter how good it is, because their debt situation is too unhealthy.
If you believe this stuff does not happen, just look at the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Irish. They all have these problems, and they do not talk about things like wage restraint. They talk about things like austerity and massive unemployment as a result of government having to massively cut into spending to pay the credit card bill. We do not do it in our homes, so why would we do it in our government?
We hear members quoting people from time to time and when I hear a person quoted in this House, I often look up their profile so I get a sense of what they are driving at. The member for Nelson quoted Sharon Beder from the University of Wollongong. She is a professor and an engineer by trade; no doubt she is no slouch. She has not been an active engineer for some time; however, she has become a prolific writer. I will note some of the articles she has written and I will only read the titles: ‘Toxic fish and sewer surfing’; ‘The Nature of Sustainable Development’; ‘Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism’; ‘Selling the Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR’; ‘Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity’; ‘Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda’; ‘Environmental Principles and Policies’; ‘Free Market Missionaries: The Corporate Manipulation of Community Values’ and ‘This Little Kiddy Went to Market: The Corporate Assault on Children’.
I will not suggest for one second I have read any of those articles. However, when you are dealing with an academic from the humanities section of the University of Wollongong, an alarm bell already start to go off. You then read the titles of those articles and you see there is a certain bent, a person writing from a certain perspective. When she talks about environmental principles and policies, it sounds like a nice, rounded article. She is clearly happy to write about it. But in her titles there is an implicit attack on the corporate world. It is fine to quote her, but place her into context.
There was another person who was referred to this morning on ABC radio, and that was Bill Mitchell, an economist. I like economists, because I tend to be a bit on the dry economic side. I hold some of the most treasured books, such as The Commanding Heights, which is an economic history of the late 1970s and early 1980s. I also have books such as The Birth of Plenty and those sorts of things. When I hear an economist on the radio, I take them seriously. He talked about how awful it is that privatisation is occurring. I am not saying we are privatising, by the way; we are structurally separating as a starting point.
Bill Mitchell said all privatisation, structural separation and those things are bad. We accept this. Let us look at what this economist is influenced by. He was born in 1952 in Australia. He is an Australian who has worked at Charles Darwin University. His field is political economy and econometrics – very good. His school tradition is Post-Keynesian economics. I will pause there, Post-Keynesian - there is a hint. Then, he writes as his influences Karl Marx, Arthur Okun and Michael Kaliske. I presume this is the same Karl Marx who, with the fellow by the name of Engels, wrote a book in the 1850s - what was it called? The Communist Manifesto, if memory serves me - no, that came later, it was Das Kapital. He is influenced by people who wrote works which suggested the centralisation of all industry - of all society. It goes on to say in his Wikipedia entry:
In other words, he does not believe in private property owned by private organisations. He is the sort of person who would argue you would have all property vested in the government, bar minor personal property. If you read books like The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, you have to remember they come from a time, in a Post-Keynesian world, where governments started to own and regulate all sorts of things.
I have no shortage of amusement when I continue to read critiques from the 1970s, when there was a whole American department dedicated to the principle of sandwiches on aeroplanes being measured to make sure they complied with the regulatory design specifications of a sandwich. There was a sandwich police squad which had the function of measuring airline sandwiches, thus to level the playing field amongst the airlines. Can you imagine things getting cheaper in this regulatory environment? If I recall, aeroplane flights around the world from the early 1970s cost, in dollar terms, pretty much what they cost now. The only difference is the dollar has quartered in value over time. It would be worth 25% of what it was worth in the early 1970s, which means airline tickets in today’s dollar terms - I am guessing – would be in the order of $10 000 to get around the world …
Mr Tollner: Minimum.
Mr ELFERINK: Minimum. It was a really cool thing to meet a jet-set person who had travelled around the world in the 1970s, because it was the beyond the means of the average punter. Yet, they created an environment where there was greater competition. In the environment of greater competition, there was downward prices on air fares to the point where they are today. There are one million people in the air around the world right now, sitting in aeroplanes. This level of access to transport was unimaginable in the early 1970s, because it is a competitive environment.
There are no sandwich police. Depending on the airline you fly, you can order different types of food. You can pay on some airlines for your food and some airlines will provide you your sandwich for free.
Mr Styles: What size will the sandwich be?
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever you are prepared to pay for, Minister for Infrastructure. It develops choice, but the problem is we have a monopoly in the Northern Territory. The price of electricity has been, and will continue to be, set by the Northern Territory government. It was thus when the Labor Party was in power and it remains so now. We set the guaranteed price for last year, we have set it again for this year and we know what it will be next year.
Picture a High Court decision some time ago - about a decade ago - which determined the Northern Territory marketplace should be contestable for any generator wanting to set up in the Northern Territory. The problem is the Power and Water Corporation presents to the people of the Northern Territory three separate components, rolled into a single unit. The three separate components are: power generation, the little shed with the generators running, generating electricity; network, the electricity poles with the wires hanging between them taking the electricity to your power point; and retail - shock horror. Retail is already competitive. There are competitive retailers working in the market now which means, for example, QEnergy - the electricity in this building is retailed through QEnergy, not the Power and Water Corporation ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Chandler: Which government did that?
Mr ELFERINK: Interestingly, it was not the government; the National Competition Policy forced it. However, the reason QEnergy comes to big power consumers like a parliament or large factories, is it can do the retail a fraction cheaper than Power and Water Corporation can through its retail arm. Therefore, the wise decision for the parliament of the Northern Territory was to use the private retailer in the market now. Retail, if you follow the Labor opposition’s position on this, is already privatised. There are private retail operators seeking out tranche one customers, and they continue to do so.
The problem is if a single corporation owns generation, network and retail, somebody wanting to come into the generation network understands one corporation runs the whole shebang. It will make private investors in this environment nervous, because they know the people they have to approach for network access are the same people who are in the generation market, namely their competitors.
The government is arguing that if you allow a generator to come into a marketplace where the Power and Water Corporation’s generator is a separate business from the network, you still have to compete against the government-owned corporation generating power, but it is not the same corporation which owns the network. The network is a business which will then have to seek out clients. If clients knock on its door and say, ‘We want to stick our power down your power lines’, it is the same as a rolling stock company going to a railway saying, ‘We want to push our rolling stock across your railway, how much will it cost us?’ If it turns out a power generator, through accessing onshore gas for example - perish the thought we pursue an onshore gas market - can generate electricity cheaper than the government-owned entity, why should it not enter the marketplace? It will be able to knock on doors saying, ‘We can provide cheaper electricity to your power point’.
Government set the power price. We already know what the power price will be, so if somebody can do it more cheaply than government, why should they not have the option to do so? According to the people opposite, we cannot look at this. ‘We want to show all the shortcomings of this proposal. We want to make sure we terrorise as many Territorians and talk about privatisation.’ We are not talking about privatising the Power and Water Corporation. We are creating a marketplace in which somebody might want to compete with Power and Water Corporation, in a fashion where they deliver the product more cheaply to the door. Where this has happened in other jurisdictions you have, or have had, door to door salesmen selling electricity in streets saying ‘We can provide you a cheaper product’.
If you look at the cost of electricity across Australia, many other jurisdictions provide cheaper electricity because somebody is knocking on doors saying, ‘Can we give you a better deal than the other guy?’ But, fans of Karl Marx, such as Bill Mitchell, and other people who have a hang up about the corporate world providing services and not caring about the people of their market place, oppose this sort of stuff on ideological grounds.
To suggest - and I heard the member for Nelson say this - corporations do not care about the people they serve could not be further from the truth. If you think about a corporation which provides a service, such as Coles or K-Mart, they care very much what their clients think of them, and they go to enormous lengths to encourage people to look at them. If you walk into a McDonald’s store right now, they care so much about their product they will tell you the caloric content of every item on the menu in kilojoules and calories. They are sensitive to what the market place thinks of them. If you look at an environment where there is an effective monopoly, let us say the Vogue pack in the Northern Territory - the single clearing house for fuel - they do not care, because they have a monopoly and can charge what they like. As a consequence, I suspect it is the reason we pay such large prices for fuel at the bowser in the Northern Territory; it is lawful for them to do it. It is a lawful monopoly.
I do not see how you can run this argument that somehow prices will automatically be cheaper and people will be better served, simply because the government owns it. I think it reassures a lot of people; ‘The government has our best interests at heart’, but when you look at the performance of government, compared to some corporations, and how sensitive corporations are to their client base, they tend to be a lot more sensitive than governments and go to great lengths to protect the integrity of their various trademarks and products.
I do not doubt the members opposite will drive this fear campaign. They will say this is all about privatisation, this is about ensuring we offload the Power and Water Corporation for ideological reasons - it could not be further from the truth. We have a prayer in this House every day, the last line of which is, ‘For the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. I take that line very much to heart and I would not be subscribing to this sort of thing unless I believed it would produce better outcomes for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The CSOs will continue to exist. The public ownership of Power and Water Corporation and the three broken up functions will continue to remain in public hands - the bills make this clear - but we will make these organisations more efficient so we can put downward pressure on future price hikes, which really matters. Rather than taking something which is broken and attempting to fix it - from the perspective of the members opposite, they say, ‘Just keep doing the same thing’.
They created an organisation which was so crushingly inefficient that they had to up the power prices by 18%, and then 6% or 7% the following year. It was still not enough. You were the owner of this organisation and because of your spectacular ineptitude and fear of doing anything constructive, like the things we are describing, you saddled Territorians with massive electricity prices which could have been avoided. It is not an ideological argument, because the Northern Territory government is trying to do what Labor governments have done in other jurisdictions around this country, because they knew it was a necessity. The Leader of the Opposition can rant, scream, resist and bellow about how right she is, except she had an opportunity to do something about it for the best part of six or seven years and chose nothing. She chose to sit on her hands and keep putting public money into this and thought it would be sweetness and light.
That is her most monumental failure: the fear of making a decision. It was the fear of attending to these important issues, because she was too scared to make the same decision Labor governments in other jurisdictions have made. She has failed the people of the Northern Territory and gave away opportunity for the sake of political expedience, which is what she continues to do now. She continues to trade off this issue for a matter of political expedience. She knows full well that a more efficient delivery, generation and retail system would work to the advantage of the people of the Northern Territory in a way she was never prepared to contemplate. Talk about an ideological Marx-loving hack.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in this debate, seeking higher learning. I see this motion as supporting parliamentarians in seeking higher learning in a complex economic equation. That is the simple platform of this debate. We are seeking higher learning; we want experts to explain it. The member for Port Darwin is a self-appointed expert. Unfortunately, the self-appointed lawyer in his self-appointed court spent 20 minutes stereotyping and pigeonholing Australians, and showed himself to be what the Northern Rivers alternative lifestyle movement would pigeonhole as a redneck. I would debate the Northern Rivers alternative lifestyle movement and say he is a classic neo-liberal. I wonder if the member for Port Darwin would accept my pigeonholing and stereotyping of him as a classic neo-liberal.
The member for Port Darwin said he talks to people and we do not need committees in this place. The question I put to the member for Port Darwin is: does he know what he is talking about?
He sits on the street corner; does he know what he is talking about in this business? He will tell us, ‘Trust me’. He mentioned the aviation industry, and God love Bob McCarthy, I wish he was here. He was an avionics engineer and he would debate the member for Port Darwin on how the aviation industry flourished through technology and innovation. He went from being an auto electrician in the back yard to keeping the big jets in the air. He would debate the member for Port Darwin and this would be a subject the member for Port Darwin would know nothing about. My deceased father - I wish he was around - would debate him on avionics, technology and innovation, and the post-modern aviation industry.
I would like to hear that. Unfortunately, I do not know much about avionics either, or the privatisation of public utilities, but I do know other jurisdictions have done it and they are now trying to claw it back. In this debate, I represent the electorate of Barkly; I represent many people I talk to and I need some good factual base to explain your plan to them. I am disappointed - there are seven other regional and remote representatives here, and we all represent a similar constituency with a high percentage of people on fixed incomes. These are people who are seriously challenged, socially and economically. The member for Port Darwin, when he wasted 20 minutes – got an extension and then started to debate – gave me the impression he was really focused on the big end of town. It is about the big, rich power users, people with power in industry and those who use a lot of utilities’ power. He did not mention the mums and dads, the small businesses or the regional remote residents. He talked about the big end of town, and I was waiting for him to include everybody else. There was a veiled attempt to include the rest of us in the ‘have and have-nots’ scenario this government is putting up, because it seems to be the way they operate.
Unfortunately, this government is denying me the opportunity for higher learning in this space, so I am going to work off instinct. It is the way I work, and I will revert to instinct. It reminds me of a Robbo in the wild west of Sydney when he pawned his grandmother’s rings and got $600. When he realised what he had done wrong, he went back to the pawn shop, but the pawn shop wanted $6000 for his grandmother’s rings. Robbo had made a big mistake. I am not convinced the Treasurer is not our Robbo. I am not convinced the Treasurer will not sell the crown jewels, realise it was a big mistake, then, the legacy - as the neo-liberals like to inform us – of our children will be to try to claw it back. There was no way Robbo was going to get back grandmother’s rings when they were sold for $600, then the pawn shop wanted $6000 to hand them back over. I have to work on instinct.
I am going to another instinct, which was a used car salesmen on Canterbury Road. Once again, Robbo, a dynamic character – I toured a few car dealers with Robbo on Canterbury Road. The member for Fong Lim reminded me of this when he skipped across the floor on day one and presented to the leader of opposition business that he would run these three bills in cognate. ‘Trust me, this car works’. I remember a Mini Robbo bought. Robbo gave the Mini a bit of a work out. The Mini overheated big time; it nearly cooked. He took the Mini back and he told me the story, ‘Be careful of a used car salesman’. The member for Fong Lim reminded me - and the Leader of the Opposition was straight on to it. The Whip - the leader of opposition business - was straight on to it also. They went straight into that used car yard and said, ‘No, we do not want to buy, we want to test drive. We want high learning, to know the true story. We want the experts, engineers, economists and academics to make comment. We want the Power and Water Corporation and people in the industry to make comment.’
The member for Fong Lim skipped back into the old car yard with his tail between his legs, and came up with Plan B: ‘We will drive this through, no matter what. We will sell three cars separately instead of one.’ It would not have made him happy, but it gave democracy the chance to take a breath. Then, the Independent member for Nelson and the Territory opposition team came up with a feasible and logical solution. ‘Let us put the brakes on, cool the Mini down, and have an informed debate.’ But this government refuses to allow it, wants to bulldoze it - early form with a couple of cheap tricks, no scrutiny involved. ‘Just trust us and we will get on with it.’ If it all goes wrong, once the deals are signed, we lose control of the transaction. Then a politician can walk away from it and do something else. The legacy for Territorians is how to clean up the mess.
Go on then, let us hear it. Give it to some existing committee as proposed in this motion. The member for Nelson says we have the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. If members are interested, they should look at some of the work the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future is doing. It is thorough research and it is cooperative. The industry stakeholders and players are being cooperative and sharing their knowledge, and it informs debate, exactly what the Chief Minister tasks us to do. You do the research, search out higher learning, then come back and present it to the Northern Territory parliament in a bipartisan sense so we can all base our debate on an informed platform.
I cannot see why this is any different, and the Chief Minister has a choice. It could be the Public Accounts Committee, a more formal structured committee to prosecute the argument, or go for the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. It is a clear alternative, but this government wants to bulldoze it through. ‘Trust us, the Mini is good. Do not worry, it runs cool as ice.’ I think that is what he said to Robbo, before he test drove the Mini as he wanted the sale. He could not see anything else; he had blinkers on and wanted the sale.
I am nervous about this, being a member of regional and remote Northern Territory. I am worried this will create the haves and the have-nots. I am concerned for my constituents that this will not be delivering the benefits the government members tell us it will, and I am concerned about the seven other members in the same boat. When we talk about people operating on power tokens, we talk about people operating on fixed incomes. Already, under the utilities charges, we are seeing stress on their fixed income and ancillary issues, such as if the power goes out the fridge door stays shut and the food goes off. That becomes a health issue and a risk to families without the disposable income to buy the next power card. If people start to cut corners, it adds a whole new level to this debate. The debate is about people from where I come from, not the massive power users in the north, or coming online in the fastest-growing area in northern Australia, or who support the Treasurer’s scheme in the capital of northern Australia, but the rest of us.
The member for Port Darwin touched on it simply on his way out the door. ‘Do not worry about that; the community service orders will be honoured.’ Really, will they? Give me some details. How will they be honoured? Once we lose generation assets and control of the transaction, give me the guarantee to tell constituents in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, or perhaps the Treasurer has something up his sleeve - there is an energy company based in Queensland roaring across the border to buy the Tennant Creek power house so they can put downward pressure on electricity charges in Tennant Creek.
Tell me if you have someone out there, or are they only interested in a power house such as Weddell? Perhaps there is more of the story to be told.
At the end of the day there is a major policy divide between the - I will be polite - the neoclassical Liberal on the other side and Labor on this side, which is the value of an essential service. It stands outside this debate and is about people who want to put profit first. They can see a commodity and want to use the market forces and a market model to make money. We are not arguing about that, we are arguing about power and water, essential services which belong to the people, to Territorians. If this government is so slick and knowledgeable, and has the support of all its members - all those bush members of the CLP are standing up, fully informed, celebrating their higher learning. They understand this stuff; they know it back to front and are able to confidently stand in front of their constituents and say, ‘This is a good deal’. Then let us hear about it. Let it be presented in the debate. We will not see any accountability or transparency; it is the nature of how business is done which reminds me of the image of a used car salesman or the guy in the pawn shop with grandma’s rings.
You guys have all the power; you have the opportunity, you show Territorians. The member for Port Darwin threw around his idle threats, saying we will go out as some commy rabble and terrorise the Northern Territory - rubbish! We will continue to fuel the debate, and in politics, as the Leader of the Opposition told you, it comes down to a vote at the end of the day, simple as that.
It is unfortunate when you guys are playing with essential services such as power and water, which keep the family going. It is a delicate cargo, and you are playing around with it like a bus company, a printing office, a port. You fool around with this space, classic neo-Liberalism, economic rationalism, ‘Trust us, it will be all right’. Let us separate out a port, a bus company and a printing office, and let us agree on something: this is Power and Water. This is a precious cargo. Why not try your ideas on the other infrastructure items before you go anywhere near what is an asset and a level of ownership for every Territorian. There is a simple alternative.
You can shortcut all of it, go with this motion and provide us with the higher learning. It is the right and honourable thing to do. Will the government do it? We will soon find out, we have the opportunity in the House, and the only time an opposition gets to debate the government on policy is on GBD - the business day for the opposition. We do not have long, only a few minutes left in this time. I wonder if the Treasurer will get to his feet, show the conciliatory approach and allow this higher learning to take place, or will the Treasurer get to his feet and give me a lecture on stereotyping …
Mr Tollner: If you stop yabbering, maybe I will get to my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Keep going.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, for your permission because I am closing, and I will have the last say about the last opportunity to turn this around.
As you know, this will not be constrained in this House. This debate will go into the public domain and there it will be decided. I will be, personally, as a member of this parliament, talking to as many people as I can and giving them your phone number. I will be steering them to you. Every electorate office and every member of the government needs to be accountable in this, and they need to explain to Territorians. I will give the Territorians I represent one piece of advice: ask for expert evidence. Ask them what is happening in other jurisdictions, what the scientists say and what the economists say. Do not believe their stereotyping and bigotry. Ask them the simple question and make sure you always remember one very important word in your dialogue over this debate, if not every debate with government, and that is the word ‘democracy’.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am not closing this debate. That is up to the Leader of the Opposition, who brought on the debate. I thought the opposition wanted a result to this debate tonight, so it would know whether or not we could put a committee in place. It seems that was not the opposition’s intention. We just heard from a range of speakers. The member for Barkly - the blowhard from Barkly - talked about anything and everything to drag out the debate.
I have been trying to find a reason to be convinced about the need for a committee, and trying to find some arguments which have not been taken into account already. I have not heard any, but I was intending to put up my response to the arguments made, listen to what the Opposition Leader had to say and make a judgement as to whether or not we may support a committee. However, this is not anything more than a stunt for the opposition.
Ms Lawrie: Your Leader of Government Business has already said you will not.
Mr TOLLNER: I have listened to the debate. I have not made my mind up. The member for Port Darwin did a pretty good job with explaining the experts the opposition cited. He spoke about Sharon Beder and Bill Mitchell. I think the Opposition Leader mentioned a fellow called John Quiggin. I did a quick search on John Quiggin; he is pro-Keynesian economics. In the last few months, he has urged Rudd to talk about the benefits of stimulus packages. We have seen the benefits of stimulus packages pretty much around the country, as we see the debt all around the country.
We have it in the Northern Territory, they have it everywhere under a Labor government, but John Quiggin is still promoting stimulus packages; it is interesting. He is also promoting how bad the NBN is. The reason he says the NBN is failing is because of the privatisation of Telstra. John Quiggin is in good company with Sharon Beder and Bill Mitchell. I am not having a go at their learning, but they do line up with a minority of people, as the member for Port Darwin said.
With the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, and introducing the Australian Energy Regulator as the regulator in the Northern Territory, this was somewhat of a yawn around the country. In the 1990s, the COAG process identified electricity markets needed reforming; those reforms have been taking place around Australia since the mid-1990s. The only place in Australia we have a vertically and horizontally integrated utility is the Northern Territory, where the sole remaining one is. The member for Nelson likes to talk about taking the politics out of things; this is a non-political issue. The only place it seems to be a political issue is in the Northern Territory. These debates around Australia were settled years ago. I put it to the Opposition Leader and members opposite that if you think you have some support, get Gary Gray, the federal opposition spokesman on energy, or the former Energy minister, Martin Ferguson, or any of those state Labor Premiers who were around in the last 10 years up here, and ask them whether we should have had national electricity market reform through the 1990s and the 2000s until now.
In the last white paper from Martin Ferguson on energy in Australia, he was castigating the states for not privatising energy assets quickly enough. Here, nothing is privatised; we are not talking about privatisation, but the debate about the structural separation and national regulation was passed years ago.
Talking about expert analysis, I table this booklet which came out at the end of late last year. It is a high-level study done by KPMG. It is called National Electricity Market, a case study in successful microeconomic reform. There is expert opinion all through this. It analyses what has gone on around Australia over the last 20 years and whether it has been a good thing or not. For those people who want a bit of expert opinion, a little higher learning, as the member for Barkly insists on - maybe he can look at a few fundamental things like this ..
Mr McCarthy: In your book.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not my book. This was done by KPMG looking at the national market reforms. It is a case study done by a well-known business looking, in an objective way, at how it has worked out around the country. These guys opposite say, ‘Oh these things have all led to higher prices’. What has led to higher prices is identified in a range of areas. A carbon tax, for instance, has forced the prices up. Gold plating of assets has forced the prices up. Renewable energy - rooftop solar photovoltaic regimes which have been put in place around the country - has driven up electricity prices. There is nowhere in the country you can say competition has increased prices. That is a ridiculous statement.
For more than 14 years, nothing has happened in the Northern Territory. Something started when Labor, in government, changed the Power and Water Authority to the Power and Water Corporation. It was the first tentative step to reform. Prior to this - and Country Liberal governments as well – we did nothing.
The Northern Territory got a rude shock in the early 2000s when NT Power successfully sued the government for keeping it out of the marketplace. I am sure that is what was in the minds of Clare Martin and those other Labor leaders at the time, when they decided to take the first tentative step toward reforming the electricity market in the Northern Territory. Under the Labor Henderson/Lawrie Territory government, the program stalled, despite the reforms we are pursuing now being pursued by federal Labor and Labor states right across Australia.
Joining the Australian Energy Regulator is almost a no brainer. Like national uniformity in road, rail, ports and airports, the Northern Territory will now see consistency and uniformity with the rest of Australia in the energy sector.
These reforms have occurred all around Australia and are beyond politics now. Everyone agrees on them. It is only in the Northern Territory we find this bizarre situation where we have a Labor opposition which sees something sinister in it.
I would like to move onto a couple of things raised by the Opposition Leader. She, again, talked about the 43% increase in the draft determination of the Utilities Commissioner. The Opposition Leader says it is based on something to do with structural separation, includes generation costs, adds $1bn in debt because of these announced policies and the decision is made by government. It does not include costs associated with structural separation and the former Treasurer knows this. The determination is based upon power networks being a discrete entity. A simple phone call to the Utilities Commissioner would have told the Opposition Leader that, if she did not know. It would have told the Opposition Leader it does not include generation costs and does not add $1bn in debt. The draft determination recognises Power and Water is entitled to recover approximately $1bn in revenue via network charges over five years’ total revenue.
This same framework, the same commercial and cost recovery principles, were applied when the Opposition Leader was Treasurer. Furthermore, it is worth noting the former government increased electricity tariffs to households by 18%, which, incidentally, coincided with the Utilities 2009 Network Price Determination.
If there is to be a 43% increase, there are only a couple of reasons why it can be. One is Power and Water has put all its costs and overheads into the network business in an effort to demonstrate it needs to charge more. If this is not the case, and I am not suggesting it is, the second reason there could be an increase of 43% is the former administration allowed the networks to deteriorate to such an extent where a 43% increase is required. They are the only two possible reasons.
If we were a part of the national regulator, it is highly unlikely we would see a decision about a 43% increase. The AER has a bunch of like businesses to compare the network to. In the Northern Territory, the Utilities Commission looks at one network and has to take note of what the Power and Water Corporation asks for. They do not have anything to compare it to, which is another strong reason why we should join the AER.
Whilst I am on the subject of profit, the Opposition Leader ran the ridiculous line that we are gauging profit. I have a table I would like to table. This shows profits of the Power and Water Corporation from 2004-05 to 2012-13. In 2008-09, the Power and Water Corporation made $173m profit. The year immediately beforehand, it made an $82m profit. Mind you, the following years, in 2009-10, it made a $356m loss. It goes like that. It is clear over the years that you make some profits and some losses. If you add them up, you quickly note the average is a $20.8m loss. I am talking about accounting profits, not economic profits. I will table these two documents.
There is something the Opposition Leader needs to understand: the difference between accounting profit and an economic profit. I explained this the other day to the Opposition Leader. It is not difficult to understand: I go to the casino and buy a $10 keno ticket. Bingo, my number comes up, I get $4 and I run around the place saying, ‘Whoopee, look at this I won $4’. That is an accounting profit, but if we take into account the fact I spent $10 buying the ticket, to win a $4 prize, we quickly realise I have lost $6. Losing $6 is what we call the economic profit and whilst the Power and Water Corporation can declare on its books a $41m accounting profit before tax, it does not take into account the enormous sums of money the government has contributed to the organisation to get $41m profit.
I note there was an omission in the Opposition Leader’s presentation, which was her allegation there is $132m in the budget books, showing we are clearly privatising assets. Her argument was blown to bits yesterday when it was pointed out that she could not read budget books; she could get to page one, which is where it stopped, because if she turned to page 32 on the mid-year report, she would have seen the $832m was, in the main, her own enormous prison.
Mr McCarthy: Are we on the national grid?
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the interjection, no, we are not on the national grid, member for Barkly. When we talk about joining the national regulator, we talk about adopting its rules and procedures. I think one day, maybe 20 years down the track, we will be connected to the national grid - maybe 50 years down the track, it may take some time, but we are adopting its rules. When you set up a market place, you want the people participating in the market to understand the rules, which is why we changed gauges with the rail lines and why we have standard gauge around Australia. We made it awfully difficult to catch a train from Queensland to Victoria back in the days when they had different gauges, but when we brought in standard gauge and all of a sudden Australia opened up. It is a similar principal here as to why we are adopting the AER.
Nothing has been put to us tonight showing any new information or any reason at all to go to an inquiry. As I say, all of these concerns can be addressed simply by doing the most basic research, but I understand it is difficult when you cannot read past page one of the mid-year report. That sort of research does come across as a bit difficult. One of the questions in the member for Nelson’s letter, which he sent to all members, was: has it been done elsewhere?
It has been done everywhere; the only place it has not been done is in the Northern Territory. There is no reason I have ascertained as to why we should set up or give reference to a parliamentary committee. The politics is not here on this. If the Opposition Leader wants to jump up and down and find mischief here, she is misled. I welcome further comment from the Opposition Leader on anything I have not covered and somehow or other convince us this is a good motion.
Debate suspended.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, before I move to adjourn, earlier today I read into the Hansard record the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill, second reading speech. I omitted to read page four of that speech. I seek that page four be incorporated into Hansard and I will make certain all members are given access or a copy of the whole speech.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we thank the Attorney-General for alerting the House to the error. As shadow Attorney-General, it will make my job in debating the bill much easier with a full copy of the speech.
Leave granted
Madam SPEAKER: I table a travel report from the member for Namatjira, pursuant to clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, during the last sittings, I gave an undertaking to provide a progress report on the Stella Maris inquiry. On 5 December 2013, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory passed a resolution to establish an inquiry to look into, and report on, the circumstances of a proposed grant of a lease in 2012 over Lot 5260 Town of Darwin, known as Stella Maris, pursuant to Section 4A(1) of the Inquiries Act. On 18 December 2013, the Administrator, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, appointed Mr John Lawler AM, APM to conduct the inquiry. The current situation is: the commissioner commenced his work on the inquiry on 13 January 2014 and has advised that he expects to deliver his final report to the Administrator by mid-year. The inquiry has sought information from the public and called for public submissions which relate to the inquiry terms of reference. Public submissions closed on Friday 14 February 2014. The inquiry is located at the Cascom building in Casuarina. The inquiry has been provided with administrative support by the Department of the Chief Minister, an executive officer and administration officer. A dedicated website has also been established: www.stellamarisinquiry.nt.gov.au/index.html.
I also speak tonight to welcome news that the pipeline company, APA, today announced to the Australian Stock Exchange it will spend up to $2m investigating the proposed pipeline link between Alice Springs and Moomba in South Australia, through a feasibility study.
This is exciting news for the Northern Territory. I have spoken about this over the last year and have lobbied for the investigation and investment into potential pipeline opportunities. It is something the previous Chief Minister, the member for Blain, also raised and lobbied for. I welcome this announcement today. This is not the only company looking at proposed pipelines between the Northern Territory and the national grid, which covers all jurisdictions apart from Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Three proposals have been discussed previously, two in Queensland and one in South Australia. I am aware that now the APA Group has announced this up to $2m spend, it join with another major company which is investigating this potential piece of infrastructure. What that would do, should the pipeline go ahead, is create a 9000 km system of pipelines delivering Territory gas, potentially, to southern states which are desperate for gas. New South Wales will, potentially, run out of about 90% of its gas suppliers for its domestic markets within three years. Victoria is suffering challenges for the supply of gas which, in turn, is putting upward pressure on domestic gas prices. This will fill the electricity market, which will have increased power prices interstate.
We also know the Northern Territory has the opportunity of utilising some of its gas reserves onshore, as well as offshore in international waters. We estimate there is around 260 trillion cubic feet of potential gas within the Northern Territory. We know the exploration and development of gas can produce job opportunities for Territorians, especially in regional and remote areas, and support growth in our economy. It is my vision and this government’s vision that a pipeline is created between the Northern Territory and the national grid, thereby allowing a freer flow and trade of gas, especially for domestic purposes, between those jurisdictions, whether it is swap gas, which goes in both directions, or Northern Territory gas flowing down into eastern states. This presents an opportunity for us to have cheaper gas prices in the Northern Territory, which has flow-on benefits. It will stimulate not only the gas sector, but further industrialisation of potential manufacturing industries in the Northern Territory.
It is part of the Northern Territory’s vision to see this occur as part of developing northern Australia. It is about ensuring we have regional economic development in all corners of the Northern Territory. The future is bright for the onshore gas industry in the Northern Territory. I look forward to working with APA and other pipeline companies - owners and construction companies - into the future, to ensure the Northern Territory reaches its fulfilment in development of all opportunities throughout the great landscape of the Northern Territory.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight will I talk about the activities which happened in Palmerston on the Australia Day long weekend. It was a fabulous weekend. Our community knows how to get together, and Australia Day weekend is no exception. I started on Saturday by volunteering for the Palmerston Magpies. They had a home game at the Northline Oval, which, unfortunately, is rare. It does not happen often enough. AFLNT does not afford the Magpies the opportunity to play as many home games as they deserve. It is a fantastic facility and the Magpies put on a really good show. I was happy to support them, hang out in the canteen and sell some pies and pasties for a good occasion. Unfortunately, the Magpies lost to Southern Districts that evening, but it did not put a dampener on the spirit of the club.
On Saturday night, we had the Australia Day Gala Ball which was put on by the Australia Day Council NT Inc and Australia Post. Kiya Gill and her team did an amazing job. It was beautiful. This year, it was held at the new marquee at SKYCITY, which was fantastic. It has never been held there before as it is a new venue. It was a really enjoyable night. The Australia Day Ambassador, Jeremy Kewley, made a funny speech and everyone very much enjoyed it. The Chief Minister also made a strong speech on the night, which was well-received.
At the Gala Ball this year, we celebrated the culinary greats. If you have been to the ball before you would know Australia Post selects a different topic and a different group of outstanding Australians to feature on the postage stamp. ‘Culinary Greats’ was the theme for this year and now Maggie Beer AM, Margaret Fulton OAM, Stephanie Alexander OAM, Neil Perry AM, and Kylie Kwong are newly embossed on Australia Post stamps. Keep your eye out for them. They are deserving recipients of a special and unique accolade for their contribution to our great nation.
Sunday was a very early morning, but not because I was running up and down the Esplanade doing those types of Darwin-based activities. I was in Palmerston getting the barbecue and sausages organised, because the Palmerston Australia Day committee hosted a spectacular family fun day at the Palmerston pool. I was pleased to be able to donate the sausages for that event and really honoured to be the master of ceremonies for the day. I was a bit nervous about what it would involve, but it turned out to be a fun job and an excellent day.
There was so much on offer and it was all free. Palmerston families got free entry into the pool, there was a fantastic water rackety set up along the length of the pool and the surf lifesavers were there with massive fire hoses blasting small children off the side of the water rackety, which was really amusing and everybody had a great time. The NT Coffee Angels were there doing free coffee, which is always welcome. I think many of the parents relied on the Coffee Angels to get them through the first part of the morning.
There was the famous Sao biscuit eating competition, which I was pleased to judge. Some of them were fabulous. We had a children’s and an adult’s section of that competition. There were some high quality Sao biscuits nibbled into the shape of Australia; you had to remember to include Tasmania otherwise you were disqualified. We had plenty of free giveaways for the kids, such as Australian flag water bottles, lots of tattoos – kids were getting around covered in Australian flags. Caroline Reynolds brought the climbing wall along, which was a hoot. We had 60 more children recorded as having climbed the wall this year compared to last year, which means we had a huge spike in attendance. If there are 60 more children and mums and dads and you add all that together - it was a large attendance.
