2016-02-10
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, teal ribbons have been placed on each member’s desk to show their support for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.
In 2016, 1480 women in Australia will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Some 43% of these women will die within five years of their diagnosis. I urge all members to get involved in supporting Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month by hosting or going to an ‘afternoon teal’ in the month of February.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Hayden Woodrooffe and Gaetano Gugliotta, Mr G. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Inquiries Act (the act) to allow a member of a board of inquiry or a commissioner, or any person authorised by the act, to have the power to seize any item, any book, document, or paper that they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry. The bill creates an offence and penalty provision if a person intentionally obstructs a board member, commissioner or authorised person acting in an official capacity. The bill also creates a penalty provision for the existing breach of confidentiality provisions within the act. The bill updates the act to comply with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act, and makes several grammatical changes to the act regarding statute law revisions matters.
The act provides for inquiries into matters in relation to the Northern Territory, and usually requires a board of inquiry or commissioner to examine the relevant issues, prepare a report and make recommendations as set out in the particular terms of appointment or terms of reference.
The bill has arisen as a result of Recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry by Commissioner Lawler, where he found that the act was deficient in the documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure, and there were also no penalty provisions for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings and documents. The current process provided under section 8 of the act does not provide a power to seize documents or compel production of documents or goods.
The act only goes so far as to allow access to be gained and searches for documents and goods to be undertaken. There is no power to seize any relevant documents or items located during the search. There is also no penalty provision applicable if a person hinders or prevents access to places, premises, buildings or documents.
The new section 3A provided by the bill confirms that Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act applies to an offence against the act. Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act states the general principles of criminal responsibility establish general defences and deals with burden of proof.
The new section 6A provided by the bill adds a new section that provides a commissioner or a board appointed to inquire into and report on a matter may authorise a person or persons to exercise powers and perform functions for the inquiry. It also requires an instrument of authorisation. This new section is required because the act is not clear on how a person may be authorised to perform a function under the act. The new process provided by the bill under proposed section 8(c) will allow a board member, commissioner or authorised person without a warrant to seize any item, book or paper that they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry. Such situations are contemplated when there is a reasonable possibility that documents or goods such as computers might be concealed, lost, mutilated, destroyed or disposed of.
The new section 8A provided by the bill creates an offence and penalty provision if a person intentionally obstructs a board member, commissioner or authorised person and a person knows that they, the board member, the commissioner or authorised person are acting in an official capacity. The new maximum penalty applicable is 100 penalty units. The new section 8A(2) makes the offence an offence of strict liability.
The new section 14A creates a penalty provision for the disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of performing functions connected with the administration of the act. The maximum penalty is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. This amendment is necessary because the existing confidentiality sections within the act do not have a penalty attached to the offence. The bill also cleans up the act in line with statute law revisions to make the language within the act gender neutral. For example, the word ‘him’ is replaced with the word ‘person’.
The passage of the bill will improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system. This approach recognises that to be effective an inquiry requires the tools with which to obtain the information necessary to fulfil its terms of reference, and provides a deterrent in the form of an offence and penalty for breaching the act by hindering or obstructing a person in the exercise of the powers conferred under proposed section 8 of the act.
The passage of the bill will also improve the confidentiality provisions by inserting a penalty for a breach. The existing provisions within the act do not currently provide for a penalty if confidentiality is breached by a commissioner, board member or authorised person.
Finally, the passage of the bill will modernise the act and rectify the deficiencies in the legislation as identified by Commissioner Lawler in the Stella Maris inquiry report.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building Act to create two new tiers of occupancy certification in addition to the existing occupancy permit, and to enable occupancy certification to be issued on an expired building permit.
Buildings in the Northern Territory generally reflect the regulations and building standards of their time. Anyone familiar with building control in the Northern Territory will know that legislation has evolved and has been enhanced throughout the years. Regulated building areas have also expanded as the population has increased.
In the past, Commonwealth ordinance regulated the construction of buildings. After Darwin was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy in 1974, buildings had to comply with higher wind code standards. Shortly after self-government, in 1983, the Northern Territory Building Act was introduced and buildings were constructed in accordance with the NT Building Code. This was suspended by the 1993 Building Act, which created private certification and adopted the national construction code. This is the system that exists today.
In 2006 when the Northern Territory, and especially Darwin, was on the brink of significant development, requirements for certification were tightened to require additional documentation and inspections to cover critical stages of building work. The basis for the issue of an occupancy permit was also amended to require full compliance with the requirements of the act and regulations.
A more robust regulatory environment, however, created an inflexible certification system. As a result impasses occur when the requirements of the act and regulations are not met in full. For example, if there are unapproved variations and the building permit has expired, a new permit is needed. If by this time technical standards have changed, the building must be upgraded. It is also unlikely for a certifier to complete certification if all the prescribed conditions and requirements have not been fulfilled.
As an occupancy permit is the only mechanism for certification, there are building works that may comply with the relevant technical standards but cannot be lawfully occupied because the legislative requirements have not been complied with in full. There is also a culture of non-compliance and, anecdotally, it is understood that there are many unapproved works and works that do not comply with relevant technical standards. In addition, the public is generally unaware of its obligations, and the enforcement of regulations has been inadequate.
Since a moratorium was declared in 2009 there has been a focus on reducing the thousands of building permits that have been lodged but not finalised by an occupancy permit. To date, many of these building matters remain unresolved.
The proposed amendments to the act are in response to calls from building owners and industry for a practical resolution to finalise outstanding certification. When the proposal to create alternative pathways to certification was discussed in 2014, there was a positive reaction overall as it presented an opportunity for certification impasses to be finalised and for buildings to be lawfully occupied. In addition there was to be recourse for existing unapproved building works to apply for certification. At the same time there was recognition that the existing building matters must not be resolved in any way that compromises building standards and public safety. The amendments require that in relation to all categories of occupancy certification the building works must be suitable for occupation, otherwise the works cannot be occupied and enforcement action may commence.
The bill will introduce two new alternative pathways to certification. For works covered by a building permit the certifier will consider the relevant building legislation and standards that were in force at the time of the permit. If all of the conditions and requirements for an occupancy permit are not fulfilled, the building owner will have the ability to seek certification by applying for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance. The certifier must, however, be satisfied that the works comply with all relevant technical standards and were completed under a valid building permit.
If the certifier is unable to determine that works meet the criteria for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, the owner may apply for a Certificate of Existence. An application for this certificate may also be made if works are unapproved. The bill enables the issue of a Certificate of Existence by the Director of Building Control on recommendation by a certifier. The certifier must assess that the building works comply with a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity. It is intended that the Director of Building Control will issue guidelines under section 167B of the Building Act that will describe what is considered a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity.
Certificates of Existence cannot be issued for hospitals, schools, emergency shelters or any other high-risk buildings and essential facilities. This category of certification will also only apply to buildings completed before the amending legislation has commenced as it has been specifically created to address legacy building issues.
The bill also inserts a provision that makes it clear that occupancy certification can be issued if the building permit has expired.
I expect building owners to welcome these amendments as they introduce some flexibility within the current certification system in order to resolve certification impasses without compromising its integrity. The integrity of the building certification system will not be compromised as, at present, unapproved building works have not undergone any form of assessment. By introducing a mechanism whereby the work can be assessed and determined to be suitable for occupancy, public safety is expected to be enhanced.
Once these amendments are in place an effective enforcement regime is necessary to ensure ongoing compliance. At least initially, there will be a focus on facilitating compliance, not active enforcement. Building owners and industry will be given reasonable time to manage the new system from an administrative point of view. It is, however, expected that owners of buildings that have reached an impasse initiate the certification process once the new system is in place. If a building owner refuses to obtain certification, enforcement action may commence.
These amendments will achieve the right balance between regulatory compliance, public safety and pragmatism. The new system recognises that unavoidable events occur during construction. While there is now a practical mechanism to deal with these events, the different occupancy certifications will reflect the true level of compliance achieved by buildings and creates an incentive for people to do the right thing. This creates transparency, increases confidence in property transactions and enhances consumer protection. With better information, potential buyers are likely to price the true value of a property. This, in return, is expected to encourage owners to comply with certification requirements in order to achieve the highest level of occupancy certification and, therefore, price for their properties.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing before the House the Small Claims Bill 2015 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Small Claims and Other Matters) Bill 2015. I can assure members that whilst I have 45 minutes allocated and an extension of 10 minutes if required, I will be using a smidge of that time.
The opposition supports the general principles and policy direction encapsulated within the bills, which the government introduced with the intention of streamlining the determination of small claims and increasing the jurisdictional limit from $10 000 to $25 000. We also recognise that these bills aim to make justice accessible and affordable to others who previously may have baulked at going down this path.
I thank the minister’s office for the briefing on these bills. I acknowledge that a consultation process was established with an issues paper being put out by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice with an invitation for submissions and culmination of a report on the review of the jurisdictional limit and legal representation in the Small Claims Act. This paper – June 2014 – contains the consultation outcomes.
As a shadow it is always useful for me to read what has happened, who put in a submission, what they had to say, and how things are balanced out. Of course, the Attorney-General’s department does not have to take on board all the recommendations for whatever reasons, and there are always reasons. I appreciate that these documents assisted me to have an informed debate in this House. As always, I seek out the legal stakeholders who made the submissions, and perhaps those who have not, to gauge their views. There is consensus amongst the legal stakeholders I had contact with either via teleconference, meeting or e-mail. They tell me that, by and large, they are generally satisfied with these bills.
There are some matters people feel still need to be addressed, and I will turn to those during the course of my contribution.
The opposition supported the bills to establish the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT, when the Attorney-General brought them to the House in 2014. At that time I was not the shadow Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I acknowledge the enormous body of work which has been undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice to make these reforms progress. I have been in and out of this portfolio twice in the last three-and-a-half years. I recall in the very early days, after the change of government in 2012, being briefed by Mr Andy Macrides on the process being mapped out to put an administrative tribunal in place. I remember thinking during that briefing what a huge amount of work there was to do to see an NTCAT come to fruition. I congratulate all those people who, less than three years down the road, have reached the point we are at today.
Back in 2014 the Attorney-General foreshadowed transfer of the small claims jurisdiction from the Local Court to NTCAT, the intention being to establish an accessible, non-judicial body with straightforward procedures and minimal formality that lends itself to the small claims jurisdiction. I recognise that the changes in the Small Claims Bill run parallel to major court reform in the Local Court, and that the JLA bill dovetails with amendments in the Local Court Bill I anticipate will pass through this House tomorrow.
The inquisitorial approach of NTCAT, as opposed to adversarial processes of the courts, is also compatible with resolving complaints in the small claims jurisdiction. I note the Attorney-General’s assertion in his second reading speech that small claims matters vie for priority with more substantial criminal and other matters before the Local Court. If we can separate those, streamline them and make those jurisdictions more efficient then that is a good thing.
The second reading speech also states that some 1600 small claim applications were made to the Local Court in 2014-15. That is a massive amount of work. However, the number of complaints which ultimately lead to proceedings is unclear. Do those stats appear somewhere in an annual report? Or perhaps the Attorney-General has access to them and can comment on the fact there were 1600 small claims applications, but how many led to proceedings? That figure it would be helpful ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, we have it here.
Ms WALKER: That is great, thank you, minister. At face value the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction to NTCAT will free up the time and resources of the Local Court. There is, however, a resource application flip side to the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction which I will expand on shortly.
We also support the increase in the upper limit of small claims. It has been more than 13 years since the small claims limit was increased to $10 000. The increase to $25 000, as proposed in the bill, is reasonable and not an arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air. The increase to $25 000 has been assessed and informed by research data, the CPI and an across jurisdiction analysis of what the appropriate quantum should be. That was the advice I received during my briefing in the Attorney-General’s office when I asked that question. It will mean businesses with small claims over $10 000 will no longer have their claims examined under the more expensive and time-consuming processes of the Local Court, and that is sensible.
Given the attributes of NTCAT I mentioned earlier, it also makes good sense to transfer disputes under the Cullen Bay Marina Act, Unit Title Schemes Act and the Unit Titles Act to NTCAT as well.
I foreshadowed some concerns about administrative and resource issues. Whilst not the subject of specific provisions in these bills – nor would I expect them to be – I still require some assurances from the Attorney-General for myself and others who are legal stakeholders. It is one thing to have good policy intent in the bills, but it is quite another to resource the new arrangements so that they are not compromised in the implementation phase.
My concerns about workload and resource allocation for NTCAT were confirmed during consultation with the NT Law Society on these bills via a telephone conference last week. I thank the Law Society president and CE for taking the time to speak with me. The society made a submission to the issues paper when it was released.
I asked about the adequacy of resourcing during my briefing on these bills. I was advised that resourcing from what will be the Local Court has been shifted to NTCAT, but I seek further assurance from the Attorney-General that the appropriate resources will be allocated to cover increased workloads for NTCAT members and support staff arising from the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction. That is why it is important to know how many of the 1600 small claims proceeded to hearings ...
Mr Elferink: Taking it to budget Cabinet is the short answer.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister. This should include a substantial investment in staff training on the new arrangements, particularly as they relate to more complicated cases and in which jurisdiction they should commence. For instance, given that until now all counter staff at the Magistrates Court in Nichols Place have handled walk-ins from people wanting to lodge claims in the small claims court, do they now direct those people to NTCAT? This means people will need to drive to Casuarina, where NTCAT operates from. There will be circumstances – I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong – where a disputed claim may be heard before a court if there is a level of complexity with it. Not all cases will go to the NTCAT. The second reading speech notes that when referring to clause 6 of the Small Claims Bill citing:
If the Attorney-General were able to address that matter further and be clear about where a claim needs to be lodged it would be helpful.
To a point I understand this is an operational matter, but the new arrangements will require a substantial communications exercise to explain the changes to the public and stakeholders, and to ensure that in transferring small claims from the Local Court to the NTCAT it is clear to jurisdictions, their clients and their legal counsel where an individual should file a claim to avoid any confusion.
It would seem the vast majority of small claims fall into unpaid rates. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of data on the nature of small claims. From what legal stakeholders have told me, the vast majority of small claims cases are unpaid rates and bills from entities like Power and Water.
Members interjecting.
Ms WALKER: Excuse me colleagues, you are distracting me with your conversation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, could you go to the back gallery please?
Ms WALKER: We are talking about unpaid rates or bills from entities like Power and Water or local councils. Where does a claim sit for somebody who is seeking damages? Let us say somebody has driven a motor car into their car, their front fence or through the front window of their business. Where can that individual go to rightfully seek costs associated with that damage?
I understand the intent of moving small claims to the NTCAT is about creating a non-adversarial jurisdiction, and that is a good thing. It is covered in clause 7 with representation of the Small Claims Bill 2015.
In the second reading speech the Attorney-General stated:
I have put two ticks alongside that because it is sensible and I could not agree more. However, on the issue of representation, how even is the playing field before NTCAT where those who appear cannot have legal representation unless leave is granted through the NTCAT?
Given that small claims for unpaid fees such as Power and Water bills or local councils – those who represent those entities may be lawyers. They spend a lot of time trying to claim unpaid debts. If they are not lawyers they are representatives of those organisations, with a certain amount of expertise in appearing before what was previously a magistrate and is now the tribunal. These experienced representatives will be conversant with the provisions and have an advantage over the litigants who appear before the tribunal.
The NT Law Society has asked this question and that is why I bring it to the floor of the House: who can assist a self-represented litigant in these circumstances? I understand a commitment was made some time ago around a handbook for self-represented litigants to assist them as they appear before the court process, as promised years ago. Given that funding to community legal aid centres is dropping more and more people are self-represented litigants. In the NTCAT, given you can only have legal representation by leave of the tribunal president, what does the Attorney-General have to say about an unfair playing field where there is, if not legal representation, very experienced representation on behalf of clients like councils or Power and Water against a litigant who has no representation?
Obviously, apart from a handbook, a website that provides information would be extremely helpful in explaining some of the broader changes afoot. Let people know where they can lodge their small claim. Is it at the Nichols Place Magistrates Court or Casuarina?
I spent quite some time on the department’s website seeking information, the issues papers and what have you. Last week I could not, for the life of me, find anywhere on the website with – I knew it was there somewhere – a schedule of court fees. I was looking for court fees when preparing for the bill on personal violence restraining orders to understand what it cost to lodge one. I could not find them anywhere. I was pleased that it was not just me, as the registrar of Nhulunbuy court house could not find them either. In this day and age website technology is a useful means for people to access information. More and more people use it. I am flagging with the Attorney-General something he already knows, I am sure, and will talk about. In this process of reform there needs to be an education and communication process so people are aware of what these changes mean and how to access them.
I note that the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate and the president of NTCAT were consulted on the development of the bills, and that is good. I again thank the minister’s staff and the departmental officers for the briefing on the bills, and acknowledge once again the enormous efforts from the agency to progress these reforms further.
Madam Speaker, we support the bills, but given the significant reforms we support a review of the Small Claims Act 2015 in three years’ time, as noted in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, so these new provisions can be assessed in the context of operational experience.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have read both bills and support what the government is trying to do. Obviously one bill is more about trying to change a heap of other bills. Looking at the amendments to the Cullen Bay Marina Act, the Local Court Act, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act etcetera, a fair bit of work has been done to reach that stage. By updating it and making it more relevant to today, hopefully it will be more accessible for people as well.
I have one question about the second reading speech regarding the limitations on the use of a lawyer. The second reading said:
I agree with that, but are there disadvantages if a person has a low level of literacy? They may not have the gift of the gab. Can a person get assistance if they do not understand the law?
If they cannot have a lawyer can anyone else help them, especially if they do not have a good understanding of the law or are unable to express themselves well? It is only a minor issue but the principle is good. There may be some disadvantages if a person does not understand the law enough to present their case in a fair and understandable way.
Otherwise, minister, I support the legislation.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, as someone who has been in business and had to take people to the small claims court, this is a breath of fresh air for business people and small- and medium-sized enterprises wanting to recover monies owed to them. It is a sensitive area as no one likes going to court. For smaller amounts, no one wants to engage a solicitor and spend an enormous amount of money to recover a small amount. The economics are not there.
This government works hard to create efficiency and effectiveness. In economics those two words are like early intervention in other areas of what government does. Efficiency and effectiveness are really important to this government, and we are trying to make this system better for business.
Community legal services can give advice to people on low incomes who struggle to understand the law but they cannot send lawyers into the small claims court. Generally, when people go into a small claims court and present their case, magistrates are aware of their inability to articulate legal arguments. Matters in small claims courts are not necessarily about legal issues. They are small issues where someone has failed to pay and you need to recover a debt. Moving this from the small claims court to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a way to resolve these issues in a far more effective and efficient manner. Economically, this argument makes sense.
The minister mentioned when this was first introduced and the limits. The increase from $10 000 to $25 000 enables you to appear without legal representation if you have some advice, some assistance or a friend. I agree with the increase. It is a great initiative and I hope the members opposite support it.
The member for Nelson raised a good point. I suspect that was adequately covered by the previous system. This simply moves resolution of small claims from the Local Court to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction.
The other important thing in this bill is that legal representation in small claims matters is only to be provided with the approval of NTCAT. For a small claim the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal makes a judgment call. Years ago, when I had to take people to the small claims court to recover debts – it is something they are aware of. They have done a reasonable job. Things change, they improve and that is what governments do.
I can assure you that across the board government has been looking for efficiencies and at making the system more effective. It is about listening to people in the community. In this case the minister has listened to business people, the legal fraternity, and those who have had experience in this area and would like some changes.
I support the comments made by the member for Nelson regarding consideration. The NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal is able to consider that. I recommend that members opposite support this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, perhaps I could best reply to this bill and some of the questions asked by going from the general to the specific in relation to what I have attempted to do as the Attorney-General. Starting from that position, the best place to begin is by comparing the Northern Territory with other state jurisdictions.
A substantial amount of work in the area of Local Court reform had been done prior to me becoming Attorney-General. I embraced that because it gave me an opportunity a number of years ago to pursue what I wanted to as Attorney-General.
By way of a comparison between this and other state jurisdictions, members may or may not be aware that in other jurisdictions it is very common to have three tiers of courts: the magistrates, the district or county court – depending which jurisdiction you are in – and the Supreme Court of each jurisdiction, with the final appellable body being the High Court of Australia.
From my perspective it would be unwise to create a three-tier court system in this jurisdiction. Nevertheless, when I was in opposition I, on a number of occasions, made observations about the absence of an administrative appeals tribunal in the Northern Territory. In determining, upon becoming the Attorney-General, to pursue a civil and administrative appeals tribunal as well as embracing amendments to the Local Court system, I have been able to create a system which works well for the people of the Northern Territory and is somewhat reflective of a three-tiered system.
I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to very complex amendments to the Local Court legislation last year. Those amendments to the Local Court legislation, in some instances of jurisdiction, give the Local Court, or what we currently call the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the flavour of a district court. It dallies in indictable offences, the thresholds for dealing with civil disputes are quite high in that legislation, and as a consequence these matters, if heard in another jurisdiction, would be heard by a district court. It is for that reason I have not blanched at the request of the Chief Magistrate to have the judges of the Local Court called judges going forward. In fact, that should be coming into force in the not so distant future.
That raises the question of the rats and mice type issues that the Magistrates Court has to deal with on a regular basis. No better example of a rats and mice type issue would be the small claims jurisdiction. The small claims jurisdiction, as it currently applies in the Magistrates Court, does not preclude legal representation. As a consequence, if you were lodging a $10 000 claim you could still get lawyered up and go into the small claims jurisdiction. It would not happen that often because if you claim something with a $5000 value, by the time you pay your lawyers you recover a couple of grand.
It was useful to turn my mind to how we could diminish the rats and mice issues out of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, which still operates essentially as a court, and place them in front of a tribunal, which the shadow Attorney-General quite rightly pointed out is inquisitorial in nature rather than adversarial.
I said during debate yesterday when describing the court process that in many respects somebody sitting on the bench is not a participant in the trial other than necessarily directing traffic through their courtroom. It is not always the case, but it is a reasonable description. In an inquisitorial environment – if you compare it with a Coroner’s Court for argument’s sake, the Coroner in the Coroner’s Court actively becomes engaged in the matters before him by asking questions and participating in the inquiry into a person’s death. The inquisitorial nature of a tribunal enables it to act in a court-like way but still have the presiding authorised person, president or president’s representative sitting in judgment of the matter before them.
I was asking my wife not that long ago how I can describe a three-tier system such as we have created in the Northern Territory, and this is just another step towards it. How do I describe this to people? How do I demonstrate or easily explain this to people? My wife, who I suspect is a lot smarter than me, said, ‘That’s easy. NTCAT is Judge Judy, the Local Court will be The Practice and the Supreme Court will be Boston Legal.’ I thought, ‘Of course. That’s a great way to describe it, because in that process people get the idea of what will occur in each environment.’ The Judge Judy comparison, whilst it is not how NTCAT practices its role, clearly is, based on the few episodes I have watched for my macabre amusement, a small claims jurisdiction.
That is all it is, and the style is quite inquisitorial. People come before the judge utterly unrepresented and often have no clue about how the law works. They come before her and she passes judgment based on the evidence she discovers. Whilst NTCAT will have a more formal structure, that will essentially be the experience of the average person. It will not be as glitzy and glamorous, but it will be the experience of a person saying, ‘I have a dispute over a rental matter or a car purchased from me and the person hasn’t paid it’. Those are the things the small claims jurisdiction is there for.