It was fantastic. We had rock climbing competitions for all different age groups, which was well-received and made the latter part of the day exciting. There was thong throwing. We had a healthy food section, which was good, and the mums and dads enjoyed coming along and grabbing nice cold cups of watermelon or a muffin. It was well done, very good and I encourage the Palmerston Australia Day committee to nominate the day for event of the year at next year’s citizenship ceremony, because it really was spectacular. As emcee I was circulating all day, and I cannot tell you the number of people who came up to me and said, ‘Wow, this is a really standout, amazing event; my family has had a great time.’ In saying that, hats off to Jayne and Cath - the mum and daughter dynamic duo - Maurie and Bev, Mary and Dave, Maggie and George, who are on the committee, and to all the volunteers. I cannot name you all, but you did an amazing job. It really was a spectacular day.
We followed the family fun day with the citizenship ceremony at the rec centre, which looked spectacular. The City of Palmerston did a great job in decorating and designing that event. Again, Jeremy Kewley, the 2014 Australia Day Ambassador, attended and it was awesome to see who our citizens of the year were. We had Student Citizen Awards for Palmerston and I was extremely pleased to see a heap of kids in my schools clean up those awards, because Drysdale schools are the best schools and Drysdale schools have the best kids. It is not surprising and it was very good. Congratulations to: Erin Lasker from Driver Primary School; Nicholas Dennis from Durack Primary School; Piper Denholm from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Ciara Bellas from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Mackinlay Beasey from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Hailee Espie-Baker from Gray Primary School; Ryan Harton from Palmerston Christian School; Luke Secrett from Palmerston Christian School; Shanice Randall from Palmerston Christian School; and Emma Perry from Sacred Heart Primary School. Well done to those outstanding young people. You have very bright futures ahead of you and I look forward to working with you as student citizens in the upcoming year and beyond.
The exciting part of the citizenship ceremony was the Citizen of the Year. I had an interest in who would take out this award, and when the name was announced, I admit, I let out a little scream because it was very exciting and this person deserves it. I will read for the record the comments made about the award winners which were inscribed in the event program. Our Palmerston 2014 Citizen of the Year is Ann Brown:
I could not agree more with this statement, because I was the person who nominated Ann. I was pleased she won it, because she is one hell of a woman. In upcoming sittings, I will be talking at great length about Ann’s life. I have spent quite a few hours with her recently, documenting it all, so I will have an Ann extravaganza in upcoming adjournments for you.
Young Citizen of the Year was Christine Gardiner. Unfortunately, Christine could not make the ceremony but, nonetheless, she was deserving of the award. She was described by her peers as caring, selfless and motivated:
Kelly Raven accepted the award on her behalf. Notably, Christine also is part of the Chief Minister’s 2014 Youth Round Table.
The Community Event of the Year was the Top End YMCA Drop in Centre, which provides essential services for the youth of Palmerston, a safe place for the city’s youth to gather and interact. They were extremely worthy of receiving it and best of luck to them. Thank you to Morgan Ewing for accepting the award on the YMCA’s behalf.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness I speak tonight on the loss of a wonderful member of the Darwin community, and of our local Wanguri electorate, Mrs Helen Porteous, who passed away on 5 February.
I met Helen for the first time just over a year ago, while I was campaigning for the Wanguri by-election. From the first time I met her, it was clear she was a warm and caring lady with a beautiful nature who truly took care of those around her. She was one of those selfless people who deeply cared for others. Helen lived at the Leanyer seniors village with her beloved husband, Robin, and together they have been real leaders in that tightknit community.
The residents who live at the Leanyer seniors village come from all walks of life. There are residents living full lives there, some aged well and truly in their 90s. A big part of why people can enjoy living full and independent lives at the seniors village is because the residents keep an eye out and take care of each other. Helen was well known amongst the residents for taking care of other seniors there, especially her neighbour Hazel. Hazel is one of the most remarkable women you will meet. She is in her 90s and is currently in hospital. We send all our love to Hazel.
As local member, Robin and Helen were the people we contacted when we wanted to organise a get together with the residents at Leanyer seniors village, or to follow up any happenings there with the seniors. My electorate officer, Jenny Djerrkura, who worked with Paul Henderson for many years before we started working together, has had wonderful help from Helen and Rob over the years to help organise morning teas with the residents on many occasions. She said Helen was always there early, setting up to ensure everything was very well organised. Jenny always made sure she took care of Helen with gluten-free diet goodies just for her, because she could not thank her enough for all the support she provided to our office and to the other residents at the Leanyer seniors village.
After finding out Helen had passed away, I spoke to several of the regular visitors of the Hibiscus shops who live at the seniors village. They all spoke highly of what a kind and lovely person Helen was and how much they would miss her. The love people had for Helen was clear at her funeral at the Darwin Community Church in Millner, which was full of people coming to pay their final respects to Helen. The service celebrated Helen’s life and everybody there heard about Helen’s acts of kindness.
Helen showed concern and care for others in a gentle, loving way, and it did not end there. She also had an enormous love for animals, especially cats, and was often the mum of a number of small kittens from the RSPCA, nurturing them through their little lives until they were ready for adoption. The biggest love in life was family. Rob and Helen had a beautiful relationship and shared their love of the church. Through their life, Rob took on pastoral roles, some in remote areas, and he shared at the funeral that Helen kept them on track, stating his sermons had to be kept short.
Christina van Leent, their precious daughter, also shared the closeness she had with her mother and the inspiration she was to her in so many ways. As a parent herself now, she is inspired to maintain that closeness with her own children. Helen will also be deeply missed by her grandson Ezra, as well as their siblings Rosalie and her in-laws, Alan, Valerie, Ross and Nerrida.
Helen and Rob have always been people of deep faith and this would have helped them through life and the last year, as Helen bravely faced her illness. Helen will be sadly missed and remembered as a beautiful, gentle person with love for everyone. My deepest condolences are with Rob, Christina, Ezra and family, and all the people who will now be left with the gap of her friendship and care, because of the great love Helen had for others. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about the Bombing of Darwin and the Filipino remembrance function held yesterday at the East Point Military Museum.
It was an honour to go to the Darwin Military Museum yesterday and be part of a ceremony where we acknowledged the service of a number of Filipino merchant sailors who were on ships which were sunk on this day, 72 years ago.
It was such an auspicious occasion. The Philippines ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Mrs Belen F Anota, travelled to Darwin in a private capacity to be present for this occasion. The Honourable Sally Thomas AM, Administrator, was there, as was John Rivas, Honorary Consul of the Philippines. There were many other honorary consuls present and I also have to give credit to Dr Tom Lewis, who was the emcee of the event. He is the Director of the Darwin Military Museum.
Two ships were on a secret mission to resupply American and Filipino troop that were on islands opposite Manila Bay, struggling to hold back the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. They were recruited by the US Army to run this blockade of Japanese ships surrounding the Philippines to get much needed supplies and ammunition to those troops. Sadly, they were spotted by reconnaissance aircraft which were flying around Darwin. They were attacked on 18 February. The devastating attack on them on 19 February caused both vessels to suffer severe damage. The Don Isidro was forced up on the beach on Bathurst Island, where that wreck still remains today. Sadly, the SS Florence D was in deeper water and she was sunk with loss of life in the incident.
I acknowledge the links many of these things have brought to the Territory. The recognition of these merchant sailors comes at a time when families and descendants of these people, both in Darwin and in the Philippines, can finally realise that the efforts of these people have been recognised.
There were in excess of a 100 raids in the Top End. The historians, especially Dr Tom Lewis in his book Carrier Attack Darwin 1942, has looked at many of those raids. I was informed yesterday that there are still about 30 raids to be fully investigated and recorded in historical accounts. He informed me there are many stories yet to be told. It is with great honour I wait for those stories to come out so we can speak about and record the efforts made by many different people from many countries who participated in the war effort to fight for freedom. I acknowledge the important event and the fact these names will be recorded on the wall of remembrance at the Darwin Military Museum for all to see; these people are finally recorded there.
On the issue of migration of the Filipinos to the Northern Territory, it brings to mind the historical issues. Migrants started coming here in 1895 in small groups. They were employed as divers and processors in the pearl shells industry. If you move forward into the 1970s, the next wave of Filipinos arrived in Darwin to seek better opportunities, and many found opportunities in teaching. There were very attractive packages in those days from the Commonwealth Teaching Service, and they undertook teaching positions in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine.
The Territory Filipino community continued to grow, and the third wave of migrants came to the NT in the 1980s through the Australian government’s Family Reunion and Marriage Visa Scheme. That paved the way for a migration of Filipino communities, extended families and spouses of Australian residents in the Northern Territory. There were Filipinos with trade skills, as well as students studying at the former Northern Territory University who later took up permanent residency and contributed to the influx which continued well into the 1990s. I have seen the migration continue through skilled visa streams, with jobs ranging from mechanics to civil engineers. Spouses and children have accompanied many of these migrants, many of whom now call the Territory home.
Today, the Territory continues to be proud of the strong Filipino community, now estimated to be around 7000 strong and represented through various active community associations from Darwin to Alice Springs. The community actively shares its culture through its cultural festivals, such as the annual Barrio Fiesta. It is a fantastic event. I have been going for many years to see the richness of the culture, enjoy the food, their company, and great nights where you can see things in these cultural surroundings you do not get to see, generally, anywhere else in Australia.
I have spoken to interstate visitors to these functions and asked them, ‘Do you see anything like this down south?’ They say, ‘I have never seen anything like this’. Generally, because places are much bigger, there are events where the community gets together and it is not well-advertised; people do not get to know about them and do not get to see it. However, in Darwin, so many people go to these fiestas and enjoy the visual spectacular, the music, the food, the company and generally having a great time. These events start late in the afternoon and go well into the evening. Filipinos are known for their ability to throw a good party.
The Filipino community is such an integral part of our economic and social life in the Territory. It behoves us to acknowledge and thank them for their contribution to the multicultural Northern Territory. It makes us very special. I have said this before and will continue to say it, the Filipino community continually engages in community activity. It continually raises money for disasters around the world, most recently Typhoon Haiyan. It raised a significant amount of money which will go towards helping fishermen buy boats and nets, help store owners rebuild, and help rebuild the schools in the devastated areas of the Philippines after the tragic event in November 2013.
I thank Her Excellency, the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines, for making the effort. I also thank Mr John Rivas, the Honorary Consul, who did a lot of work with a small team of people to make the event happen. I thank Oscar Parian, President of the Filipino community, for rallying his community to make sure these merchant seamen finally have the recognition due to them for their efforts to keep the war effort going and their contribution to keeping the free world alive.
I also thank Dr Tom Lewis for facilitating the whole thing at the Darwin Military Museum. To all the other people who were involved, a sincere thank you from the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I applaud what the member for Sanderson has just spoken about - the importance of Filipinos in the Northern Territory and how they have been a stronger, growing community over recent times. I have yet to find a Filipino who does not sing.
Their contribution to the Northern Territory has been enormous. I congratulate Tom Lewis and the people who look after the Darwin Military Museum. The wall they built was opened about this time last year. It is a fantastic addition to the museum and I congratulate all the people who look after it. It is a great place to visit.
A document was tabled today regarding an application for review of a decision, or action, pursuant to section 30 of the Water Act in relation to water extraction licence TLAM 05 to L and B MacFarlane. I have not seen this document before. The document deals with a number of people who put in grievances about the decision made by the water controller to award the licence to the MacFarlane couple. Those people were Mr Markson and Mr and Mrs Shaw; they put in their concerns about the approval of this water extraction licence and wrote the reasons why. They were summarised in this document.
The water controller went through those concerns, put on record comments about those concerns and recommended to the minister that those concerns were not sufficient to warrant further consideration of the decision to grant licence TLAM 05. I will not make any comments regarding the minister, because the minister has a role to play in signing off the water controller’s recommendation, nor am I commenting on the water controller.
As an example, if you are a developer - I will take Darwin because it is a better example - and want to do something in a Darwin suburb and you get approval, somebody can appeal against it. It is called a third-party appeal. They do not agree with you putting a 20-storey block of flats on a 400 m2 block in the middle of Alawa. The DCA has given its approval; you think it is a bad idea and appeal. You give your reasons for appeal and it does not go back to the DCA, it goes to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal.
You have a system at arm’s length from the people who made the original decision. It seems peculiar. I did not realise this before, but what you have is the water controller who made a decision to grant a licence – it would not matter if it was MacFarlane or anyone else – and there were some objections to it which are like third-party objections. Those objections were not heard by another separate body. I think the body regarded as independent, similar to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, would be the Water Resources Review Panel. This was not the preferred option, as neither applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to convening a panel.
I thought, a bit like a third-party appeal, for planning there would be guidelines as to what you can appeal against. If they fit into the guidelines it would go to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal and you would be heard separately from the people who made the original decision. It seems a bit strange the water controller is making and reviewing the decision in relation to the third-party appeals and then making a recommendation that it does not go to an independent panel. This needs looking at.
This document is interesting reading. There are a couple of things I would want to spend more time looking at, because both of the people who appealed said both of the applicants referred to the failure by the MacFarlane couple to utilise their previously held water extraction licence as grounds to review the decision to grant TLAM 05. The water controller said it should be borne in mind that Mr and Mrs MacFarlane had contested the previous licence continuously since it was granted. They initially sought review of the decision to grant the licence through the appeal process provided in the Water Act. When this failed, they took court action which was not withdrawn until recently. The chain of events should be considered to explain why the previous water extraction licence was not utilised.
I followed this case for a long time and have never heard that reason as to why their water extraction licence of 500 ML was never used.
It was raised by the committees. I think the Water Advisory Committee was looking at this issue. The independent person who was brought in from Victoria looked at this matter and was said people have to show they can use the water before more is allocated. This is the first time I have heard the water was not used because some matters were being contested, which I found interesting.
It seems there was an appeal, because there was concern at the possibility of a licence being a grant of water to land, for capital value-adding purposes. The response is: it is a common misconception that water extraction licences are granted to land. This is not true. A groundwater extraction licence is granted specifically to one or more bores. If you get a large extraction licence and you put bores all over your property, I imagine it gives you some opportunity to subdivide and sell with the bore, with a certain water extraction licence. I am not sure this was a reason for not granting the licence, but I look at the logic behind it and think there is still the possibility people could ask for more water to improve the value of their land - cut up the land, put in a bore and you have a water supply.
I am interested to see what is in this paper. The arguments for and against will be worth reading. People can have their own points of view on those sorts of things, and they may vary from what the water controller says. That is probably to the side; the issue is whether the process is reasonable when you compare it with other things, such as third-party appeals in relation to planning. The government perhaps needs to see whether this is a good process to have, and whether it leaves itself open to a conflict of interest, whereas the planning process keeps it at arm’s length. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
(IDENTITY CRIME) BILL
(Serial 68)
(IDENTITY CRIME) BILL
(Serial 68)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to insert new offences into the Criminal Code Act specifically addressing identity theft. The creation of new specific identity theft offences will fill the legislative gap regarding preparatory identity theft offences, such as the act of obtaining identifying data belonging to another person through the use of credit card skimming devices.
Identity crime is a major concern for this government. It is also a significant national and international issue with the Australian Crime Commission reporting identity theft as a key enabler for serious and organised crime.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Fraud Survey for 2010-11 found that Australians lost $1.4bn due to personal fraud, which included credit card fraud, identity theft and scams. Based on the results of the survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated 1.2 million Australians, forming 6.7% of the population, were victims of at least one incident of personal fraud in the preceding 12 months. As a result of advancements in technology, globalisation and the anonymity of the internet, identity crime is becoming easier to commit.
Identity theft can be perpetrated in various ways and includes the use of a skimming device to obtain credit card data from an ATM or EFTPOS card, using identification information to open a false bank account or obtain a loan, or the use of credit card information to purchase items on the internet.
The impacts of identity crime are considerable and are not limited to direct personal financial deficit. As the owner of a skimmed credit card or debit card is rarely liable for the fraudulent transactions, the relevant financial institution has to bear the loss, and ultimately the community will suffer adverse effects through high banking costs.
Other indirect consequences of credit card skimming include: adverse credit card ratings; a loss of reputation or security for legitimate businesses; higher prices for retail to cover losses; increased business costs of managing and preventing identity crime; and psychological stress for victims. A person’s identity is central to who they are and, in the technological society in which we live, it is vital to one’s ability to carry out transactions and everyday tasks. The theft of a person’s identity can suspend their ability to engage in everyday tasks and carry out transactions, which can lead to emotional upheaval.
Northern Territory residents are victims of identity theft and fraud just like any other jurisdiction and, typically, offenders are located outside the Northern Territory. In March 2008, the Model Criminal Law Officers’ Committee released its final report on identity crime. This report found, at the time, the criminal law across the states and territories did not fully address the range of conduct which can be attributed to the misappropriation and wrongful use of identity information. Although the Criminal Code Act contains a number of general stealing, forgery and criminal deception offences which might apply to identity theft and card skimming, these offences do not cover preparatory offending such as the act of obtaining or identifying data belonging to another person.
Under these general offences, a person who obtains identification information cannot be prosecuted until, and unless, a further offence is committed, for example, where financial information is used to purchase items over the internet. Because much of the data obtained through credit card skimming is sent overseas, those further offences may not occur for a significant period of time and are much harder to detect and prosecute.
A national response to combat serious and organised crime, of which closing legislative gaps with respect to identity crime is part, was agreed at the April 2009 meeting of the former Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - now the Standing Council on Law and Justice, with the unfortunate acronym of SCLAJ. It is also agreed that the identity crime offences, including credit card skimming, should be a short- to medium-term goal. Most Australian jurisdictions have now implemented this goal.
The provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill are largely based on the Model Criminal Code provisions proposed by the Model Criminal Law Officers’ Committee in their 2008 Final Report on Identity Crime to comprehensively cover all forms of identity fraud and theft.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill inserts Part 2A into Part VII of the Criminal Code Act, creating three new offences:
(a) section 228C - dealing in identification information
(b) section 228D - possessing identification information, and
(c) section 228E - possessing equipment used to deal in identification information or identification documentation.
The term ‘deal in’ is also defined to include make, copy, store, supply, transmit or use and has been drafted to ensure all forms of dealing with identification information or identification documentation are covered. This is particularly relevant to section 228E, which provides for the offence of possessing equipment used to deal in identification information or identification documentation.
If the definition of ‘deal in’ only included the term ‘make’, this would be insufficient to cover the credit card skimming devices, or equipment, which merely retain or copy identification information, as these devices do not manufacture or make identification information. Each of the offences requires the offender to intend to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime by dealing in, or possessing, identification information or equipment. It is not the intention of the legislation to criminalise legitimate possession or use of identification information or equipment, for example, the possession or use of identification information equipment by bank or financial institutions, or possession of a smart phone, computer, photo copier or printer by any person.
In order to be found guilty of an offence under the new identity theft offences (sections 228C, 228D and 228E), a person must intend to use the information or equipment to commit or facilitate a crime. The requirement for the intention to commit, or facilitate the commission of a crime also excludes relatively minor offending. For example, a juvenile using or possessing fake identification with the intention of purchasing alcohol, as these offences carry a penalty of less than two years imprisonment and therefore do not fit the definition of a crime, as classified in section 38E of the Interpretation Act. In addition, section 228C and 228D make it clear it is not an offence for a person to possess or deal in their own identification information.
Under the proposed Sections 228C, 228D and 228E of the Criminal Code Act, it will not matter if the crime for which the information or equipment is possessed or dealt in is impossible to commit, nor is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the crime intended to be committed was actually committed. It is only necessary to prove the person intended to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime. It is also not a defence under sections 228C and 228D for the victim to have consented to their identification information being possessed or dealt with.
All provisions have been drafted to ensure they remain technologically neutral and are not out-dated by future technological advancements.
The proposed penalty for dealing in identification information is seven years imprisonment. Although the penalty for dealing in identification information under the Model Criminal Code is only five years imprisonment, in order to keep the penalties for the proposed offences consistent with the offences of theft, criminal deception and forgery, the term of seven years has been prescribed.
This term also reflects the serious impact identity crime has on victims and the community. The proposed penalties for possessing identification information - under section 228D - and possessing equipment used to deal with identification information or identification documentation - under section 228E - are consistent with the Model Criminal Code at three years imprisonment.
Section 228B provides that section 43BF of the Criminal Code Act, which relates to an attempt to commit a crime, does not apply to other offences.
Given the offences target preparatory offending, an ‘attempt offence’ is unnecessary. This position is consistent with that of the Model Criminal Law Officers’ Committee in the final report on identity crime.
Section 228F provides for an alternative verdict in a trial or summary hearing. If the trier of fact - jury or magistrate - is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of dealing in identification information - under section 228C - they can still find the defendant guilty of the offence of possessing identification information under section 228D as an alternative verdict.
In addition to creating identity offences, the bill provides for a court to issue a certificate to a victim of identity theft confirming certain transactions were carried out by another person. The certificate may be issued to the victim, either by a local court or the sentencing court.
Section 28C of the Local Court Act will allow for a victim to apply to the local court for a certificate at any time, irrespective of a prosecution for an identity crime offence or the identification of the perpetrator. If a certificate has not been issued prior to sentencing, Part 5 Division 1AA of the Sentencing Act will provide for the sentencing court to issue a certificate to the victim, whether on their own initiative or the application by prosecution when sentencing an offender for one of the new identity theft offences.
The rationale behind the certificate is to assist a victim in remedying the effects of identity crime. The certificate will not restore the victim’s credit rating, but it may be used by the victim to prove that certain transactions were fraudulent.
The process for obtaining a victim’s certificate in the Local Court and sentencing court is slightly different. In assessing an application for a victim’s certificate, the Local Court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that:
(a) an offence against Sections 228C and 228D or 228E of the Criminal Code has been committed;
(b) the victim’s identification information was the subject of the offence, and
(c) the certificate may assist the victim to deal with any problems the commission of the offence has caused in relation to the victim’s personal or business affairs.
The Local Court hears matters in the civil jurisdiction, and section 28C(1) specifically provides that the standard of proof to be used with assessing an application is on the balance of probabilities. Although the Local Court will be determining whether or not an offence has been committed, it is not a prosecution and the finding will not result in any detriment to the offender and so the court will not need to be satisfied of this fact beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the Local Court is, therefore, a finding of fact and not a finding of guilt.
Providing for the Local Court to assess an application on the balance of probabilities is extremely important in assisting the victim, as the provision does not require them to prove beyond reasonable doubt an offence has been committed, rather, on the balance of probabilities an offence was committed.
The same test is to be applied by the sentencing court when determining whether the certificate may assist the victim in section 97AB(1)(c). However, unlike the Local Court, as a certificate may only be issued by a sentencing court when they are sentencing an offender for one of their new identity theft offences, there is no need for the court to be satisfied an offence has occurred.
The grant of a certificate by the Local Court prior to a finding of guilt will not impact on the sentencing process and will not prevent a sentencing court from ordering an offender to pay full restitution or compensation to the victim. Further, if the offender pleads not guilty and proceeds to trial, the issue of a certificate by the local court cannot be used as evidence against the defendant in a criminal trial to prove the offence occurred.
Although a number of other Australian jurisdictions require a conviction prior to a certificate being issued to a victim, and will only do so upon sentencing an offender for an identity theft offence, we - as a government - have decided to allow for a victim to apply for a certificate at any time, irrespective of a prosecution whether or not:
(a) the person who committed the offence is identifiable, or
(b) criminal proceedings have or can be taken against a person or are pending.
This position is consistent with that taken by the Commonwealth government. It is also the most supportive of victims because prosecutions may take some time to finalise, may also result in an acquittal on technical basis, or the offender may be overseas or unable to be located.
This government is very concerned about the impact of offending on both the victim and the community. It is important the victim be able to remedy the serious effects of identity crime as soon as possible, so they can resume their lives. If a victim is forced to wait until a conviction to obtain proof of theft or their identity, then their psychological stress and financial detriment would be significantly exacerbated. The Final Report Identity Crime, referencing and article by Mike Hatch in the William Mitchell Law Review, noted victims of identity crime spend an average of two or more years attempting to fix their credit report and restore their credit rating. By providing victims with the opportunity to obtain a certificate confirming the theft of their identity as early as possible, we are aiming to reduce the detriment of the crime and allow the victim to move on sooner.
By targeting preparatory offending, banks, financial institutions and businesses will also be able to be protected. As offenders will be targeted prior to using identification information, financial detriment will be mitigated as business will not have to remedy the fraud by reversing transactions or reimbursing the victim.
The introduction of specific identity crime provisions will fill the legislative gap regarding preparatory offending and will allow the prosecution of all acts relating to identity theft, including credit card skimming and possessing a device or information used to commit a further offence. This is an important step towards ensuring the safety of Territorians and assisting the national response targeting serious organised crime. By addressing gaps in our legislation consistent with the model Criminal Code we will ensure the Territory is not a safe haven for criminals seeking to escape other jurisdictions.
Finally, the bill also amends the private security regulations regarding crowd controllers, security firms, and security officers’ licences. The bill adds each of the new identity theft offences (sections 228C, 228D and 228E of the Criminal Code Act) to the list of disqualifying offences for obtaining a security provider licence. As a result, persons who have been convicted of identity theft offences will not be appropriate persons for the purposes of section 15(7) of the Private Security Act and will be precluded from obtaining a security provider licence. Given the business conducted by those who hold security licences, it is important to ensure proper screening of applicants and those persons who have been convicted of identity theft offences are precluded from obtaining a licence.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MEDICINES, POISONS AND THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 66)
(Serial 66)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2012 was assented by the Administrator on 27 April 2012. This bill addresses several issues which have been identified as requiring amendment prior to the act’s commencement.
The health practitioner National Registration and Accreditation Scheme commenced on 1 July 2010. This scheme is controlled by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act. When Aboriginal health workers joined the scheme on 1 July 2012 this law and the Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act were amended. It was identified at this time an amendment would be required to the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act prior to its commencement to reflect the changes. The title ‘Aboriginal health worker’ was changed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioner. Relevant sections of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act are amended under this bill replacing the old title with the new one.
Several inconsistencies with the act were identified during drafting of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations. This bill addresses these issues. The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act also implements the outstanding recommendations from the Galbally Review which were agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in 2005. Recommendation 13 was to repeal provisions in state and territory legislation applying to licences for Schedule 5 and Schedule 6 substances.
Under sections 34 and 35 of the act, manufacturers and wholesalers of Schedule 5 and 6 substances are required to be registered, which is contrary the Council of Australian Governments agreement. These two sections are amended in the bill to exclude Schedule 5 and 6 substances, thus reducing the red tape and cost to manufacturers and wholesalers of these substances, which are contained in everyday products such as hair dyes, detergents and insect sprays.
Dental hygienists and oral health therapists are required, within their clinical practice, to administer Schedule 4 substances such as local anaesthetics and oral fluoride gel. Dental therapists are already catered for under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act. Dental hygienists and oral health therapists are being included to let these professionals work to their full scope of practice as allowed in other states and territories. This will make the Northern Territory a more attractive workplace.
The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Australian government includes three initiatives which require legislative change prior to their implementation across the jurisdictions. The implementation of two of these initiatives is addressed in the regulations. Clause 8 of this bill provides the framework to implement the continued dispensing initiative allowing pharmacists to supply unrestricted Schedule 4 substances provided the supply of those substances is permitted under section 89A(1) of the Commonwealth National Health Act 1953.
This initiative currently applies to oral contraceptives and lipid-lowering medications. It means if a person runs out of their medication over the weekend and is unable to see their doctor, the pharmacist can continue their supply for a period of time until they can see their doctor for a prescription. In this way there will be no interruption to their medication.
Section 5 of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act includes definitions for ‘record’, ‘sign’ and ‘written’ to include electronic methods. Having these definitions is inconsistent with other Northern Territory legislation which uses the Electronic Transaction (Northern Territory) Act. These definitions are, therefore, being removed to ensure consistency. The definition of pharmacy was linked to schedule 8 of the Health Practitioners Act. When the Health Practitioners Act was amended, schedule 8 became schedule 7. The bill corrects this matter.
Section 62 of the act will create a capacity for pharmacists to administer vaccines, whilst ensuring the pharmacist must first hold an appropriate vaccination qualification. The current wording of this provision provides the Administrator with the power to approve a regulation on this matter. The Office of Parliamentary Council has advised the Administrator is not able to delegate this power. To enable timely approval of courses, it is provided the Chief Health Officer will have the power to approve qualifications regarding vaccinations.
Section 63 and 65 will also be amended to ensure only registered nurses, midwifes, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners - who have completed vaccination education prescribed by the Chief Health Officer - are able to administer vaccinations. This change will provide a safety net for Territorians by ensuring health practitioners who visit on a fly-in fly-out basis have the appropriate training to provide immunisation services in the Northern Territory.
The Poisons Standard has banned paint containing 0.1% or more of lead, thus making Sections 109 and 110 of the act redundant and therefore these provisions will be appealed. The intent of Section 281 is to allow for regulations describing the storage, destruction and transportation of regulated substances. However, the current wording is ambiguous and is being amended to make the intent clear. The reference to penalties in regulations not exceeding 100 penalty units is being removed, as this is already stated in the Interpretation Act. Amending the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act will address these issues, providing certainty and clarification for practitioners and others who are covered by the act.
I commend this bill to the honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
AMDENDMENT BILL
(Serial 67)
AMDENDMENT BILL
(Serial 67)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill was approved for drafting by Cabinet on 17 December 2013. This bill addresses the need to amend legislation to allow privately practising midwives to practise in the Northern Territory.
At the time of the Northern Territory adopting the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act in 2010, midwives in the Northern Territory were required to hold professional indemnity insurance, regardless as to whether they were practising in the public or private sector, as no distinction was made between the two categories. Because of this requirement, an exemption under the National Law did not apply in the Northern Territory to privately practising midwives. Hence, an amendment to the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) is required to allow midwives to practise privately in the Northern Territory.
Certain strict conditions will be in place in order to protect the public, including the requirement for the privately practising midwife to notify the mother they do not have professional indemnity insurance to cover intrapartum - birthing - care in the home. The Office of Parliamentary Council has drafted an amendment which I will now present. This bill addresses the issue of inconsistency between Northern Territory legislation and other jurisdictions. The act amended is the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act. The amendment will allow midwives to practise as private midwives in the Northern Territory without contravening section 129(1) of the National Law, which states all health practitioners must have professional indemnity insurance. The amendment will give privately practising midwives in the Northern Territory the coverage from section 284 of the National Law.
The effect of section 284 of the National Law was midwives, for a nominated transition period only - currently up to June 2015 - can practice private midwifery. This is defined as providing services to a mother to give birth at home or another’s home without appropriate professional indemnity insurance in place and in their private capacity. Provided that the practice occurs in a jurisdiction where immediately prior to operation of section 284:
- …a person was not prohibited from attending homebirths in the course of practising midwifery unless professional indemnity insurance arrangements were in place …
See section 284(1)(a). The amendment will mean the previous impediment to practice has been removed.
Midwives practising in a private capacity will be expected to access professional indemnity insurance for antenatal and postnatal care. They must inform a woman wishing to have a homebirth they do not have professional indemnity insurance for intrapartum care so the woman can make an informed choice. The woman will be required to give informed consent to proceed with the homebirth, knowing the midwife does not have professional indemnity insurance.
The amendment includes the requirement for midwives who intend to practice privately to notify the Chief Health Officer of their intention to do so. This must be done for the first time and then annually on or before 31 May each year. The midwife must give the Chief Health Officer a written report in relation to each private midwifery case attended, in accordance with the requirements of the Northern Territory Perinatal Data Collection through the Midwives Collection. This must be done within 20 days of each case and not longer than 60 days.
These measures, in collaboration with the Nursing and Midwifery Board Safety and Quality Framework for Midwives, will provide protection for the public accessing this birthing choice. Failure to comply with these requirements would be reportable to the Nursing and Midwifery Board, under Part A of the National Law performance and conduct. Amending the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act will address these issues, providing certainty and clarification for practitioners and others who are covered by the act, and provide further birthing choices for Northern Territory women.
I commend this bill to the honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 46)
(Serial 46)
Continued from 9 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. This legislation does not change the way the Mental Health Review Tribunal operates, it simply clarifies it can continue to operate the way it does. We essentially have this bill, a small and non-controversial amendment to the Mental Health and Related Services Act, which confirms the rules of evidence do not apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the rules of evidence are not conducive to the aim of ensuring therapeutic justice or to the general comfort of such vulnerable patients. The Attorney-General outlined examples such as avoiding the strict rules around cross-examination, which should not apply in these sorts of cases. It might sound strange to say the rules of evidence do not apply. The Mental Health Tribunal makes very important decisions. It makes decisions about the care and treatment of people who have a mental illness. In the majority of cases, the tribunal determines whether someone should be treated involuntarily, against their will. These are decisions of great importance and magnitude. It might sound like the Mental Health Review Tribunal does not rely on evidence to make its decisions, but this is not correct. It simply means it does not have to treat evidence in the same way a court might in a criminal trial, and we had two instructions just before the Attorney-General talked through some of that detail.
The rules of natural justice still apply and procedural fairness is upheld. The amendments do not mean the rules of evidence cannot apply; they do not have to where it is not appropriate to do so. In other words, the tribunal can engage in a more relaxed manner to reach a therapeutic result.
The amendments are consistent with processes in other jurisdictions and the opposition is very happy to support this bill. I am sure it comes as no surprise to the Attorney-General that we are able to deal with this so efficiently.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the crossbenches will also efficiently deal with it. It is not very difficult, is clear to understand and can be summed up in the third-last paragraph of your second reading speech, minister, which says:
- Although on paper it appears to be only a minor amendment, in fact it is a vital one. It will maintain the operation of the tribunal in a manner in which it was intended to operate, and will provide for the comfort and wellbeing of the patients who come before it, while still ensuring a robust process.
What more do you need to say, minister? It is a perfectly sensible change and will get the crossbencher’s support.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised at the support of the members opposite, because what we are doing is, in essence, reaffirming what has always been done.