The small claims jurisdiction is constructed in such a way, even now, as to make the approach to the small claims jurisdiction as easy as possible. Nevertheless, because the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is structured, it does not have and will not have, necessarily, the flexibility a tribunal will have. That is the reason we are sending these matters to the tribunal.
That is not to say we do not take the tribunal’s capacity seriously. For that reason we have looked at the small claims threshold and raised it from $10 000 to $25 000 because CPI takes us in that direction and, as the shadow Attorney-General correctly pointed out, other jurisdictions have similar amounts, and, frankly, there is a certain element of arbitrariness in setting these thresholds. The test of reasonableness in all the circumstances would determine what the thresholds are.
Not all matters, as the shadow Attorney-General correctly pointed out, will be disposed of in the NTCAT. Nevertheless, for the shadow’s information, I imagine all matters will commence in the NTCAT. What will attract interference from the Local Court is, in particular, the law of equity. The principles of equity – there are 12 or 13 maxims – primarily have to be dealt with by lawyers.
An example of where you would seek equitable relief would be specific performance of a contract. To give members an example of how that works, specific performance of a contract is where you seek the enforcement of a contract because of the unique nature of it. It particularly applies to land, but it may apply to something like an art work. If I buy a $10 000 Rembrandt and pass my money to the person supplying it, and as a consequence he says, ‘I don’t have that one, but I have this other one’, I can seek the relief of specific performance because exchange to similar value is not what I am after. It is the specific item claimed in the contract.
The maxims of equity have to be retained in an environment like the court and would not often find their way into the small claims jurisdiction. From time to time it is understandable that they might. The maxims of equity include concepts such as those who seek equity must do equity, and those who come to equity must do so with clean hands. Those maxims determine whether or not equitable relief will be given in a matter.
As a consequence of that and advice received from the Chief Magistrates – soon to be the Chief Judges – and the Chief Justice, these are the things we have determined to refer back to the courts so those courts might deal with the principles of law and the maxims of equity effectively.
The vast majority of small claims will not go down that pathway; they will be determined by NTCAT. The short answer about resourcing is it is in front of budget Cabinet and we will let you know how it is going. Clearly, there will be a substantial increased workload in the NTCAT. It was always the intention, and remains the intention of this government, that the NTCAT pays for itself by virtue of the fact those departments or other elements of the system that are relieved of duties contribute to the operation of the NTCAT. That is what I continue to work on.
In relation to legal representation, we leave that to the judgment of the President of the NTCAT. I would always be anxious to make sure that justice is not only done but seen to be done, but people who come before the small claims jurisdiction, even now in an unrepresented form, will still get a fair hearing. On each individual occasion when a specific type of respondent or complainant comes before any tribunal and is represented, the courts still bend over backwards to ensure that fairness is delivered in that process.
The President of the NTCAT, Richard Bruxner, is a very good lawyer. He came from the Solicitor-General’s office. He is smart and perhaps a little on the black letter side, but nevertheless a good lawyer. He understands the principles of generating a fair hearing and I trust him to continue doing so. People who take up the presidency in the future will show similar levels of expertise when dealing with these small claims issues.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that in three years’ time, if memory serves me – it has been a while since I read the material – there will be a review of the whole process to ensure what is intended is being delivered. That will be a matter for another Attorney-General to deal with on another day. I am sure that Attorney-General will be pleased to discover this system works well and serves the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 2 December 2015.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today, six months from an election, the Chief Minister is intending to make radical changes to how we vote at the next Territory election. Six months from an election the CLP is about to make significant changes to how we determine who is a member of parliament in the Northern Territory.
A desperate Chief Minister wants to change the rules. There is only one reason the CLP would comprehensively change the way votes are cast and counted in the NT: it is throwing the dice and hoping it is loaded. The CLP will do anything to remain in power, and that includes radically changing how we vote. Let us be clear about this, the Chief Minister, Adam Giles, and the CLP are doing everything they can to load the dice at the next Territory election. They are making these changes six months from an election without the consultation with Territorians the Chief Minister promised. Not that this would surprise anyone, breaking promises and not consulting is simply par for the course for the CLP.
At estimates last year the Chief Minister said:
That was estimates last year. There has been no discussion paper. This bill does not go to donations or other rather ugly things that have occurred during this term, despite promises and encouragement from the Chief Minister. There was no consultation process. There was no conversation with Territorians about how to genuinely clean up our electoral system, particularly in relation to political donations, and how the rorting of the system by Foundation 51 can never happen again, despite the encouragement of the Chief Minister and despite his promise there would be a paper to facilitate consultation in the Northern Territory. None of that has occurred.
The Chief Minister, in those comments, identified the issues involved with radically changing the system six months out from an election. Yet despite those promises, despite that encouragement, there was no discussion paper and no conversation with Territorians. Again, a promise was broken by the CLP and the Chief Minister. There are reforms that people want to discuss. They want to talk about how we can clean up donations and restore trust after the ugly CLP scandals of this term. That has not happened. There was no consultation by this Chief Minister and this government despite their promises. Despite encouraging people to participate in the consultation process the government did not consult. They did not bring that paper forward, and there are no reforms to political donations in this bill. This was a breach of the promise the Chief Minister made at estimates last year, but again, how can we be surprised with the behaviour of this government?
Now they want to impose on Territorians an entirely new way to cast votes and have them counted, six months out from an election. The government introduced legislation about changing our system of voting over the Christmas period, put some fact sheets on a website after the bill was introduced and labelled it consultation while the legislation sat on the Notice Paper. Territorians are not fooled. We have debated this with the CLP many times this term. The period between introducing a bill and passing it is not consultation. The CLP refuses to learn. You can never hold proper consultation over the Christmas period as people are distracted and are away. This is not incompetence. The CLP know these things.
This is a deliberate decision to not consult or be open and transparent, and to hope attempts to completely change the way elections are decided in the Territory are not noticed. The CLP cannot be trusted, as its own taxpayer-funded research has declared. Territorians would already have a natural inbuilt concern about anyone who wants to change the rules during the last quarter, but when it is done by this Chief Minister and a CLP government they already do not trust, they will see it for what it is: a desperate Chief Minister doing anything he can to cling onto his job, just like he did when his team rolled him out nine to five. Just like he did then, he will do anything to cling to power.
Back then he threw the biggest tantrum in Australian political history. He announced full inquiries and alleged a police coup in the Territory. That is the Chief Minister we have, the Chief Minister who will do anything to cling to power. Today this Chief Minister wants to change how we vote in the Territory.
The spurious ground the Chief Minister is using for completely recasting how elections are run is he wants to reduce the informal vote. That is the reason given for changing from a full preferential voting system to an optional preferential voting system in the new section 50(2). The CLP wants to change a system of optional preferential where you do not have to number every box. That means every vote, once they are exhausted, will effectively be binned and not counted in the final result. The CLP is trading potentially informal votes for votes that will be binned. The CLP is making a trade-off.
At the last Territory election, according to the Electoral Commission, there were 1448 unintentional informal votes. At the briefing I had, I learnt that about 600 of those would have been counted under these changes. They are making these changes for 600 votes out of a total cast vote of 95 000. That is a very small proportion of unintentional informal votes by any standard and any jurisdiction.
By masking their intent to reduce informality the CLP’s true intention is shown. The potential consequence of this electoral amendment is to eradicate the voting intentions of 11 896 people who chose not to vote for a major party at the last election. By choosing not to vote for a major party and not filling out your preferences, your vote has the potential to be binned and over 11 000 Territorians will not have their voice heard. That means the government is potentially disenfranchising 11 votes to every one extra vote. That is an incredible change. In the attempt to maybe get 600 votes counted they will lose 11 000. That is a radical change to how votes are counted in the Territory.
This change may push candidates – major party or minor – to pursue a ‘vote one’ campaign. As we have already demonstrated, that means we can have candidates elected who do not have the majority support of their electorate. This erodes democracy.
A practical example from the last election is the seat of Arafura. Arafura had 110 unintentional informal votes. The booth at Maningrida was won by the Greens with 177 votes. Second place was First Nations with 123. Labor was third with 68, and the CLP was fourth with 28. There were 110 informal votes, and 300 of the 396 votes were cast for minor parties, much more than the 110. If the Greens and First Nations had actively pursued a vote one only campaign then 75% of Maningrida would have been disenfranchised, their votes effectively binned and not counted towards the final result. That is 75% of the people living in one of the largest Indigenous communities not having their say and their voice being silenced by a CLP government.
These terrible changes will silence people in the Territory. These are deplorable changes to how we vote in the Territory. Thousands of votes will have the potential to now not be counted in the final result after these CLP changes.
This election bill debate neatly sums up what we are debating in the Territory right now, in many respects this term. Territory Labor believes every Territorian should have their voice heard, and the CLP believes only some people’s voices should be counted. That is the effect of this legislation. They are putting into law how they have behaved this term, where they think only some Territorians should have their voices heard. It is a disgrace. It goes to the heart of why people do not trust this government. It is six months out from an election and the government is trying to change the rules of how an election is run.
This is a desperate government and a desperate Chief Minister who will do whatever it takes to cling to power. We have seen that in the conduct and behaviour of this Chief Minister during this term. This is a disgrace, and informal voting is just an excuse to make desperate changes to how votes are cast and counted. We do not have an informal voting crisis in the Northern Territory. The percentage of informal votes at the last Territory election shows it is simply not there. We have heard from the CLP a conversation about how people in the bush do not know how to fill out their ballot paper. That is disgraceful in its ignorance.
The seat of Arnhem, for example, at the last election had fewer informal votes than the seat of Araluen. We do not have a crisis when it comes to informal voting. The votes that may be included after these changes pale in comparison to the votes that have the potential to be lost when deciding who is a member of parliament.
That is why this is a disgrace. The CLP is choosing to have some people’s voices in the Territory silenced. We believe that every vote must count, and every member of this House must be elected with the majority support of their electorate. Otherwise, like this Chief Minister, the candidate does not have a true mandate from the majority of people in the electorate.
The Electoral Commissioner sums up the argument best in his submission of December 2015:
The CLP is proposing to radically change the system, and those changes will have the potential to increase informal voting in the Territory. In the next 12 months there will be three elections in the Territory, and having the same system will reduce informal votes. The CLP is creating a higher chance of informal voting with people being forced to vote proportional at the local government level, full preferential at the federal level and optional preferential at the Territory level. That is three different ways. This is a disgrace from the CLP and a desperate attempt to change the rules six months from an election.
The fig leaf of informal voting is not there. You are trading off potentially 600 votes for over 11 000 potentially lost, and you are creating the chance for higher levels in informality by creating different ways of voting at different elections. Antony Green is right when he says these changes are driven more by self-interest than principle.
This is also the case in amendments to section 275, which amends the 10 m rule for handing out how-to-vote cards to 500 m. The proposed 500 m limit is too extreme. These laws prevent members, candidates and volunteers from campaigning and handing out how-to-vote cards in some bush communities. You will be sitting outside the community limits. This change could, and probably will, increase the informal vote. Compounded, these changes are likely to lead to more informal voting at the next Territory election than improve it so why do it? The one obvious reason is the government wants to load the dice going to the next election.
The CLP believes the problems of the gauntlet lie in the bush, according to their discussion papers. Our experience, and the feedback we have received from consultation, does not show that at all. The change is not needed in the bush. The chalk line can stay as is in the bush. The problem with the gauntlet lies in our urban booths. We believe we should make polling places friendly. Let us fix the problems where they are, in our urban centres where every booth is plastered and there are dozens of volunteers. However, 500 m is too far and the motives are transparent. Antony Green, who has not had the delight of witnessing up close the actions of this government, wrote:
In practical terms, in my electorate it would mean not only would I have no information for voters at the Parap Primary School booth, I would also not be able to provide any at Parap Markets next door. The 500 m would wipe out Parap Markets. Voter information is often available at Parap Markets. Five hundred metres is a significant distance and would be devastating for the bush. This is an erosion of democracy. We can make urban booths friendly without going to 500 m. The furthest in other jurisdictions is 100 m. Under the 500 m proposal, if a voter wanted information or to ask a question of a volunteer, member or candidate, they would have to walk about 1 km to get it – clearly impractical, clearly works against the interests of having information provided to voters. We can make these booths friendly, but we do not need to erode democracy to do it. We do not have to go to the absurd distance of 500 m. We can fix the gauntlet without going to 500 m.