An uninitiated person could possibly suggest this is some sort of licence for the Mental Health Tribunal to frolic in the tulips in pursuit of determining a person’s mental health condition. However, it is no such thing at all. Let us be practical about what a Mental Health Tribunal is trying to do. It is trying to assess the mental health of a person. I was hoping to table a copy of the annotated uniform Evidence Act, a tome of some 1000 pages. We would not ask a tribunal to wade through the tome in an effort to come to a conclusion as to a person’s mental state. Surely the wise doctors and people who sit on such a tribunal are capable of determining the probative value of any particular evidence, even if it is contrary to the rules of evidence?
It is not exclusive to this legislation that the rules of evidence may be side-stepped. The coroner has a similar liberty under the Coroners Act and, if I am not mistaken, the rules of evidence do not bind a person or a court determining bail. The capacity to listen to hearsay evidence and such other forms of evidence can be availed in those two circumstances as well.
As honourable members have said, common sense prevails. Common sense has prevailed; let us get on with it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Disability Services in the Northern Territory
Mrs LAMBLEY (Disability Services): Madam Speaker, I present a statement on Disability Services in the Northern Territory.
On Monday 3 February I was sworn in as the first ever Minister for Disability Services in the history of the Northern Territory. This was a significant event for not only the Country Liberals government and me personally, but for the approximately 27 000 Territorians who have a disability, their families and their carers. On 3 February, this Country Liberals government, for the first time ever, formally acknowledged and recognised that the needs of these Territorians and their families should no longer be seen solely as part of a health portfolio but as a discrete and distinct area of government responsibility.
Let me be clear for the Country Liberals government. This is about more than only a change in title; it is a change in thinking. We are already receiving positive feedback about this important change. In the 24th issue of the Integrated disAbility Action Inc Newsletter issued on 6 February 2014, you can find the following article titled A Minister for Disability Services at Last:
- Congratulations to the Chief Minister Adam Giles and his Government on the appointment of Robyn Lambley as the Minister for Disability Services. We look forward to working with her in a very constructive way and creating a much greater awareness of the issues and needs of Territorians with disabilities. It is the first time this portfolio has existed in the Territory and it is something IdA has been lobbying strongly for over a period of many years. Not only does it bring the NT into line with all other mainland jurisdictions, but in particular it helps to raise the profile of people with disabilities and it gives us a direct link and a much stronger voice within the government when it comes to getting our issues and concerns raised and dealt with in a truly professional way.
According to Mrs Lambley work is currently under way on a Strategic Plan for Disability Services for the Northern Territory. IdA looks forward to meeting the Minister both in the near future to have input into this plan and subsequently on a regular basis to discuss the future development of Disability Service throughout the Territory.
I am scheduled to sit down with the Integrated disAbility Action Group soon to progress the work I have committed to, but I will say more about it later in this statement.
Another strong advocate for Territorians with a disability and a very professional, strong and capable Territorian in her own right is Ms Vicki O’Halloran, President of the National Disability Services National Board. She told the media on the day of the change this was something very near and dear to her heart, and an important change she had wanted to see for the last 20 years.
This is a huge opportunity to blow away barriers and help the 27 000 Territorians who have a disability, their carers and their families. In this role I will be responsible for increasing access to education, training, employment and independent living.
Even more, I want people with disabilities to have greater control over the services they access so they may choose the best ways to overcome their challenges. This is a period of dramatic change in our approach to helping Territorians with disabilities.
This government is committed to ensuring people with disabilities get greater control and management over their own lives. The focus now is on individual packages and we need to change the way we are working, change policies and procedures and, importantly, change the way we are thinking.
Gone are the days where Disability Services should be seen as merely programs delivered by the Department of Health. It is a whole-of-government responsibility to ensure Territorians of mixed ability receive support and services, access and opportunities they need and deserve.
Many people with disabilities need a certain level of support, but the level of support required should not define them. All members of our society require support or government services at some stage in their life, be it access to healthcare, education, or even public roads, but none of us would like to be labelled or boxed in to a category by virtue of the services we consume. So too it is with Territorians of mixed ability.
It is a great challenge to undertake the demands of this portfolio. There is major reform and opportunity for Disability Services across Australia. The Country Liberals government has recognised major reform in this space is upon us and we have embraced it. In our Framing the Future blueprint, released on 20 August 2013, we specifically mentioned that supporting Territorians with a disability is a whole-of-government responsibility with the number one aim being to increase access to education, training, employment and independent living.
The Framing the Future blueprint also directs government to work with the sector to maximise future benefits of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to work with stakeholders to implement the NDIS trial in the Barkly region.
All governments in Australia are committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As the future of support for people with disability, it still requires much fleshing out of the details.
The NDIS is a substantial reform which aims to fundamentally change the nature of disability support in Australia. The NDIS is based on the principles of choice and control, and will provide long-term, high-quality support for people who have a permanent disability to ensure they get support which is reasonable and necessary to meet their needs.
This could include an individual plan and an individually funded package. People eligible for the NDIS will be those who have a permanent disability which significantly affects their communication, mobility, self-care or self-management.
These Territorians, their families and carers will have control over the care and support they receive based on need and will be able to choose their service providers. The NDIS will also focus on early intervention for people where there is good evidence that early intervention will deliver substantially improved outcomes or lessen a decline in functioning.
In May 2013, the Northern Territory signed the current agreement for the full NDIS. In principle, agreement was reached to trial the NDIS in the Barkly Shire from 1 July 2014.
Disability Services has been working through the details of the trial to ensure the transition is a smooth one. Reaching the goals of the full NDIS in the Territory will be a challenge, especially in remote communities. To meet this challenge, Disability Services, along with the Departments of Treasury and Finance, and Chief Minister, have been working with their colleagues around Australia on the finance, governance and structure of this scheme.
There is a great deal of work to be done between now and 2016. One of the reasons the ministry of Disability Services was created is to focus government’s attention on, and help facilitate, the Barkly trial starting on 1 July and the future roll-out plans negotiated with the Commonwealth.
The Disability Services portfolio is broad and includes intergovernmental relations, sector readiness in non-government and Northern Territory government providers, education, and stakeholder engagement work within government and non-government sectors.
To progress the Barkly trial, a Site Implementation Committee has been established to ensure clarity in the strategic and policy framework for the implementation of the NDIS and the Barkly trial. Membership includes representatives from the National Disability Insurance Agency and NT Disability Services, with meetings being held monthly. The committee oversees and monitors progress, and facilitates access to information required by the National Disability Insurance Agency.
Disability Services has been delivering information sessions since June 2013 on the NDIS to a range of stakeholders. These information sessions will continue with the NDIS implantation team now seeking to meet with stakeholders based everywhere in the Territory to provide them with information on the trial and full scheme roll-out, and how they could benefit from developing innovative service models to the Barkly region.
Over the course of the pilot, 103 residents of the Barkly Shire with significant and profound disabilities will have their needs assessed and will begin to receive individual support packages under the NDIS model.
By 1 July 2019, under the current agreement, the intent is for all eligible Territorians to have been assessed for, and begun to receive, individualised NDIS packages.
The creation of the portfolio is important, and while the new portfolio increases the profile of what we are doing, I have long felt the need for broader input into the Disability Services reform. The people working in this area within my department do a tremendous job, but I believe with the creation of a dedicated portfolio the ability to garner the community and sector’s views has increased.
This is a proposition supported by the community advocates operating in this sector. To give some structure and pathways for community and sectorial engagement, I am pleased to announce the creation of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Disability Reform.
The purpose of the council is to bring together people with a variety of knowledge and experience to provide strategic advice to the Northern Territory government on the planning for, and implementation of, the NDIS in the Barkly region and the remainder of the Northern Territory.
The inaugural membership of the council comprises Vicki O’Halloran of National Disability Services NT - she will be the Chair of the Council on Disability Reform - with other members including Greg McMahon of Carpentaria Disability Services; Jo Smith of Step Out; Liz Reid of YouthWorx NT; and community representatives, Mr Bruce Young-Smith, Ms Suzanne Cavanagh, and Ms Karen Stewart.
I am looking forward to working with the council. Work has already commenced between the department and National Disability Services NT, the peak body for disability NGOs, to ensure the disability sector is ready for the commencement of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
National Disability Services NT has been working with organisations on contemporary disability service provision and business readiness for the NDIS. In addition to this, National Disability Services NT is working with Professor David Gilchrist on unit pricing for disability supports within the NDIS in the Northern Territory.
This project will ensure the unique factors which make up service delivery costs in the Territory are measured and incorporated into the NDIS in the Northern Territory. Setting up this program and making sure its implementation goes smoothly is great work and will have hugely positive outcomes. We have plenty of evidence in the Northern Territory of people who have made significant contributions to our Territory lifestyle, and whilst I do not propose to single any individuals out, it is safe to say there are many past and present high achieving Territorians who have a disability of some form or another.
These Territorians have not let their challenges limit their ability to succeed, and it is the strong intention of this Country Liberals government to ensure their ranks increase into the future. The most pressing issue for the Advisory Council, in the first instance, is to ensure a smooth Barkly trial is achieved. Over time, I see the council advising me on a broad range of issues and concerns which affect Territorians with a disability, their carers and their families. My consultation and engagement with the community and the sector will extend beyond the Advisory Council. I have already initiated a swathe of community and sector meetings across the Northern Territory. These will be occurring over the coming weeks and months as I seek to promote an advocate for this sector both at the Territory and national levels.
Already it has been made clear to me that Disability Services is about a great deal more than the NDIS, as important as this single reform is. It is also about ensuring access to government services and opportunity to participate throughout the Territory community. This is a whole-of-government issue I will not shy away from and, where necessary, I will bang down the doors of my colleagues on behalf of Territorians with a disability. I am committed to ensuring Territorians with a disability, their carers and their families are given a fair go. To this end, I have instructed work to commence on a Strategic Plan for Disability Services. The idea behind this will be to make sure that while we wrestle with the huge challenge and change of the NDIS, we do not forget all the other programs and details. The programs and details ensure Territorians with a disability, their families and their carers get the support they need, the opportunities they deserve to gain meaningful employment, and otherwise fully participate in our vibrant Territory society.
Work is in the initial stages, but once I have a draft I am satisfied with I will engage the community, peak bodies, NGOs and individuals over the coming year to help build a comprehensive five-year road map for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. Disability Services is not just about programs so I would like for the strategic plan to look at how we can help carers and what we can do better. I have already announced a review of the Carers Recognition Act, which is progressing well. I am on track to say more on this later this year. Additionally, our Adult Guardianship Act is in need of modernisation. Work is well progressed and in the not too distinct future, I will commence consultation with the sector on this important legislation. Equally, I have had a strong representation from parents and guardians of school leavers, who are advocating for post-school options for their children with disabilities. I see the strategic plan as a way of making sure the direction of the new portfolio of Disability Services is firmly focused on whole-of-government programs which remove barriers for people, encouraging self-reliance, self-fulfilment and empowerment for people to take control of their lives and participate in the workforce.
In addition to policies and programs which advance people with disabilities, the Country Liberals government is proud to be a continuing sponsor of the Northern Territory Disability Services Awards. These awards recognise and reward the achievements of disability sector employees and mainstream services and businesses which have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to improving the lives of people with disability. The awards are now entering their fourth year and I am pleased to say they have continued to grow. The 2013 Disability Services Awards celebrated the achievements of some outstanding people working in this field. An example of the kind of great Territorians who were honoured at last year’s Disability Services Awards is the case of Rachel Kroes. In her awards citation, it said:
- Rachel has shown great dedication to Project 21, a program that provides opportunities for young adults with Down Syndrome and other young people with an intellectual disability moving from school to the workplace.
I congratulate all previous award recipients and nominees for their contribution, dedication, and hard work, and I look forward to launching this year’s awards and promoting some of the stand-out performers in this sector.
The government is also the sponsor of the Young Carers Award as part of the Young Achievers Awards. The awards cover people in a range of fields of endeavours, business, community work, and sports achievements. The fact they also include young carers of people with a disability is evidence we recognise people for their contribution where it is above and beyond.
It is an exciting time for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. The NDIS is a major reform. The Disability Advisory Council is a huge development in giving voices to people, the Strategic Plan for Disability Services will make sure programs and services are coordinated across government, and the awards provide some profile raising.
I am also cognisant of the fact that while we are working on all these great initiatives, we must also work with our neighbours: Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. The Tri-state Disability Strategic Framework is an agreement between Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and South Australia, agreeing to a joint approach to assisting the delivery of quality disability services to the people of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara - NPY - lands in the central region of Australia. The framework has allowed these processes to recognise its state and Territory borders should not be an impediment to accessing disability services. The three jurisdictions have recently signed the Tri-state Disability Strategic Plan 2013-15 which continues this cooperation and prepares for a future roll-out of NDIS in the NPY lands. This local level interstate cooperation ensures people with disabilities are not disadvantaged because of a line on the map.
Similarly, I look forward to engaging with my Queensland counterpart to ensure our eastern communities are not facing any cross-border issues with regard to disability services.
In closing, I have outlined how I see the new portfolio operating and have identified the way in which I, as minister, will operate within it. I have also outlined some of the significant reforms and work flows which are under way or commencing to ensure we improve the lives and opportunities of Territorians living with a disability.
On a personal note, it is a great honour to be named the first ever Northern Territory Minister for Disability Services and one which I do not take lightly. Now is the time of major reform in this area. I shall endeavour to be the very best Minister for Disability Services in the Northern Territory, and establish a high bar which my successors will hopefully build upon. I am looking forward to working with Territorians with a disability, their families and carers, non-government organisations and all levels of government to make a brighter future for these important members of our community.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this important statement on disability services and wish her well in her new role in this extremely important area. Disability services are deeply important to the 27 000 Territorians affected by disability and, of course, their families and carers who support them.
Advocacy for more support for disability services and coordination of a whole-of-government approach will require a very strong voice in this government. I wish you well with the challenge, minister, as we know you have some very strong personalities in your Cabinet, some determined to cut budgets no matter what the consequences are to the people those cuts will affect. The minister is part of a government determined to reduce departmental budgets, cut government services and find ways to cost shift and privatise wherever it can.
As I said, I welcome this statement, but one area I am keen to hear more about is what additional resourcing or rearrangement of the department priorities will occur to support the minister’s new role. The statement is silent on resourcing and the departmental support.
There is also the key question of how the already stretched and hard-working NGO sector will be supported in further developing its role in this sector. This is important, particularly with the current environment of ever-increasing cost. We know CPI is galloping away and key issues like the cost of power and water are impacting on the budgets of non-government service providers.
Let us not forget it was in November last year that the disability sector was thrown into some confusion with the threat of budget cuts to flexi respite programs, low-cost support for families caring for disabled children through Carpentaria Disability Services. The sector is looking for a strong voice in government and a real ability to tackle whole-of-government issues, such as access to medical services; housing; supported accommodation; special education; support for disabled children; access to rehabilitation; and sport and recreation facilities.
The carers of people with disabilities want a strong voice around the area of respite for the hard-working families and the carers who do such a great job in providing care for their loved ones and the ones around them with disabilities. From what I have seen as a local member, when I meet residents and find they are caring for a disabled member of the family or for children with disabilities, respite is an issue which comes up time and time again. There is always the question of more access to additional respite care and not saying there is plenty around. This is certainly an issue I hope the minister will be passionately pursuing as part of her new role.
The sector also tells us of its real concern that this government will make cuts which will hurt them. The people I talk to in the disability sector say they are concerned this government has some wrong priorities. For example, it has increased its Health budget by $45m to accommodate its political agenda of mandatory detention for problem drinkers, but at a cost of growing the Health budget, as Labor did, to keep pace with inflation. The result is an already evident decline in health infrastructure and disability services, including those necessary to properly support Territorians with disabilities.
By contrast, disability services and support for families was a key focus of work by the previous Labor government. We committed to a range of measures to hear the voice of Territorians, to hear their priorities in this area and progressively improve disability services across the Territory. In late 2005, we commissioned an independent review of the Territory’s disability services: a comprehensive review of the activities and priorities of the disability sector then; how services fit together; how to best manage increased demand; the better targeting of services; the development of new partnerships; and how to increase access, infrastructure and capacity right across the Territory.
We supported and implemented a Tri-state Disability Strategic Framework to provide the best possible services for people with disabilities and their families on the NPY lands. We committed to the key 2030 targets, which included that services for senior Territorians and people with a disability, or requiring rehabilitation, will be accessible at the same level as elsewhere in Australia, and to increase the proportion of Indigenous Territorians with a disability receiving disability services.
One of the useful results of all the work which went on into 2030 was the identification of gaps in the information government requires to fine tune investments and make sure they aligned with real priorities of Territorians. Territory 2030 identified gaps which would enable better monitoring of progress in this area. We were working to address those gaps and we hope the minister will continue the work to ensure it is not lost in rearranging the department.
We tackled the preventative side as well, with our ground-breaking work with volatile substance abuse and support for low aromatic fuel in regions affected by petrol sniffing. There was work to better understand the extent of the consequences of foetal alcohol syndrome and the impact in the Territory. We appointed long-term disabilities advocate, Robyn Burridge, to be a staff member in the member for Casuarina’s office when he was the Health minister. She had a very strong voice and direct access to other senior ministers in the government to advocate for the disability sector.
We established a one-stop shop model for disability services so disabled Territorians and their families could better access information about available services. We were committed to providing quality and affordable healthcare close to where people live. Our headline remote services and remote economic development policy, A Working Future, included local implementation plans, addressing the health and disability service needs in our remote growth centres - plans developed with local people for their local priorities.
We understood the importance of mobility and access to services for the disabled and ensured more access to purpose-built taxis with the Lift Incentive Scheme to give drivers more incentive to pick up people who were wheelchair bound.
In 2009, we announced $30m over five years to build and upgrade special schools across the Territory. The highlight of this major infrastructure program was, no doubt, the building of the new purpose-built, state-of-the-art Nemarluk School you see in Alawa now. It is a fantastic facility for primary school children in Darwin with special needs.
The school was purpose-built to ensure students could access quality care, therapy and, most importantly, education. I have not heard any reports coming out of the school – when students start school for the first time, their parents and carers love it, and the students love it. It is a wonderful facility and it was a real highlight to be involved in and working on.
We know our remaining special schools are extremely aged and infrastructure is a real challenge across the Territory. There was certainly a bit of work done in that regard to the established schools, including millions invested into the Acacia Hills Special School in Alice Springs for upgrades, including classrooms, the gymnasium, the all-abilities playground and the hydrotherapy pool. There was work also done in Palmerston - I think in Woodroofe - to the primary school special education unit, and to Kintore Street Special School in Katherine.
However, as we know, there are still major deficits in schooling infrastructure in the Territory for students with special needs. I have raised the issue of Henbury School on numerous occasions in this Assembly. Henbury School sits in my electorate of Wanguri. It is an extremely old school. Labor went to the last election with a commitment to build a new, purpose-built Henbury School so the students going through Nemarluk today will be able to look forward to going to high school in another purpose-build state-of-the-art special school giving them access to the best therapy and education, and making the jobs of the staff a hell of a lot easier.
Henbury impresses me as a school community. The teachers and support staff are incredibly dedicated. There is a passionate school council and very caring parents and carers, and the children are fantastic. It is always a real joy to go to an assembly at Henbury and see the good work of the students and how they are developing. It is an amazing place.
The school has some real challenges at the moment, because it is well and truly over capacity. The new suburb of Muirhead is coming on board in my electorate, which means more houses coming along all the time. We know Darwin is growing, which means the demand for that school is growing and the staff find it very difficult to cater for the numbers. If you look at the staffing situation and where they are all sitting at the school - they are jammed in some very limited spaces. They have some very aged equipment, an area I hope the government looks at in the upcoming budget. We need to see some major improvements to the Henbury School. I will certainly keep pushing for it. Those kids deserve a fantastic school; it is too full. Something needs to be done.
Labor had plans to build another purpose-built school in Palmerston for children with special needs. I have not heard where that is at or what is going on with the investment and development. I am very keen to hear from the minister in the wrap about work the government is looking at around special school education and the infrastructure to support those students, because, unfortunately, demand is not going down; it is growing. It is an area we must look at and we must ensure we try to support the families with special needs children as much as possible. The children get so much out of the program and going to those schools. This is certainly something I hope you will advocate very strongly and will work on with your Treasurer and Education minister in your new role.
The minister has been working very closely with a group of parents, and, of course, Pastor Geoff, on post-school options. I know other members in this Chamber on both sides of this parliament have been working with them as well. I certainly appreciate that work. We know this goes into the issue of there being some challenges for some of the students at Henbury. I am hoping, as part of this portfolio, these gaps can be filled and we can pick up when there are students who are profoundly disabled coming to the end of their schooling and going out as young adults into the world. However, there are not enough programs in place for them, or the right programs, and there are limited job opportunities. This is something I welcome, hearing about more work taking place. It will certainly alleviate a lot of stress on families affected, but, more to the point, on the young Territorians this impacts. They go to school in a pretty engaging, stimulating environment, day-to-day. To then leave school and have very limited options makes it tough.
I know it is very tough on Henbury as well, because there are real pressures on numbers there. It limits the opportunity for how many students they can keep in Henbury for a certain amount of time. This is certainly something which has had an impact. I am very glad to hear you are continuing in your work. I welcome it and look forward to seeing some outcomes in this area.
I want to look back on some other programs for disabled Territorians. Looking back in Alice Springs, when Labor was in government we recognised the role Riding for the Disabled plays. It plays a major role in providing recreation and therapy to children and adults with special needs. The riding therapy gives extra mobility to people who have restricted movement, improves motor skills and, most importantly, brings a huge amount of enjoyment to participants. You only have to see the huge smiles on kids’ faces as they ride the horses to see the benefits of this program.
The Territory Labor government invested a considerable amount in funding for Riding for the Disabled in Alice Springs. With the support of the Labor government, Riding for the Disabled was able to invest in a brand new clubhouse, and stable and paddock facilities. Most recently, families in Alice Springs have been calling for an all-abilities park to be made available for children with special needs. It is not a huge ask, basically some secured fencing and appropriate play equipment. Many members in government are from Alice Springs, so it is something I hope you will be considering as part of your budget submissions.
Back in Darwin, we have also seen the development of the innovative Project 21 inclusion program, supporting those with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities to develop skills, and supporting workforce participation. We all know that Rachel Kroes is an amazing Territorian. She works extremely hard with disabled Territorians and her work was recognised when she was awarded the Employee of the Year Award at the 2013 Northern Territory Disability Services Awards. This was for her work with ‘Walking in my Shoes’ and the Project 21 program. It would be good to hear from the minister about how the government will support great low-cost programs like this one, and expand them across the Territory to give people with disabilities more access to employment and training into their adult lives.
When Labor was in government, we worked with our colleagues in Canberra to ensure the Territory was one of the first places in Australia to benefit from the NDIS, with the trial of the project in the Barkly supporting over 100 Territorians. An NDIS scheme was something Labor was very proud of. I hope under the new Liberal government, and certainly here with the CLP, they will be working to ensure what was initially agreed to with the NDIS is fully delivered. It is essential. We all want to see the program rolled out and people with disabilities really benefiting from it.
Labor was very strongly committed to working to address the incredibly debilitating Machado-Joseph Disease, particularly in Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land. It is a distressing genetically transmitted condition, with massive impacts on affected families and close-knit communities. Some of the work they are doing on Groote Eylandt is amazing because it is a horrendous condition those people have to live with.
I was horrified this week to hear the mean-spirited Abbott government turning its back on those patients, rescinding the ABA support for much needed improvements to services on Groote Eylandt. I hope the Territory government and the minister go to their colleagues in Canberra and have a very good discussion with them about this, because it is a terrible decision.
The last Labor budget included a record $1.2bn for health, which was 152% more than 2001-02 when we first came into government. Within the global health budget, we provided a $48m increase in funding in the health and wellbeing output, including a $12.7m increase to our ongoing commitment to Territorians with a disability, particularly those with exceptional and complex needs.
Today, although we have heard there has been a welcoming of the introduction of the new Disability Services portfolio from the sector, it is not to say the sector does not have some concerns about the future. They have raised their concern about the impacts of the rising cost of living on disabled pensioners and the impact of rising operational costs on the NGO sector for providing services to people with disabilities - a very tough, ongoing issue.
The location of the new Office of Disability Services is still buried within Health House, a difficult place for disabled Territorians to access. There is a need for continuing upgrades to health infrastructure, for example: updated MRI scanning technology and other diagnostic services required to keep abreast of developments in diagnosis and treatment of disabilities and associated health conditions; and aged public physiotherapy and rehabilitation services which are limiting the ability for disabled Territorians to access rehabilitation programs. These are just a few examples of issues I hope the minister will be able to cast her mind to and use her influence on.
There were some other issues within the sector more broadly. One which comes up is the issue of housing and supported accommodation. We are told Territory Housing is increasingly telling the sector it has no money for necessary repairs and maintenance to support disabled people and pensioners in public housing, let alone support more accommodation.
I have heard examples of some organisations with access to industry houses which Territory Housing leases to NGOs to use for supported accommodation. They are sitting there with no one in them. They need repairs and maintenance funding, and funding to support programs to get people into them. This is an area we would like to see the minister do more work in, with the Housing minister, to tackle the issue of accommodation for people living with disabilities.
Another concern which has been raised is threats to the financial situation of the regional councils, failure to recognise the role they have in supporting the aged and disabled in our remote communities, and the proposed changes to the NT Workers Compensation Scheme severely limiting access to the appropriate compensation income support for workers injured in the workplace.
There are questions about this government’s commitment to delivering necessary health services through our remote health centres, instead of requiring more people to leave their home communities and families to travel to major centres for treatment in Darwin. As we know, getting accommodation when they come to Darwin, and getting into the hospital, is also an issue.
I have a few questions about what has happened to the Territory Independence and Mobility Equipment Scheme which provides equipment to people in the Northern Territory to help them to live and participate in their community. A link to the information page for the program on the Health department’s website is currently saying the file has been removed from the system. It would be nice to see where that is at. There are a few issues.
I welcome the establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Disability Reform and congratulate the members who are participating, standing up and advocating for the sector. Well done to the inaugural members. I look forward to hearing about the work you are doing in advising the government on what is needed in this sector. The minister is well placed to go in with her Cabinet colleagues and fight for the funding, programs and support that is needed.
The disability sector had a strong voice in the previous Labor government. It had confidence in a response from our government to the issues which were important to them. They knew we had influence with our Labor colleagues in Canberra and would work hard to win more Commonwealth support for disability programs in the Territory. We worked with the sector and Territory families to provide opportunities and choice for the disabled, working to support their priorities. We supported early intervention and prevention whenever possible to reduce the impact of disabilities on Territory families.
I wish the new Disability Services minister well with her new portfolio and her good intentions. She certainly has some challenges ahead in Cabinet, as we have seen some of the ministers with the attitude of cut, cut, cut. It is a big job she has, but a very important one. Territorians with disabilities deserve our support and the government’s. Their carers deserve support as well.
I am looking forward to seeing the work in the Barkly and how the trial goes. We will be watching that closely, and I know the member for Barkly is very interested in the outcome of the trial there.
There are many challenges in the disability sector and I wish the new minister every success and hope she is able to achieve all the changes she has aspired to make and mentioned in this statement. We need to see further growth in our disability sector to support Territorians who are doing it very tough.
I commend this statement and thank the minister for bringing it forward.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on disability services in the Northern Territory. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister. I heard the shadow minister talk about the things Labor did. It is not about what Labor does or what the Country Liberal Party does, it is what we do as politicians for people with disabilities. We should not highlight what you do and what we do; it should be part of our human element to do things for people with disabilities, especially in the Northern Territory.
As we know, we have lots of children with disabilities. This government initiative is to make sure Health is not delivering part of disability services. It is the first time we have a stand-alone Disability minister. I take this opportunity to not just congratulate the minister, but congratulate this government, because it sees the importance of having a minister for people with disabilities. This minister will do a fantastic job. I do not want to embarrass the minister, but it needs to be on the public record that she is a very enthusiastic minister.
I know her background as a social worker. She has seen many kids with disabilities. Many adults with disabilities come through the Alice Springs Hospital where she worked. She is a member of the Alice Springs community who gets around at markets, in the streets and sees all the people. She has very good Aboriginal friends. She has good friends in the business sector, because she is a business woman as well. When I go to some of my communities with her she is on the go. She is really interested in looking at the health clinics and not only focused on Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. She is getting around with all the MLAs and going to all the electorates to see what the renal patients and the community think about renal dialysis. These people are giving her messages.
She goes to health clinics, and if you follow me on Facebook you would have seen me and the minister at Hermannsburg, Titjikala and Santa Teresa. It is fantastic to see this kind of enthusiasm in a minister. We know, and you would know, as ministers you are very busy people. This minister has taken the opportunity to see for herself what her clinics are like, hear her staff’s concerns, and see what the community looks like so when she is in parliament she can piece the two together. She can say, ‘I have been to Santa Teresa and spoken to the people there. I have been to the renal dialysis unit in Hermannsburg.’ At the time, two patients were hooked up. They were pleased to see the minister and took the opportunity to talk to her. It is fantastic, and is the kind of thing we should be doing.
As we know, with foetal alcohol syndrome we are getting a lot more children with disabilities and we have to take every opportunity to make sure services are accessed, even out bush. We have lots of young people who, from petrol sniffing and kids with foetal alcohol syndrome, who have disabilities. There are no bitumen roads in most of our communities to go to the clinic or the shop, and if we are talking about making sure our children and adolescents all go to school - if they have disabled grandparents, some children stay home to make sure their disabled grandparents are looked after if there is no other adult in that household. These are the common things we have to take in as a government, opposition, leaders and spokespeople, and make sure we identify the great needs remote bush people have.
We have aged care centres in some communities, but in my electorate we have live-in aged care centres in only three communities. Docker River is fantastic, but I suggest to the minister that we have young disabled children, and there is so much space in these aged care centre that we should be looking at a transition for these young adolescents with disabilities to ensure they are cared for in those aged care centres with lots of rooms. They can get the contact they want, need and love from their communities and parents, see their parents and grandparents again. These are some of the suggestions we should be coming to this House with.
How can we provide a better service in remote communities and give those ideas to the minister? Because this is the minister who will make sure things are done. She is very open minded about the things needing improvement and is looking for new ideas.
Disability Services deserves its own portfolio. Disability recognises no boundaries, nor does it recognise any colour. Disability can affect you whether you are young or old, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, remote or urban, therefore, it is important that Disability Services has its own focus.
Remote living can be hard for even the able bodied. Disability in remote areas, like my electorate, can be especially difficult. Buildings and services are still too often inaccessible to remote residents with disabilities. Even an employment and training building in my region remains inaccessible to people in a wheelchair. I have also seen remote residents struggle because their homes are not equipped to enable mobility between rooms.
I know of cases of community women who have had to crawl from one room to another in their own home because there was no wheelchair access. Outside the home without footpaths, in most communities, it is difficult to get around by wheel chair, motorised or otherwise.
Remote residents affected by deafness, blindness or other disabilities have to rely on their family members for all of their needs, while there are some remote aged and disabled care services which work very hard to provide help to affected families.
It is very difficult to lead an independent life when you have a disability in a remote area, this is where I come in to congratulate agencies such as Life Without Barriers, which takes good care of our young women and men who come from communities. They do a fantastic job with a young woman from my community and she is often my passenger when I visit my electorate. She loves coming to my electorate. I take her to Papunya where she sees her first cousins, aunties and uncles, and I take her to Docker where her mother’s side of the family lives, and to Mutitjulu and Imanpa, and she loves it. Even when we go to Harts Range she has family there, she loves picking up Ininti beads and having contact with her relatives again. When I take her on a more than one week trip, she says, ‘Alison, it is time for me to have a rest’. She loves to go back to Life Without Barriers, and it is fantastic to take her back to her country and her communities. This is the bit we can give back to these kids with disabilities and to society.
I agree with the minister; reaching the goals of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be a struggle in remote areas, but it is the challenge we must take up. We must work hard to ease the burden on people with disabilities and their families. A stronger focus on working with individuals and families to determine their requirements and provide appropriate care is much needed. This is not only about funding more programs; it is about providing resources to all people so they can live productive lives. It is about making people’s lives that bit easier.
I do not think I have ever heard a person with a disability ask for too much, but they do ask for a little, just to make their lives pleasant and easier. I know how hard it was for my nephew - my brother’s eldest son - when their son was born with meningitis. When he was small, we had him at home in Papunya, but as he got older and was growing, we did not have the facilities to bathe him or exercise him. It was really hard for us, as a family, to eventually move him into St Mary’s in Alice Springs. It really tears you to bits as a family to see someone you love move because you do not have the services in a remote Aboriginal community. I know the marriage of my nephew and his wife, when their young fellow moved into Alice Springs - he has passed away now but it is sad this kind of stuff still happens.
One area of concern I hope the minister will tackle sooner rather than later is the issue of Machado-Joseph Disease, or MJD as it is known. It is not only in Arnhem Land; it is at Papunya, Hermannsburg and Santa Teresa. A family in that area has been affected by that disease, and I want to put on public record how disappointing it was to see the federal minister withdraw that money from people who really need it. These people are not going to fight him. We must make sure we look after those people, because they do not have a very long life span and younger and younger people are affected by this.
I know a lady in my community who is 48 and her life - whatever is left - is a death sentence, and she knows it. She had to move her mother into old timers and leave her job at the hospital because it affects the way she moves; all of her bones are aching. We need to make sure, as governments, we have the element, not of sympathy, but of respect, knowing these people do not have long on this earth. We need to take into consideration that it is not only them; their children are also affected.
What you see in these communities is that the whole family is affected. The kids have to work for their grandmothers and their mum. There is a young woman in my community. She was once very energetic and her children do not even know they have the disease. It is really sad to see this happening, and I am certainly asking the minister if together we can talk to the federal minister to ensure we do not touch money in that area. We look at these people lives and we look at them as human beings. We look at them as contributors to life; at one stage in their lives, they have worked, contributed to their community and to their family structure. It is really sad to see how debilitating this disease is, not just for the person who has it, but on the family, extended family and the whole community. It is the role of people like us who come into this House to ensure we get our priorities right in the services we will fund and look at the seriousness of the services. This area of disability is very serious.
As I said, most of our children have to go into Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to access these services because we do not have these services in our remote Aboriginal communities. More and more of our children with disabilities are going into Alice Springs. Like the renal patients who lose contact with their grandchildren, their communities and their families, we see those children also not have contact with their grandmothers and their mums and dads. Maybe, as I suggested to the minister, we look at the aged-care centres and the facilities they already have on communities. At Mt Liebig they have a live-in aged care and there is plenty of room. I know they have plenty of room at Docker.