If the Chief Minister was serious about electoral reform he would take this vote-grabbing legislation off the table and introduce a comprehensive package of reforms after genuinely talking to Territorians. At the last estimates he promised that consultation paper would be there and that there would be a conversation with Territorians about it. Let us have a proper conversation with Territorians.
Labor supports the other amendments in the bill, but we can do this in six months’ time. We can do it hand in hand with the donation reforms, and we can restore trust in our electoral processes. We can have a proper conversation with Territorians. We do not have to rush rash changes through this Chamber six months out from an election, which will radically change the way votes are cast and counted in the Territory. That will silence some Territorians and we do not have to do that. We do not have to go down a path that will see some votes binned and not counted. That is a disgrace and we do not have to do it, and certainly not six months out from an election. The genuine consultation that was promised by the Chief Minister was not undertaken.
We have released a discussion paper to restore trust and integrity to government. We have flagged parliamentary reform and electoral reform, including donation reform. These are all necessary and will all happen under Labor. We will undergo a proper process and will consult. We have released a discussion paper and are having that conversation. We are not rushing changes through this House.
This is an appalling way to run a government, but we have a low standard when it comes to this CLP. Can we expect better? I am not sure if the community is surprised that this is the way the government conducts itself. I guarantee, if we were in government, Labor would not introduce significance changes that affect an election six months out from that election. This is serious.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I welcome to the gallery Year 5/6 students from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Vicki Manley. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hope they are studying democracy because we are failing with this legislation ...
Mr Barrett: Oh, turn it up!
Mr WOOD: The member for Blain can say that. Obviously he has not studied this very well and does not know the repercussions. If he wants to follow the party line, well and good, but I do not have a party to follow.
What is before us is not about good governance. Even if you agree with optional preferential voting, you do not bring this out six months before an election. You send this out for proper, mature debate and discussion before it comes back into this House. This was rushed through in the last sittings before Christmas with an indication there would be consultation.
Can you tell me how many people in your electorate know this page exists? I would like the Chief Minister, when responding, to tell us the number of people who have replied to the so-called consultation.
Member for Blain, this is poorly thought through legislation. Some things may be supported, but this is one of the most ridiculous ways of introducing important legislation affecting the way we vote. Surely that needs more than a little flier asking for online discussion.
I was at the launch of the Aboriginal policies and said, ‘Chief Minister, please drop this’. He said, ‘Well, you wanted change’, with that smile on his face that I am always suspicious of. He said, ‘You were on about this’.
I said I wanted to get rid of all the paraphernalia and the hullabaloo you run into when you vote. One motion took nearly 12 months to be passed, and that was at the last sittings. That motion said 100 m, and it was not legislation so it was not binding on this House. It certainly opened up discussion for parliament to look at ways to introduce changes to the way people could vote at the polling booth.
I will get to the issue of 500 m later. I do not support the changes. They have been brought in without any reasonable consultation with the community, and there has been no opportunity for those who disagree to express their point of view. It is a bit like a referendum. The government has the money to do this, so where is the no vote. Where is the money to advertise the equivalent? This is a yes vote but where is the no vote? Where is the no argument? We already have a system so why has the government not provided information or had a proper debate in support of the existing legislation?
This is a government campaign in support of this legislation and is paid for by the government. We are dealing with the way we are governed, and that should not be party political. Perhaps this should have gone to a committee dealing with legislation to discuss the government’s proposal, but this has come straight from the government. It has not gone through a committee which could say, ‘Let’s see how we can put the for and against argument’. It has just been introduced and will be passed if the government has the numbers and people will be none the wiser.
I have asked people, ‘Do you know anything about the government changing the voting system?’ They say, ‘No, never heard of it’. It is not commonly known or understood. If the government has a problem with people understanding this it should put some money into education. This is about politics, not good governance.
Did we see ads in the paper? Occasionally we have ice ads, and ads about work with big backhoes and front end loaders. Have we seen ads like that on television or in the newspaper promoting discussion of this issue? I have never seen them.
We put effort into saying how good the government is and how bad we are on this side, but have we put the same effort into telling people we are bringing in changes to the Electoral Act that could affect them? No, we have just brought some pages with one opinion of why we should make that change.
These changes, especially the voting changes, have nothing to do with the McGuiness report and only a small amount to do with the NT Electoral Commission 2012 report. I do not know if people have read that report, which came out after the last election and had a series of recommendations. There were recommendations about party registration and about increasing the application fee. There was also a recommendation about canvassing at static and mobile polling places, which we will discuss today. The report, titled NT General Election 25 August 2012, also said:
Hello! Can someone tell me when that stakeholder forum was? There is deadly silence as you cannot answer a question that has no answer.
There is mention of the election timetable, enrolment and roll services, nominations and an increase in the nomination deposit. It mentions postal voting and early voting, both of which we deal with in this legislation.
In all the recommendations made by the Electoral Commissioner after the 2012 election there is nothing to say we should change the voting system. This has not come from the Electoral Commission, but from the CLP and the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister mentioned the McGuiness report. That report mentions political donations and other matters, but his final recommendation is:
Where is the review? The McGuiness report only came out last year. I do not know of a review, maybe others do.
The Chief Minister has not been up front about why we need this change. He wants to change our voting system from full preferential to optional preferential for electorates which rarely have more than five candidates. Why would you do that? This move could only be described in the words of John McEnroe as, ‘You cannot be serious’. There is nothing in either the McGuiness report or the 2012 NT Electoral Commissioner’s report to recommend any changes to full preferential voting. It was not even mentioned so why is it being introduced? Clearly this is about politics not good governance.
Antony Green, the ABC political commentator, said when referring to the optional option:
Why would you want a system that is biased towards one party? He says it is biased and that is it in a nutshell. The change is to strengthen the CLP’s chances by eliminating preferences to Independents or smaller parties. This is not being done for the good governance of the Northern Territory but the survival of the CLP at the next election.
The Chief Minister says these changes will give voters a greater choice not in who they vote for but how they vote. That was not recommended by NTEC. It is a smokescreen trying to fool voters. There is a choice of not voting at all and a choice of using our system. Why not introduce a system which says, ‘I want to put number five for the candidate I least want’? That is a choice too but it would be informal. Since self-government in the Territory we have had a preferential system of voting
The Chief Minister also says this might result in a decline in the informal vote. That is a very poor reason and one that has not been researched. The Electoral Commissioner, in his response – if you go through the stats you will find that 1.6% of the total vote was unintentional informal. Why change a voting system because 1.6% of the population cast an informal vote? Why not do what the NT Electoral Commission is doing right now? It has a program to promote filling out all the boxes. They have put out for comment – I do not know if members have seen it – a draft NTEC Storyboard for ‘How to Vote’ video. It says:
This is going out from the NT Electoral Commission while we are talking about changing the system. It says:
The Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner has put out a video showing people out bush how to vote. How should they vote? Full preferential. On the other hand the government is telling them they should only put one for 1.6% of the population. The stats for the Territory show some bush places, also urban places, with high informal votes, but overall it is 1.6%. Does that not tell you perhaps the understanding of preferential voting has not reached everybody? Does it not say you should be investing more in developing education material, in language, to help people understand what preferential voting is about?
I bet today we will not hear from government members because the party will have said, ‘This is the way we are going’. How many members will stick up for the basis of preferential voting? That basis has two important central issues that should not be played around with. When you give your preference you have the power to influence a candidate who you may not have had as your first preference, but you would prefer them if your first candidate was not elected.
The other basic philosophy behind full preferential is that you must win 50% plus one of the vote. You must be the most popular person. Under optional preferential – as the Attorney-General of Queensland said when he conducted a review of this system – you are going down the path of de-facto first past the post. People can be elected without getting 50% plus one of the total votes because the votes that do not have preferences for the candidate that are taken away quickly will not be counted as part of the 50% plus one. You will have the equivalent of someone getting elected with 40% of the total vote. If you do not believe me look at the review of this legislation on the back page of the Electoral Commissioner’s report. Also, look at the Queensland Attorney-General’s review. I do not think some of you have looked at what is being said by the people who investigate these things. We will end up with a shambles. This will cause confusion in the bush, no doubt, and probably in urban areas as well. If this goes through, when people vote at local government elections they will be told they have to fill in all the boxes. When they vote in the federal election this year they will also have to fill in all the boxes.
If you support this change we will vote differently in NT elections. You might say there is a choice, but I bet CLP how-to-vote cards will have clearly marked at the top the number one only and in small print it might say, ‘You can fill in the rest’, because they know this is an advantage to the party. It is not about good governance or fairness.
If there are issues about informal voting – I am sure the member for Stuart will tell me there are, and I have discussed it with other people – improve the education system. Do not treat Aboriginal people as second-rate voters by downgrading the system. Keep the system, improve the education and treat people equally. It is downsizing the voting system by saying to Aboriginal people, ‘You aren’t good enough to understand; therefore, just put number one.’ That is not the right way to go.
We are moving into the realm of political advantage over what this parliament should be doing, which is a proper review of the electoral system in a bipartisan way. If it was a bipartisan approach it would have gone to a committee but it did not. That is what they are set up for, but this was plonked on our desks. People do not have a chance to hear a different point of view, and today the government hopes it has the numbers.
If people do not believe me, get hold of the Queensland Attorney-General’s report on optional preferential voting. It is not all against optional preferential voting, but the report said that the AEC, the Australian Electoral Commission, conducted an analysis of informal votes for the House of Representatives elections. In 2004 and 2007 both recorded the highest informal votes. That is in New South Wales and Queensland, which have OPV or optional preferential voting.
The same thing will happen here. People will go to the federal election thinking that the Northern Territory government has changed the system and will put ‘1’ on a federal ballot paper. If you do not believe me believe the people who have conducted the analysis. Queensland and part of New South Wales have this system and the figures show, especially when two elections are close together, that they have the highest number of informal votes.
You say you are doing this to reduce informal votes, but the evidence is that you will increase informal votes in other elections. Why would you do that? Even the Electoral Commissioner asked why you would want to change to a system with two types of voting, one where you fill in all the boxes and the other where you do not. What kind of logic is that?
If there are informal votes why are you not changing local government elections? Why are you not telling Nigel Scullion that informal votes are bad for the Northern Territory? You will be left with a mess caused by a government six months out from election.
That says it all. If you want a fair and mature debate about this subject have it after the next election. Let us take it to people with an education campaign. Let us see what the problems are in the bush and why they exist. Let us find out why some people in my electorate do not understand and there are informal votes. Many people do not understand our voting systems so we simplify it; we dumb it down.
I will give you an example of why preferential is such a good thing. In Dili six candidates stood for president and they needed 50% plus one from the total population. In the first vote nobody got 50% and they dropped the bottom two. Next week they go back again and guess what? They all voted, and under optional preferential the people who lost their candidate at the beginning did not have a say. In Dili you have a say because all the people have a choice in the next four candidates. If you still do not get 50% plus one they take the bottom two off and away they go again. You will definitely get 50% plus one. The important thing is that all the people had a choice down to the last ballot.
Optional preferential takes that away from you. People may not be able to understand that, fair enough. That might show we need to educate the public about good forms of voting. It is special, and preferential voting is something Australia should be proud of. It is a fair and just way to elect a representative. It makes sure the most popular person with over half the votes is elected, not someone who gets less than that. That is what will happen with optional preferential.