Maybe this gives us stability to move some of these young kids back to their communities, not necessarily the ones requiring special care, but the ones who can cope there. It will put them back on country, in connection with their identity, language, law, and their mums, dads and grandparents. It is so sad to see their eyes some days, when you rock up to see these children and they do not to let you go because they know they have contact with you. They want you to stay longer, ‘Please stay’. It is sad and emotional for people like us when we visit these children. In every aspect of our lives, we should try to make the lives of these people a little easier.
If anyone can do it, it will be you. You have a heavy caseload with Health and Disability Services. Minister, you are very enthusiastic; you are true to people, to yourself, and people know it in Alice Springs and in remote Aboriginal communities. When you visited with me, they saw the sincerity in your heart. As I said, if anyone can do it, you will.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Disability Services for bringing the statement to the House. You have a title, but with the title comes a great weight of responsibility, and I wish you all the best in putting the spotlight and focus on disability services
As you have heard from the speakers already, disability services really is a life journey. It is a life journey which affects not just the individual with a disability but also their carers quite significantly, their families and their community. It is a holistic approach which needs to be taken when you look at disability services. You talked about the importance of early intervention, which is the most critical stage in disability services, without a doubt. A wealth of studies have proven the more access there is to early intervention for people with a range of disabilities, the better their life outcomes are.
In the Barkly trial, it will be interesting to see - in a very remote location in the context of our nation - how you can provide a range of services and interventions, because disability covers such a breadth. It is mental, physical - and within the physical there are sensory disabilities such as hearing loss or are blindness - and intellectual disabilities. When you think about people with complex care needs – often in the Territory you have heard people talk about foetal alcohol syndrome. You have heard my colleague, the member for Wanguri, talk about people with disabilities as a result of petrol sniffing. These are multiple disabilities. There will be physical, intellectual and psychological disabilities within those two examples. They take complex care interventions and education. The debates around disability in the Territory have always gone to how you can, in regional and remote areas, provide a range of services that plug into meeting the significant variety of disability we have in our community where you have a small population base. It never stacks up economically.
Disability services never fit within an economic scenario. If you could take a fiscal parameters approach to it you would never get there. A holistic approach is a better pathway, but far more difficult. There is a variety of approaches from the systemic, which is saying, ‘Okay, set up organisations such as Somerville, Carpentaria Disability Services, and Life without Barriers, so you have a systemic delivery model where government funds money into organisations which then provide the services’. You can also have an individualised funding model where government says the money in disability services will follow the person, because they have their own disability needs. The money, for example, would attach to the individual who has Machado-Joseph Disease and they then broker what they need. They broker their education needs, their aids and equipment needs and their housing needs. This has been the complex tension and argument between federal and Territory governments over the delivery of disability services. Is it individualised funding or is it systemic funding?
In my experience, it has been a mix of both that delivers an outcome for the person with the disability. When I say person I mean 0-3 - early interventions - then education settings - primary, middle and senior - and then you have the tranche of post-school options. Post-school options only existed in a very narrow way in Darwin and then ceased to exist in the Territory. When we talk disability services, we talk unmet need.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in the 1990s, had unmet need in disability services running into billions of dollars and, folks, we have not come a long way since then. When you talk about unmet need it is a mountain; it is significant. Small wins occur along the way, wins we should champion - the $10m announcement from the former federal government in the run down to the federal election, which was championed at Garma - the $10m from the ABA account towards Machado-Joseph Disease was a small win. It was a significant win for people who have Machado-Joseph Disease. Seeing the aged care facility on Groote Eylandt shows you can have genuine care arrangements to keep people on community, as we heard from the member for Namatjira, but also recognising there is a long way to go in delivering care and service to people with MJD on country all through Arnhem Land. We do not have an MJD service provider, respite or aged care facility in Nhulunbuy and - as you heard from the member for Namatjira - there are people on her country with MJD.
It was shocking and appalling to overturn the $10m announcement. I cannot understand why Senator Nigel Scullion did it, to be honest. He would have met MJD sufferers in his travels in the Territory. It is beyond me as to why he made the decision. The ABA is drawn from royalties money, and if you want to look at the major contributor to royalties consistently through the decades – ‘Hello, Groote Eylandt’, where you have the highest concentration of MJD sufferers in Australia. If you want to look at it in a purely rational perspective of who has contributed the funds, and therefore should receive them, it is MJD sufferers on Groote Eylandt. It is not as though you have taken those ABA account monies which might have arguably have been from somewhere else.
There was a direct correlation and to me it made sense, because there is always a tension as to where top-up funding in disability will come from. It is and always has been the poor cousin of the health service delivery system. When we had an opportunity like the ABA coming along to focus on MJD, it was fantastic. It is shocking it has been removed and I am heartened to hear members of the government today talk about the need to lobby to ensure Canberra overturns that decision. All power to you! It is one of the most critical things you can do to help people in our remote communities with MJD.
In the continuum of the life cycle, access to education is critical, and we heard from the shadow minister many of the initiatives which have occurred in the past but came to a stop. We are keen to hear from the government what its plans are for the all-important facility in Palmerston and the upgrades which still need to occur. We have done some work at Kintore Street and in Alice Springs, but I assure you there is more work needed in the facilities there, and we are in dire need of a new facility to replace Henbury as well.
These are not optional extras; these are genuine basic needs which exist in the disability services sector, and education is critical to ensuring people with a disability maximise their abilities. It is about interventions and education opportunities to maximise abilities, and giving people a chance to become productive Territorians.
I have seen this happen; I have seen young Territorians go through an education system, in and out of the mainstream system where they get ISAS support - and I will touch on student services in a moment - but have relied on Nemarluk and Henbury. These are young adults who are working with Rachel Kroes at Project 21. They are exceptional young people with a disability, proving they have a variety of abilities. If anyone is in any doubt I urge you, on World Down Syndrome Day, to get along to the Darwin Entertainment Centre and witness 21 The Journey.
It is on 21 March, in a few weeks’ time, and is the Friday between sittings, a fair amount of the members might still be in Darwin. It is a journey about Down’s syndrome, written by the mother of someone with Down’s syndrome, Rachel Kroes, who was the disability award winner. She wrote the journey of her daughter, Molly, performed by young adults with Down’s syndrome, with some non-Down’s syndrome young adults and kids mixed in, because they have been working together for the best part of a decade doing sign language class.
I saw it the only time it was performed, late last year. There was a standing ovation at the end by everyone in the hall. It was a truly life changing experience to witness the ability of these young adults, explaining what it is like to be a Down’s syndrome person, and the parent of a Down’s syndrome person, trying to struggle through life; it was quite breathtaking. I think it should go national, get some arts funding and tour. It would be informative for the Minister for Disability Services to see it. It would be a great thing for the disability sector to see her there, and to see she is open to hearing the stories of what their journey is like and the challenges they meet.
The challenges go as far as access to transport, and whilst we did what we could by putting accessible taxis into the system and requiring more of them, it is only tinkering at the edges when you look at access to transport in the urban area of Darwin. It is not helping people in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs or the remote areas. Through the Community Benefit Fund, I urge the government to keep a keen eye on accessible transport, which will help organisations like NT Carers move people with physical disabilities through our regional and remote areas. It is somewhere you can genuinely make a real difference if you provide a form of transport.
We heard the member for Namatjira talk about the joy of someone she knows with a disability, when they go on bush trips. Having worked with NT Carers previously, a big part of the good work we did in program delivery was getting people out and accessing country. You can only do so with accessible vehicles and with the staff and support.
I want to raise the concerns I am hearing in the sector about respite. Respite funding has been reducing. This is not a purely political debate, but it has been reducing with cuts made to the disability sector in the mini-budget of 2012. In a very real way, having respite is the difference between make or break for a family. We heard the member for Namatjira talk about the stress of a person needing to go into a permanent care facility, and what it did to a family, and how it broke them up.
I know many families who struggle every day to cope with the high-care needs of their child, in many cases now an adult, and respite is the difference between keeping it together or the child or adult going to a permanently supported accommodation environment. A permanent supported accommodation environment - which is where the family has broken and they cannot cope anymore – comes at high cost to the taxpayer. While respite is - as I said, disability is the poor cousin with funding in health service delivery - mostly the responsibility of the Commonwealth, any Territory government which takes its eye off the respite ball is bringing home real problems to itself regarding pressures on the housing and care systems. Do not underestimate the importance of respite.
Respite has to happen in the regional and remote areas, which is an extra cost, flying people in and out. The suggestions coming forward from people like the member for Namatjira, saying, ‘Well, if we have capacity in aged-care facilities in places like Docker, do you establish respite beds in there and not necessarily limit yourself in terms of age for the respite?’ These are all in the mix.
The work I did in the disability sector in Victoria was about taking children out of aged-care facilities and giving them appropriate supported accommodation homes. You do not always have choices in the Territory, particularly in very remote areas.
Independent living support is crucial. It is fairly high cost. It is fairly difficult and, as we heard from the member for Wanguri, we have genuine concerns about supported accommodation homes laying idle because the department is not providing repairs and maintenance for those houses. I urge you to do an analysis of what accommodation is available and currently untenanted, and what you and your colleagues can do to ensure you are working to get supported accommodation operational as much as possible.
It is as rare as hens’ teeth, so the accommodation you have needs to keep turning over. There needs to be the opportunity for people to go into the supported accommodation through the non-government organisations that manage it for you.
I flag real concerns with changes to the workers’ compensation scheme. You are being set up to take on a significant cost. Workers’ compensation is if the worker is injured, the employer has to foot the cost. The workers’ compensation scheme changes will see people with significant injuries cut off from workers’ compensation after two years. Guess who will foot the bills once they are cut off from the employer through their insurance payments? The government. It is a cost shifting exercise from employers to the government.
I urge members opposite to have a thorough briefing on the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It might sound like you are doing a good thing to lower insurance premiums for employers, but guess where they will go into the system after two years? They will become your collective cost burden, because they will still have a significant injury. They will still need health system support, and at times transport and housing support. You are taking on that burden, instead of the employer in whose workplace they were injured. You might want to have a closer look at this one before it gets through all the hoops and loops.
With regards to the Carers Recognition Act, which our government introduced, it is timely for the Minister for Disability Services to ensure her new Advisory Council is asked to consider how effective the Carers Recognition Act has been. It is only as good as a government’s will, and if the will is seen to be lacking - and carers are then often shut out of the advocacy they need in the system. It is particularly important to understand what access people from remote communities have as carers, such as the travel assistance schemes which exist, and access to the interpreter services in the hospital and healthcare systems. The Carers Recognition Act is there and gives them very clear powers. I do not know whether they are getting the benefits of the act. Darwin-based carers who are aware of it will use it, but I am not sure remote community people have real access to the benefits of the Carers Recognition Act.
I am pleased we added carers to the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. It is a recognition of it being such a high cost burden to be a carer. You often give up employment or, at the very least, you are only in part-time employment to care for a relative with a significant disability. The least we can do is recognise that it causes significant financial burden on the family and gives them access to those concessions. I urge the government to ensure it keeps a watchful eye on not reducing those concessions. They are, as I said, often the difference between a making or breaking environment, where people have to literally hand the person they are caring for over to what I call ‘the system’.
I want to ask a question at the end and I hope it has a positive answer. It ought to be.
Project 21 is the reason Rachael Kroes received the Disability Services Award. It is a group of young adults with a range of disabilities – mostly Down’s syndrome, but others are intellectually disabled – who have been undertaking training and employment. It is exciting to see the value it is adding to their lives and the way they are linking into employment opportunities as a result of Project 21. It is a post-school options trial and the government funded it. There is a question mark about whether or not it is being funded. Some good news was received a few weeks ago. Yes, they will receive the grant funding. However, the young adults with a disability have recently told me they heard the program will not be funded, and they are worried.
I have the good fortune to know them, simply because my children have spent most of their lives working with them. If there is any way, minister, you can ensure the grant funding continues - if you are not sure of the value of it, go and visit. Get out of Parliament House, get down to Rapid Creek and engage with this exciting project. Little things can go a very long way to enhance the lives of Territorians. This is a very little grant which is enhancing the lives of a group of awesome Territorians. They are doing it on the smell of an oily rag, but they are doing it. It is exciting to watch them. If you are not so sure about how exciting they are, go and see 21 The Journey on 21 March.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Disability Services statement.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Minister for Disability Services for bringing this to the House.
Disability in the bush has been a really big issue. All we can do, as members of parliament, is give the minister some ideas on how to help her and support her in the right direction, regardless of what side of the House we are on.
Disability for me and my family has been pretty tough. During my time at university and my first job, work experience and everything, I had to look after my uncle because my mum would not do it for cultural reasons. My father was not around, he passed away. My brothers could not do it because they were all married and had moved on, so it was left to me and my sister. we had to get a house together to look after my uncle. Our partners helped us out, because he had to be carried into the shower, bathed and fed daily. It is really hard, especially on us. We had to carry this responsibility of looking after him from such a young age.
Not only this, I have two sisters who have children in wheelchairs - one girl and one boy. The responsibility is shared around in the house. One of the girls is about 25 years old and she had to move to Katherine. Luckily, I have now moved to Katherine and I spend a lot of time with her. My other sister’s daughter had to give up her life to look after her, to become a carer. This is what we do within families.
It is hard to let our kids go and send them to town; it broke my sister apart. She can never forgive herself for letting her daughter live in town, putting her in a house where she does not even know the family, in a carer situation. She had no options; she had younger children to look after. I look back and every time I talk to her about it, I say, ‘You are pretty strong. You are an amazingly strong person. For you to let go knowing you do not have the capacity to look after her, you should put her in care.’ It is the hardest thing a mother can do to her first born child. With our support - there are seven of us sisters and we supported her through it. Three of us live in Katherine so we split the care of my niece, help her out and take her out when we can.
The biggest surprise to us is when she sees her little cousin sisters. There is laughter on her face. She cannot talk. You are constantly walking around with a towel to wipe her face down. She cannot even drink from a bottle, she cannot lift food. You have to mash her food. She is really high maintenance, but when we have the kids around her she loves it. She enjoys it, but the minute we tell her we have to take her back she cries. Even as a 25-year-old girl, she cries; she does not want to let go. Sometimes it breaks my heart because my girls grab her and will not let her go. It is something we have to deal with.
Services are needed in the bush; they are crucial. This government might not be able to do it in time, but as long as we look down the road with the vision of improving the services in the bush, then at least we are going somewhere. It is important we look in that direction.
We lobby the federal government to support it. My biggest disappointment is the federal minister, Nigel Scullion - I am appalled by his action, disgusted. I am related to the Groote Eylandt people. Pulling that funding is the worst thing you can do. These people only have a 20-year life span, which is devastating. They will not live for long. It comes to a disability point where they start dribbling; they will not be able to hold their bodily fluids in. This is what MJD is. They cannot eat anymore. Pulling the services is the worst thing to do. You have to have a heart when you walk into this business. You have to stay true to yourself.
Politics does toughen you up but you still have to have a heart. I am sure there is something inside that rock. I have not been consulted on any of this. All I heard is what was on the news. I do not think my constituents were consulted in regard to this, and that is worse. That is disgraceful and puts me back, because they voted me in plus I am their family member - I am related to these people. They are not only my constituents; they are my family. I am the one who will put them down when they die. I am the one who will comfort the family members. I wonder who else in this House will follow me.
This is how important MJD is, especially to people in the bush. Disability services, how important are they in the bush? There are hardly any resources in place to date. The aged-care facilities in Barunga stopped operating in 2005. The one in Beswick, the live-in aged care, is brilliant. If we could have more of those it would be awesome. In most of my communities - the only place is probably Groote Eylandt. There are services in Gapuwiyak, but there is not an in-home care centre where disability patients can live. There is only one on Groote Eylandt - Angurugu from what I can remember - not even Umbakumba and, at the moment, Umbakumba is cut off.
Minister, I commend you on your efforts of the stand-alone department. It is a great effort and I am happy to support you, because you are doing a fabulous job. Coming out, talking to the people, and seeing it first hand is what a minister should be doing, and you have done so well.
I rise today to also present a statement on a major issue affecting my constituents on Groote Eylandt in regard to disability services. I want to talk about MJD. The disease is a major disability disease affecting my constituents in the seat of Arnhem. This issue has developed in a role about who will fund medical research and medical treatment of MJD. It is a disease which attacks the nervous system of the body, making it difficult to eat or walk. Sufferers of this disease have been found throughout northeast Arnhem Land and Central Australia, and it has, for a long time, been misdiagnosed with conditions like arthritis. Anyone apparently carrying the MJD gene has a 50% chance of getting it. I quote from an article in the Australian, by Amos Aikman, 17 February 2014:
- Medical geneticist John MacMillan, who has been researching MJD for some years, said families were under pressure. ‘You've got teenagers affected now,’ Associate Professor MacMillan said. ‘When you've got kids that can't look after their grandparents any more, the whole family structure breaks down.’
That is exactly what the member for Namatjira just stated in this House. He went on to say:
- He said the costs of not funding proper MJD support would be higher in the long run.
This is devastating. My brother had to go on ABC news to say how bad this is. What kind of leadership are we showing in the bush? We have to ask ourselves that question. I have not been so disappointed in my whole career as I am now, because of MJD.
Senator Nigel Scullion, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, has decided the grant made out of the Aboriginal Benefit Account - ABA, of which Groote Eylandt is the main contributor - should stop and research into this disease should not be funded any longer from the ABA. This has turned into an ugly spat over funding research into MJD. I, as the member for Arnhem, would like to know who will pick up the funding shortfall? Will it be the Northern Territory government, under its disability services provision? Or will this descend into a more practical solution to an otherwise critical medical issue? We have to ask ourselves this question.
MJD has been discovered to be more widespread amongst Aboriginal population than previously thought. In other words, this is not a disease only of Groote Eylandt and northeast Arnhem Land, but across the Northern Territory. Our Country Liberal government needs to include this as a large component of disability services in the Northern Territory. Wherever the money comes from, one thing is for sure: finance for the continuing research and medical treatment needs to be ongoing. It could be we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in relation to the effect of MJD across Aboriginal populations of the Northern Territory so far.
I urge our government, and this parliament, to lobby Senator Nigel Scullion to either reinstate ABA monies - as was previously the case for ongoing funding for the medical research and treatment with regards to MJD - or have federal monies made available to the NT Department of Health to facilitate ongoing research into MJD and medical treatments for patients within the disability services division. I understand that once there was a handful of MJD patients on Groote Eylandt, and some areas within northeast Arnhem Land. It is estimated that now up to 5% of the population is considered at risk. In some areas, there are now diagnoses of new cases emerging. Medical practitioners are finding the onset of the disease is earlier than first recognised. These are kids being affected.
MJD is a chronic disease which may well have more significant ramifications for many more Aboriginal people across the Territory than medical officials and others have contemplated. This is a major disability which will have a significant impact on medical provision in the Northern Territory. Further research is critical to understanding the nature of MJD. Our response, in terms of medical treatment, will be based on what we know about MJD and how to treat it. It will also be recognised by the Health department and medical practitioners as one of the major diseases affecting the population of the Northern Territory. Our Health department and disability services will need to deal with it.
I have no doubt, as a former medical worker, this disease and its symptoms need to be recognised as early as possible, because the diagnosis of such a serious ailment as MJD is needed early, in order for us to tackle it and come up with treatment solutions as soon as possible. We all know early diagnosis of a medical condition is the best way for medical personnel and our medical systems to give the most effective medical treatment to potential patients.
I ask my colleagues to help lobby federal counterparts. If we can find solutions into funding MJD - it is critical; my people are already dying in droves. What are we trying to do? It is crucial.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate her on her new appointment as the Minister for Disability Services in the Northern Territory. It is a great job, a job I envy because you will be able to support very vulnerable Territorians in urban, regional and remote areas.
However, as a teacher of 35 years, I will take a red pen to the statement and correct Barkly shire council, because it is the Barkly Regional Council. There have been considerable funds appropriated to change the names, logos, signs and uniforms, so I could not overlook that. As a teacher of 35 years - many of those years working with students with special needs - I will share one of my learnings from a famous lecturer at Armidale Teachers’ College. My term was in the mid-1970s; Margaret Mackie was a lecturer in child growth and development, and child psychology. She shared in a lecture one day - a day I will never forget - about children with Down’s syndrome and she challenged us, as education students. She said she wanted us to research anywhere in the world where a Down’s syndrome person had caused conflict, separation or war. She then followed up by teaching us about the nature of Down’s syndrome and the challenges we would face in dealing with children with Down’s syndrome and their families. She reminded us that Down’s syndrome children will bring care, compassion and love, with a great sense of humour.
I will share with colleagues some hot-off-the-press news in support of the statement, which is courtesy of the Barkly Electorate Officer, Ms Ktima Heathcote. She attended the forum in Tennant Creek today and prepared this report for me. The first Northern Territory trial of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is on track to be rolled out in the Barkly region. With the Barkly region selected as a trial site for the roll out of the NDIS from 1 July, people with a disability, their families, carers, service providers and community leaders turned up for two community forums on the NDIS in Tennant Creek on Wednesday 19 February. The innovative scheme works on an insurance principle, similar to the way the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme works in the Northern Territory. Prior to the NDIS, people with a disability would have been given an off-the-shelf assistance package, partly funded by the Commonwealth and state bodies, with very limited scope to be tailored to their individual needs and aspirations.
Ms Cath Halbert, General Manager, National Transition Office, National Disability Insurance Agency, told locals at the forum that NDIS is a new way of funding individualised support for people with disability which involves more choice and control and a lifetime approach to a person’s support needs. It focuses on early intervention to minimise the impact of disability and will support people with permanent and significant disability, their families and their carers. Its primary aim is to increase participation.
At the helm of the Barkly launch is Archie Baker who, since moving to Tennant Creek in October 2013, has spoken to various service providers in the region, visited remote communities and set up a local reference group which holds its first meeting next week. Mr Baker, who is the Director of Service Delivery and Engagement, NDIS, in the Barkly has many years’ experience in the field as a senior public servant specialising in statutory social work and Indigenous affairs policy delivery in South Australia and Top End communities.
Mr Baker said, in a nutshell, the NDIS will enable people with a disability and their families, for the first time in the history of disability support in this country, to have a say about the support they receive. Mr Baker also said it will be a hard road ahead with many challenges specific to the Barkly, such as the tyranny of distance and dealing with a small number of people in a large geographical area, but the NDIS will be something the people of the Barkly can be proud of and passionate about. His team, which includes Sue Lewis, Senior Local Area Coordinator, also needs to ensure the NDIS is delivered in a culturally sensitive way which takes into account linguistic diversity, local expertise and the community needs of the largely Indigenous population of Barkly.
The Barkly region is one of three new trial sites, which will commence on 1 July this year, before nationwide roll-out of the NDIS follows in 2016. Previous sites which have already been rolled out include the Hunter area of New South Wales for people up to age 65, the Barwon area of Victoria for people up to the age of 65, South Australia for children aged 0-6, and Tasmania for youth aged 15-24.
An increase of 0.5% from 1 July 2014 to the Medicare levy, taking it from 1.5% of taxable income to 2%, will be used to fund the scheme.
I also acknowledge the minister’s question today in Question Time where she said she is looking forward to visiting Tennant Creek to meet with stakeholders and provide important leadership and vision. That is the way to do business, and I congratulate you and offer any support I can.
I will share a couple of quick stories to try to influence your thinking around dealing with disabilities. The first one is an arts award win for a local man. Tennant Creek local, Jameson Casson, has won an award for his ongoing community participation. Jameson, who is a valuable contributor to his community, even though he has a disability, received a certificate of commendation from the NT Arts Access Awards for excellence in inclusive arts practice through community partnership. The 28-year-old was nominated for the award by Corinne Berry, Visual Arts Outreach Worker, with local arts organisation, Barkly Regional Arts.
- ‘He is an absolute dynamo whose enthusiasm is contagious,’ said Corinne. ‘Jameson is a big supporter of the annual Desert Harmony Festival and is always working to make the community a better place for everyone’.
Jameson also has a starring role in a series of video postcards being filmed by Barkly Regional Arts as part of the ABC Heywire Positive Youth New Stories. The postcards will be launched as part of National Youth Week in April 2014.
I cannot encourage the minister enough to look at that incredible connection between the arts, education and disability support.
Another famous story from Tennant Creek and the Barkly, ‘Boulter Wins Lions Award’:
Tennant Creek local, Joie Boulter, has taken out the coveted 2013 Lions Community Service Award. Presented by the Lions Club President, Kate Foran at a ceremony in late December 2013, the award acknowledged Joie’s support for Dion Beasley and the Cheeky Dog Enterprise. Dion has muscular dystrophy and is profoundly deaf, but despite these setbacks he has risen to become one of the town’s – and, dare I say, the Territory and Australia, and overseas through the backpackers who take the Cheeky Dog products abroad – most celebrated and well-known artists. His depictions of camp dogs have made their way into exhibitions and emblazoned across bags and t-shirts and now books. Behind his success is Joie, along with her husband Tony, who started out as Dion’s tutor when he was still at primary school. While many are well aware of the hard work Joie does to support Dion, the award was also in recognition of her support for many other young people during her many years as a teacher.
Joie is a highly respected member of this community and we sincerely appreciate her many years of commitment to Tennant Creek, said Kate Foran.
I think, minister, you will have an enjoyable time meeting with Joie and Tony, and, of course, Dion, and you will learn lots of lessons in sharing this with the rest of the Territory and with the national NDIS roll-out project. Dion has shifted to the next level of self-sufficiency and sustainability as an artist who really exhibits all those basic levels of support. These include psychologically, physiologically and in regard to the pathology needed to support this young man with his disability. When all those things are seen together in great management, great love and great care, you can see the outcomes that can be truly achieved.
I hope to influence your thinking and I hope to be of any assistance I can. In conclusion, I ask for your assistance. I have put this on the public record before: Victor, Zulu, Eight, Charlie, X-ray member for Barkly to minister Lambley’s senior advisor, do you copy? I put this on the record last year, on behalf of Colin Hardaker, a disability advocate in Tennant Creek. Colin is a Tennant Creek senior, and he does amazing work in disability advocacy. His request is very simple and is about disability access to the new GP clinic within the Tennant Creek Hospital. It is about the double doors, and there are very easy solutions. It could be managed under a maintenance program or minor new works program - existing money. It needs a bit of attention and I am sure the minister will follow through. Talking to Colin before coming to parliament, he advised me it still has not been corrected. It can be done in-house. Many talented people work in the hospital and I ask the minister for her support to ensure it is addressed.
Once again, congratulations and good luck on the road forward.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only five minutes and want to cover off on a couple of areas. The member for Wanguri raised in her contribution the importance of infrastructure and the reality of having some challenges in the Northern Territory when it comes to how we educate and provide adequate pathways for children with disabilities. She rightly pointed out that Henbury School is quite full and has been for a few years. Staff there do an amazing job under very challenging conditions, but I have a passion for children with disabilities, particularly special education.
One of the very first pieces of work I had the Department of Education do for me - we are still going through the final stages at the moment - is an infrastructure review to look at the demographics across the Northern Territory, looking at where the growth patterns are for all children in the greater Darwin area and our more rural and remote areas. We have some infrastructure challenges in some areas and some different types of challenges in others. We have infrastructure which is quite full, at capacity in most cases. When you look between 2014, 2018, and 2025 you see some growth areas we have to meet with additional infrastructure. At the same time, there is infrastructure not being used to capacity. With good-quality government spending we should look at what infrastructure we have which could be better utilised into the future.
One of the things I have always been interested in, compassionately, is what happens to children when they have completed their education through the education system. One of the reasons Henbury is so full is we have children who go beyond Year 12 to Year 13 and Year 14. Often there is no other facility set up to provide an adequate pathway for these children to continue with their education or provide genuine job opportunities.
Some companies can do this, but there is so much we can do as a community. How we treat people with disabilities and what services we can provide to assist them is a good measure of the community. We have some amazing carers in our communities; they provide services every day. One would hazard to try to quantify, in dollar terms, what it would cost all the governments in this country if we had to pay the carers for every hour they provide care.
The member for Karama, the Opposition Leader, mentioned Project 21. I have been to Project 21 and I agree with her, it is fabulous. Some of the young people working there have such passion for the work they do, it blows me away. I sometimes wish the average person who was fully capable and did not have a disability could show the same passion in their work. The work ethic they have is fantastic. Project 21 is one of those pathways which can alleviate some of the pressures on schools like Henbury where we have children going into Year 13 and beyond.
We are a growing city; we have growing infrastructure needs and it is something this government is aware of. This is why I instructed the department to create their infrastructure plan for me and find out where the growth areas are so we can adequately plan for future needs. At the top of my list is a new special needs unit; we need one in Palmerston and we also need a new Henbury facility and new primary schools. Zuccoli would be a perfect opportunity for a new primary school, because schools like Roseberry Primary School are already at capacity. You have to provide the infrastructure in those growing areas.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this statement tonight about disabilities and how we can best set ourselves up as a government which can provide the very best facilities and services we possibly can.
Infrastructure is important, but we have to be smart at the same time. We have to look at the infrastructure we already have and see how we can best promote the infrastructure which is not being used, and build new infrastructure where the need is required. This is why I am thankful the federal government has given us additional money for the next financial year, which we can use for infrastructure and look at building much needed new infrastructure in the Northern Territory. By the way, that e-mail: I agree.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Northern Territory Environmental Protection Act Amendments
Northern Territory Environmental Protection Act Amendments
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
1. That section 24 (Limitation on challenge to decision of member) of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W (Limitation on challenge to decision of member) of the NT Planning Act be deleted.
- 2. That the government introduce a code of conduct for both the EPA and the NT Planning Commission which states the following:
Conflicts of Interest:
From time to time, a member’s personal interests may give rise to a conflict with their public duty as a member of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission.
The following principles for managing conflicts of interest are:
serving the public interest
To ensure the integrity and independent functioning of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission, members are to disclose to the NT EPA and/or the Planning Commission conflicts of interest and the nature of those conflicts in matters that are before the meeting of the NT EPA or the Planning Commission. Conflicts of interest may arise in the following circumstances:
a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before a meeting of the NT EPA or Planning Commission
The code of conduct requires that a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before the NT EPA or the NT Planning Commission shall, as soon as the matter member has a knowledge or is aware of the relevant facts, disclose to the NT EPA or Planning Commission members present at the meeting, the nature of the interest and this disclosure is to be recorded in the minutes. A member who discloses an interest shall not partake as a member in the consideration or discussion or vote on the matter.
An indirect pecuniary interest in a matter includes a reference to a financial relationship between the member and another person for whom an NT EPA or Planning Commission decision in relation to the matter will result in a financial gain, loss, benefit or detriment.
b) A member may have a non-pecuniary interest in a matter which will preclude the member from all discussion and voting on the matter if this non-pecuniary personal interest is considered to conflict with the member’s ability to perform his/her official duty in an independent and impartial way. If a member has such an interest, for example an apprehension of bias arising from association or former relationships with proponent on a matter before the NT EPA or Planning Commission, the member is to disclose the nature of the interest to the NT EPA or Planning Commission and, in the event that the member does not decide to preclude themselves from discussion and voting on the matter, the NTEPA or Planning Commission Chairman or presiding member may so decide.
EPA members will:
Comply with section 22 of the NT EPA Act and section 81U of the Planning Act by disclosing to the members present at the meeting any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter that is before the meeting and providing the chairman or presiding members with a signed Disclosure of Personal Interest Form.
Comply with this code by disclosing to the members present at the meeting any non-pecuniary personal interest in a matter that is before the meeting and providing the chairman or presiding member with a signed Disclosure of Personal Interest Form.
I bring this forward today because it is an important debate which needs to be brought back to this parliament. It was a debate when both the EPA and the NT Planning Commission were first introduced and I had concerns then. I have even more concerns now, because certain things have happened which do not set us on the right path if we are to have statutory authorities making independent decisions.
My motion tonight is broken into two parts. One is to remove section 24 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act. I will quickly read what section 24 of the NT EPA Act says:
- (1) This section applies if a person who is a member of the NT EPA:
- (a) takes part in any deliberation or decision of the Planning Commission about a matter; and
(b) takes part in any decision of the NT EPA under this or another Act in relation to the same matter (a relevant decision).
(2) A relevant decision must not be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called into question in any court or tribunal merely because the person took part in the Planning Commission’s deliberation or decision.
- (a) an assessment or report;
(b) an opinion, advice or recommendation;
(c) a decision about licencing or compliance.
What I have also said is not only should they be taken out, but we should replace them with a conflicts of interest section. This clearly reminds members of the NT EPA or the Planning Commission of the principles for managing conflicts of interest. They are: serving the public interest; supporting transparency and scrutiny; promoting individual responsibility and personal example; and engendering an organisational culture which is intolerant of conflicts of interest. This is broken up into two sections; one is pecuniary and the other is non-pecuniary. These are from the Western Australian EPA, which has just been working through the same issues we have.
It has, from my understanding, similar issues with a member having someone on a planning board. It had to deal with this, so one thing which was asked for by the Western Australian government was to look at how it should be dealt with. I think there were some complications and they are introducing a code of conduct which covers conflict of interest. Its conflict of interest is in a matter before the Western Australian EPA and I have put the two together because we have a conflict either side.
They have to realise this is the Western Australian EPA and they deal with some pretty big issues. This is in addition to what is already in the act, so I am not asking for the section on conflict of interest in our act to be removed. This gives it more teeth, and it covers areas which may not be covered within legislation, or at least defines them more clearly if people have a concern about the meaning.
I am mainly interested in clause (b) of my motion which sets out a few things about filling in a disclosure of personal interest form, which happens in Western Australia. I will not go into it at the moment.
The motion I bring forward today highlights an anomaly which needs fixing. I cannot find this anomaly in any other legislation in Australia - that is, EPA legislation. I have looked in the legislation and in codes of conduct, and I do not find anywhere where one can be excluded from being challenged about code of conduct. The anomaly is found in the two NT acts where there are clauses which exempt any member of the NT EPA serving on the Planning Commission from being the subject of any charges of conflict of interest, and any member of the Planning Commission who is on EPA from similar charges.
A conflict of interest can have serious repercussions, as can be seen recently with the resignation of the chief of staff, Alastair Furnival, for the assistant Health minister, Fiona Nash. Sometimes it can be pecuniary and sometimes non-pecuniary, which is explained clearly in this motion using the Western Australian draft code of conduct as an example. This motion’s major concern is we have legislation which deliberately exempts people from coming under the normal requirements clearly expressed in both the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act and the Planning Act.