I hope the Chief Minister drops this. The Attorney-General in Queensland mentioned the advantages of optional preferential. He also included disadvantages. He said:
That is exactly what I said and you want to take it away. You say it is choice but you will not promote it as choice, you will promote number one. I know what has happened in Queensland and know how parties work.
The Queensland Attorney-General also said:
It is not just about parties, it is about the people having a say in who they would like. You could say, ‘We will give them a choice’, but this choice has a subliminal reason for entering the Northern Territory voting system. It is not done for a wonderful, ‘I love democracy’ feeling. It is for, ‘I want to be elected at the next election’.
This is not about saying how great our electoral system is or how fair. We give people a choice. Technically, voting is compulsory, but you do not have to vote if you do not want to. You can go to the Electoral Commission and not vote. You have the choice of picking the candidate you want and the second and third, as they do in other countries.
The Electoral Commissioner talks about this in his response to the changes:
The government is arguing for low informality and the Electoral Commissioner says this will produce high informality. Did people not read these reports? They probably did not because this would interfere with the concept that this might be good for winning the next election:
Do you disagree with the Electoral Commissioner? Do you think he is a dill? Was this just a waste of time? He is the expert, but the Chief Minister says this will reduce informal voting. That is not what the Electoral Commissioner said and not what the Queensland Attorney-General said. It is rubbish. You are avoiding what the experts are saying because you want the political advantage. If you believe there is informal voting get education programs running and leave the system alone. If there is an excuse it is to spend more money on education. It is sad that we have reached a stage where our governance is part of a political campaign.
There are several other issues we need to discuss, being distance and canvassing. I introduced a motion on 25 March 2015, which said:
What does the Electoral Commissioner say about that? The Electoral Commissioner asked that we review that. In his report he said:
Where is the stakeholder forum?
I do not like all the paraphernalia you have to go through at election time …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin.
My motion emphasised that a lot of people do not like going through that great hall of death where people shove things in your face and there are posters on the fences. At elections in Taiwan they stick a few posters on the wall and people walk in peacefully. It is similar in the United States. I looked at some of the United States polling and people are left alone. One thing wrong with the British system is having people stuck in front of a polling booth annoying the hell out of you. All you want is a sausage sandwich from the local firies and to vote. There are some complications with that, I am not that silly.
I did not ask for 500 m. Please, on that side, tell me you do not believe in 500 m. The Howard Springs shopping centre is within 500 m of the polling booth. Fred Nerk will come in with a, ‘I support the member for Stuart’ T-shirt on, will get an ice cream and be booked because he is within 500 m of a polling booth. The member for Stuart might think that is a bit hard and may pay the fine, but I am arguing the practicality. I would prefer, if we want these changes, that a standing committee look at and discuss the issues.
Should you have how-to-vote cards? Are you saying that if this legislation passes you cannot have how-to-vote cards? Can you display one within 500 m? Can I display a poster of any chicken within 500 m of the wall of the supermarket?
Mr Higgins: That is fowl play.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is fowl play. There would be problems with the rotisserie at Howard Springs supermarket because it would be seen as a symbol of a certain person and they would have to stop cooking chickens that day. This is ridiculous and should not be debated today. It should go to a standing committee for discussion.
Queensland had the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission investigate the electoral system. Whether you agree with it or not, we have not done that. We are shoving this down people’s throats at a moment’s notice saying, ‘Here you are’. People do not know anything about it. Some of your friends might, but most people know nothing about it and probably could not care. Who cares about voting? It is a flamin’ pest. You have to stand there on a Saturday. Luckily we have early voting now, which helps a bit.
I care, as a member of this parliament, that the system we have for electing members is fair. This is not fair and is driven by other purposes, which is where it falls down.
We have not dealt with the detail. People have been asking, ‘Can the member for Daly stand within 500 m of the polling booth and say hello?’ We have not done the micro work on this, which is why it is so foolish. Can he stand there or should he be kicked out and fined for being within 500 m? Will you tell all the countrymen at Wadeye, ‘You had better not go in with that bag Gary Higgins gave you’? It probably has lunch from the supermarket in it. That could happen if you do not think this through. It has not been thought through, is poor legislation, should not go any further than today and should be withdrawn.
My issues may not coincide with everybody on this side. I want to see the practical implications of allowing another week for postal votes, especially for frustrated candidates who might be waiting for last votes to see if they have been elected. People are already frustrated with the time it takes for postal votes to be counted. Will this make it worse? This should be discussed.
Also, there is an option for e-mailing postal votes. I do not have anything against the concept, but – this was discussed in local government years ago – it is important because we have to make sure using technology does not mean a vote is not secret. We have to make sure the security systems are applied in such a way to be secret. If I can e-mail my vote, what guarantees do I have that someone is not looking over my shoulder telling me to vote for a particular person? When we vote at a polling booth it is secret and no one sees it. What guarantee is there against someone saying, ‘How about we all vote for this fellow’? I am not saying that will happen.
Giving power to the Electoral Commissioner creates some fundamental issues in relation to electronic voting which should not be left to the Electoral Commissioner. I am not saying he is not important, but parliament needs to scrutinise what electronic processes could be used to make sure our vote remains secret and safe, and no one knows who we are when we vote or when they count that vote.
I would not like any form of electronic voting until it had been scrutinised by parliament and experts. It is too important a change to be left to one person because it is a change in the way we vote today. Although it is only a note in the bill it needs much more scrutiny. The Electoral Commissioner alone is not the way to do it. We need some guidelines based on facts and information from experts in this field as to whether we can introduce that voting system. It is only for postal voting but the principle is the same. If I lodge a postal vote you could say people looked over my shoulder, but it is also obvious that people in the electoral office do not know who the person is because there is a separation between the person who voted and the person counting the vote.
I do not support most of these changes. I ask the Chief Minister, if he believes these changes are good – I gather some members on his side will say they have issues with informal voting – to look at fixing the reasons behind the informal vote and not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is what we are doing. We have a relatively minor problem and are using that excuse to bring in change. If you read Antony Green you will see this is being done for a political purpose, which is to favour parties with a high first preference vote.
I ask members of the government to think carefully about this. Is it right that you, as a government, use your numbers to change something which is not your right to change? The parliament as a whole should decide. One political party should not have the power to change the voting system. It needs to be brought to this House in a respectable way, go through the committee system, taken to the public then brought back for debate and a final vote. That has not happened. We have a second rate advertisement on one piece of paper with no alternative view which people know nothing about. If that is consultation I will eat my hat. We should do better than that. I ask the government and the Chief Minister to withdraw this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been approached by the member for Katherine seeking to make a personal explanation pursuant to Standing Order 26. It is the practice of this Assembly that these be heard in silence, not be debated and not raise allegations against other members.
I give the call to the member for Katherine to make his explanation.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I will start by saying the personal smear campaign against me from both within and outside this House has been nothing short of vile. Many lies have been told and vengeful accusations flung.
Today I would like to dispel some of the myth and vitriol by breaking it down bit by bit. Firstly – it is extremely important that this is on the record – I do not have, and never have had, any financial or legal interest or investment with the CT Group whatsoever. Allegations have been made to the contrary, and documents produced that contend to support the theory that I do. That theory is wrong. Did I consider investing in Vietnam? Yes, I did. Did I sign a contract to invest in a mall project? Yes, I did. Did I ever send that contract anywhere? No, absolutely not. The contract was never sent and therefore never executed. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with a signature on it. I decided not to invest for a good reason, that being the potential for a conflict of interest. At the end of the day that was the right decision to make.
I consider the work I do as a representative of the Northern Territory government on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory to be of paramount importance, more important than my personal business activities. If I had invested in the CT Group would I have declared it? Yes, I would. However, at the end of the day there is no completed contract, no investment and no conflict of interest, end of story. In hindsight I should never have considered investing in a company the government was doing business with. For that I am sorry and I apologise for making such a mistake.
I have never used taxpayers’ dollars for personal gain. My official trips overseas have been for one purpose and one purpose only, to advance opportunities for the agribusiness sector of the Northern Territory, and my trade missions have been overwhelmingly successful.
With industry we brought back from the brink the live cattle trade with Indonesia and then some. We increased live cattle exports to Vietnam from a value of $0.5m in 2011 to over $38m last year. Vietnam has also seen an increase in buffalo imports from zero under the previous Labor government to a value of $3.6m during my time as the Primary Industry minister. We have established new trades with Cambodia and Thailand. The success of these trade missions speak for themselves. Ask anyone who has been on a trade mission with me; schedules are tight and the workload is huge.
I have also never received undeclared hospitality from the CT Group. My personal trips to Vietnam have been just that, personal. Due to the nature of those trips I have accepted, and gratefully so, the warm hospitality of my partner in her home country. That is where any hospitality starts and stops. I am on the record as saying that I accepted a lift from the CT Group once. I believe it was a 10-minute ride to the airport. This was never declared because it was under the cap and does not have to be. That is the rule and I am sure those opposite, despite wanting people to believe otherwise, know that I do not make the rules.
In relation to hospitality provided by the CT Group on official trips, I understand the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has several records in its 2015 OTS report, while the Office of Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment has several others. The exact details around these are not a matter for me and, as such, can be obtained through the relevant departments.
As everyone in this House knows, my private life has, unfortunately, been played out in the public arena with the release of these documents being the latest chapter. I am by no means a perfect man and never claimed to be; however, these latest attacks on my character are nothing short of disgraceful and completely untrue.
I am disappointed that personal documents, such as my private bank statements, normally confined to the sanctity of the matrimonial home, have been leaked to the media and the Labor Party. For those members opposite, if only you had bothered to do your research, you would have realised the Chief Minister issue a media release on 22 August 2015 which detailed that expressions of interest would soon be open for a luxury hotel development. That was about eight days before I contacted the CT Group about the project.
I understand some have called for a police investigation – a police investigation into what, my personal accounts and financial matters? That is not only a bogus suggestion and a stunt, but also highly offensive to me.
It is disappointing that the opposition has called for my resignation; it has a rather boring ring to it. I have now joined a list which includes calling for the Chief Minister to resign at least 15 times, calling for minister Elferink’s resignation about 10 times, minister Tollner five times, and let us not forget those sustained and unwarranted attacks on minister Price.
I am sure if it were up to the opposition there would be no politicians in the Northern Territory. I am proud to be in this House today representing the people of Katherine, and as a minister of this government, looking out for the true welfare of Territorians.
I thank my colleagues for their support during what has been a difficult time since my personal problems became public some months ago. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this parliament should strive to do the best it can to improve processes, reduce informal votes and remove restrictions on people’s capacity to vote.
I will especially address the proposed exclusion zone at polling places and provision of more postal voting options. This new exclusion zone will bring us into line with Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. This will be of benefit to people in the bush. This will allow people in the bush to make their own decisions ...
Ms Fyles: Not with Tasmania and ACT …
Mrs PRICE: Excuse me, can I speak? I listen to you respectfully every time.
This will be of benefit to the people in the bush. This will allow people in the bush to decide who to vote for, free from interference and intimidation from bullies. People will no longer be faced with the uncomfortable and often confronting prospect of voting. They will also be offered the option to be a general postal voter. This will allow elections to be conducted in an orderly fashion free from undue pressure.
Last election I witnessed appalling behaviour from the Labor Party. One of the many dirty tricks the Labor Party uses is telling people how to vote through the use of interpreters. The scrutineers have no idea what is being said, as the Labor Party pays unqualified people to instruct voters to vote for Labor, in language, while spreading lies such as, ‘Bess Price started the intervention’ ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Ms PRICE: This is no laughing matter, member for Nhulunbuy. I have also witnessed the Labor Party treating Aboriginal people like cattle. Shame on them! Last election I witnessed a group of women being forced into a polling booth together, without the opportunity to have their own independent choice.
This new change of the exclusion zone will allow people to be better involved in the electoral process. The amendments put forward in the bill will also remove restrictions and give voters greater freedom of choice in how they can cast their vote.
This government is committed to having as many eligible people as possible enrolled and participating in an election. The proposed changes should assist in the maintenance of a healthy democratic society. My people should not be treated as second-rate voters. I would like to see people being treated equally, and not just when elections are on.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this legislation is extremely important because it is how we vote and the basis of our democracy.
We have an arrogant government, led by an unelected Chief Minister, trying to ram through changes to legislation six months before the next election. This man did not accept the verdict of his team last year when he was voted out of the top job. He clung to power desperately and held the team to ransom. Now, when Territorians so deserve the opportunity to vote and have a say in their future, he is attempting to change legislation to suit his purposes. He is arrogant and will do anything to cling to power. He should be ashamed of this legislation.
This legislation has not gone to a committee or undergone proper public consultation. If other states or the federal government were to change legislation such as this, it would go through a huge consultation process with the community to make meaningful changes.
One must question the basis for this legislation. Where did it come from? One might assume it was a thought bubble of the Chief Minister.
Today we have not seen the advisers in the box who usually provide support to ministers when debating legislation. The Chief Minister has not even been listening to debate so he can answer questions. Normally when legislation comes before this parliament, the government agencies provide great support to ministers and we all appreciate that. Normally there are at least two people on hand to take us through this legislation and answer questions. Yet for this legislation there are no advisers in the building, and one must ask where the idea came from. One cannot help but be sceptical and think it is simply a thought bubble from this desperate Chief Minister to hang on to power.
This side of the House has had a number of speakers, as has the cross bench, who have put thought into it, done a lot of research and looked at it across Australia. However, the Chief Minister announces something then tries to ram it through. Who recommended these changes? Off the back of a 1.6% informal vote, why are we making such significant changes to the Electoral Act that could potentially see hundreds if not thousands of votes not counted? People need to understand the seriousness of this legislation. We are open to reform and change if that is what the community wants, but we need to consult with the community. Take this to the community and to a parliamentary committee. Do not ram it through in an attempt to cling to power.
The opposition has issues with this not being consulted on. We have issues with the optional preferential system, which potentially can take away Territorians’ rights to vote. At the moment your vote is exhausted; it goes through. It will count in who your representative is, but changing this system today could see people elected on very small numbers. Why would we change a system that is used federally and for council elections with no consultation? Some of our communities will go to both those elections and a Territory election in a 12-month period, and we are pushing another system through. We will see more chaos and confusion in the process rather than anything being achieved.
We have to be cynical. Six months from the election, without any discussion, these changes are before us. If you are genuine about these changes put them out for the community to see and take them to the next election. There must be members opposite who do not agree with these changes. You must understand the significance of these reforms and what they will change. There has been no committee and no discussion paper. We have not even had any agency advice in this House. I understand briefings have been provided to the Leader of the Opposition’s office prior to this, but when we debate legislation it is a minimum to expect that. There has been no conversation about how we can genuinely make changes that will have an impact. We agree that people are frustrated with running the gauntlet. Make these reforms genuine; talk to people!
One of the most significant reforms is that you cannot have any candidates or party members handing out information 500 m from a polling place. Where did that figure come from, Chief Minister? Did you pluck it out of thin air? These questions need to be answered. In some booths you will be out of town. My house may be within 500 m of a booth, that is how ridiculous this is. If we need to make change, and Territorians want us to make that change, let us talk to them to see what they want.
If the government was genuine it would take this legislation to a committee and defer it until after the election. We need to be genuine about any change we make because this will have a big impact. Advice suggests some members in this House would not be here if we made these changes. We need to be careful. This needs to be considered not rushed through.
The Labor Party, when in government, acknowledged it needed to help people have their vote counted, so informal votes – if the other boxes were numbered correctly – had a tick or a cross. If there was an indication they wanted to vote for that person it was accepted to genuinely help reduce the number of informal votes. We do not have any detail from the government so I urge it to slow down.
If the Chief Minister was genuine about these electoral reforms he would have a comprehensive package. He would talk to Territorians about what they want and what is best for all Territorians. This side of the House cannot support this legislation. We urge the Chief Minister to take this to a parliamentary committee and to talk to people. Something this significant should be consulted on for many months. One cannot help but be cynical, so close to an election, that these changes are being rammed through.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, one could be forgiven for thinking, listening to, particularly, the member for Nelson, but also the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nightcliff, that some great travesty is being visited upon the people of the Northern Territory. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the nature of the argument they are presenting.
The bottom line is that we keep talking about democracy as though the exhaustive preferential system is the only form of democracy around. I urge honourable members to look at the voting system in the Senate if they want to be thoroughly confused about a voting system. Ultimately it is a proportional representation system, something I am generally critical of.
Equally so, a couple of jurisdictions use the Hare-Clark system. Other jurisdictions – I believe Queensland – have the optional preferential system. None of these systems are inherently undemocratic, and that is the first thing we have to talk about.
We hear language like ‘rammed through’. This matter was laid on the table, has been in the public domain and discussed in the public domain, and people had an opportunity to make their comments. If, generally, there is public silence or not a great deal of noise about it one way or the other, it is because people are generally comfortable with the idea.
If the conversations I have heard on talkback radio are any yardstick, people are well and truly sick and tired of the gauntlet, as we like to call it, as am I.
I will make a revelation about my personal attitudes in relation to the electoral system in this country. I have thought about it long and hard over a number of years, and on balance – whilst I understand the arguments for a compulsory voting system – it as a greater democratic principle to have a choice whether you vote or not.
In countries where voting is not compulsory, such as the United States, presidents are elected to their position as head of state with as little as 30% or 35% of the popular vote. In England, where they use the first-past-the-post system – few people could say with any comfort that the English democratic system has failed. That is a straight first-past-the-post system, so much so that in a recent referendum in England, where they tried to change the voting system to a full preferential system, it was rejected.
The vast majority of jurisdictions around the world would not have compulsory voting. The voting systems in those jurisdictions are not reflective of an exhaustive preferential system. The preferential system is supposed to capture an idea that your vote counts. That was articulated reasonably well by the member for Nelson. However, the member made a link which I find unsupportable, which was that a person will want or demand that their second preference be counted. Nothing in this legislation suggests, even momentarily, that if a person wants to express their voting opinion by filling out all the boxes they cannot do so. It is still a preferential system. The only change the government is suggesting is that if you do not want to cast a second vote you do not have to.
Surely it is a more democratic principle for people to choose whether or not they cast their second, third, fourth or fifth vote, depending on how many people are on the ballot paper at the time. It will do no harm other than if you are voting with a number one and your candidate does not get up, that is the end of your vote. You have voluntarily abrogated any claim on the voting system beyond that point. One must assume that when somebody puts the number one into a box, and one box only, they have made that choice consciously.
The assumption from the member for Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition is that no such conscious choice exists. They are suggesting that a person must be impelled to vote for a second party. People may not choose to. I will be a voter at the next Northern Territory election. I shall not be seeking re-election, as I made abundantly apparent. If in my electorate there are three names on the ballot card and I have a choice between the Labor Party, the Country Liberal Party and a left wing candidate, I would not give my second preference to the left. I would like to cast my vote for my conservative or Liberal candidate without being impelled to give secondary support to a left wing independent or the Labor Party. That is what I would prefer as a citizen exercising my democratic right in this country …
Mr Wood: Change it by referendum as in England then, not this way.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. In our system we elect the parliament and from that parliament a government is drawn. That government has the power, as granted by the people and the majority in that parliament, to amend legislation as it sees fit. If the majority of members of parliament do not agree …
Mr Wood: Not under the party system.
Mr ELFERINK: … then it will not pass. You may complain about the party system, but it is the system we put to the people and you rail against it. That system is re-elected by the people each time around.
The member for Nelson does not want to accept these realities. He lives in a fantasy world where it has to be about independence. There will be a group hug. Governments must be formed out of the parliament. Parliaments, where a government enjoys the majority, operate within the system.
Every time it does not suit the member for Nelson he says, ‘Have a referendum; form a committee. Let’s make the place completely ungovernable through committees and group hugs.’ I do not accept your interpretation. He is particularly sensitive to criticism in this area and I understand that ...
Mr Wood: I was copying your words.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that, but just because I do not agree with the member for Nelson it does not make me wrong.
The member for Nelson needs to understand his opinion is one of 25 in a democratically elected parliament. Given the Electoral Act is a statute that this parliament can choose to amend in any way it sees fit, it is not government ramming it through but the parliament agreeing with the government’s position ...
Mr Wood: Put it to a referendum like in the United Kingdom.
Mr ELFERINK: It is how the system works. Why does everything that does not suit the member for Nelson have to go to a referendum?
Mr Wood: Because I am copying what you said. You said it and I am agreeing with it.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I turn to Standing Order 30. I need your rescue. It might be Standing Order 20.
Madam SPEAKER: What seems to be the problem, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: The constant interruptions. I cannot hear myself think.
Mr Wood: That is respect for the head of state, Standing Order 30.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. I suggest you just keep talking.
Mr Wood: Sorry, he must have thought I was a king.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not agree with the member for Nelson. If the majority of this House does not agree with the member for Nelson, that is how our system works. If, after the next Territory election, a new government is formed it will operate under the same system, and the member for Nelson and others can complain as much as they like.
This is about reforms people want and, I believe, expect, not least of which is in relation to conduct around booths which, over the years, has been very disappointing. Legislation to create a buffer zone around those booths will be welcome.
I recall watching a Sky News broadcast of the New Zealand election several years ago, because I am a tragic who always watches election broadcasts. I remember the cameras at the polling booths. There was clearly a substantial exclusion zone around the polling booths because the only thing to identify them was a sign that said ‘polling booth’. There were no party workers, no political material, nothing. Voters were walking quietly, unmolested and undisturbed into the polling booth to exercise their democratic right then they walked out.
As somebody who has stood on many booths over the years – hundreds, considering the bush work over the years – watching people quietly walking in, exercising their democratic right and quietly walking out struck me as being very attractive.
When speaking to the Chief Minister and my parliamentary colleagues about these issues I have reminded them of those instances. I am glad the Chief Minister brought this to Cabinet. I am glad we are on the verge of passing legislation which most people will welcome, particularly when it comes to running the gauntlet. I am grateful we will go to the polling booths at the next election without Territorians being badgered, harassed, and occasionally – as I have seen in the bush – bullied and instructed how to vote. I suspect they are instructed because it is always done in languages that I am unfamiliar with. When you see people standing less than 15 yards from the polling booth in a lunch shed at the local school in a community yelling in language and pointing to a how-to-vote card, you becomes suspicious about what is being relayed. In short, it is fairly obvious what is going on.
Those things should stop. Let the voter walk in, cast their vote unmolested and walk out. That is our duty as citizens in a democratic country and our responsibility. When the state imposes a responsibility in the form of compulsory voting then we must, as a state, defend those voters from protagonists in the voting environment.
I do not need a referendum every time I want to express an opinion in this House which I share with the government. I do not need a referendum for every decision of government. I may not even like decisions of government when they are of a flavour other than ours. I did not call for referendums on legislative instruments introduced into this House when the Labor Party was in government – I cannot recall one off the top of my head but stand corrected – because I believe in this system. This system will not be undermined by a preferential system which does not impose itself necessarily on the voter, or by the voter going into the polling booth unmolested. For those reasons I find this bill entirely supportable.
I understand there will be an amendment in relation to distance, but I will let the Chief Minister discuss that. There is nothing radical, amazing or dishonest about this bill ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the predictable response from the member for Nhulunbuy. If it was that important why have you not been on street corners for the last few months? You have had this bill for how long? Is it three months?
Ms Walker: Do not worry I have been out there, John. I have a few words to say.
Mr ELFERINK: I have spoken to many people about the proposed changes and the general response by a country mile is, ‘Bring it on!’