Imagine if the Commonwealth passed legislation which exempted Mr Furnival from any challenges to his conflict of interest. There would be an uproar! However, we have a legislation which allows it and the government thinks it is fine. It is like exempting someone from breaking the law. I have explained what those sections of the act are.
These are the only comments I could find in the second reading debates about this matter. For me, none of these statements make any real sense as they work against the argument. The minister, at the time, said the following:
- The key elements of my election commitment were the independence and transparency of the new NTEPA.
The exemptions mean the NT EPA is not independent. To quote again:
- The commitment I have made is for a strong, independent NTEPA with real powers to ensure development is undertaken in an environmentally responsible way …
This is fine, but it is not the environmentally responsible way for conflict of interest not to be challengeable. Again, this is a quote from the minister:
- … enhanced strategic approaches to environmental assessment with stronger links between planning and environmental assessment through membership of the NTEPA chairperson on the new Northern Territory Planning Commission and the membership of Northern Territory Planning Commission chairperson on the NTEPA …
My comment is that enhanced strategic approaches are not an excuse to excuse anyone on a government authority from a conflict of interest. It can be done in other ways. Planning and environment experts can be on one other body, but, definitively, not both. Again, a quote from the minister:
- Because of our commitment to integration, streamlined processes and having one relate to the other. We see it is most appropriate that the two key people, in their professional capacity and being independent, have the capacity to relate one process to the other.
No problem with the theory, but in practice you cannot do it without having a conflict of interest. It is one thing to have integration, but it is another thing to deliberately avoid conflict of interest by changing the rules.
The last quote is:
- I understand your concerns. I understand perceptions will be out there …
They are more than perceptions, by the way; that is my comment.
- … but I trust that time will help relieve some of those anxieties and reduce cynicism.
Unfortunately, it has increased them. Why do I say that? Because no other EPA in Australia allows for such an exemption. It goes against the whole concept of conflict of interest. In Western Australia, the code of conduct has been tightened more to cover clearly what non-pecuniary interest meant. It also dealt with the issue where there was no quorum because too many members had a conflict of interest. I think this came up in the Browse Basin deliberations of the Western Australia EPA.
Western Australia has made sure the EPA is truly independent, which is something our EPA can never be. I have the annual report here. All the EPAs I looked at do not have a relationship with anyone else; they are separate statutory bodies. They do not belong on another body; they are at arm’s length. When I spoke to the Western Australia EPA commissioner - I will not verbal him, but my understanding is this is exactly where they are. They are not part of anything else. Not only are they independent; they have to be seen to be independent. This is where we do not go, because we have an inter-relationship between development, which is the Planning Commission, and the EPA, which looks at sustainable development. It has to look at whether what has been put forward by the government, through the Planning Commission, is okay with an environmental protection agency. While they are linked and exempted from conflict of interest they will never be independent.
I am not making a judgment of those two people, but you will never be seen to be producing truly independent decisions, because they are not independent and are not split. They should be at arm’s length from one another; this is really the problem.
There is nothing wrong with having people with environmental credentials being on the Planning Commission or vice versa. One of the arguments I heard was we are a bit short on those people, but I am not so sure. Look at the people on the EPA; they are not all locals. I have a list of the board members here. We have Professor David John Williams, who is based at the University of Queensland. He has a doctorate in Soil Mechanics from the University of Cambridge. There is Dr John Chapman, who completed his PhD in Organic Chemistry at the University of Sydney and, subsequently, obtained a Diploma in Environmental Studies at Macquarie University. He has worked in New South Wales, although I am not sure if he still works there. We are able to get experts to come in from either side and talk about these issues.
After all, the chairman of the NT Planning Commission lives in Canberra and we bring him up to do the work. Why can we not bring independent planners here to work with the Planning Commission if it is what they need? This is where the problems arise, and this would be a far better approach. If the Planning Commission wants an environmental person, get someone who is not on the EPA. If the EPA wants someone with an understanding of planning issues, put someone on, but do not have them on both bodies.
I am not saying it is not a good idea to have some form of integration. You will have people with planning knowledge and with environmental knowledge, but I do not accept having them on the same board.
Those two clauses are not needed, because both the Chair of EPA and the Chair of the Planning Commission - as they are part of the decision-making process of each board - would have to remove themselves from these meetings if they were in other states of Australia. In the Northern Territory, it does not happen because we have an exemption not found in any other state or even the Commonwealth. We are the only place which exempts someone from a conflict of interest. It seems strange that with the Western Australia EPA looking at this, they have tightened it, and we have lessened it by giving this exemption.
What are the practical implications if we do not introduce a code of conduct like this in this motion and do not remove the exemption clause? It could not be more evident now than with the release of the Greater Darwin Plan. In this plan we have some major projects, and now it has come home to roost. We have Glyde Point decided by the NT Planning Commission - a major change to the Glyde Point peninsula moving from what the ALP wanted, which was a version between conservation and open space, to an industrial port. The people who made this decision are the NT Planning Commission, where you have the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Chairman of the EPA.
I presume, when this is up for discussion it will go to the EPA, because it is its job to look at development from an environmentally sustainable point of view. I will see if I can find each requirement, I am not sure whether it is stated in here. It says, ‘To promote ecologically sustainable development and protect the environment, having the need to enable ecologically sustainable development’, etcetera. Those are the main two functions, but there are other important functions.
You have the Chair of the EPA and of the NT Planning Commission making a decision about Glyde Point. The government says, ‘Yes, Glyde Point should go ahead,’ or they think it should at least be looked at, and then along comes the EPA to look at it. It says, ‘We will look at it under our objectives and functions’. Then the two people who made this decision pop over to the EPA and decide whether this is a good idea.
Surely this is a conflict of interest. If I was on the soccer club and the AFL club, and the soccer club was after some money, if I went over to the AFL club and told them all of the soccer club secrets, do you think I should declare I have a conflict of interest? I think it would be the right thing to do. I might say, ‘Listen, I cannot vote on this decision, because I have information which I am privy to from the other club. They expect me to keep it to myself and I do not think I can involve myself in this decision-making.’
This is the normal process for anybody who makes a decision where there could be a conflict of interest. We also have the Shoal Bay conservation reserve. Minister, I hope you give us more time when trying to help people sort through this document. I have been working my best through it, but this is the Shoal Bay conservation reserve as it is now. It is a fairly large conservation reserve.
In the new plan, you will be pleased to know that all of a sudden it has changed. Nearly three quarters of it has turned into open space and natural land, which I have never heard of. I have heard of open space and natural land, but never as a title. I have two areas here, one is what it is now and one is what it might be. This is a major change. The NT Planning Commission has made up its mind that this is a good idea. I do not know whose idea it was, but someone has clearly said this should happen. I am not saying whether it is good or bad, but I am saying there is a change. The NT Planning Commission made the decision with the Chair of the EPA and of the NT Planning Commission on the board.
This is conservation; along comes the EPA and says, ‘We had better look at this; this is a bit of a change.’ This was put in by Denis Burke when he was Chief Minister because there were problems regarding a possible prawn farm in the area, the barramundi people and AFANT people were not happy, so we made a reserve. The reserve is changing. Here we go again, across to the EPA. The EPA has sat on the board which made this decision, and will now make a new decision based on what they have decided before. Surely, this is an unnecessary conflict of interest. It could be easily sorted out by the normal processes for any authorities; bring on people if you need more independent expertise.
You have the damming of the Elizabeth River – oh, our favourite - I forgot to bring my picture, sitting in the Howard Springs nature park claiming victory. It has a little quote under it - I wish I had brought it with me - and has Denis Burke, the Chief Minister then, saying, ‘Listen to the people’. You would worry about listening to the people 10 years ago, because they are not listening now.
Up comes the Elizabeth River dam again. It is in here. It is a good one. If there is one project you will need a major environmental analysis for - which I did, 10 to 15 years ago, I will have to find all my files - it is this one.
The Chair of the NT EPA and of the Planning Commission have brought this out of the CLP’s document from when they were in opposition. It was not on the Labor Party’s one and had been knocked off by the previous CLP Chief Minister. It turned up on the last lot of the Greater Darwin Plan the Country Liberal Party brought out in about 2011-12. Elizabeth River Dam came up on it and, lo and behold, it comes up on this one. There is more; there is a new port at West Arm - Taranaki. If you can tell me whether that is a Chinese takeaway or a New Zealand dance, let me know where the name comes from. It does not exist in the Place Names Committee files, I looked. Maybe someone can e-mail you where the name came from for when you give us a sum up. I do not know where it came from but it will need – and it takes out a whole lot of mangroves in Darwin Harbour; I am sure the fishermen will love that - the same sort of assessment.
The problem is the EPA will be making these assessments and will not be at arm’s length from the NT Planning Commission. The chair will have been a member of the commission which put the Greater Darwin Plan together. When the EPA makes a decision on these projects, the Chair of the Planning Commission will be involved as he is a member of the EPA as well. My impression is other EPAs do not believe in the system we have in place. They shake their heads, and the act is not clear on non-pecuniary interests. This is why you need a code of conduct to back it up.
This part of the code will cover other interests which might conflict with decisions being made. There is a classic example in here, why, for instance, there is a development called the Noonamah Hughes development. For some reason, it does not look anything like the present zone; it has changed. It is all peri-urban with 1.4 ha to 1 ha blocks all the way from Elizabeth River to the bottom end of Hughes Airstrip and across the highway. This is not the same as what is on the zone and what the previous government looked at. It did not go that far; it was a bit milder. I think it looked at rural-residential. The Purick/Wood version of this was 1 ha, 2 ha and a district centre at Noonamah. It did not go all over the place and looked at making sure it did not touch wetlands. Here is a plan by Earl James and Associates, which I have known about for a long time; I talked about it in a meeting one time. It matches exactly the plan the Planning Commission put together, more or less. It has advocated here: 0.41 ha peri-urban - no relation to Perry Mason, it is a great name. On this document by Earl James, there are many small blocks and the same pieces of land covered.
I am not commenting on this; there are some good things in this plan. I have spoken to developers, but the Chairman did, once upon a time, work for Earl James and Associates. I am not saying he has done anything wrong or am even inferring it. However, under the EPA in Western Australia - under the non-pecuniary side of things - if you have an association or a past association with a company, you might have to declare it if you are making a decision about something. I am trying to find the part again; the non-pecuniary interest section is related to, as I said before:
- A member may have a non-pecuniary interest in a matter which will preclude the member from all discussion and voting on the matter if this non-pecuniary personal interest is considered to conflict with the member’s ability to perform his/her official duty in an independent and impartial way. If a member has such an interest, for example an apprehension of bias arising from association or former relationships with proponent on a matter before the NT EPA or Planning Commission …
Darwin is a small town and people will have relationships with other people. This is okay; if you have this non-pecuniary section in your code of conduct, then it simply has to be declared. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but this development is very close to the development the NT Planning Commission put forward. It is an area I know will come up for discussion. Most of it is in the member for Daly’s area. It is an area which caused quite a bit of discussion some years ago. It does not match up the previous government’s version, or the Purick/Wood version.
If there was a non-pecuniary interest caused by a relationship some years ago, it has to be declared so everything is up-front and we can move on from there. At present, unfortunately we are in a position where the excuse for having a conflict of interest - and not a clear guide as to what conflict of interest means when it comes to a non-pecuniary interest - needs to be fixed.
I have looked at all the other states. I cannot find any state which comes close to having a conflict of interest being exempted; it is the other way around. Everyone is so nervous today about conflict of interest that they have tightened up on their codes of conduct to make sure there cannot be any possibility of those things happening. Look at the person in the Minister for Health’s portfolio the other day. There is no saying the person had any direct pecuniary interest or received any financial gain, but the minister who was making decisions had to make sure they were seen to be neutral and independent when making a decision. It was over food quality standards, or some new program to make sure you know what you are eating. They had some concerns about whether a member of staff had some sort of interest in a company through shares. It might have been a very long bow to say they would have had any big influence on that decision, but they had to be seen to be squeaky clean.
Why do we have to declare our interest in parliament? To make sure we do not have a conflict of interest. I have Telstra shares – 400 of them, I think. They earn me a heap of money every year. I was doing the patriotic thing when I bought them. If we discuss whether we should have Telstra, Optus, Vodafone or someone operating the government’s communication system - and it was something to do with parliament making a decision - I would have to declare I have shares in Telstra. The decision might be so small and miserable the chairman of the board might say it is insignificant.
This is what would happen here. It is not saying these people could not sit and make a judgment, it is saying you declare your conflict of interest like you do on local councils. If it is a declaration to a major conflict of interest, you cannot stay at that meeting.
It is an amendment I am bringing forward, which brings it into line with other states, especially when it comes to environmental protection agencies. It is important we ensure there is no chance of decisions being made …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Government will make some pretty serious decisions in the future, whether it is the Halikos island, Elizabeth River damming or the port. Those decisions must be done through due process. The due process is we have the NT Planning Commission put these ideas up; how far they go forward afterward will be through public consultation. At the same time, we will have an environment protection agency which, we hope, will vigorously analyse these programs independently. It must be seen to be independent. We have these clauses which recognise the conflict of interest; it is why they are there. The government is saying, ‘Yes, there is a conflict of interest, but for the sake of integration’ - which is the only reason you can give and can be overcome by other means – ‘we will exempt you from challenges to the conflict of interest where you make a decision from one board to the other’.
I do not know of any other boards we have integration on. You have the Licencing Commission, other planning bodies like the Development Consent Authority, health boards and all sorts of things. I imagine if you are on a health board and have shares in a pharmaceutical group and a decision from the health board is required on something related to pharmaceuticals, you might have to say, ‘Excuse me, I have an interest’, and whether it pecuniary or non-pecuniary, it would be up to you to decide. You would probably not be allowed to vote or stay on the board when the decision was being made. This, to me, is the normal process; it is the normal process in local government. Even in good old Litchfield Council, at the beginning of meetings, someone asks if anyone has a conflict of interest because they all have their agenda so they know what is coming up. If you have a conflict of interest you cannot stay around for the discussion.
I remember - this is only a little thing - I finished my time on the Litchfield Council and asked them, ‘Is it possible to buy my old ute?’ They said, ‘Out the door, we will discuss this without you’. There was a conflict of interest so they discussed it amongst themselves, voted on it, got some advice - I think they got some quotes on the market price – and then I was allowed back in. I was not allowed to take part in the decision, even though it was the car I had been driving for four or five years. It was regarded as a conflict of interest. It is normal …
A member: Were you allowed to buy it?
Mr WOOD: Yes, but at the market price. It was a bit more than I wanted to pay, but I bought it. The point is it was due process. It had to be in the minutes that Gerry Wood left the meeting and they discussed if I could purchase that vehicle. This example should apply to all conflicts of interest. If the government wants an EPA which is seen to be independent and is independent, it needs to support the changes to both acts.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on the motion by the member for Nelson and the reasons I will not be supporting it. Everything the member for Nelson is asking for already exists. I can demonstrate clearly by the number of phone calls I have had from the Planning Commissioner, although more from Bill Freeland from the EPA where he has spoken to me about why he is removing himself from a meeting because of a subject. It happens.
The conflict of interest exists today and it works. We have the integrity of the Planning Commissioner and the Chair of the EPA. It is as though you question their integrity. I take offence to that because if you were to read the legislation clearly - and if you go back through the debates we had in this Chamber when the independent EPA and the Planning Commission were set up - you will see from time to time there could be a conflict of interest, whether perceived or real, and members will remove themselves from those meetings or whilst those things happen.
The legislation and meeting procedures for the NT Planning Commission and the NT Environmental Protection Authority adequately address potential conflicts of interest.
The Planning Commission and the NT EPA are made up of professional and suitably qualified people who understand where and when to declare a conflict of interest. Cross-membership of the chairs of both bodies ensures the best professional expertise and advice can be assessed and integrated.
In response to the motion presented by the member for Nelson, I will highlight the current legislative provisions and governance agreements in managing potential conflicts of interest. Against this backdrop, I will then explain the rationale for the limitation on the challenges to decision of members in section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act.
Managing potential conflicts of interest: many boards and committees are constituted with ex officio members. Potential conflicts of interest can be handled with proper disclosure and procedures. I draw attention to the legislative provisions under the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and Planning Act which articulate how potential conflicts of interest are managed. Section 22 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81U of the Planning Act are designed to deal with conflicts which may arise during normal courses of business. Members of the NT EPA and the Planning Commission are required to raise conflicts of interest in accordance with these provisions.
In the respective legislation for both bodies, personal interest, including a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter, or a personnel, professional, commercial or other interest are matters which have been noted in the motion and matters the member for Nelson seeks to address in the proposed code of conduct. I remind honourable members the issue raised considerable debate and discussion in 2012 when the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 and the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Bill 2012 were passed in this House. As the former Chief Minister noted, in relation to concerns raised by the member for Nelson and opposition as part of the debate, for the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Bill:
- Issues need to be considered in a planning context … Not to influence, but to inform and strengthen the deliberations, the considerations and the ultimate decision of the EPA.
This is as true for the commission; if a member has a personal interest in a matter for consideration by the commission or the NT EPA, the member must outline the nature and extent of the interest to all members and the interest must be recorded in the minutes. The member must not take part in any deliberation of the commission or NT EPA about the matter.
The NT EPA and the Planning Commission have already adopted procedures which outline similar requirements in relation to the management of conflicts to the proposed code of conduct, presented by the member for Nelson. These are publicly available. As part of the meeting practice, both bodies have the identification of conflicts of interests as a standing item on their meeting agendas. Potential conflicts are identified and discussed, and steps to manage them are endorsed. In summary, the legislation in meeting procedures provides an adequate framework for managing potential conflicts of interest. The proposed code of conduct advocated in this motion is already practised by the chairs and members of each body.
I turn to the other issue raised in the motion, regarding the limitation on challenges to a decision of a member. I should emphasise section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81W of the Planning Act are not designed to allow members of the committees to participate in decisions where they would otherwise have a conflict of the nature contemplated by the member for Nelson. They are specifically designed to enable the Chairs of the NT EPA and the commission to fully participate in matters before each body. Section 81W of the Planning Act also ensures the Chairs of the Heritage Council and the Development Consent Authority can fully participate as members of the commission, council and authority. Membership of the commission has been designed to bring together the chairs of government’s key environmental, planning and heritage bodies. Without section 24 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act, or section 81W of the Planning Act, the Chairs of the NT EPA, the commission, the DCA and the Heritage Council would not be fully functioning members of the commission and other committees.
This scenario would defeat government’s objective of bringing environmental, planning and heritage matters together in an integrated way to provide better outcomes for the Northern Territory community and the environment. The provisions are designed to ensure participating in a meeting as a member of the commission does not prevent the Chair of the NT EPA from participating in a decision about an environmental impact assessment matter. Similarly, being Chair of the commission does not prevent the Hon Gary Nairn from participating in a decision of the NT EPA regarding an environmental impact assessment, or a related matter before the commission. Dr Brian Reid, the Chair of the Heritage Council, is not prevented from advising me about a heritage declaration because the place or object under consideration was discussed as part of the significant development proposal before the commission.
If any member of the commission or the NT EPA has a conflict of interest arising, other than by their position on these committees, that member is prevented from participating in the deliberations of the relevant body by virtue of section 22 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act and section 81U of the Planning Act.
The member for Nelson talked about a couple of things, one being the Greater Darwin Plan. The Planning Commissioner released an idea towards a Darwin regional land use plan. The member for Nelson talked as if there was no other consultation, as if these boards do not consult with anyone and they make the ultimate decisions. This is wrong because these bodies are set to provide recommendations to government. Ultimately, it is the government making the decision based on the information presented, similar to how I would if the Heritage Council put forward some names for new streets in a developing suburb. I look at those reports as the former Lands and Planning minister, Gerry McCarthy, would have done.
You look at those reports, at the reasons behind why we will have that name in place, and if everything checks off, we give approval. It is the same thing when the EPA, or the Planning Commission, presents me with information. I take an idea or plan they have put together to Cabinet. Ultimately, it is the decision of Cabinet and this government whether or not to go ahead.
The member for Nelson also pointed out, in relation to a regional land use plan the Planning Commission has worked on, the damming of the Elizabeth River. I know you, Madam Speaker, have an interest in this as well. These are things we should not be afraid to debate. The fact it appears in the towards a regional land use plan does not mean it will be agreed to by this government. It puts out the opportunity for the community to provide feedback. The member for Goyder has provided feedback directly to me about her opinions on this, and it is fantastic we have professional, open debates about it.
Is it okay to talk to you whilst you are in the Chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Of course it is.
Mr CHANDLER: The member for Goyder raised with me directly a valid modern argument about the Elizabeth River. It was that the impacts which were studied 20-odd years ago need to come back and we need to look whether it would stack up, whether it is a practical way to use our land. The regional land use plan is not in concrete.
It has not been agreed to by the government and is not locked in as a plan for the future. It is a concept for us to speak about. The conversation I had with the member for Goyder reminded me about those things studied 20 years ago. There could be people in Darwin who have just arrived or have been here a few years, they may look at a design or a concept like that and think ‘Whoa! Marvellous! Get on with it, let’s do it!’ They may not have any understanding of what was discovered 20 years ago, which is why it is important to have these things in the plan. The other thing at risk is if you put too much detail into an idea, you are then accused of not consulting. You have made a decision and will commit to it; that is it. When presenting the Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan to the top rock at City of Darwin a few weeks ago, we were accused of not having a space on the plan for a regional waste facility. You scratch your head and wonder how much detail you put into these reports, because if you put too much in you are accused of not being interested and not consulting when you have already made a decision. Then you could go with a blank piece of paper and say ‘There is the plan.’ That does not provide anyone any stimulus to raise concerns.
That is why this is a fantastic document. The reasons for having a second airport, and the place it will be - at the moment this is talking about the fact there will come a day in Darwin, whether it is 10, 20, 30 or 50 years from now, when we will require a second airport. Good planning, to me, dictates we should be talking about 50 years from now; well past my use-by date, although I hope to be around for a few years yet.
Good planning should not be restricted to electoral cycles. Good planning should be 10, 20, 30 or 50 years from now. Decisions we make today will help people in years to come. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan by the Planning Commissioner is one of the documents the member for Nelson referred to.
I argue to a T that our EPA today is far more independent than it ever was under the previous government. The member for Nelson spoke about the importance of due process. I agree, the systems we have in place, the fact we have a Planning Commission, an NT architect, the independent EPA and the way it is structured provides this government with a robust foundation to provide good planning.
I sincerely believe we need integration, but I also believe the legislation and the integrity of those people we have on our boards will ensure that whenever there is a conflict of interest, either the legislation or the rules of engagement our boards and commission include in general meetings will cover whether they are potential, perceived or real conflicts of interest. I know it works because I have had a number of phone calls. I have seen in minutes that members have been removed due to a perceived or real conflict. I have seen the evidence and it works.
The fact we have a robust system in place today, through the legislation introduced by the Country Liberals, should provide a solid assurance to the community; how we act today is far better than what we had before. As I have said in this House before, Bill Freeland can do things because of his legislation that a Chair of the NT EPA could never do previously. So much for the last government saying its EPA was independent. Truly it was not, because the minister could direct or prevent, and even have reports prevented from being tabled if they chose. If a report was a little dangerous for a government, they could pull it up and it would not go any further. Today, the NT EPA can table reports and report to the media. I cannot stop Bill from getting on the phone and talking to the media. I cannot stop him or the EPA investigating a potential or real threat to the environment and making those recommendations or making a report to the public. That could all be stalled under the previous regime.
We have made it truly independent, and I honestly think there is far better due process today than existed before. Under the previous government, if you look at the potential for major infrastructure such as Arafura Harbour – I think that was the big one. The fact is that political will pulled it up before it was allowed to go through any due process.
In my mind, whether that would have stacked up and been supported or not, it was never allowed to go through the process. It was as though the previous government did not trust their process and they pulled it up. To pull something up before it goes through due process and through their system undermined everyone who worked in those departments, as well as undermining their own legislation and due process because they did not have faith in it. I have faith in the system today and what we have set up will provide true guidance to this government, adequate protection to our environment, and will ensure whenever there is a development opportunity anywhere in the Northern Territory, the processes we have in place today provide independence. When those recommendations come to government we can be truly confident matters such as conflict of interest are adequately covered, either in the legislation or in the rules of engagement within these meetings.
I advocate we keep it the way it is, because the integration of advice from the EPA, the Planning Commissioner and the Heritage branch involved in this provides far more robust information to a government before it can make a decision. I need to point out that none of these boards or commissions make decisions. They make recommendations to the government, which then makes the decision.
In conclusion, the legislation clearly states the need to declare conflicts of interest and the two professional bodies are acting in accordance with the law.
As was stated during the original debate, this government took the time to ensure …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister, please.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Nelson. I only have a couple of lines to go.
As was stated during the original debate, the government took time and sought advice to ensure the legislation was able to withstand legal challenges designed only to slow down processes. The governance arrangements which underpin the NT EPA and the Planning Commission promote public confidence in the integrity of their work.
I commend the Chair of the NT EPA, Dr Bill Freeland, and the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Hon Gary Nairn, for their leadership since both bodies were established on 1 January 2013. Both chairs have demonstrated integrity and sound judgment as they objectively consider each matter on its merits.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I do not know who writes the notes for the minister, but it does not matter what is put in front of him or dropped on his desk, he will always deliver and peddle whatever is there.
I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. The members on this side and I know exactly where he is coming from. It is about accountability, transparency and something which goes to the heart of this motion. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it on. Those of us on this side of the Chamber will be supporting this motion.
In the debate on the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill in December 2012, the member for Nightcliff, who formerly had the shadow responsibility for Environment, raised the concern of the motion before the House this evening. The member for Nightcliff said:
- One of the major problems we have with this legislation is the automatic appointment of the Chair of the Planning Commission on the Environment Protection Authority. This creates a risk to the independence of the EPA and a conflict of interest.
One must question why this is necessary and if it is aimed at ensuring projects get special or preferred consideration, such as Arafura Harbour.
In the committee stage the member for Blain, the then Chief Minister – a much better Chief Minister than the one we have currently - said the clause relating to the conflict of interest:
… is there so both chairs can participate in the process. The objective is integrated and streamlined decision-making so we can instil, ultimately, greater confidence in the community about the processes we go through, weigh all issues carefully, and draw the line in the right place. The clause is simply to allow the chairs to participate without legal challenge and bogging the whole process down.
In what has become usual and standard practice for the CLP government opposite, they decided to reduce transparency and accountability wherever possible. How would this arrangement give greater confidence to the community? It is all about streamlining and removing the usual checks and balances which Territorians are entitled to. In any usual situation, a member of the NT EPA would exclude themselves if there is a conflict of interest in participating in a deliberation or decision of the Planning Commission. The minister said as much this afternoon.
Section 24 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act prevents the appeal against a decision where there may have been a conflict of interest. To explicitly enable conflicts of interest is not the way to be accountable. What happens when the interests of the EPA may be detrimentally affected by a decision of the Planning Commission? Similarly, what happens when the functions of the Planning Commission may be impeded by a decision of the EPA?
I and the members on this side believe it is in the interests of business to have sound decision-making and not short cuts, but how is the conflict between two statutes and two different agencies, with different objectives and functions, resolved? If it is the CLP, the solution is to ignore it. The CLP has exempted any real or potential conflict from challenge, and accountability is avoided, not only in this circumstance, but across many ways they are operating in delivering government services.
This is what we might call the head-in-the-sand approach; it is clearly at odds with what they said before the election. One of the CLP’s five points to a better Territory was to be accountable. Being accountable is a fairly straight forward promise, and it should have been easy for the CLP government to implement, but instead there are numerous examples of not being accountable. Let us list a few of those: commissioning, but not releasing, secret reports into no speed limits; hiding the $1m Renewal Management Board report from the public; disbanding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee …
Mr Chandler: What does that have to do with the EPA and the Planning Commission?
Ms WALKER: I am talking about the many instances beyond this motion where your government is not interested in accountability or transparency. Perhaps in the same way you wanted to answer a question about education today by talking about the environment, and a very dodgy e-mail. Somebody fiddled around with an e-mail which is very dodgy, minister.
We are now listing some of the many examples we have where this government is not interested in being accountable. I just talked about the $1m Renewal Management Board report, which was hidden from the public. What about disbanding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, which was overseeing implementations of the Growing them strong, together report? What about dumping the Independent Coordinator General for Remote Services, Olga Havnen? What about issuing a water licence to the CLP candidate, Tina MacFarlane? There was a perfect example today on the floor of the House, where I was able to table to members and anybody who wanted to view the ministerial briefing obtained by the opposition under FOI. In this document, any accountability and transparency around two constituents, horticulturists, who lodged an appeal to challenge the decision of a water licence handed to CLP candidate Tina McFarlane – in accordance with section 30 of the Water Act, the minister had the option to put it to an independent review panel and chose not to.
Here we have the minister opposite, thumping his chest and trying to tell us, ‘No, you have it wrong, we are accountable and transparent’. You are not. What about the secret reviews of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act? It came up in Question Time today. The minister responsible for that area of government service delivery through AAPA is not coming clean about what is happening with that review of the act. There is considerable mistrust about what is happening there.
Creating a conflict of interest in legislation and then doing nothing about it is not the way to be accountable. There is a wealth of precedence when it comes to dealing with conflicts of interest. The Northern Territory Public Sector code of conduct defines the expected level of conduct and provides guidance on a range of ethical and moral issues, which may affect public servants from time to time. The code is an intrinsic part of the terms and conditions of employment; it binds, and must be observed by, Chief Executive Officers, Executive Contract Officers and Northern Territory Public Service employees. The objective of the policy is to provide guidelines for application of an essential element of the code and the necessity to disclose in writing any financial or other interests which conflict, or have the potential to conflict, between personal interest and official duty.
Ultimately, the primary responsibility for declaring and managing a conflict of interest rests with an individual employee, but what happens when there is an inherent conflict of interest created in statute? The code applies to the public sector, but why should it not apply to the EPA and Planning Commission decisions? There are models for codes of conduct for commission members in other jurisdictions; the member for Nelson has talked about it. For example, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission code of conduct has a clear set of guidelines for members and deals with a range of conflicts of interest.
Another example exists in the South Australian Development Assessment Commission. Section 21A of the Development Act 1993 enables the minister to adopt a code of conduct to be observed by members of the commission. Members of the commission are bound by the code of conduct, which sets out procedures in relation to conflicts of interest.
It is reasonable for businesses and the community to have confidence in planning processes. There is no point setting up a mechanism which leaves a sour taste in the month. Ultimately, the real barometer on matters such as this is: what would the person in the street think about the current provisions in the Northern Territory Environmental Protection Authority Act, or lack of them? They would find it incomprehensible that conflict of interest is allowed in the legislation and any decision where there is a conflict of interest cannot be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called into question in any court or tribunal.
As I said at the outset, we support the motion put forward by the member for Nelson and commend it to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions and am interested in hearing what everyone has to say. I thank the minister for his response; you might be surprised I do not agree with you, but, can I put this way? To me, this is not about the names. I am concerned about the principle behind it and we have people in these positions. If I cannot ask hard questions, proper questions about real concerns with the process, and if I am told I am insulting the chairman of the board, it is a bit hard. I know both of those people and they do an excellent job. Do not forget they did not put this legislation together. It was the politicians who put this together. They work under it.
I am not saying they do a bad job, nor am I making a statement which is meant to reflect on their ability to do their job. I cannot debate some of these issues if I do not give examples of where I think there are problems. I am not making claims against anybody. As I have said before, the Chairman of the Planning Commission did an excellent job at Knuckey Lagoon. You will see two things in my debate: bring in a code of conduct which deals with non-pecuniary interests, as it is not clear in our legislation; and take away the exemptions.
I heard what the minister had to say about us having a code of conduct. I know we do; it is here right next to the exemptions - the two sections of the bill before it. I know members of the board have to abide by that. I mentioned a couple of people from the EPA. When they are in discussion, they would have to declare their interests, but it does not cover this case. This is a specific case which you have allowed that would not normally be allowed. I know members of both sides would declare a conflict of interest when required under the act. I am not in any way saying they would not.
However, you have to remember there are two people separate from all the other members of that body who are exempted from conflict of interest because of their dual role on these authorities ...
Mr Chandler: It does not happen, actually.
Mr WOOD: It might not happen and this was what concerned me. I am not saying the Chair of the EPA would not put his hand up and say, ‘I should not really be in this meeting.’ It is a voluntary thing which is fine, I accept that and it is a good thing. It is the same with the Chair of the Northern Territory Planning Commission. If he volunteers to say, ‘This is something I should not participate in or vote on’, it is voluntary, but we have provided legislation which makes it legal and this bit concerns me. It is not only about these two people. It could be Fred Nerk and Bill Smith, or Mrs Smith, who are in charge of these areas later on.
I am trying to deal with the issue and have given you some practical examples of where I think the legislation needs, in some cases, to be improved with the code of conduct, and by removing the exemptions from it. You mentioned the heritage body may have a conflict of interest, and the Development Consent Authority. I do not have it in front of me, but I am fairly sure the Development Consent Authority has a clause which says they have to step away.
You can look at the development of the Northern Territory in two ways. You could have an integrated Planning Commission which deals with all the issues you are dealing with: heritage; culture; environment; planning; socioeconomics; future housing; and all those sorts of things. No problem. I will give you an example - and they live in this parliament and work out of here - the little building next door should be the EPA and should have nothing to do with this building. But, the way you have set your legislation up, it has something to do with it. This group here should discuss all those issues about the proposed Lake Elizabeth, the port and Glyde Point, all those kinds of issues. When they have come up with their report, they give it to the minister, who looks at it, and it gets tossed out for the community to look at. They then come back with some recommendations to you, which is around the time you should be sending some of this stuff to the EPA.
The EPA has had nothing to do with this decision-making of the NT Planning Commission. It might in theory, because you said people volunteer to get off it, but they might be the people of today. What happens if the next lot of people who come on that board do not volunteer to get off it? If they volunteer to get off it, is it not sending a signal to the government saying, maybe they have a concern about this too. Maybe they think this legislation is a bit silly, because they are voluntarily getting out of that position. This does not give me the impression they support this clause, because they are concerned they will be seen as not independent.
I have always wanted an EPA which could make these decisions and the public felt confident it was independent. I am not saying the chair or the members of this board do not do a good job; they give an independent assessment. I am not in any way saying they do not do their job properly. Again, it hurts me when you say I put a slight on any of those members. I have not. However, the community does not know who is on the board or how it functions. If the community finds out some of those people on one board are on the other board, what will the average person think? ‘That is not independent.’ I am sure there are other bodies which have to be independent.