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the contribution from the member for Port Darwin, as usual. However, one thing does not stack up, member for Port Darwin. This is not honourable; it is completely dishonourable. I was one of the first people to speak on changes to the Electorate Act introduced by the member for Nelson in a GBD session.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business just flagged an amendment to this legislation to be led by the Chief Minister. We are in a second reading debate. When will members of this House be provided with that amendment so those who are speaking to the legislation have the opportunity to speak to the amendment as well, let alone read and consider it?
Mr ELFERINK: It will be brought in shortly and circulated as soon as we are ready.
Ms LAWRIE: Can we suspend because the member for Barkly, for example, might want to see the amendment, consider it and speak to it. This is outrageous.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, nonsense. You do not even know what it is.
Ms LAWRIE: That is my point.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, amendments by any member do not have to come in until consideration in detail. I understand that this bill will go into the consideration in detail stage, and maybe the government will bring the amendments then. I accept what you are saying, but that is the only way to do it. The crossbenchers also have some amendments they wish …
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister is the sponsoring minister for this legislation. It has always been the case that amendments are distributed to members by the sponsoring minister prior to debate.
Madam SPEAKER: That has been the course, I agree. Perhaps I can get some guidance from the Leader of Government Business.
When do you expect amendments to be in the parliament?
Mr ELFERINK: They will be here soon enough.
Madam SPEAKER: Is that 10 minutes or half an hour?
Mr ELFERINK: I cannot tell you exactly, but they will be circulated in good time and are not complex enough to throw members off.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 102. Are we not meant to have the amendments when the original question is put? Can we get some clarification on what the amendments are? Are you willing to give us any detail?
Mr ELFERINK: The Chief Minister will wrap shortly and will tell you. It will be circulated in proper course for consideration in detail.
Ms FYLES: So it is secret and there is a surprise in the wrap. We have to wait.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, the amendments are circulated when the person is moving them so you can talk to them. The Leader of Government Business says they are coming soon, which I presume is half an hour.
Ms FYLES: Can we suspend debate until we get the amendments?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the debate should be suspended until we all see the amendments proposed by the government.
Madam SPEAKER: Someone will have to move to suspend standing orders to suspend the debate.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that standing orders be suspended to permit the sittings of the Assembly to suspend pending distribution of proposed amendments to the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill.
The Assembly divided:
Motion not agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, the amendments will be circulated forthwith.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the amendment, as proposed by government, will be circulated shortly.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this is not at all honourable. We have more of the government’s make it up as we go along.
When the member for Nelson brought the issue of electoral reform to the House in a GBD I was one of the first to contribute. I debated the member for Nelson over the distance of exclusion zones at polling booths with regard to regional and remote polling booths. It was a good, healthy debate. The member for Nelson, being one of the hardest working members in this House, brought an important issue to the House and consequently challenged the government with honesty and integrity.
The member for Nelson mentioned not trusting the Chief Minister’s wry grin. The member for Nelson has to accept that over the last few years he has been well and truly used by this government, and I find that disgraceful. He is a man of integrity, does not react to it and does not challenge the government. He has more important things to do. I have noticed this pattern of abuse and patronising behaviour. The Chief Minister would be one of the best at this type of behaviour, and this legislation represents that. That is why I call it dishonourable. There has been good contribution to the debate about lack of process and protocol and no consultation. That seems to be the earmark of this beast called the CLP. Besides that, it has a dishonourable agenda. The agenda is to patronise the member for Nelson, but it is way overdone. Elements of this have been changed to create a political agenda.
The member for Port Darwin referred to elections conducted in the bush. I would like the Chief Minister to consider a Northern Territory scenario where a mobile polling team arrived on a cattle station and the European members of that station, the workers and their families cast their vote. However, 100 Aboriginal people living in the creek cast no vote. The electoral team packed up and left, and that was considered democracy in the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, you have not been here long, but that happened not so long ago. As an Aboriginal person from New South Wales you need to reflect on that history. I will fill in a few gaps, because when I arrived in the Northern Territory one of the first injustices I saw was lack of application of democracy in the bush. It was very much a government self-titled ‘born to rule’. There was no energy for inclusivity around election time. I discovered that, through the very important issue of a CLP Chief Minister wanting to build a toxic waste incinerator at an old copper smoulder at Warrego, to be one worth fighting for. I joined a movement which started looking at that disenfranchised vote – those people who were not included, who were completely alienated by a system when they had been given that right in 1967.
We embarked on a course of empowering people. It was not about who to vote for; it was about how to vote. There was an intensive period of education and awareness, and I took delight in being part of that movement in some of the most remote areas in the country, areas where I was living and working. That system took a form, an organised application, and the result was taking the seat of Barkly from the born-to-rule CLP to electing a Labor member. It took 10 years but that was the result. Once again, people chose who to vote for.
I love Territory history. This is a brief contemporary history that I have been privileged to be part of. At that time the Commonwealth also picked up on the disenfranchisement and the disempowerment of voters in regional and remote areas. Active education teams visited stations and communities to conduct electoral business, enrolment and education.
At an estimates hearing several years ago I challenged the Electoral Commissioner about that great initiative and the investment in it. The government was not interested. The Electoral Commissioner was, but we have not really seen any movement. It was almost flicked as a Commonwealth initiative, no responsibility to the Territory, and that was that. I still lobby for that initiative because we have further generations of disenfranchised voters, many because of low educational levels, and we need to make sure Territorians are fully informed and fully participate in our freedom and democracy.
This motion before the House resonates with me on a number of levels. First, it is completely disingenuous. It commenced as trying to patronise the member for Nelson by a minority government desperate to cling to power. It has now gone into the political realm of trying to manipulate the preferential system of voting.
Chief Minister, continuing with that contemporary history, it was always important – I enforced it with the teams I worked with – when teaching people about democracy, their right to vote and how to vote, that they fill in every box. Do not leave any box blank. It was about numeracy and literacy, and was a powerful thing to work with because it had grassroots connotations of freedom and democracy. It was about Australia.
I continue to educate, make aware and encourage all constituents to fill in all the boxes and not leave anything blank. If they have any problems with their English literacy levels they should seek help.
I get to the member for Port Darwin’s comments about help/interference. It is ironic that we are debating this bill, because there was a change of government in 2012, and from the beginning a hot debate continued for months about that election. I am on the record saying many things. In 30 years I had never seen such an aggressive campaign conducted in the bush by the CLP. I had never seen that aggression, the cash involved, the inducements or all the cleverly crafted episodes. Why not put it on the public record? The rumour in the Barkly is that Clive Palmer provided the cash for the CLP campaign, and Campbell Newman’s campaign director orchestrated it. That rumour has been running rife. The Chief Minister is shaking his head as if he knows nothing about it, but that was the rumour. I saw the cash and knew the strategy, but the aggression was something to be believed.
The member for Stuart had the audacity to read a prepared script and talk about the Labor Party treating people like cattle during the 2012 election. Check the Parliamentary Record because some of the most radical complaints about this activity during the 2012 election came from booths in Stuart and CLP officials. It was hotly contested in debate and appears in Electoral Commission reports. It was this aggressive style of inducement that made the difference, changed the vote and changed the government.
Here we go again. Will the CLP have that cash? Will it have the numbers? Will it have the energy to do that again in the 2016 Territory general election? I honestly believe this disingenuous bill probably reflects the answers to those questions that no, it has not. Now it is clinging to desperate politics to try to gain any advantage possible.
I am quite honoured because it is focused on the bush. The bush will not cop anymore disingenuous politicians. You have had your time in the sun. You have had three years and we will get to four. I will give you another one off the record: I reckon we will go sooner. After Question Time today and this joker from the Katherine area, I reckon we will be there sooner than you think, Chief Minister, but I digress.
In regard to those three questions, no. Is the focus on the bush? Yes. Is it with honour? No. Is it disingenuous? Yes. Is it an interference with the preferential system of voting in our country? That is the attempt. We will see some amendments later. Let me gaze into my crystal ball and suggest one of those amendments will bring 500 m back to 100 m.
I debated with the member for Nelson that it should be 50 m, because people in this House do not know where Epenarra is or where the people at Epenarra Station poll. They do not know where Canteen Creek is or where Corella Creek is. To enforce 100 m could put me in the bush, but I am quite comfortable with that. I have already planned a new way of doing business because I have been doing this for 30 years.
Tennant Creek is a regional town. If a ban of 500 m were to be enforced it would put the political workers and booth workers on the western side of the Stuart Highway. Anybody who understands Tennant Creek knows the main polling day in the Barkly is Saturday in Civic Hall. We would be located on the west side of the Stuart Highway. I wonder if we would still choose to gather together or whether a new strategy would emerge about vantage points. No thought has been put into that. This is a make-it-up-as-you-go-along bill which started with a disingenuous agenda.
Chief Minister, that wry grin gave you up. The member for Nelson will not judge harshly. He is a man of character and conviction. I am glad to see he has discovered some of the body language. There is a disingenuous agenda behind that body language which was mentioned quite innocently.
This bill needs to be defeated and we need an alternative. You do not, as the CLP likes to call it, carp on. You come here as a representative of the people from the electorate where you work, live and raise your family. I have had discussions about this and it has been a hot topic. There is not much coming from the government; it has all been left to me. I am sure you are okay with that because I have taken a balanced view. It is about empowering people in the bush.
This bill should be defeated and already some clear alternatives have been offered. The member for Nelson suggests taking a breath. If you want to make major changes there are defined processes for that and one is the consideration in detail.
I thank all Legislative Assembly staff over many years, but in this term of government especially, who organise and facilitate the committees. It is a huge team effort. I enjoy that level of professionalism, the work that is completed and the results achieved.
On Monday I was speaking to a lobby group about the exploration of onshore oil and gas and we mentioned the NT’s energy future committee work. I told them that as a local member and someone elected to speak with authority, that has been one of the best learning curves I have embarked upon. From that committee process I feel well-measured and balanced decisions can be made based on knowledge and experience. That committee, facilitated by Legislative Assembly staff, has been excellent.
The member for Nelson has put a clear alternative and there are others. This House, through its standing orders and complex processes, offers quite a diverse choice for something so important. We should take the time as this is extremely important. This does not have an honourable agenda. I believe it is completely disingenuous. I support the member for Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition and our colleagues on this side. I hope to hear from more members and look forward to the vote.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Iain Loganathan, for his time, at the request of Independents, in briefing us on the discussion and information paper he put out on reforms to the Electoral Act. I also acknowledge the blog by ABC commentator Antony Green, who put forward his views on the proposed changes to the Electoral Act. I am thankful for the offer made by the Office of the Chief Minister for a briefing. I did not avail myself of that because I am well and truly over the spin of the Giles government.
I will not support the legislation. Some elements of it are fine, but I do not support the contempt the Chief Minister continues to show to the Northern Territory community. He wants to introduce broad-ranging reforms to the electoral process which create a procedure for the bedrock of our democracy, but with such contempt that there has been no consultation with the broader community, the people who will genuinely be affected by these wholesale changes, the voters across the Territory.
We heard in debate that it will have a different impact in remote mobile polling booths to that in regional towns and our suburban and city environs. However, this Chief Minister does not give a damn about Territorians and the impact his foolish decisions make on their lives. This debate shows that stark and clear. Chief Minister, while this may be a desperate act of a desperate man to do whatever you can to cling to power because these changes help the incumbency, nothing will save you or your government. The people of the Territory are waiting to vote you out of office.
If rumours around the Darwin business community are right, you will decide about March whether or not to resign from parliament altogether. That is, if your polling does not improve – it is so toxic – you will get out. You will resign from parliament and clear the path for someone else to carry the losing Chief Minister mantle for the CLP. You have taken a wrecking ball to your government over the last few years after knifing the previous Chief Minister, Terry Mills. You have taken a wrecking ball to the Territory, and this desperate piece of ill-thought-through legislation shows your contempt for the Territory will be rammed through on your dodgy deal numbers today. Shame on you, but we are used to that from you.