A classic example which concerns me is from the release about the water licence in Mataranka. There was an independent board which should have looked at the appeal, but it did not. Is there a conflict of interest there? People need to have confidence in government and that the authorities they are setting up are independent. I am a little upset in this debate, which we need to have and where you need to ask some hard questions, otherwise how do you have a decent debate? Sometimes people say, ‘Gerry Wood rolls over’. I try not to roll over, but I would like to put an argument in parliament which I think is fair and reasonable without being told, ‘You should not be saying that’. How else will we clear the air and see if what is happening is fair and reasonable?
I put these things here today, not to knock anyone on the Planning Commission or the EPA, but I made the effort to talk to other EPAs or send e-mails to other EPAs and say, ‘How does your EPA work? Do you have an exemption?’
I was talking to a fellow from CSIRO recently who knows a couple of people. He shook his head, ‘You do not have exemptions’. They do not exist in any other parliament. It is not just me thinking this is a silly idea. Other state governments, many of them Liberal, do not include an exemption from something most people would say was vital to independence when it comes to something like the EPA or any other statutory body. The section of the code of conduct about conflict of interest is the key to ensuring there is no corruption in a statutory authority. We know things have happened in some states which should not have occurred. The reason you have it is to make sure there is no undue influence in government decisions.
It is my job, as a member of parliament who thinks our present legislation is not the right way to tackle the issue of conflict of interest, to debate it and not infer anyone has done anything wrong - all I have done is give some hard examples why I think certain things need to change. Non-pecuniary interest - if someone has an interest in an existing or past association they may have to declare it. In a small town like Darwin it could be very important, even worse if you are in Alice Springs where you may have to make decisions and know everybody there.
That is one side of it. The other side is saying you should not have an exemption; you should keep the EPA as separate as possible so it is not only independent - in no way am I saying it is not independent – but is seen to be independent. How many times have we heard that in parliament? We ought to do things which are seen to be independent as well as being independent.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for supporting the motion. I will not call a division; we have debated the issue pretty well. People understand where we are coming from. There are times when people think everything is about politics. This is not about politics in the sense of saying it for the sake of trying to win some brownie points. It is trying to improve the processes on which we govern this Territory. That is what has been put forward. The process is faulty; you argue it is not. If it comes back in a year’s time do not be surprised.
I ask the minister to at least look at it and perhaps discuss it with other people like the Western Australia EPA Commissioner. Have a chat with him. The WA EPA is upgrading its code of conduct because it had some issues. There is the draft code of conduct, which, I gather, is not going to be adjusted anymore. They have been doing some work on it and it will be the draft code of conduct for the EPA. I borrowed it from them. It made good sense and I thought it would be good for the Northern Territory, but, obviously, it will not be supported. I thank members for their contributions.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 15
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
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Proposed Power and Water Corporation Legislation Committee
Proposed Power and Water Corporation Legislation Committee
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the proposed split up of the Power and Water Corporation will have profound implications for Territorians. The rush to have the new arrangements in place by 1 July will create more CLP confusion and chaos for the corporation. Electricity, water and sewerage charges are a major contributor to costs of living pressures and a major concern for Territory consumers. Since coming to office, the CLP has punished Territory families and businesses with savage cost increases; electricity is up 25%, water 35% and sewerage 20%. These increases have hit Territorians hard. Families are leaving the Territory because the cost of living is too high, and businesses are closing their doors. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer have an arrogant disregard of the impact of these prices on ordinary Territorians. A recent national survey conducted by Mortgage Choice found that 64% of Territory consumers are worried about their utility bills. Over the Christmas period, Territory non-government organisations such as the St Vincent De Paul Society, the Salvation Army, Anglicare and Somerville reported increasing demand for assistance, arising from income stress caused by the government’s huge increases in utility prices.
In a recent briefing, a government consultant confirmed there was no analysis, science or evidence in calculating the savage increase in utility prices. He said the government looked at prices elsewhere in Australia and came up with the huge arbitrary increases which have punished Territory families and businesses. It was a cash grab and nothing else. We have seen the results of that cash grab. Power and Water Corporation has posted a $41m profit, literally taking the money out of Territorians’ pockets and fattening up the corporation. If an average family or business wants to know why they are paying the extra $2000 or more in utility costs, there is the Country Liberals answer. It is a cash grab; there is no underlying analysis. Is the Country Liberals government fattening up the pig for market day, ramping up tariffs to make privatisation a more attractive proposition for its private sector mates in the electricity sector?
On top of the savage price increases already imposed on Territory families and businesses, we know the Utilities Commission has recommended an increase of 43% in power network charges to cover a funding requirement led by the policy of the CLP, requiring a commercial return. That would be the equivalent of $1.1bn over the next five years.
The options open to government are: pass all or some of this funding requirement on to consumers on top of the savage prices hikes already imposed by the CLP; borrow $1.1bn; or substantially reduce capital works in maintenance in power networks, thereby threatening the reliability of supply to Territory consumers. This is the context of the bills introduced by the Treasurer to split up the Power and Water Corporation. The Treasurer said in this Assembly recently that privatisation of the Power and Water Corporation was not something the government had looked at. However, given the structure proposed under these bills and experience elsewhere in Australia, it is difficult to believe the Treasurer’s assertion. I will return to the privatisation issue shortly, but first it is instructive to look at the split up of the Power and Water Corporation, CLP style, and how you undermine and denigrate an organisation to justify splitting it up.
It is instructive to examine key elements in the CLP strategy to emasculate the Power and Water Corporation. Three years out from an election, you draw up a hit list of public servants to be terminated if you win government. You include on the list the highly professional, respected and committed managing director of the corporation. After coming into office, you terminate the employment of that managing director.
You replace him with a mate from the old days to oversee the cuts in the corporation; it will be a couple of years before he goes to retire again. You force out the chairwoman of the board, sack the experienced managers – ultimately sack the experienced expert board. You run a media campaign denigrating staff with continual references to inefficiency, bloated staff numbers and gold plated poles and wires. Within months of coming into government, you pay a razor gang $1m for six months’ work to take a wrecking ball to the Territory. You deliberately include on the razor gang, members with strong connections to the private sector electricity industry. You appoint one of the razor gang as a member of the Power and Water Corporation interim board. The respected and highly qualified former Under Treasurer and former head of the Chief Minister’s Department resigns when it becomes clear the Treasurer is hell bent on pursuing unsustainable plans to split up the corporation. You constantly deny you will sell corporations assets without first seeking a mandate from the people at a general election. A couple of days before introducing legislation to split up the corporation, you backflip on your promise to seek a mandate before privatising corporation assets. This is the groundwork laid by the Treasurer to soften it up for the split and ultimate privatisation of Power and Water.
Throughout this process, the Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the CLP ignore the pain they have already inflicted on Territory families and businesses through these massive increases in utility prices. The electorates will not forget these huge price hikes; all members opposite will be held accountable.
Before I turned to the provisions of the bill, I want to share with honourable members some observations about corporatisation and privatisation of utility assets by highly-qualified researchers. Professor John Quiggin, School of Economics, University of Queensland, said:
- Privatisation is unlikely to improve the financial position of the state. If badly managed, as has been the case in most previous asset sales, it will leave the public worse off. ‘Reforms’ to the electricity market over the past two decades have resulted in higher prices and a misallocation of investment, which has been made worse by privatisation and corporatisation. The entire process should be reassessed before any change in ownership structures is considered.
Professor Sharon Beder of University of Wollongong on privatisations said, ‘Nowadays government tend to pretend they are not going to, because everyone is opposed to it, because they know it means prices will go up. So, it does tend to take a lot longer because they do it by stealth and by degree.’
It is not my intention to address the provision of the bills in detail during debates on the motion before the House, but I want to draw their significant implications for Territorians to members opposite, in the hope that some of them will have enough ticker to support the motion.
The proposed split up of the corporation will have significant adverse impact on the Territory’s budget position. Everywhere else in Australia, the split-up of public utility has incurred millions of dollars in additional cost to the bottom line. Whilst not exhaustive, the Treasurer’s proposal would include two additional boards; higher compliance and auditing costs; and division of assets, liabilities, legal instrument and staff needing to be allocated among the three new entities by 1 July. There will need to be separate branding of letterheads, websites, signage and stationary. There will be separate billing systems, front computer operations, call centres and credit control teams. A new metering system will need to be installed, power networks will require a new billing system and system control will require new despatch and ancillary service systems. Structural separation will involve hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs and burden their new entities and consumers for many years to come.
The Treasurer’s second reading speech indicated the power retail corporation will only be responsible for contestable customers - the 300 or so most profitable consumers representing about 38% of electricity revenue. This is a deliberate strategy to set up the power and retail corporation for privatisation. The largest customers are being cherry picked and a large amount of revenue will be taken away. However, you still have to cover fixed cost which will drive up power prices for the other customers, or require significant additional community service obligations. There is no way power prices can come down for Territory families and businesses under the CLP privatisation agenda, yet the Chief Minister and Treasurer will not refer the bills to the Public Accounts Committee so the full implications of structural separation can be examined on behalf of Territory families and businesses.
In other Australian jurisdictions, Liberal Coalition governments are moving to re-amalgamate their public utilities. Western Australia is a clear example. If structural separation does not work in states with millions of consumers, how can it possibly work in the Territory with a much smaller consumer base?
Stealth and lack of accountability are central to the CLP approach to the split up of Power and Water Corporation. In September last year, when questioned by the NT News about the split up, the Treasurer said, ‘We’ve been talking to a number of companies about investing in the NT and a number of companies have expressed an interest’.
Treasurer, in the interests of open and accountable government, will you tell Territorians who you have been talking to and what you have been talking about? In the split up of Power and Water Corporation, the CLP has broken solemn election commitments and subsequent undertakings by ministers. Before the last election, the CLP promised to reduce the cost of living and, on coming to office, you have slammed Territory families and businesses with savage price hikes for power, water and sewerage. The CLP promised to be open and accountable, yet you will not refer the bills to the Public Accounts Committee or the Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee, which would provide an informed debate about the merits or consequences of the proposed split up of the corporation. You have been speaking to mates in the private sector about the split but will not let Territorians know who you have been speaking to or what has been put on the table.
You promised not to privatise the corporation without a mandate in a general election but now, Treasurer, you and the Chief Minister have backed away from that commitment and will not rule out a fire sale of the corporation’s assets before the next election. The community has every right to view your bills to split up Power and Water Corporation with apprehension and suspicion.
I am calling upon the members opposite to do the right thing for their constituents and all Territory families and businesses. Support for this motion would mean the bills can be appropriately scrutinised and we could hear expert evidence led.
What has been significantly concerning for me is the lack of expert evidence. The Treasurer has not led …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: The Treasurer guffaws in his buffoon manner without having led a shred of evidence to support splitting up the Power and Water Corporation. There are no details on where there are much expressed efficiencies, or on where the additional costs will be borne so they will not, presumably, be passed on to consumers, even though we already know the Utilities Commission is flagging a 43% increase in the network price. That equates to a $1.1bn community service obligation if it is not passed on to consumers. There is not a shred of evidence.
If there is nothing to hide, why would you not allow appropriate scrutiny of such a significant shift in the structure of our utilities by experts who can come before a parliamentary committee? No, that is not the style of this Treasurer. He is rushing headlong into the split up of our public assets, which will have dire implications for Territory families and businesses. This parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those implications and truly test what is at stake and what the consequences will be. These are not consequences just in our urban environment; these are genuine consequences which will occur in regional towns and remote communities.
This is referred to as a token; it is what people in remote communities use to put into boxes to keep their power running. Since the power price hikes under the CLP, these are being churned through at twice the rate they used to be. They are being churned through so quickly that stores supplying these in remote communities are running out. They run out and people cannot access a token to keep their lights on. The consequences have already been dire.
Without evidence, as the government’s consultant said, the tariff increase was not based on data; it was based on what they saw as interstate tariff increases in the 25% we already have on power, the 30% on water and the 20% on sewerage.
This is affecting peoples’ lives, wherever they are. These tokens will have to be printed at a much faster rate. The most disadvantaged Territorians are already being impacted by your actions. The reality of this will be stark; it will be clear.
We are doing our best to ameliorate the damage being done by the Treasurer, who is not basing his pursuit on evidence, but on what suits his ideological agenda and, I believe, his agenda regarding mates in the industry.
I am genuinely concerned about what this will mean for Territorians. I am happy to be proven wrong. Send it to a committee and let experts pore over it. Let us be advised by experts as to whether this is dire. We have seen and experienced the consequences in every other jurisdiction which has done this - but done it in a market large enough to potentially support it – which, years later, resulted in massive increases in the power, water and sewerage prices. We are too small a jurisdiction for the level of competition for the small consumers. Major users have, and will continue to have, their place. There is competition in retail now and there could be competition going forward in generation, if there were some major users entering the market place.
We have heard so many incorrect comments from the Treasurer it is hard to know where to begin. He says we need additional generation; we have generation, times two. Two major sets can go down and we have still more than enough generation capacity. The strength of Weddell, the new sets and enhancements at Channel Island - in the Top End alone, let alone commenting on Owen Springs and Alice Springs - means generation is not an issue in the Northern Territory. We are fine.
Thanks to the gas purchased out of Blacktip; we are fine. The infrastructure upgrades which have been occurring to networks have been useful; there is still a long way to go, but they have been significantly useful in terms of improving liability - the new zone substations, the overhaul of the existing zone substations. There is a long way to go and if you live in the rural area, you would understand there are still significant outages there. Taking your revenue-making customers, putting them into retail and leaving the rest in another corporation is setting retail up for sale. Generation will be set up for sale; the two aspects of the Power and Water Corporation which can make money and profit will be set up for sale. What is left is the rest of us: the consumers; mums and dads of the households; small- and medium-sized businesses; and the consumers across what is referred to as Indigenous Essential Services.
They will take out the good, preparing it for sale, and we will be left with the rest. When we are left with the rest, to cope with it, prices will go through the roof. This is the disaster - the legacy - this Treasurer wants to leave in the Territory. I have deep and genuine concern about his colleagues, who do not seem to have pursued an evidence-based approach to this. It is incredible to think they are somehow in a bubble of comfort and do not interact with the families and businesses which are already backed to the wall, struggling. They somehow think the worsening situation will not touch them. Yes, it will: at an election. If I was here for elections and votes, I would be letting this one go through because it is a disaster which will mean seats will be lost to the CLP. It is a game changer, an election changer.
I am standing here as a Territorian, saying, ‘This is a disaster we should not bring upon the Territory’. You have not shown it today, but please have the decency to let proper scrutiny of this occur, because they are not your assets to sell. It is not your corporation to split up and sell. It is owned by the Territory. You are custodians of it for four years. You do not have a mandate to do this. Send it to a committee for scrutiny and try to justify your actions. I urge all members in the Chamber to refer this to a committee by voting for the motion before the Chamber today. The motion does not have politics in it, it is not condemning the CLP; it is a straight referral.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I wish to support this important motion, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Legislative Assembly should immediately refer the Power and Water Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, the Power Generation Corporation Bill 2014 and the Power Retail Corporation Bill 2014 to a committee of this parliament. Every member of this parliament knows power, water and sewerage services impact every Territorian.
We all have an interest in this debate today and the decision of the government to split the Power and Water Corporation, because it will impact every one of our constituents. Whether they are in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or in our remote communities, they will be impacted by the split of Power and Water.
We will all see our constituents impacted by this decision and everyone will hurt due to increased costs of power and water as a result. Referring the government’s agenda to split Power and Water into three new corporations is essential. It should be referred to a committee so Territorians can have their say and we can take an evidence-based approach to exploring the consequences of a split.
Many other jurisdictions have already been down the path of splitting their essential service utilities, so there are case studies which can be looked at to fully understand the implications of what a split would mean to Territorians.
Several academics around the nation have looked deeply into what happens when you split utilities and how it impacts prices, reliability, workforce numbers and investment into repairs and maintenance.
To date, this government has not released any solid economic analysis, data or research to justify why Power and Water should be split, or pointed to any evidence that a split would drive down the cost of power, water and sewerage for Territorians. It is little wonder we are yet to see anything in this regard, given all the case studies and experiences. Academics will say the same thing: splitting utilities and moving to privatise them does not lead to cheaper prices; it does the exact opposite. It will drive up the price of power, water and sewerage for the consumer.
On 13 February 2014, the ABC’s Vicki Kerrigan interviewed the University of Wollongong’s academic Professor Sharon Beder, who has studied the sale of public assets and the impacts. She said in that interview, What happens is that the government split up power organisations before they privatise them and governments are notoriously reluctant to admit that they are going to privatise, because it is very unpopular because everywhere around the world where the electricity has been privatised, prices have gone up and reliability has gone down.’
- The case has not been made that it’s better for consumers …
Normally when governments around the world have been setting up to privatise, they go through a de-bundling stage so they segment units into bits they think they can politically privatise and which can be attractive.
Anyone who knows anything about the Victorian retail market knows it’s become an absolute mess. What they’re saying is that the force of the competition will reduce the prices and provide better service, but (in Victoria) prices aren’t lower and it is a confused system …
These are a few views of academics, based on their research. These are the types of views the government is ignoring as it moves to ram through its split of Power and Water to ensure it is in place by 1 July this year. The evidence, as it stands, points to a highly likely outcome; splitting Power and Water will mean higher power, water and sewerage prices for Territorians in the cities, towns and the bush. No paying customer will benefit from this.
We also have the government pushing forward with the split of the Power and Water Corporation with no mandate from the people of the Northern Territory to do so. In 2012, when the CLP asked Territorians for their confidence and vote, there was no mention of splitting Power and Water, let alone privatising it or its assets. This week, after constant denials by the Treasurer around the government’s intention with Power and Water, he would not rule out the sale of government assets. Most people see the split of Power and Water as a very thinly veiled move towards the privatisation of the utility. It is very much seen that the sale of Power and Water assets is in the sights of the government.
There is huge talk of the Weddell Power Station being the first thing the government moves to sell. What other Power and Water assets could be sold? People are wondering if Owen Springs Power Station is another asset the government is considering selling. This is what people on the ground are talking about. With regard to the power retail corporation, there are views that this is a move to look at selling off retail customers to another retailer, especially the more lucrative, contestable customers.
Make no mistake, there is no way power prices can come down for ordinary consumers. There will be savage price increases for Territory families and businesses under the CLP and its split-up and privatisation agenda. The decision to split Power and Water should be carefully examined to look at the facts and evidence readily available. The case studies do not point to better outcomes for Territorians’ power bills, yet this government is determined to ram through the split by 1 July and ignore the facts on the table around pricing. The end impact on the hip pocket of Territorians is a huge consideration, which a committee of this parliament should examine with the move towards a split of Power and Water, but there are also the logistical issues and the costs which will result from the split.
Staff at Power and Water are already reeling under the changes they have had to go through under this government. I have said it before and I will say it again: morale amongst the staff at Power and Water is at an all-time low. Talk to anybody you know who works at Power and Water. It is little wonder staff are feeling this way, after the treatment we have seen them receive from this government since they took the reins of power in 2012. It has gone about trashing the reputation of Power and Water Corporation and its staff; they have been called inefficient, bloated and a basket case. They saw the government sack their highly respected board and remove their managing director. Staff did not understand why the government removed such professional and well-respected business leaders; they were people Power and Water staff genuinely respected. The trouble has not stopped with the interim board. We have now seen highly respected former senior public servants walk away, which makes you wonder what they are being asked to do by this government.
We get to the point where the government has announced it is splitting Power and Water and creating three separate corporations: the Power Generation Corporation, which will take the generation business division with it; the retail corporation, which will take the retail arm of Power and Water; and the rest will remain at Power and Water Corporation. The establishment of these bodies will see that rather than one board, there will be three boards. There will be more director positions. We will see three managing director roles rather than one. There will be new senior management roles in these corporations, where previously there has been one person in this role at Power and Water. Roles which could be well and truly duplicated across these new corporations would be chief financial officers, chief operating officers, and so on.
In a recent briefing, we were told there would be some shared services between the three corporations, but those details were still being worked through. There seemed to be a lot of details still being worked out, and this process was being rushed.
Additional cost to government due to the additional senior staff, rebranding board members, additional board members, logistics and so forth, due to the split, should be clearly outlined by this government. How much will that add up to? What will it cost?
There was also very little certainty on offer to staff at Power and Water about their future as a result of the agenda to split up the corporation. With new boards and new senior management coming into positions, they will have some say in the future staffing of these three new corporations. Staff are still left wondering what lies ahead of them post-split. They have had a very rough ride over the last 18 months, and their journey does not look like it will get easier anytime soon.
Staff are not left feeling reassured about their future after hearing the Treasurer tell Julia Christensen on ABC radio, on 9 January, in an interview regarding the future of Power and Water:
- It is probably fair to say that they are overstaffed, that they have far more equipment than they actually require to do the job. We are looking at trying to lean them back a lot more than they currently are and get them firing on all cylinders.
He also said:
- Well look, it would be my expectation that there will be reductions in staff numbers.
The staff at Power and Water do not have the support of the Treasurer who thinks there are too many of them, they have too much equipment and are not working on all cylinders at present. No wonder they are stressed out and upset with the government. Power and Water staff have gone through so much already. We have heard stories of workers embarrassed to wear uniforms because of the abuse they copped after the price rises started hitting people’s power bills.
Sadly, their future continues to look uncertain, and I hope this government decides to be up front with the workers about their future. For those being moved around, tell them what is going on early so they know what is happening and can have some certainty. It is critical they give staff the support they need to cope if the worst case scenario comes true and people are left without jobs as a result of this split.
Our Power and Water staff are unsung heroes in our community for the job they do, which most of us take for granted. They deserve our respect and support going forward.
I come back to the intent of this motion, which is the decision to split Power and Water into three separate corporations, and why members of this parliament should refer it to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny before it is too late.
A move to split should be based on sound analysis and evidence and, ultimately, should only happen if there are clear benefits to Territorians. This should not be happening if it means it will cause more hurt to Territory families and businesses. Unfortunately, all the evidence seems to point to the same conclusion - a move to split will only lead to higher power and water costs for people right across the Territory, in the bush, the cities and the urban centres.
The government should support this motion so there is clear and transparent reasoning if it decides to proceed with the split up of Power and Water, which I suspect it will do. If the government is sure the split will lead to more competition, meaning better prices for power and water, why will it not let a committee examine the split before it happens?
It will mean the experts could go before the committee to share the experience of other jurisdictions and look at comparable cases from Australia and overseas and what outcomes the split will deliver. You would get academics, industry experts, economists, utility companies and utility industry experts to put on the record what a split would likely deliver to the Territory. It would mean there is some reasoning for or against a split, rather than being asked by the Treasurer to trust him on heading down this road to the split, despite the fact it has never led to cheaper power and water prices anywhere in Australia. The committee would also give Territorians a say on the future of Power and Water.
I have learnt, as a member of parliament, that most Territorians have a view on the running of Power and Water. Since being elected into this parliament a year ago, I have kept doorknocking in the Wanguri electorate. One recurring grievance residents keep raising with me is, ‘What has happened to the price of power and water?’ They are still reeling at the prices they are paying under the CLP, despite the promises made to them in the 2012 election that the cost of living would be reduced under the CLP.
The Wanguri electorate made its views heard a year ago with the Wanguri by-election. Now the government is stuck with the stark reminder of me, in this parliament, telling them exactly what Territorians think when the promises are broken, particularly around the cost of living and power and water.
Territorians should have a say in the future of Power and Water. By referring the split to a committee, people from right across the Territory could have their voices heard rather than having to wait until 2016. Every member in this Chamber would have met a constituent with a story to tell about the impact of their power bills. In the bush, we are hearing about power tokens getting chewed through at a rate of knots and people have to keep buying them. Families have had to make big sacrifices to pay their higher bills and we have seen the flow-on effects to the cost of living to all of us, due to the power and water increases. Rates and rents have gone up, and shop owners have had to pass on price increases to their customers in order to pay their power and water bills.
There is a clear argument about how big the impacts of increased power, water and sewerage prices are on Territorians. The decision to split Power and Water Corporation should be looked at carefully by a parliamentary committee before it is too late. The committee would have to report to the parliament so the evidence is all on the table before the government determines whether to go forward with the split it seems so eager to execute.
I do not understand why the government would not want to hear the views of Territorians about this issue. Why would they not want to hear what expectations Territorians have about the future of Power and Water, no matter where they live in the Territory? I hope the government considers this motion, but I have a strong feeling they will go forward and ram this split through, despite the evidence pointing to the fact it will leave Territorians paying even more for their power and water, thanks to the CLP government.
I thank the leader of the opposition for bringing this important motion before the House. I commend the motion and I hope the members of this parliament fully understand how dire the consequences of the split may be for their constituents, before the government continues down this path of splitting Power and Water and its privatisation agenda.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I commend the motion. The implications of these three bills are profound. If passed, they will impact on the cost of living for Territory families and businesses, and lay the ground work for a fire sale of public utility assets. This is why we need informed debate on the bills and community consultation on their implications, and it is why the CLP government - particularly the Chief Minister and Treasurer - do not want an informed public debate on the split of Power and Water foreshadowed in the three bills now before this Assembly.
The split of the Power and Water Corporation will not reduce the price of electricity, as claimed by the government. Everywhere else in Australia, corporatisation and privatisation of public utilities has driven up the price of electricity for consumers. Let me quote some of the recent observations on the issue by eminent researcher and author, Professor Sharon Beder, who was mentioned earlier, ‘The government may not be putting Power and Water Corporation up for sale, but by enabling and facilitating private businesses to generate and sell electricity, it is essentially privatising electricity. In this way, the government is turning electricity provisions over to the vagaries of the market and stepping back from taking responsibility for affordable, accessible and reliable electricity supply. When you have an electricity market, there is enormous scope for generators to manipulate the price, it has happened everywhere else leaving huge fluctuations and wholesale price, which in turn increases retail prices.’
These are not my words; it is informed commentary from an eminent researcher and author who is an expert on privatisation of public utilities in Australia. As I said earlier, the implications of these bills are profound, and I would like to share with this Assembly, particularly members opposite, some additional observations of the potential impact of the Power and Water carve up.
The Treasurer’s second reading speech indicates the Power and Water Retail Corporation will only be responsible for contestable customers, the 300 or so most profitable consumers, representing about 38% of electricity revenue. Why do it this way? I will give you an answer: because you want to sell off this retail business to another retailer. The largest customers will be cherry picked and 38% of revenue will be taken away, but you still have to cover fixed costs which will drive power prices up for other customers and require ongoing CSOs. Make no mistake; there is no way power prices can come down for ordinary customers. There will be savage price increases for Territory families and businesses under the CLP slit up and privatisation agenda. Informed public debate will also expose the huge cost involved in splitting up the corporation, something the CLP also wants to hide from Territorians. It will cost in excess of $100m to duplicate billing systems, IT, HR, finance, purchasing new meters and employing a myriad of consultants and advisors.
These costs can only be passed on to consumers. No wonder the government does not want an informed community debate on the split up of the corporation. Why not refer the bills to a parliamentary committee in the interest of informed public debate? Why not provide an opportunity for Territorians to tell you what they think about your plans to carve up Power and Water? Will the Chief Minister at least show some leadership, abandon his arrogant approach to government and consult with Territory families and businesses on his plans for the Power and Water Corporation? The Treasurer should advise the Assembly of the estimated total cost to divide up Power and Water.
What cost will consumers be up for and how much has been spent so far on consultants, advisors and other activities? Where is the accountability and public consultation? Before the last election, the CLP made some solemn promises; two of them are directly relevant to this debate. There was an unequivocal commitment to reduce the cost of living. This promise has been shattered by the huge price increases in electricity, water and sewerage already imposed on Territory families and businesses.
As the member for Johnston, my electorate office is open on Sunday mornings from 8 am to 12 pm. Many people come in during those times and say to me, ‘We are struggling. ‘The power and water price increases are killing us. How can we stop it and boot this government out? ‘They promised to lower the cost of living, and straight away the power prices went up. We are considering moving.’
Some schools in my electorate have lost 20 or 30 students. Their parents have made the decision to leave because they cannot afford to live here anymore. The split up of the Power and Water Corporation would drive up prices for Territory consumers yet again - so much for the promise to reduce the cost of living. The solemn promise to be open and accountable has been a farce from the beginning. The CLP five-point election plan said:
- If we don’t deliver, throw us out. There will be no more political deals …
The only deal we’ll have is with you …
What is the deal with these bills? Is it a fire sale of Power and Water assets to pay for unfunded CLP election commitments? The government is run in secrecy by an arrogant Chief Minister who treats Territorians with absolute contempt. That is why they do not want the bills referred to a parliamentary committee. That is why they do not want the public to be informed on the implications of splitting up the Power and Water Corporation. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thought the minister might give us a few words to see what his opinion is on this matter. He is waiting to pick off the bits and pieces so he can have his say without too much competition. I have a feeling this motion will not get anywhere, and I understand why, but I will read my letters to members of parliament, which I put forward as a good proposal and backs up the Leader of the Opposition’s motion tonight.
It says:
- I am writing to you as a fellow member of parliament in the hope you will support the motion that has been put forward on the next General Business day – today - in Parliament, which will allow the Power and Water bill to be sent to a committee of the parliament. If you cannot support the motion, can you at least consider a government’s sponsored motion which will enable a similar outcome? I ask this in the belief that we, as members of parliament, are all looking after the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, and that change to the Power and Water Corporation, owned by the people in the Northern Territory, requires careful and thorough investigation before it is voted on in parliament. The idea of sending an important, defining piece of legislation to a committee is not new but is a legitimate part of our parliamentary processes.
On Thursday last week, when a similar motion was debated, there were two reasons given as to why the government will not support a motion to send this bill off to a committee. Argument one was our parliament can do the job. It is already a committee. That sounds nice but we all know that that argument is right only to a point because there is a vast difference between a parliament acting as a committee and a parliamentary committee when it comes to analysing, questioning, and searching for answers from experts in the public.
Here is what the Australian parliament website says about committees:
Committees are able to do things which it would not be possible to undertake in the large, formal environment of the House Chamber, or the second debating chamber, the Federation Chamber, such as finding out the facts of a case or issue, gathering evidence from expert groups or individuals, sifting evidence and drawing up reasoned conclusions. This kind of work is more effectively carried out by small groups of Members.
To emphasise this point, it goes on to say:
- Parliamentary committees are one mechanism the House uses to keep a check on the activities of the Government.
Committees can contribute to better informed policy-making and legislative processes. They help Members to access a wide range of community and expert views so that through the committee process, the Parliament is able to be better informed of community issues and attitudes.
In Queensland parliament, where the majority party is the LNP, all legislation goes to the relevant committee. This came about after reforms to the committee system culminated in a Parliament of Queensland (Reform and Modernisation) Amendment Act 2011, which was introduced on 5 April 2011 and received Royal assent on 19 May 2011. The act implemented a number of key reforms to the committee system, including the establishment of a number of portfolio committees under standing orders, to cover all areas of government activity, examine appropriation bills, other legislation, and public accounts and public works. Committees:
- … allow the Parliament to ensure that the right decisions are being made at the right time and for the right reasons. At the same time, committees effectively enhance the democratic process by taking the Parliament to the people and giving them a role in its operations.
That is from the Queensland parliament website.
This is why our Parliamentary Accounts Committee should be able to scrutinise Power and Water bills. Committees are part of government, and not, as some critics of this motion would try to make us believe, separate from government. There is a great amount of public interest about the future of Power and Water and the only way for the public to understand what is happening and have a chance to put their views to parliamentarians is through a committee hearing.
The second argument put forward opposing this process is the government should not be run by committees. Firstly, no one is saying that. Committees are part of the parliamentary process, are run by members of parliament, and reported back to parliament, which then votes on the recommendations or any proposed amendments.
Queensland parliament, a unicameral parliament like ours, knows by using committees you are more likely to achieve better outcomes and foster bipartisan support. Here is an example of what Queensland committees are doing, and I will just run through them quickly. They are dealing with: the Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014; the Electoral Reform Amendment Bill 2013; the Fair Trading Inspectors Bill 2013; the Agents Financial Administration Bill 2013 - I could go on. They are also dealing with the Auditor-General’s report and the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee oversight of the Queensland Ombudsman. It deals with a mixture of bills and general reports, as we have in our parliament.
From the above list, you can see Queensland parliament, through its committees, looks at bills and other matters. There are reporting days and a submission date for each bill. Of the 59 matters before the committees at the moment, 24 of them are bills. Queensland politicians do a lot of work, but it is, of course, a larger parliament.
This motion is not about taking every bill to a committee. It is about taking one bill, the bill to split up Power and Water, and giving it thorough scrutiny before it goes back to parliament where, if the government does not like the recommendations of the committee, it can still reject those recommendations. Why is it most important to take this bill to a committee such as the PAC?
(1) It would allow members of parliament and the public to hear from independent experts who have a background in the splitting up of public utilities.
(2) It would allow the public and PWC workers to have a say in the proposed splitting up of their public asset, the Power and Water Corporation.
(3) It would allow members of parliament to question the PWC Board and ask for their reasoning behind this decision, and to ask the PWC Board and Treasury how this legislative change would make PWC more efficient, as the Treasurer said it will.
(4) It would allow questions to be asked about the background of this legislation; for instance, who put this legislation together, has this been done elsewhere, and what benefits or negatives will come about from these changes.
(5) It would allow the committee to investigate whether there has been any lobbying by private companies which may find it financially advantageous to support this legislation.
(6) It would allow members of parliament to question whether this legislation is just the first step towards the eventual privatisation of our essential services.
There may be other matters to be investigated, but this gives you some idea of why this legislation should not be rushed through.
To say the government was elected, too bad, it will be passed and it does not matter is disrespectful of parliamentary process and Territorians. I am not asking for every piece of legislation we look at to go to a committee, but at least we have some time to look at the important ones, and this is an important one. Most of what is in the above six points could not be done on the floor of the House in parliament; it could only be done through a bipartisan committee hearing of parliament held in public. The usual parliamentary process, including the committee of a whole stage during the debate on this bill, allows only the minister to be questioned. There is no chance to question experts, listen to the public servants who work for the PWC, for the public to have their say, or to question the board of PWC or the Treasury. Some of this could be done through departmental briefings, but those briefings are not open to the public.
A committee like the Public Accounts Committee, in most cases would be open to the public – an important part of open and transparent government. As for arguments this would delay this bill, we are only into the second month of the year, so there is plenty of time for a committee to do its job and report back to parliament. I am asking you, as a member of parliament, to please support a motion that does not take away the right of government to make decisions, but shows it is willing to listen to and take into account the views of Territorians, workers and experts before a final decision is made on these very important bills.
The move to break up PWC, a publicly-owned asset, needs to be thoroughly scrutinised and tested in public. The only way to do this is through the PAC. Please support this motion or, at the very least, bring in your own similar motion to allow our parliament to deal with these bills in a manner which reflects their importance by sending them to the PAC.
From what I have been told by members of the government, they will not support this and it is very disappointing. From my point of view it is not about politics. This government and the member for Fong Lim would not support anything coming from me. If you want to get to the tone of the argument - I put this out as not knocking the government – you only have to hear the tone of the argument when I ask for a suspension of standing orders. There was everything about me they could find. Whether I was Labor, the Independent Labor, I had the CTC, I had swimming pool problems; it was all about me. The impression you get is it is a diversionary tactic. I do not care what you say about me; I would rather we had processes which allowed the public to have a fair say in what will happen to Power and Water in the Northern Territory.
I have not run in to anyone who agrees with the government on privatisation of our Power and Water. I have no doubt this is what it is leading up to. This came listening to the Minister for Transport today, talking about privatisation of buses. The key word in this party is privatisation. We have a smokescreen, so if we can divert the issues to personal comments about me fair enough, but if the argument I put forward can only be debunked by personal remarks about me or what happened in the past, then you do not have an argument at all. In fact, I think you are simply hiding the case you have someone lined up right now to set up a power plant in or near Darwin and you want this legislation passed as soon as possible. Even if I was wrong, through a committee I would be able to ask the minister. The minister will not be in a position, unless we get to estimates – by which time it will be far too late – where we can have a proper discussion about this. Unfortunately, this is the way the government goes at the moment.
It is not really interested in good processes. It can argue this is the normal process, although only part of the process. Other states and the federal government do things slightly differently when it comes to important bills, so I am not asking you to do something not in keeping with normal parliamentary processes.
I ask the government to think about the people of the Northern Territory, the owners of these assets, before you go down the path of changing the rules and setting them up for some private companies. When you start talking about competition you are giving courage for privatisation. We are only a little part of Australia and I would love to know what will happen to Power and Water if we split it up. Will it simply fold because it will not be able to compete with private enterprise which will skim off the best parts of the Northern Territory’s power?
While I have time, I could reflect on an article in the Canberra Times on 10 January by Sharon Beder who is a Professor at the University of Wollongong. She has a PhD in Engineering and a few other qualifications in that vein. I will quote this article. Most of it summarises my concerns about where we are heading and how little discussion we have had on this issue, but it will probably be like water off a duck’s back to those who are intent on going down this path. The article is headed, ‘Privatisation provides no dividends for the poor’:
- The chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, is the latest in a long line of business advisers to urge further privatisation of this country's essential services in the name of productivity, efficiency and lower prices.
I have heard that here before.
- The privatisation of essential government services is not about competition and efficiency; it is about the redistribution of wealth and control.
Privatisation has become the final resort of governments that need funds but are afraid to tax the wealthy and prevent tax evasion by big businesses. Instead, government assets are sold in a scramble for cash at the expense of ongoing dividends and government control of essential services. Struggling families and small businesses suffer most from the inevitable price rises that follow.
- Privatisation is promoted by a group of powerful vested interests greedy for low-risk financial investments, consultancy and legal fees, or banking business. They are aided by business-funded think tanks and economic advisers who spread the ideologically based belief that private management is superior, despite the plethora of examples contradicting this.
For example, experience in the United States, where public and private enterprises supplied electricity contemporaneously, has consistently shown that public enterprises can provide a reliable service at lower cost to ratepayers. Similarly, in Britain and France, municipal governments offer water services at cheaper rates than privately operated services.
Private owners are concerned more about a return on their investment than the welfare of consumers. They have a strong incentive to achieve ''efficiencies'' …
There is that word again.
- … because they need to make profits. These profits must be delivered despite paying more to borrow money than governments, as well as having to cover marketing and lobbying costs, political donations, higher executive salaries and shareholder dividends. However, efficiencies inevitably come at the expense of service reliability and quality as they involve cutting and/or casualising workforces; reducing worker training; skimping on infrastructure maintenance and investment; and neglecting services for remote customers and those less able to pay.
As a result of electricity privatisation and deregulation, there have been blackouts, price spikes, price manipulation, bankruptcies and electricity shortages around the world. Privatisation and deregulation have seen the goal of reliable, affordable, universal electric service replaced by the goal of economic efficiency …
And again!
- … and the rhetoric of competition and consumer choice.
I will go on a little further.
- In practice, the market has turned out to be a rather poor mechanism for ensuring adequate supply and reliable service. In the market, shortages are supposed to lead to high prices that, in theory, provide an incentive to build new facilities and infrastructure. But for some services, such as electricity, there is more financial reward in creating shortages and so most companies prefer to avoid risky investments that will only lower the price by increasing supply. For other services, such as water, poor consumers cannot afford higher prices, and the expansion of networks (that is, the provision of water to poor neighbourhoods) is not commercially viable.
Dozens of governments around the world have embarked on the road to privatisation since the mid-1980s. Despite its lack of popular support and its inability to deliver on promises of lower prices, privatisation in its many forms has become the accepted wisdom among governments and opinion leaders. New markets have opened up all over the world as developing countries joined developed countries in allowing transnational companies to provide their essential services.
As a result, there has been a massive transfer of ownership and control over government assets worldwide to private companies. The companies that have taken over these public services in most countries have little interest in the welfare of local citizens. Increasingly, these companies are concentrating - through mergers and acquisitions - into a small group of very large conglomerates that dominate the provision of national and international essential services.
This is from Professor Sharon Beder, from Wollongong University. She has a number of papers out on the same issue. I read it because I am not an expert on these matters by any means. I have been listening to some of the claims by the member for Fong Lim about efficiency. I have asked the member for Fong Lim to show us A+B=efficiency, but we do not get it and we will not have a chance to get it. Debating this in the House means we cannot ask other people what they think about his opinion on efficiencies.
Sharon Beder, an expert in privatisation and the effects it has had in Australia and overseas, is saying efficiencies are more about rhetoric than actual. This concept we have to take these bills to a committee so we can discuss these issues and hear from experts - it would be nice to ask Power and Water workers what they think because it is their company being cut up. It would be nice to ask the community what they think; I speak to people at the footy, when I am sitting on the corner, who do not want Power and Water privatised.
Again, it will be like water off a duck’s back, because the impression I get is no matter what you say in this parliament, no one cares, because it is about efficiencies. We may never find out - has some company been lobbying you in the last year or so since you got into power? Has more than one company been knocking on the door saying, ‘We are interested?’ The Treasurer says, ‘Do not worry, we will get that legislation set up perfectly for you’. What about the people?
I have a classic example for the Minister for Transport: who asked anyone about selling the buses? It might be good, but did anyone ask the people if their bus company should be sold? It is a government asset. I thought it would be polite. The government might say, ‘We are thinking of selling the bus service. We will have an inquiry into it and people can make their contribution on the sale.’ They would not have that because they are an efficient government and will make the changes. ‘Trust us, we know best. Do not worry about the questions.’ How arrogant! They can sell off the buses with no discussion with the public. There are no figures to show this will be profitable for the Northern Territory. Will it make a better bus service? Will it still cost the same? After all, if we get a private bus company to run it, we have to pay them, because they do not make money out of buses, not at two or three dollars a ticket. It is subsidised. We subsidise it so why get a private company to do it? They will ask you for the amount of money to run it, and we will still have to subsidise it. Even if the Minister for Transport is right, why has this parliament not …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time so the member may finish his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama. The point we are trying to get at is, there has been no discussion about the bus service, which might be relatively small when you are talking about Power and Water. The government says no discussion is fine and not to worry about it. They are from the government and that is exactly what they will try to do with Power and Water. They do not want discussion. They want it to happen, and we ask you for an opportunity to discuss something …
Mr Tollner: Stella Maris.
Mr WOOD: As I said before, it was me, the CTC, the swimming pool. ‘Gerry Wood is Labor, even though he sat with the CLP for 12 years, even when they had four members there. He forgets he went around Parliament House several times against the Labor government’s amalgamation of council.’ They forget all that. They throw it in, disguise the argument with smokescreens and bulldust to avoid – and what do we get? Stella Maris comes up. What does Stella Maris have to do with this argument? The argument is whether …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We have the member for Fong Lim saying, ‘Haw, haw, haw, oh Stella Maris’. It is trying to take away from what is being debated. The debate is about the possible sale of an asset, Power and Water, which we think the government is trying to do by splitting it up. We are asking, if that is your intention, that you give us a bit more time to discuss it than we had to discuss the selling of the Darwin Bus Service. You are also guilty of selling the Government Printing Office; there might have been good reasons, but you did the same thing. You could not be bothered telling this parliament you were going to sell the Government Printing Office, another government asset. What did you do? Brave man, the member for Fong Lim, he announced it on the Friday when we left. Good man, government asset - freedom to do what he likes. ‘Trust me, I am from the government. The printing office does not work anymore, let us sell it.’ Was there any discussion? No discussion. Your track record is, ‘Sell the bus service, trust us, we did not need it. Government Printing Office – sell it, did not need it.’ Announce it when? Announce it on the day after parliament stops sitting. No public discussion ...
Mr Tollner: We did not sell it. We simply closed it. Where is the sale?
Mr WOOD: You will sell the building and probably put a big building of multistorey flats there. You will sell off the business. It does not matter what you ..
Mr Tollner: The business has not been sold. There is no intention, it has been closed.
Mr WOOD: Excuse me. That is right, but did you announce it to the parliament? It is an asset we had and you could not be bothered announcing it to parliament, because the Treasurer knows best.
Mr Giles: What was the asset?
Mr WOOD: The Government Printing Office printed your budgets and annual reports, and you did have …
Mr Elferink: It was an election policy.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order?
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I speak?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the floor. All read Standing Order 51 again, thank you.
Mr WOOD: It is amazing how the three wise men, when life gets a bit difficult, all work together, it would seem. It was not about going to a committee when I criticised the statement on the printing office. It was that you could not come into this parliament and say what you were doing, regardless of whether it was a political election promise. You were getting rid of a government asset and you could not tell us. You are getting rid of the Darwin Bus Service and you could not tell us in parliament. I reckon, through stealth, you will try to get rid of Power and Water. You have been introducing legislation.
We ask for the legislation to be looked at thoroughly, because we are concerned for the same reasons you got rid of the other things: ‘Trust me, do not ask questions.’ I bet you by the blink of an eyelid we will find Power and Water gone and people will not have a say in it, which is my concern. When you read articles from Sharon Beder, who raises important issues about what you are saying …
Mr Elferink: A professor of social science at the University of Wollongong.
Mr WOOD: She also has a degree in engineering. She knows a bit about the work. But, the point is …
Mr Elferink: I am not saying she does not; she may have a particular slant.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will members please direct their comments through the Chair.
Mr WOOD: Anyone can look up what she has written. At least it is another point of view we have the chance to find out about. It would be nice to have someone like her, a few experts, challenge the statements. ‘No, no, we cannot have that because we are so comfortable in our position of having the majority in this House. We know best.’ If anyone says, ‘Hang on, there are a lot of people out there who do not support what you are doing’, you will go ahead and say, ‘We will do it anyway’.
The member for Port Darwin says the disposal, or whatever you want to call it, of the Government Printing Office was an election promise. Was the privatisation and splitting up of Power and Water Corporation an election promise? No. If you want to …
Mr Elferink: Who said privatisation?
Mr WOOD: It does not matter, you said …
Mr McCarthy: Is selling the buses an election promise?
Mr WOOD: I did not hear about it. Regardless if it is an election promise …
Mr Tollner: We sold the buses.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but did you tell anyone you sold the buses? You told the media. You did not give us the courtesy of telling the people in this parliament, and that worries me. You do not care about the process. You do not care about putting it back to the parliament for release from scrutiny. You do not care, because you have the majority; you won at the last election, you have the numbers in this parliament, which you think is the only important thing in this world. I do not care whether you have the numbers in parliament and I do not care what you say. Arrogance is one of the things that killed you in the 2001 election. I was around then; the arrogance was there, and it is coming out now. Do not ask me for an opinion. I had a CLP supporter say, ‘Arrogance’. I can see it now. Yes, you will drop this motion. You might say some nice things, but I doubt it. The member for Fong Lim will say it is a load of rubbish. He will drop it, which will be the end of it.
When they have an opportunity to do something for the community: take this piece of legislation; scrutinise it properly; give people a chance to say what they think; bring in some experts on either side of the debate; ask Power and Water workers what they think about breaking up their company, the one they work for. Are they not worth asking? Tell us whether there are other players in the field behind these changes, or is efficiency just code for privatisation?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. I am sad the CLP - at least some of the members - could not find the guts to put this to a committee. They are not doing it because they disagree with it, but out of spite for the people who put this forward, which makes this a very sad day for politics in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the member for Nelson, and I believe he deserves - okay, he has gone - the courtesy of a response within the frame he describes. He says it is all about personal attacks on him. It is not. I have criticised his passionate love for the committee process, because the process he continues to promote endlessly in this House is an extension of the notion he had when he created the Council of Territory Co-operation. I refer to the Council of Territory Co-operation because I sat on that committee, which was part of the deal he had struck with then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, so Paul Henderson and the Labor Party could stay in government, ably supported by the member for Nelson.
This committee went up hill and down dale, inquiring into all manner of things, whilst the Northern Territory government kept governing. Attached to the deal to establish the CTC was a document of about 15 pages, which bound the Henderson government to a number of agreements with the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson approaches governance from a purely consensus point of view. That is how you have to govern, hence his passion for committees and for driving things into a constant state of, ‘Let us look at it and make sure everybody, including their grandmother is consulted’ process.
The effect of a person who is consensus driven is they are also driven by compromise. We looked at the 15-page document from time to time, which was the agreement between the Northern Territory government and Gerry Wood – in fact it was between Paul Henderson and Gerry Woo -, and many of the items on the list of things to do were never done, which is the reason I refer to the pool.
The problem with governing in the fashion the member for Nelson advocates is nothing ever gets done. Everybody talks about it; we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars talking about, rehashing and visiting things, calling evidence, travelling up and down the length of the Northern Territory, listening to what people have to say. Nothing got done. The government continued to govern with the support of the member for Nelson, who was kept happily occupied learning all sorts of interesting things. They were interesting, but I finally withdrew from that committee, because I realised it was spending an abundant amount of taxpayers’ money and was being used by the government of the day to keep members of parliament occupied and their eye off the game. The member for Nelson thoroughly bought into that approach. When I wanted to have a parliamentary committee look at a specific thing, namely the Mataranka cattle deaths, the only way I could get it back in there was by going back to the CTC. We went up hill and down dale. We travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory, talking about the Mataranka cattle deaths, only getting to the point where we could not have been better informed and were no better informed than when we started.
We knew a lot more of the details, but the committee advanced very little. It came back with recommendations, which the government adopted, and it meant there was some legislative change. This could have been achieved through the processes of this parliament, which is why I have always argued that this parliament is the ultimate committee. We are a committee. We meet and pass the laws of the Northern Territory. We lay legislative instruments on the table in this place. They are there for any person who wants to see and inspect them. This is how the parliamentary process works and, from time to time, parliament will look at committees, but this parliament has not historically sent legislative items off to committees of the house.
The member for Nelson is enraptured with the belief the Queensland system is better; the Queenslanders will have their systems in place and bully for them. We are a smaller jurisdiction. Our members of parliament serve smaller electorates. As a consequence, we are able to proceed with the full knowledge that if a person wants to speak to their local member of parliament, in every likelihood they will have an opportunity to do so. The people of my electorate have many opportunities to speak to the member for Port Darwin for no other reason than you will find him sitting on a street corner most Saturday mornings, and many other days, or sitting around the mall with some camp chairs. I get what he is saying, but I believe the checks and balances of this system are appropriate.
The second thing is this constant assertion the bill is - at the risk of pre-empting debate - about privatisation, which has not been suggested by this government.
Ms Lawrie: Yes it has.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it has not. This is the point; you are placing words in his mouth, which is something you do all the time. I have heard the member for Nelson and other members do it, and it is demonstrably wrong. You hear what you want to hear when a member of parliament says something, not what they say. What is being said by the Treasurer is something fundamentally different to what you hear, but, sadly, repeat. What you repeat is what you hear and I would like to think it was a mistake, but sometimes I suspect you are altogether more sinister in your intent when it comes to representing the words of ministers in this House.
Not only that, but continuing attacks on public servants when you cannot land a punch on the minister. The attacks continue to tax on people like the water controller of the Northern Territory, asserting he is corrupt. This is part of the reason I am disinclined to try to expose those public servants to your scrutiny, because you will continue to slander them as you have done in this House. If you want to say what you want to about the water controller, say it outside of this House. Stand in front of the camera, grab a microphone and say it so the water controller can take some action against you. You do not, because you are more than happy to sit in this House and slam the public servants, and you use those techniques into the future. You have been relentless in that approach. You have done it with a number of public servants, named them under parliamentary privilege and refused to restate those allegations in the public domain, where you would be liable for defamation.
We will not talk about that, because it is the technique of the Labor Party. On this side of the House, we are interested in the good governance of the Northern Territory. Government means - and the opposition members know this from their time in government - you occasionally have to make courageous decisions. As much as we would like it to be about the process of carefully working with the community and having nothing but praise heaped on us - it would be lovely, but it does not happen. We have to make tough decisions, particularly when we inherit projected Territory debts of $5.5bn. I consistently hear comments from members opposite, where they say, ‘The government should do this and that’. I hear them spending tens of millions of dollars every time. They say the government should roll over to the wage claims of the unions. Cost that out! It would cost $34m. Where would the money come from? Which school would we have to shut to pay public service wages? We would not shut down schools; we would rack it up on debt.
I look at those little school kids who come here at 10 am to watch the parliamentary process. I think to myself how they will be paying off the debt of a government, be it Labor or Liberal, if it keeps borrowing money.
It is not me; I will be retired by the time some of this debt matures. My seven and eight-year-old daughters will have a debt to pay off if they continue to live in this jurisdiction. It means the government which serves them will not be able to borrow any money for any purpose, no matter how good it is, because their debt situation is too unhealthy.
If you believe this stuff does not happen, just look at the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Irish. They all have these problems, and they do not talk about things like wage restraint. They talk about things like austerity and massive unemployment as a result of government having to massively cut into spending to pay the credit card bill. We do not do it in our homes, so why would we do it in our government?
We hear members quoting people from time to time and when I hear a person quoted in this House, I often look up their profile so I get a sense of what they are driving at. The member for Nelson quoted Sharon Beder from the University of Wollongong. She is a professor and an engineer by trade; no doubt she is no slouch. She has not been an active engineer for some time; however, she has become a prolific writer. I will note some of the articles she has written and I will only read the titles: ‘Toxic fish and sewer surfing’; ‘The Nature of Sustainable Development’; ‘Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism’; ‘Selling the Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR’; ‘Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity’; ‘Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda’; ‘Environmental Principles and Policies’; ‘Free Market Missionaries: The Corporate Manipulation of Community Values’ and ‘This Little Kiddy Went to Market: The Corporate Assault on Children’.
I will not suggest for one second I have read any of those articles. However, when you are dealing with an academic from the humanities section of the University of Wollongong, an alarm bell already start to go off. You then read the titles of those articles and you see there is a certain bent, a person writing from a certain perspective. When she talks about environmental principles and policies, it sounds like a nice, rounded article. She is clearly happy to write about it. But in her titles there is an implicit attack on the corporate world. It is fine to quote her, but place her into context.
There was another person who was referred to this morning on ABC radio, and that was Bill Mitchell, an economist. I like economists, because I tend to be a bit on the dry economic side. I hold some of the most treasured books, such as The Commanding Heights, which is an economic history of the late 1970s and early 1980s. I also have books such as The Birth of Plenty and those sorts of things. When I hear an economist on the radio, I take them seriously. He talked about how awful it is that privatisation is occurring. I am not saying we are privatising, by the way; we are structurally separating as a starting point.
Bill Mitchell said all privatisation, structural separation and those things are bad. We accept this. Let us look at what this economist is influenced by. He was born in 1952 in Australia. He is an Australian who has worked at Charles Darwin University. His field is political economy and econometrics – very good. His school tradition is Post-Keynesian economics. I will pause there, Post-Keynesian - there is a hint. Then, he writes as his influences Karl Marx, Arthur Okun and Michael Kaliske. I presume this is the same Karl Marx who, with the fellow by the name of Engels, wrote a book in the 1850s - what was it called? The Communist Manifesto, if memory serves me - no, that came later, it was Das Kapital. He is influenced by people who wrote works which suggested the centralisation of all industry - of all society. It goes on to say in his Wikipedia entry:
- Mitchell is active in the public opposition of neo-liberal economic theories and practices and disputes the ‘revisionism’ of History ...
In other words, he does not believe in private property owned by private organisations. He is the sort of person who would argue you would have all property vested in the government, bar minor personal property. If you read books like The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, you have to remember they come from a time, in a Post-Keynesian world, where governments started to own and regulate all sorts of things.
I have no shortage of amusement when I continue to read critiques from the 1970s, when there was a whole American department dedicated to the principle of sandwiches on aeroplanes being measured to make sure they complied with the regulatory design specifications of a sandwich. There was a sandwich police squad which had the function of measuring airline sandwiches, thus to level the playing field amongst the airlines. Can you imagine things getting cheaper in this regulatory environment? If I recall, aeroplane flights around the world from the early 1970s cost, in dollar terms, pretty much what they cost now. The only difference is the dollar has quartered in value over time. It would be worth 25% of what it was worth in the early 1970s, which means airline tickets in today’s dollar terms - I am guessing – would be in the order of $10 000 to get around the world …
Mr Tollner: Minimum.
Mr ELFERINK: Minimum. It was a really cool thing to meet a jet-set person who had travelled around the world in the 1970s, because it was the beyond the means of the average punter. Yet, they created an environment where there was greater competition. In the environment of greater competition, there was downward prices on air fares to the point where they are today. There are one million people in the air around the world right now, sitting in aeroplanes. This level of access to transport was unimaginable in the early 1970s, because it is a competitive environment.
There are no sandwich police. Depending on the airline you fly, you can order different types of food. You can pay on some airlines for your food and some airlines will provide you your sandwich for free.
Mr Styles: What size will the sandwich be?
Mr ELFERINK: Whatever you are prepared to pay for, Minister for Infrastructure. It develops choice, but the problem is we have a monopoly in the Northern Territory. The price of electricity has been, and will continue to be, set by the Northern Territory government. It was thus when the Labor Party was in power and it remains so now. We set the guaranteed price for last year, we have set it again for this year and we know what it will be next year.
Picture a High Court decision some time ago - about a decade ago - which determined the Northern Territory marketplace should be contestable for any generator wanting to set up in the Northern Territory. The problem is the Power and Water Corporation presents to the people of the Northern Territory three separate components, rolled into a single unit. The three separate components are: power generation, the little shed with the generators running, generating electricity; network, the electricity poles with the wires hanging between them taking the electricity to your power point; and retail - shock horror. Retail is already competitive. There are competitive retailers working in the market now which means, for example, QEnergy - the electricity in this building is retailed through QEnergy, not the Power and Water Corporation ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Chandler: Which government did that?
Mr ELFERINK: Interestingly, it was not the government; the National Competition Policy forced it. However, the reason QEnergy comes to big power consumers like a parliament or large factories, is it can do the retail a fraction cheaper than Power and Water Corporation can through its retail arm. Therefore, the wise decision for the parliament of the Northern Territory was to use the private retailer in the market now. Retail, if you follow the Labor opposition’s position on this, is already privatised. There are private retail operators seeking out tranche one customers, and they continue to do so.
The problem is if a single corporation owns generation, network and retail, somebody wanting to come into the generation network understands one corporation runs the whole shebang. It will make private investors in this environment nervous, because they know the people they have to approach for network access are the same people who are in the generation market, namely their competitors.
The government is arguing that if you allow a generator to come into a marketplace where the Power and Water Corporation’s generator is a separate business from the network, you still have to compete against the government-owned corporation generating power, but it is not the same corporation which owns the network. The network is a business which will then have to seek out clients. If clients knock on its door and say, ‘We want to stick our power down your power lines’, it is the same as a rolling stock company going to a railway saying, ‘We want to push our rolling stock across your railway, how much will it cost us?’ If it turns out a power generator, through accessing onshore gas for example - perish the thought we pursue an onshore gas market - can generate electricity cheaper than the government-owned entity, why should it not enter the marketplace? It will be able to knock on doors saying, ‘We can provide cheaper electricity to your power point’.
Government set the power price. We already know what the power price will be, so if somebody can do it more cheaply than government, why should they not have the option to do so? According to the people opposite, we cannot look at this. ‘We want to show all the shortcomings of this proposal. We want to make sure we terrorise as many Territorians and talk about privatisation.’ We are not talking about privatising the Power and Water Corporation. We are creating a marketplace in which somebody might want to compete with Power and Water Corporation, in a fashion where they deliver the product more cheaply to the door. Where this has happened in other jurisdictions you have, or have had, door to door salesmen selling electricity in streets saying ‘We can provide you a cheaper product’.
If you look at the cost of electricity across Australia, many other jurisdictions provide cheaper electricity because somebody is knocking on doors saying, ‘Can we give you a better deal than the other guy?’ But, fans of Karl Marx, such as Bill Mitchell, and other people who have a hang up about the corporate world providing services and not caring about the people of their market place, oppose this sort of stuff on ideological grounds.
To suggest - and I heard the member for Nelson say this - corporations do not care about the people they serve could not be further from the truth. If you think about a corporation which provides a service, such as Coles or K-Mart, they care very much what their clients think of them, and they go to enormous lengths to encourage people to look at them. If you walk into a McDonald’s store right now, they care so much about their product they will tell you the caloric content of every item on the menu in kilojoules and calories. They are sensitive to what the market place thinks of them. If you look at an environment where there is an effective monopoly, let us say the Vogue pack in the Northern Territory - the single clearing house for fuel - they do not care, because they have a monopoly and can charge what they like. As a consequence, I suspect it is the reason we pay such large prices for fuel at the bowser in the Northern Territory; it is lawful for them to do it. It is a lawful monopoly.
I do not see how you can run this argument that somehow prices will automatically be cheaper and people will be better served, simply because the government owns it. I think it reassures a lot of people; ‘The government has our best interests at heart’, but when you look at the performance of government, compared to some corporations, and how sensitive corporations are to their client base, they tend to be a lot more sensitive than governments and go to great lengths to protect the integrity of their various trademarks and products.
I do not doubt the members opposite will drive this fear campaign. They will say this is all about privatisation, this is about ensuring we offload the Power and Water Corporation for ideological reasons - it could not be further from the truth. We have a prayer in this House every day, the last line of which is, ‘For the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. I take that line very much to heart and I would not be subscribing to this sort of thing unless I believed it would produce better outcomes for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The CSOs will continue to exist. The public ownership of Power and Water Corporation and the three broken up functions will continue to remain in public hands - the bills make this clear - but we will make these organisations more efficient so we can put downward pressure on future price hikes, which really matters. Rather than taking something which is broken and attempting to fix it - from the perspective of the members opposite, they say, ‘Just keep doing the same thing’.
They created an organisation which was so crushingly inefficient that they had to up the power prices by 18%, and then 6% or 7% the following year. It was still not enough. You were the owner of this organisation and because of your spectacular ineptitude and fear of doing anything constructive, like the things we are describing, you saddled Territorians with massive electricity prices which could have been avoided. It is not an ideological argument, because the Northern Territory government is trying to do what Labor governments have done in other jurisdictions around this country, because they knew it was a necessity. The Leader of the Opposition can rant, scream, resist and bellow about how right she is, except she had an opportunity to do something about it for the best part of six or seven years and chose nothing. She chose to sit on her hands and keep putting public money into this and thought it would be sweetness and light.
That is her most monumental failure: the fear of making a decision. It was the fear of attending to these important issues, because she was too scared to make the same decision Labor governments in other jurisdictions have made. She has failed the people of the Northern Territory and gave away opportunity for the sake of political expedience, which is what she continues to do now. She continues to trade off this issue for a matter of political expedience. She knows full well that a more efficient delivery, generation and retail system would work to the advantage of the people of the Northern Territory in a way she was never prepared to contemplate. Talk about an ideological Marx-loving hack.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in this debate, seeking higher learning. I see this motion as supporting parliamentarians in seeking higher learning in a complex economic equation. That is the simple platform of this debate. We are seeking higher learning; we want experts to explain it. The member for Port Darwin is a self-appointed expert. Unfortunately, the self-appointed lawyer in his self-appointed court spent 20 minutes stereotyping and pigeonholing Australians, and showed himself to be what the Northern Rivers alternative lifestyle movement would pigeonhole as a redneck. I would debate the Northern Rivers alternative lifestyle movement and say he is a classic neo-liberal. I wonder if the member for Port Darwin would accept my pigeonholing and stereotyping of him as a classic neo-liberal.
The member for Port Darwin said he talks to people and we do not need committees in this place. The question I put to the member for Port Darwin is: does he know what he is talking about?
He sits on the street corner; does he know what he is talking about in this business? He will tell us, ‘Trust me’. He mentioned the aviation industry, and God love Bob McCarthy, I wish he was here. He was an avionics engineer and he would debate the member for Port Darwin on how the aviation industry flourished through technology and innovation. He went from being an auto electrician in the back yard to keeping the big jets in the air. He would debate the member for Port Darwin and this would be a subject the member for Port Darwin would know nothing about. My deceased father - I wish he was around - would debate him on avionics, technology and innovation, and the post-modern aviation industry.
I would like to hear that. Unfortunately, I do not know much about avionics either, or the privatisation of public utilities, but I do know other jurisdictions have done it and they are now trying to claw it back. In this debate, I represent the electorate of Barkly; I represent many people I talk to and I need some good factual base to explain your plan to them. I am disappointed - there are seven other regional and remote representatives here, and we all represent a similar constituency with a high percentage of people on fixed incomes. These are people who are seriously challenged, socially and economically. The member for Port Darwin, when he wasted 20 minutes – got an extension and then started to debate – gave me the impression he was really focused on the big end of town. It is about the big, rich power users, people with power in industry and those who use a lot of utilities’ power. He did not mention the mums and dads, the small businesses or the regional remote residents. He talked about the big end of town, and I was waiting for him to include everybody else. There was a veiled attempt to include the rest of us in the ‘have and have-nots’ scenario this government is putting up, because it seems to be the way they operate.
Unfortunately, this government is denying me the opportunity for higher learning in this space, so I am going to work off instinct. It is the way I work, and I will revert to instinct. It reminds me of a Robbo in the wild west of Sydney when he pawned his grandmother’s rings and got $600. When he realised what he had done wrong, he went back to the pawn shop, but the pawn shop wanted $6000 for his grandmother’s rings. Robbo had made a big mistake. I am not convinced the Treasurer is not our Robbo. I am not convinced the Treasurer will not sell the crown jewels, realise it was a big mistake, then, the legacy - as the neo-liberals like to inform us – of our children will be to try to claw it back. There was no way Robbo was going to get back grandmother’s rings when they were sold for $600, then the pawn shop wanted $6000 to hand them back over. I have to work on instinct.
I am going to another instinct, which was a used car salesmen on Canterbury Road. Once again, Robbo, a dynamic character – I toured a few car dealers with Robbo on Canterbury Road. The member for Fong Lim reminded me of this when he skipped across the floor on day one and presented to the leader of opposition business that he would run these three bills in cognate. ‘Trust me, this car works’. I remember a Mini Robbo bought. Robbo gave the Mini a bit of a work out. The Mini overheated big time; it nearly cooked. He took the Mini back and he told me the story, ‘Be careful of a used car salesman’. The member for Fong Lim reminded me - and the Leader of the Opposition was straight on to it. The Whip - the leader of opposition business - was straight on to it also. They went straight into that used car yard and said, ‘No, we do not want to buy, we want to test drive. We want high learning, to know the true story. We want the experts, engineers, economists and academics to make comment. We want the Power and Water Corporation and people in the industry to make comment.’
The member for Fong Lim skipped back into the old car yard with his tail between his legs, and came up with Plan B: ‘We will drive this through, no matter what. We will sell three cars separately instead of one.’ It would not have made him happy, but it gave democracy the chance to take a breath. Then, the Independent member for Nelson and the Territory opposition team came up with a feasible and logical solution. ‘Let us put the brakes on, cool the Mini down, and have an informed debate.’ But this government refuses to allow it, wants to bulldoze it - early form with a couple of cheap tricks, no scrutiny involved. ‘Just trust us and we will get on with it.’ If it all goes wrong, once the deals are signed, we lose control of the transaction. Then a politician can walk away from it and do something else. The legacy for Territorians is how to clean up the mess.
Go on then, let us hear it. Give it to some existing committee as proposed in this motion. The member for Nelson says we have the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. If members are interested, they should look at some of the work the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future is doing. It is thorough research and it is cooperative. The industry stakeholders and players are being cooperative and sharing their knowledge, and it informs debate, exactly what the Chief Minister tasks us to do. You do the research, search out higher learning, then come back and present it to the Northern Territory parliament in a bipartisan sense so we can all base our debate on an informed platform.
I cannot see why this is any different, and the Chief Minister has a choice. It could be the Public Accounts Committee, a more formal structured committee to prosecute the argument, or go for the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future. It is a clear alternative, but this government wants to bulldoze it through. ‘Trust us, the Mini is good. Do not worry, it runs cool as ice.’ I think that is what he said to Robbo, before he test drove the Mini as he wanted the sale. He could not see anything else; he had blinkers on and wanted the sale.
I am nervous about this, being a member of regional and remote Northern Territory. I am worried this will create the haves and the have-nots. I am concerned for my constituents that this will not be delivering the benefits the government members tell us it will, and I am concerned about the seven other members in the same boat. When we talk about people operating on power tokens, we talk about people operating on fixed incomes. Already, under the utilities charges, we are seeing stress on their fixed income and ancillary issues, such as if the power goes out the fridge door stays shut and the food goes off. That becomes a health issue and a risk to families without the disposable income to buy the next power card. If people start to cut corners, it adds a whole new level to this debate. The debate is about people from where I come from, not the massive power users in the north, or coming online in the fastest-growing area in northern Australia, or who support the Treasurer’s scheme in the capital of northern Australia, but the rest of us.
The member for Port Darwin touched on it simply on his way out the door. ‘Do not worry about that; the community service orders will be honoured.’ Really, will they? Give me some details. How will they be honoured? Once we lose generation assets and control of the transaction, give me the guarantee to tell constituents in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, or perhaps the Treasurer has something up his sleeve - there is an energy company based in Queensland roaring across the border to buy the Tennant Creek power house so they can put downward pressure on electricity charges in Tennant Creek.
Tell me if you have someone out there, or are they only interested in a power house such as Weddell? Perhaps there is more of the story to be told.
At the end of the day there is a major policy divide between the - I will be polite - the neoclassical Liberal on the other side and Labor on this side, which is the value of an essential service. It stands outside this debate and is about people who want to put profit first. They can see a commodity and want to use the market forces and a market model to make money. We are not arguing about that, we are arguing about power and water, essential services which belong to the people, to Territorians. If this government is so slick and knowledgeable, and has the support of all its members - all those bush members of the CLP are standing up, fully informed, celebrating their higher learning. They understand this stuff; they know it back to front and are able to confidently stand in front of their constituents and say, ‘This is a good deal’. Then let us hear about it. Let it be presented in the debate. We will not see any accountability or transparency; it is the nature of how business is done which reminds me of the image of a used car salesman or the guy in the pawn shop with grandma’s rings.
You guys have all the power; you have the opportunity, you show Territorians. The member for Port Darwin threw around his idle threats, saying we will go out as some commy rabble and terrorise the Northern Territory - rubbish! We will continue to fuel the debate, and in politics, as the Leader of the Opposition told you, it comes down to a vote at the end of the day, simple as that.
It is unfortunate when you guys are playing with essential services such as power and water, which keep the family going. It is a delicate cargo, and you are playing around with it like a bus company, a printing office, a port. You fool around with this space, classic neo-Liberalism, economic rationalism, ‘Trust us, it will be all right’. Let us separate out a port, a bus company and a printing office, and let us agree on something: this is Power and Water. This is a precious cargo. Why not try your ideas on the other infrastructure items before you go anywhere near what is an asset and a level of ownership for every Territorian. There is a simple alternative.
You can shortcut all of it, go with this motion and provide us with the higher learning. It is the right and honourable thing to do. Will the government do it? We will soon find out, we have the opportunity in the House, and the only time an opposition gets to debate the government on policy is on GBD - the business day for the opposition. We do not have long, only a few minutes left in this time. I wonder if the Treasurer will get to his feet, show the conciliatory approach and allow this higher learning to take place, or will the Treasurer get to his feet and give me a lecture on stereotyping …
Mr Tollner: If you stop yabbering, maybe I will get to my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Keep going.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, for your permission because I am closing, and I will have the last say about the last opportunity to turn this around.
As you know, this will not be constrained in this House. This debate will go into the public domain and there it will be decided. I will be, personally, as a member of this parliament, talking to as many people as I can and giving them your phone number. I will be steering them to you. Every electorate office and every member of the government needs to be accountable in this, and they need to explain to Territorians. I will give the Territorians I represent one piece of advice: ask for expert evidence. Ask them what is happening in other jurisdictions, what the scientists say and what the economists say. Do not believe their stereotyping and bigotry. Ask them the simple question and make sure you always remember one very important word in your dialogue over this debate, if not every debate with government, and that is the word ‘democracy’.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am not closing this debate. That is up to the Leader of the Opposition, who brought on the debate. I thought the opposition wanted a result to this debate tonight, so it would know whether or not we could put a committee in place. It seems that was not the opposition’s intention. We just heard from a range of speakers. The member for Barkly - the blowhard from Barkly - talked about anything and everything to drag out the debate.
I have been trying to find a reason to be convinced about the need for a committee, and trying to find some arguments which have not been taken into account already. I have not heard any, but I was intending to put up my response to the arguments made, listen to what the Opposition Leader had to say and make a judgement as to whether or not we may support a committee. However, this is not anything more than a stunt for the opposition.
Ms Lawrie: Your Leader of Government Business has already said you will not.
Mr TOLLNER: I have listened to the debate. I have not made my mind up. The member for Port Darwin did a pretty good job with explaining the experts the opposition cited. He spoke about Sharon Beder and Bill Mitchell. I think the Opposition Leader mentioned a fellow called John Quiggin. I did a quick search on John Quiggin; he is pro-Keynesian economics. In the last few months, he has urged Rudd to talk about the benefits of stimulus packages. We have seen the benefits of stimulus packages pretty much around the country, as we see the debt all around the country.
We have it in the Northern Territory, they have it everywhere under a Labor government, but John Quiggin is still promoting stimulus packages; it is interesting. He is also promoting how bad the NBN is. The reason he says the NBN is failing is because of the privatisation of Telstra. John Quiggin is in good company with Sharon Beder and Bill Mitchell. I am not having a go at their learning, but they do line up with a minority of people, as the member for Port Darwin said.
With the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, and introducing the Australian Energy Regulator as the regulator in the Northern Territory, this was somewhat of a yawn around the country. In the 1990s, the COAG process identified electricity markets needed reforming; those reforms have been taking place around Australia since the mid-1990s. The only place in Australia we have a vertically and horizontally integrated utility is the Northern Territory, where the sole remaining one is. The member for Nelson likes to talk about taking the politics out of things; this is a non-political issue. The only place it seems to be a political issue is in the Northern Territory. These debates around Australia were settled years ago. I put it to the Opposition Leader and members opposite that if you think you have some support, get Gary Gray, the federal opposition spokesman on energy, or the former Energy minister, Martin Ferguson, or any of those state Labor Premiers who were around in the last 10 years up here, and ask them whether we should have had national electricity market reform through the 1990s and the 2000s until now.
In the last white paper from Martin Ferguson on energy in Australia, he was castigating the states for not privatising energy assets quickly enough. Here, nothing is privatised; we are not talking about privatisation, but the debate about the structural separation and national regulation was passed years ago.
Talking about expert analysis, I table this booklet which came out at the end of late last year. It is a high-level study done by KPMG. It is called National Electricity Market, a case study in successful microeconomic reform. There is expert opinion all through this. It analyses what has gone on around Australia over the last 20 years and whether it has been a good thing or not. For those people who want a bit of expert opinion, a little higher learning, as the member for Barkly insists on - maybe he can look at a few fundamental things like this ..
Mr McCarthy: In your book.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not my book. This was done by KPMG looking at the national market reforms. It is a case study done by a well-known business looking, in an objective way, at how it has worked out around the country. These guys opposite say, ‘Oh these things have all led to higher prices’. What has led to higher prices is identified in a range of areas. A carbon tax, for instance, has forced the prices up. Gold plating of assets has forced the prices up. Renewable energy - rooftop solar photovoltaic regimes which have been put in place around the country - has driven up electricity prices. There is nowhere in the country you can say competition has increased prices. That is a ridiculous statement.
For more than 14 years, nothing has happened in the Northern Territory. Something started when Labor, in government, changed the Power and Water Authority to the Power and Water Corporation. It was the first tentative step to reform. Prior to this - and Country Liberal governments as well – we did nothing.
The Northern Territory got a rude shock in the early 2000s when NT Power successfully sued the government for keeping it out of the marketplace. I am sure that is what was in the minds of Clare Martin and those other Labor leaders at the time, when they decided to take the first tentative step toward reforming the electricity market in the Northern Territory. Under the Labor Henderson/Lawrie Territory government, the program stalled, despite the reforms we are pursuing now being pursued by federal Labor and Labor states right across Australia.
Joining the Australian Energy Regulator is almost a no brainer. Like national uniformity in road, rail, ports and airports, the Northern Territory will now see consistency and uniformity with the rest of Australia in the energy sector.
These reforms have occurred all around Australia and are beyond politics now. Everyone agrees on them. It is only in the Northern Territory we find this bizarre situation where we have a Labor opposition which sees something sinister in it.
I would like to move onto a couple of things raised by the Opposition Leader. She, again, talked about the 43% increase in the draft determination of the Utilities Commissioner. The Opposition Leader says it is based on something to do with structural separation, includes generation costs, adds $1bn in debt because of these announced policies and the decision is made by government. It does not include costs associated with structural separation and the former Treasurer knows this. The determination is based upon power networks being a discrete entity. A simple phone call to the Utilities Commissioner would have told the Opposition Leader that, if she did not know. It would have told the Opposition Leader it does not include generation costs and does not add $1bn in debt. The draft determination recognises Power and Water is entitled to recover approximately $1bn in revenue via network charges over five years’ total revenue.
This same framework, the same commercial and cost recovery principles, were applied when the Opposition Leader was Treasurer. Furthermore, it is worth noting the former government increased electricity tariffs to households by 18%, which, incidentally, coincided with the Utilities 2009 Network Price Determination.
If there is to be a 43% increase, there are only a couple of reasons why it can be. One is Power and Water has put all its costs and overheads into the network business in an effort to demonstrate it needs to charge more. If this is not the case, and I am not suggesting it is, the second reason there could be an increase of 43% is the former administration allowed the networks to deteriorate to such an extent where a 43% increase is required. They are the only two possible reasons.
If we were a part of the national regulator, it is highly unlikely we would see a decision about a 43% increase. The AER has a bunch of like businesses to compare the network to. In the Northern Territory, the Utilities Commission looks at one network and has to take note of what the Power and Water Corporation asks for. They do not have anything to compare it to, which is another strong reason why we should join the AER.
Whilst I am on the subject of profit, the Opposition Leader ran the ridiculous line that we are gauging profit. I have a table I would like to table. This shows profits of the Power and Water Corporation from 2004-05 to 2012-13. In 2008-09, the Power and Water Corporation made $173m profit. The year immediately beforehand, it made an $82m profit. Mind you, the following years, in 2009-10, it made a $356m loss. It goes like that. It is clear over the years that you make some profits and some losses. If you add them up, you quickly note the average is a $20.8m loss. I am talking about accounting profits, not economic profits. I will table these two documents.
There is something the Opposition Leader needs to understand: the difference between accounting profit and an economic profit. I explained this the other day to the Opposition Leader. It is not difficult to understand: I go to the casino and buy a $10 keno ticket. Bingo, my number comes up, I get $4 and I run around the place saying, ‘Whoopee, look at this I won $4’. That is an accounting profit, but if we take into account the fact I spent $10 buying the ticket, to win a $4 prize, we quickly realise I have lost $6. Losing $6 is what we call the economic profit and whilst the Power and Water Corporation can declare on its books a $41m accounting profit before tax, it does not take into account the enormous sums of money the government has contributed to the organisation to get $41m profit.
I note there was an omission in the Opposition Leader’s presentation, which was her allegation there is $132m in the budget books, showing we are clearly privatising assets. Her argument was blown to bits yesterday when it was pointed out that she could not read budget books; she could get to page one, which is where it stopped, because if she turned to page 32 on the mid-year report, she would have seen the $832m was, in the main, her own enormous prison.
Mr McCarthy: Are we on the national grid?
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the interjection, no, we are not on the national grid, member for Barkly. When we talk about joining the national regulator, we talk about adopting its rules and procedures. I think one day, maybe 20 years down the track, we will be connected to the national grid - maybe 50 years down the track, it may take some time, but we are adopting its rules. When you set up a market place, you want the people participating in the market to understand the rules, which is why we changed gauges with the rail lines and why we have standard gauge around Australia. We made it awfully difficult to catch a train from Queensland to Victoria back in the days when they had different gauges, but when we brought in standard gauge and all of a sudden Australia opened up. It is a similar principal here as to why we are adopting the AER.
Nothing has been put to us tonight showing any new information or any reason at all to go to an inquiry. As I say, all of these concerns can be addressed simply by doing the most basic research, but I understand it is difficult when you cannot read past page one of the mid-year report. That sort of research does come across as a bit difficult. One of the questions in the member for Nelson’s letter, which he sent to all members, was: has it been done elsewhere?
It has been done everywhere; the only place it has not been done is in the Northern Territory. There is no reason I have ascertained as to why we should set up or give reference to a parliamentary committee. The politics is not here on this. If the Opposition Leader wants to jump up and down and find mischief here, she is misled. I welcome further comment from the Opposition Leader on anything I have not covered and somehow or other convince us this is a good motion.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE TO INCORPORATE INTO HANSARD
Page Four of Second Reading Speech on Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill (Serial 68)
Page Four of Second Reading Speech on Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill (Serial 68)
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, before I move to adjourn, earlier today I read into the Hansard record the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill, second reading speech. I omitted to read page four of that speech. I seek that page four be incorporated into Hansard and I will make certain all members are given access or a copy of the whole speech.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we thank the Attorney-General for alerting the House to the error. As shadow Attorney-General, it will make my job in debating the bill much easier with a full copy of the speech.
Leave granted
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report from Member for Namatjira
Travel Report from Member for Namatjira
Madam SPEAKER: I table a travel report from the member for Namatjira, pursuant to clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, during the last sittings, I gave an undertaking to provide a progress report on the Stella Maris inquiry. On 5 December 2013, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory passed a resolution to establish an inquiry to look into, and report on, the circumstances of a proposed grant of a lease in 2012 over Lot 5260 Town of Darwin, known as Stella Maris, pursuant to Section 4A(1) of the Inquiries Act. On 18 December 2013, the Administrator, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, appointed Mr John Lawler AM, APM to conduct the inquiry. The current situation is: the commissioner commenced his work on the inquiry on 13 January 2014 and has advised that he expects to deliver his final report to the Administrator by mid-year. The inquiry has sought information from the public and called for public submissions which relate to the inquiry terms of reference. Public submissions closed on Friday 14 February 2014. The inquiry is located at the Cascom building in Casuarina. The inquiry has been provided with administrative support by the Department of the Chief Minister, an executive officer and administration officer. A dedicated website has also been established: www.stellamarisinquiry.nt.gov.au/index.html.
I also speak tonight to welcome news that the pipeline company, APA, today announced to the Australian Stock Exchange it will spend up to $2m investigating the proposed pipeline link between Alice Springs and Moomba in South Australia, through a feasibility study.
This is exciting news for the Northern Territory. I have spoken about this over the last year and have lobbied for the investigation and investment into potential pipeline opportunities. It is something the previous Chief Minister, the member for Blain, also raised and lobbied for. I welcome this announcement today. This is not the only company looking at proposed pipelines between the Northern Territory and the national grid, which covers all jurisdictions apart from Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Three proposals have been discussed previously, two in Queensland and one in South Australia. I am aware that now the APA Group has announced this up to $2m spend, it join with another major company which is investigating this potential piece of infrastructure. What that would do, should the pipeline go ahead, is create a 9000 km system of pipelines delivering Territory gas, potentially, to southern states which are desperate for gas. New South Wales will, potentially, run out of about 90% of its gas suppliers for its domestic markets within three years. Victoria is suffering challenges for the supply of gas which, in turn, is putting upward pressure on domestic gas prices. This will fill the electricity market, which will have increased power prices interstate.
We also know the Northern Territory has the opportunity of utilising some of its gas reserves onshore, as well as offshore in international waters. We estimate there is around 260 trillion cubic feet of potential gas within the Northern Territory. We know the exploration and development of gas can produce job opportunities for Territorians, especially in regional and remote areas, and support growth in our economy. It is my vision and this government’s vision that a pipeline is created between the Northern Territory and the national grid, thereby allowing a freer flow and trade of gas, especially for domestic purposes, between those jurisdictions, whether it is swap gas, which goes in both directions, or Northern Territory gas flowing down into eastern states. This presents an opportunity for us to have cheaper gas prices in the Northern Territory, which has flow-on benefits. It will stimulate not only the gas sector, but further industrialisation of potential manufacturing industries in the Northern Territory.
It is part of the Northern Territory’s vision to see this occur as part of developing northern Australia. It is about ensuring we have regional economic development in all corners of the Northern Territory. The future is bright for the onshore gas industry in the Northern Territory. I look forward to working with APA and other pipeline companies - owners and construction companies - into the future, to ensure the Northern Territory reaches its fulfilment in development of all opportunities throughout the great landscape of the Northern Territory.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight will I talk about the activities which happened in Palmerston on the Australia Day long weekend. It was a fabulous weekend. Our community knows how to get together, and Australia Day weekend is no exception. I started on Saturday by volunteering for the Palmerston Magpies. They had a home game at the Northline Oval, which, unfortunately, is rare. It does not happen often enough. AFLNT does not afford the Magpies the opportunity to play as many home games as they deserve. It is a fantastic facility and the Magpies put on a really good show. I was happy to support them, hang out in the canteen and sell some pies and pasties for a good occasion. Unfortunately, the Magpies lost to Southern Districts that evening, but it did not put a dampener on the spirit of the club.
On Saturday night, we had the Australia Day Gala Ball which was put on by the Australia Day Council NT Inc and Australia Post. Kiya Gill and her team did an amazing job. It was beautiful. This year, it was held at the new marquee at SKYCITY, which was fantastic. It has never been held there before as it is a new venue. It was a really enjoyable night. The Australia Day Ambassador, Jeremy Kewley, made a funny speech and everyone very much enjoyed it. The Chief Minister also made a strong speech on the night, which was well-received.
At the Gala Ball this year, we celebrated the culinary greats. If you have been to the ball before you would know Australia Post selects a different topic and a different group of outstanding Australians to feature on the postage stamp. ‘Culinary Greats’ was the theme for this year and now Maggie Beer AM, Margaret Fulton OAM, Stephanie Alexander OAM, Neil Perry AM, and Kylie Kwong are newly embossed on Australia Post stamps. Keep your eye out for them. They are deserving recipients of a special and unique accolade for their contribution to our great nation.
Sunday was a very early morning, but not because I was running up and down the Esplanade doing those types of Darwin-based activities. I was in Palmerston getting the barbecue and sausages organised, because the Palmerston Australia Day committee hosted a spectacular family fun day at the Palmerston pool. I was pleased to be able to donate the sausages for that event and really honoured to be the master of ceremonies for the day. I was a bit nervous about what it would involve, but it turned out to be a fun job and an excellent day.
There was so much on offer and it was all free. Palmerston families got free entry into the pool, there was a fantastic water rackety set up along the length of the pool and the surf lifesavers were there with massive fire hoses blasting small children off the side of the water rackety, which was really amusing and everybody had a great time. The NT Coffee Angels were there doing free coffee, which is always welcome. I think many of the parents relied on the Coffee Angels to get them through the first part of the morning.
There was the famous Sao biscuit eating competition, which I was pleased to judge. Some of them were fabulous. We had a children’s and an adult’s section of that competition. There were some high quality Sao biscuits nibbled into the shape of Australia; you had to remember to include Tasmania otherwise you were disqualified. We had plenty of free giveaways for the kids, such as Australian flag water bottles, lots of tattoos – kids were getting around covered in Australian flags. Caroline Reynolds brought the climbing wall along, which was a hoot. We had 60 more children recorded as having climbed the wall this year compared to last year, which means we had a huge spike in attendance. If there are 60 more children and mums and dads and you add all that together - it was a large attendance.
It was fantastic. We had rock climbing competitions for all different age groups, which was well-received and made the latter part of the day exciting. There was thong throwing. We had a healthy food section, which was good, and the mums and dads enjoyed coming along and grabbing nice cold cups of watermelon or a muffin. It was well done, very good and I encourage the Palmerston Australia Day committee to nominate the day for event of the year at next year’s citizenship ceremony, because it really was spectacular. As emcee I was circulating all day, and I cannot tell you the number of people who came up to me and said, ‘Wow, this is a really standout, amazing event; my family has had a great time.’ In saying that, hats off to Jayne and Cath - the mum and daughter dynamic duo - Maurie and Bev, Mary and Dave, Maggie and George, who are on the committee, and to all the volunteers. I cannot name you all, but you did an amazing job. It really was a spectacular day.
We followed the family fun day with the citizenship ceremony at the rec centre, which looked spectacular. The City of Palmerston did a great job in decorating and designing that event. Again, Jeremy Kewley, the 2014 Australia Day Ambassador, attended and it was awesome to see who our citizens of the year were. We had Student Citizen Awards for Palmerston and I was extremely pleased to see a heap of kids in my schools clean up those awards, because Drysdale schools are the best schools and Drysdale schools have the best kids. It is not surprising and it was very good. Congratulations to: Erin Lasker from Driver Primary School; Nicholas Dennis from Durack Primary School; Piper Denholm from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Ciara Bellas from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Mackinlay Beasey from Good Shepherd Lutheran College; Hailee Espie-Baker from Gray Primary School; Ryan Harton from Palmerston Christian School; Luke Secrett from Palmerston Christian School; Shanice Randall from Palmerston Christian School; and Emma Perry from Sacred Heart Primary School. Well done to those outstanding young people. You have very bright futures ahead of you and I look forward to working with you as student citizens in the upcoming year and beyond.
The exciting part of the citizenship ceremony was the Citizen of the Year. I had an interest in who would take out this award, and when the name was announced, I admit, I let out a little scream because it was very exciting and this person deserves it. I will read for the record the comments made about the award winners which were inscribed in the event program. Our Palmerston 2014 Citizen of the Year is Ann Brown:
- A popular member of the Palmerston community, Ann has been a long standing member of the Palmerston Seniors Advisory Committee, an active participant of Palmerston Seniors Week, and is renowned for her work coordinating a number of clubs and activities for seniors in Palmerston, including the Palmerston 50+ Club, Ann represents Palmerston Seniors at all levels of government, reflecting the views and concerns of seniors on a wide range of issues. She regularly goes to great lengths to achieve positive outcomes not only for individuals, but the entire Palmerston senior community. Her selfless dedication to advocating the plight of Seniors in Palmerston makes her a worthy recipient of the 2014 Citizen of the Year award.
I could not agree more with this statement, because I was the person who nominated Ann. I was pleased she won it, because she is one hell of a woman. In upcoming sittings, I will be talking at great length about Ann’s life. I have spent quite a few hours with her recently, documenting it all, so I will have an Ann extravaganza in upcoming adjournments for you.
Young Citizen of the Year was Christine Gardiner. Unfortunately, Christine could not make the ceremony but, nonetheless, she was deserving of the award. She was described by her peers as caring, selfless and motivated:
- Christine has spent many of her young years volunteering in the local community with a number of organisations, including St John Ambulance, Carers NT, Multicultural Youth NT and Council's Youth Advisory Group. Always willing to take on new challenges, Christine has been involved in providing much needed support to those in the community who are socially isolated through her work with Carers NT. She has also contributed to the Variety Special Children's Christmas Party, taken on a role as roving reporter for the National Children's Commissioner, and fulfilled her role as a delegate at the YMCA Youth Parliament. A mentor to some of Palmerston's youngest residents, Christine has displayed outstanding commitment to her local community, while also undertaking studies for her final year of high school.
Kelly Raven accepted the award on her behalf. Notably, Christine also is part of the Chief Minister’s 2014 Youth Round Table.
The Community Event of the Year was the Top End YMCA Drop in Centre, which provides essential services for the youth of Palmerston, a safe place for the city’s youth to gather and interact. They were extremely worthy of receiving it and best of luck to them. Thank you to Morgan Ewing for accepting the award on the YMCA’s behalf.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness I speak tonight on the loss of a wonderful member of the Darwin community, and of our local Wanguri electorate, Mrs Helen Porteous, who passed away on 5 February.
I met Helen for the first time just over a year ago, while I was campaigning for the Wanguri by-election. From the first time I met her, it was clear she was a warm and caring lady with a beautiful nature who truly took care of those around her. She was one of those selfless people who deeply cared for others. Helen lived at the Leanyer seniors village with her beloved husband, Robin, and together they have been real leaders in that tightknit community.
The residents who live at the Leanyer seniors village come from all walks of life. There are residents living full lives there, some aged well and truly in their 90s. A big part of why people can enjoy living full and independent lives at the seniors village is because the residents keep an eye out and take care of each other. Helen was well known amongst the residents for taking care of other seniors there, especially her neighbour Hazel. Hazel is one of the most remarkable women you will meet. She is in her 90s and is currently in hospital. We send all our love to Hazel.
As local member, Robin and Helen were the people we contacted when we wanted to organise a get together with the residents at Leanyer seniors village, or to follow up any happenings there with the seniors. My electorate officer, Jenny Djerrkura, who worked with Paul Henderson for many years before we started working together, has had wonderful help from Helen and Rob over the years to help organise morning teas with the residents on many occasions. She said Helen was always there early, setting up to ensure everything was very well organised. Jenny always made sure she took care of Helen with gluten-free diet goodies just for her, because she could not thank her enough for all the support she provided to our office and to the other residents at the Leanyer seniors village.
After finding out Helen had passed away, I spoke to several of the regular visitors of the Hibiscus shops who live at the seniors village. They all spoke highly of what a kind and lovely person Helen was and how much they would miss her. The love people had for Helen was clear at her funeral at the Darwin Community Church in Millner, which was full of people coming to pay their final respects to Helen. The service celebrated Helen’s life and everybody there heard about Helen’s acts of kindness.
Helen showed concern and care for others in a gentle, loving way, and it did not end there. She also had an enormous love for animals, especially cats, and was often the mum of a number of small kittens from the RSPCA, nurturing them through their little lives until they were ready for adoption. The biggest love in life was family. Rob and Helen had a beautiful relationship and shared their love of the church. Through their life, Rob took on pastoral roles, some in remote areas, and he shared at the funeral that Helen kept them on track, stating his sermons had to be kept short.
Christina van Leent, their precious daughter, also shared the closeness she had with her mother and the inspiration she was to her in so many ways. As a parent herself now, she is inspired to maintain that closeness with her own children. Helen will also be deeply missed by her grandson Ezra, as well as their siblings Rosalie and her in-laws, Alan, Valerie, Ross and Nerrida.
Helen and Rob have always been people of deep faith and this would have helped them through life and the last year, as Helen bravely faced her illness. Helen will be sadly missed and remembered as a beautiful, gentle person with love for everyone. My deepest condolences are with Rob, Christina, Ezra and family, and all the people who will now be left with the gap of her friendship and care, because of the great love Helen had for others. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about the Bombing of Darwin and the Filipino remembrance function held yesterday at the East Point Military Museum.
It was an honour to go to the Darwin Military Museum yesterday and be part of a ceremony where we acknowledged the service of a number of Filipino merchant sailors who were on ships which were sunk on this day, 72 years ago.
It was such an auspicious occasion. The Philippines ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Mrs Belen F Anota, travelled to Darwin in a private capacity to be present for this occasion. The Honourable Sally Thomas AM, Administrator, was there, as was John Rivas, Honorary Consul of the Philippines. There were many other honorary consuls present and I also have to give credit to Dr Tom Lewis, who was the emcee of the event. He is the Director of the Darwin Military Museum.
Two ships were on a secret mission to resupply American and Filipino troop that were on islands opposite Manila Bay, struggling to hold back the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. They were recruited by the US Army to run this blockade of Japanese ships surrounding the Philippines to get much needed supplies and ammunition to those troops. Sadly, they were spotted by reconnaissance aircraft which were flying around Darwin. They were attacked on 18 February. The devastating attack on them on 19 February caused both vessels to suffer severe damage. The Don Isidro was forced up on the beach on Bathurst Island, where that wreck still remains today. Sadly, the SS Florence D was in deeper water and she was sunk with loss of life in the incident.
I acknowledge the links many of these things have brought to the Territory. The recognition of these merchant sailors comes at a time when families and descendants of these people, both in Darwin and in the Philippines, can finally realise that the efforts of these people have been recognised.
There were in excess of a 100 raids in the Top End. The historians, especially Dr Tom Lewis in his book Carrier Attack Darwin 1942, has looked at many of those raids. I was informed yesterday that there are still about 30 raids to be fully investigated and recorded in historical accounts. He informed me there are many stories yet to be told. It is with great honour I wait for those stories to come out so we can speak about and record the efforts made by many different people from many countries who participated in the war effort to fight for freedom. I acknowledge the important event and the fact these names will be recorded on the wall of remembrance at the Darwin Military Museum for all to see; these people are finally recorded there.
On the issue of migration of the Filipinos to the Northern Territory, it brings to mind the historical issues. Migrants started coming here in 1895 in small groups. They were employed as divers and processors in the pearl shells industry. If you move forward into the 1970s, the next wave of Filipinos arrived in Darwin to seek better opportunities, and many found opportunities in teaching. There were very attractive packages in those days from the Commonwealth Teaching Service, and they undertook teaching positions in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine.
The Territory Filipino community continued to grow, and the third wave of migrants came to the NT in the 1980s through the Australian government’s Family Reunion and Marriage Visa Scheme. That paved the way for a migration of Filipino communities, extended families and spouses of Australian residents in the Northern Territory. There were Filipinos with trade skills, as well as students studying at the former Northern Territory University who later took up permanent residency and contributed to the influx which continued well into the 1990s. I have seen the migration continue through skilled visa streams, with jobs ranging from mechanics to civil engineers. Spouses and children have accompanied many of these migrants, many of whom now call the Territory home.
Today, the Territory continues to be proud of the strong Filipino community, now estimated to be around 7000 strong and represented through various active community associations from Darwin to Alice Springs. The community actively shares its culture through its cultural festivals, such as the annual Barrio Fiesta. It is a fantastic event. I have been going for many years to see the richness of the culture, enjoy the food, their company, and great nights where you can see things in these cultural surroundings you do not get to see, generally, anywhere else in Australia.
I have spoken to interstate visitors to these functions and asked them, ‘Do you see anything like this down south?’ They say, ‘I have never seen anything like this’. Generally, because places are much bigger, there are events where the community gets together and it is not well-advertised; people do not get to know about them and do not get to see it. However, in Darwin, so many people go to these fiestas and enjoy the visual spectacular, the music, the food, the company and generally having a great time. These events start late in the afternoon and go well into the evening. Filipinos are known for their ability to throw a good party.
The Filipino community is such an integral part of our economic and social life in the Territory. It behoves us to acknowledge and thank them for their contribution to the multicultural Northern Territory. It makes us very special. I have said this before and will continue to say it, the Filipino community continually engages in community activity. It continually raises money for disasters around the world, most recently Typhoon Haiyan. It raised a significant amount of money which will go towards helping fishermen buy boats and nets, help store owners rebuild, and help rebuild the schools in the devastated areas of the Philippines after the tragic event in November 2013.
I thank Her Excellency, the Australian Ambassador to the Philippines, for making the effort. I also thank Mr John Rivas, the Honorary Consul, who did a lot of work with a small team of people to make the event happen. I thank Oscar Parian, President of the Filipino community, for rallying his community to make sure these merchant seamen finally have the recognition due to them for their efforts to keep the war effort going and their contribution to keeping the free world alive.
I also thank Dr Tom Lewis for facilitating the whole thing at the Darwin Military Museum. To all the other people who were involved, a sincere thank you from the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I applaud what the member for Sanderson has just spoken about - the importance of Filipinos in the Northern Territory and how they have been a stronger, growing community over recent times. I have yet to find a Filipino who does not sing.
Their contribution to the Northern Territory has been enormous. I congratulate Tom Lewis and the people who look after the Darwin Military Museum. The wall they built was opened about this time last year. It is a fantastic addition to the museum and I congratulate all the people who look after it. It is a great place to visit.
A document was tabled today regarding an application for review of a decision, or action, pursuant to section 30 of the Water Act in relation to water extraction licence TLAM 05 to L and B MacFarlane. I have not seen this document before. The document deals with a number of people who put in grievances about the decision made by the water controller to award the licence to the MacFarlane couple. Those people were Mr Markson and Mr and Mrs Shaw; they put in their concerns about the approval of this water extraction licence and wrote the reasons why. They were summarised in this document.
The water controller went through those concerns, put on record comments about those concerns and recommended to the minister that those concerns were not sufficient to warrant further consideration of the decision to grant licence TLAM 05. I will not make any comments regarding the minister, because the minister has a role to play in signing off the water controller’s recommendation, nor am I commenting on the water controller.
As an example, if you are a developer - I will take Darwin because it is a better example - and want to do something in a Darwin suburb and you get approval, somebody can appeal against it. It is called a third-party appeal. They do not agree with you putting a 20-storey block of flats on a 400 m2 block in the middle of Alawa. The DCA has given its approval; you think it is a bad idea and appeal. You give your reasons for appeal and it does not go back to the DCA, it goes to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal.
You have a system at arm’s length from the people who made the original decision. It seems peculiar. I did not realise this before, but what you have is the water controller who made a decision to grant a licence – it would not matter if it was MacFarlane or anyone else – and there were some objections to it which are like third-party objections. Those objections were not heard by another separate body. I think the body regarded as independent, similar to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, would be the Water Resources Review Panel. This was not the preferred option, as neither applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to convening a panel.
I thought, a bit like a third-party appeal, for planning there would be guidelines as to what you can appeal against. If they fit into the guidelines it would go to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal and you would be heard separately from the people who made the original decision. It seems a bit strange the water controller is making and reviewing the decision in relation to the third-party appeals and then making a recommendation that it does not go to an independent panel. This needs looking at.
This document is interesting reading. There are a couple of things I would want to spend more time looking at, because both of the people who appealed said both of the applicants referred to the failure by the MacFarlane couple to utilise their previously held water extraction licence as grounds to review the decision to grant TLAM 05. The water controller said it should be borne in mind that Mr and Mrs MacFarlane had contested the previous licence continuously since it was granted. They initially sought review of the decision to grant the licence through the appeal process provided in the Water Act. When this failed, they took court action which was not withdrawn until recently. The chain of events should be considered to explain why the previous water extraction licence was not utilised.
I followed this case for a long time and have never heard that reason as to why their water extraction licence of 500 ML was never used.
It was raised by the committees. I think the Water Advisory Committee was looking at this issue. The independent person who was brought in from Victoria looked at this matter and was said people have to show they can use the water before more is allocated. This is the first time I have heard the water was not used because some matters were being contested, which I found interesting.
It seems there was an appeal, because there was concern at the possibility of a licence being a grant of water to land, for capital value-adding purposes. The response is: it is a common misconception that water extraction licences are granted to land. This is not true. A groundwater extraction licence is granted specifically to one or more bores. If you get a large extraction licence and you put bores all over your property, I imagine it gives you some opportunity to subdivide and sell with the bore, with a certain water extraction licence. I am not sure this was a reason for not granting the licence, but I look at the logic behind it and think there is still the possibility people could ask for more water to improve the value of their land - cut up the land, put in a bore and you have a water supply.
I am interested to see what is in this paper. The arguments for and against will be worth reading. People can have their own points of view on those sorts of things, and they may vary from what the water controller says. That is probably to the side; the issue is whether the process is reasonable when you compare it with other things, such as third-party appeals in relation to planning. The government perhaps needs to see whether this is a good process to have, and whether it leaves itself open to a conflict of interest, whereas the planning process keeps it at arm’s length. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016