Personally, I see the pros and cons of an optional preferential voting system and would like to know what Territorians think about it. I understand culturally and linguistically diverse voters find the preferential system difficult. I understand that some of my non-English speaking background constituents – English is not their first language but often their second or third language – and Indigenous voters find the preferential system difficult. As an incumbent, if I choose to run again I have no issue with running a vote one for Delia campaign. The feedback I receive is that in my electorate the CLP will be smashed. I get that across Darwin, and people are lying in wait in Palmerston and in the bush.
Nothing will save the CLP, not this show of contempt to ram through changes to the Electoral Act. In Queensland Wayne Goss introduced the optional preferential voting system in 1999 and was defeated at the next election. It did not save him and it will not save you, Chief Minister, or your government. Will it disenfranchise many voters? Sadly, it may. I have heard the concerns of the member for Nelson and others about people not understanding the system.
People who vote one for the minority candidate will not have their voices heard because they will be knocked out too early in the process. They will not understand that because, Chief Minister, you are not about consultation but all about spin. You run ads spinning which do not work. Your focus groups show you they do not work. You are disenfranchising people, but that is your style so we should not be surprised to see it reflected in the changes to this legislation.
As for the nonsense of the 500 m exclusion zone around polling booths, that was your thought bubble not the advice of experts. It is unworkable and ludicrous. In your arrogance we have an amendment to reduce it to a 100 m exclusion zone because your Leader of Government Business let slip that you were amending the legislation. You did not even have the decency to distribute the proposed amendment to members when the debate commenced. You cannot be that decent. It is appalling and a new low, even for you. I will deal with 100 m, 7 m, 12 m or 10 m if I choose to run. It is not an issue because I am the incumbent.
The problem will be – this is why you are desperately trying to do it – for people who do not hold incumbency, who genuinely want to see a change to the way government occurs in the Northern Territory and who put their hand up bravely to be tested at the polls as new candidates. Many of the changes to the Electoral Act will disadvantage them. It is part of your desperation to cling to power, but just as it did not work for Wayne Goss in 1999 it will not work for you, because you are too toxic.
The analogy run by the Chief Minister is, ‘Don’t worry. The CLP is like a truck that is stuck under the bridge and is letting air out of the tyres.’ The air out of the tyres is the announced departure of the member for Port Darwin, who spends his time undermining the member for Braitling, who undermined the former member for Blain, former Chief Minister Terry Mills. Do not worry because he is going so that will let some air out of the tyres. Do not worry because the member for Fong Lim, who is incredibly unpopular, was not pre-selected so he is going too. That is the air out of the tyres so the truck can move forward. They might save this and might not lose the next election.
My response is: does the Chief Minister not understand he is the truck that got them stuck? While he is there they are stuck. Is he so delusional as to not understand that? Sadly, that appears to be the case and he does not get it.
Maybe a glimmer of feedback from the community is starting to crack the veneer because he is talking about – so I hear – bailing from parliament altogether. That would be a blessing. I urge you to resign, Chief Minister, as you have done so much damage to the Territory already.
You will push this legislation through, but I have confidence that when Territorians cast their vote at the next election, whenever that may be, they will vote against the CLP because it has treated them with contempt. The government is also treating the Chamber and the electoral process with contempt with this legislation.
It started with your knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was representing the Northern Territory on a trade mission to Japan. It continued through your disastrous Cabinet reshuffles. You continued to show contempt with the sale of TIO and the lease of our port. You showed contempt with the way families have to find $2000 a quarter to pay their electricity bills, yet you pretend Darwin is a cheap capital city when it comes to the cost of living.
You show contempt when you will not say the word ‘fracking’ in regard to the interstate gas pipeline interconnector. No, it is gas. You will rant and rave about the Leader of the Opposition being against gas, but you will not be honest enough to say ‘fracking’. Fracking, and your support for it, will ensure that many Territorians vote against the CLP. Will they vote Labor or Independent? I do not know as I am not privy to the polls. However, it will be against the CLP and you will lose government. So many of you will lose your seats and be gone because of the contempt you show the people of the Territory on issues they dearly care about.
Try being a family living in a flood zone, or someone with a small business in a surge zone having to deal with insurance. They cannot. Go to the waterfront and ask the small business people if they can get insurance in the surge zone or at Cullen Bay. Lloyds of London will, at prohibitively expensive prices. Families in the flood and surge zones are priced out of the market even though you said it would be okay, and that with the sale of TIO jobs would not be lost – jobs were lost – and premiums were increasing anyway. Premiums went through the roof.
The lease of the port has been one of the most insane things I have seen the Northern Territory government do, and I have seen many governments come and go over decades. Every day, despite your bubble of denial you exist in, businesses in the Territory are going to the wall because you have failed to deliver the diversity in the economy you said you would. The INPEX Ichthys project has held the economy up. All the figures you rely on for gross state product flow from that project.
Under the CLP we have seen mine closures. It has been an extraordinarily dark period of regressive outcomes for Territorians.
The contempt shown to people in the school system – you have ripped funding from every school. You have sacked teachers, teacher aides, and shifted costs to schools through global school budgets. You then blame schools for any further cuts because the budgets were insufficient. No one in the education system will forget that.
A critically important project was shelved at Royal Darwin Hospital – the new paediatric wing. That would have helped the squeeze on outpatients. You shelved that then proceeded to delay the improvements to the existing paediatric ward. The Palmerston hospital debacle is a volume in itself.
The infrastructure projects you claim are all delays on the capital works program. The odd exceptions – there is some small road-type infrastructure on the Tiwi Islands. Good on you, member for Arafura, for striking that deal. Everything you beat your chest about, whether it is the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication, bridges, Territory roads, health clinics or trade training centres were all projects agreed to with identified funding under previous Labor federal and Territory governments.
All you have done is delayed them. It has been surprising and shocking to watch the degree of incompetence. Do not get me started on the cover-up we see in this Chamber at Question Time. You refuse to answer the most basic questions and treat Territorians with contempt, thinking they are fools. You believe they do not notice that you are not answering questions. Today was yet another example of that.
Whilst there are some aspects of this legislation I do not have an issue with, I acknowledge the privacy commissioner has some concerns with electronic voting. I am satisfied that the Electoral Commissioner has done his homework in regard to the electronic system used in Tasmania. If it is as fair and robust as the Electoral Commissioner hopes it to be, I have some confidence that it will help people exercise their vote when overseas, for example, on holidays.
I am surprised the CLP is even touching optional preferential. That party usually runs a host of people to cross-preference each other in order to roll the frontrunner over and secure the vote. I have seen that happen in different seats over the years. As a party you have used preferential voting to your advantage and are now stripping that away from your own party. You are on a losing limb which is breaking, and you are falling while you desperately cling to the last weeks and months of power.
I feel sad that the CLP party has been brought into such disrepute by a disgraceful Chief Minister. Whatever damage you do on the way through, many of us left standing will do everything we can to help people and make their life better. That is why some of us put our hand up. We care about the impact that government decisions make on people’s lives. Some eggs cannot be unscrambled, such as the port lease and the TIO sale, and I am concerned about that. I hope the incoming government has a comprehensive inquiry into the north Australia development recommendations on insurance for northern Australia and that something can be packed together from that.
I hope the next government will tackle the disastrous mess left in the wake of the members for Fong Lim and Braitling that was once our essential services. There have been massive blackouts due to stripping critical repairs and maintenance programs out of the system and, at the same time, hitting every family and every business with bills they cannot afford. Every time a bill hits the desk of a business, or of a young person paying rent or a family, they are reminded that the CLP did this and they will want to vote you out.
I will not even talk about the impact of your failures in the bush but leave that to the bush members. People in remote communities know how fast their power cards are burning through. They saw the housing program stop for about 18 months. You may treat them with contempt, but Territorians are not fools.
Ram through these changes by all means. Make an off-the-cuff change from the ridiculous 500 m exclusion zone to 100 m. I will vote against it. This type of reform should have gone, at the very least, to a parliamentary committee for scrutiny of systems around Australia and consultation across the Territory, including remote communities, regional towns and major urban centres to come up with a fair series of improvements to the way people exercise their vote.
I have not begun to talk about how confusing it will be for people in a federal election year to vote one way while the Territory act changes require them to vote differently. That is chaos, but that is what you want, Chief Minister, and that is what you will get, but you will not succeed. You will lose, the CLP will lose government, and I hope you have gone well before then.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I speak on the government’s proposed changes to the Northern Territory Electoral Act. Like previous speakers from this side of the Chamber, I have some issues with certain changes proposed by the government. What we see here, particularly in the change from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting and the ban on canvassing outside polling places, is a thought bubble.
I know it is a thought bubble because I have spoken to people in the CLP and asked what the heck was going on. Did the party endorse these policies? The answer was, ‘Definitely not, Robyn’. The Country Liberal Party knew nothing about these proposed changes. They are a thought bubble of the Chief Minister’s.
With no consultation in the Country Liberal Party it is not hard to understand why he has not consulted with Territorians. Indeed, there has been no consultation on these changes whatsoever. In my briefing with the Electoral Commission one question I wanted an answer to was had there been any consultation about the proposed changes to the Electoral Act? The answer was no.
Today we discuss changes that are not reflective of a good, robust, transparent process of government. This is a brain snap of one individual in government, I suspect the Chief Minister, who has come up with these crazy ideas hoping for the House to pass them on the numbers. We know the government has the numbers because the Chief Minister has done a deal with the member for Arnhem, Larisa Lee, and she appears to be voting blindly on every piece of legislation and every motion the government puts forward.
The opportunity for extremely robust debate on this is limited, but as the members of the opposition and various Independents have stated already, there are problems with some of the proposed changes. For the most part the proposed changes are palatable and not offensive in any way. However, two changes have created some debate and rejection. The change from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting is one of the contentious changes proposed by the government today.
The member for Karama is right when she says there will be confusion in the Northern Territory. When this passes today – it will based on the government’s support from the member for Arnhem – we will have three different systems of voting in the Northern Territory. Federally we will have the full preferential voting system, in the Northern Territory we will have optional preferential voting, and for local government elections we will have proportional voting. How confusing is that? In what other jurisdiction in Australia do you have three different systems of voting for three different levels of government?
The problem will become more intense when Territorians face three elections within 12 months. Literally, Territorians will face a Territory election, a federal election and a local government election within 12 months. We expect Territorians to get their heads around three different voting systems, which is unfair. It is irrational, the timing is very curious and it is not respectful. Most people only think about voting systems or how to vote as they approach the polling booth on polling day. Most people do not put their mind to anything like what parliament is contemplating today.
It is irresponsible of the government to make these changes to the Northern Territory electoral system six months out from a general election given that Territorians face three elections within a 12-month period. I implore the government to think about this. It is fine for thought bubbles to transcend into policies and legislation, but the real test is how they apply to people, their behaviour and what we expect of them on polling day.
What we will see in the federal election, which most people predict will be before the Northern Territory general election, is that people will be very confused. I was told by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission that as soon as this legislation passes, which will be today no doubt, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission will embark on a robust and strong education campaign. There is little time for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to get the message out about these changes taking effect. Whilst they are doing that we will have a federal election where the rules are completely different – a full preferential voting system.
The prediction I and many other people make, including experts like Antony Green and Ken Parish, is that the informal vote for the federal election will be high because confusion will reign. Perhaps the Chief Minister has done this because confusion might play into his seemingly hard task of winning the next election. Without making those predictions it is unfair to impose this change on Territorians.
I acknowledge that optional preferential voting will be an easier system for some people in our community to navigate. There are statistics around the numbers of informal votes and where the majority of informal voting occurs within the Northern Territory. Other speakers have identified a very high informal vote within Aboriginal communities.
Ken Parish, I believe on radio soon after the Chief Minister’s second reading speech late last year, said in the scheme of things optional preferential voting does not make a huge difference to people living in bush communities because there are rarely more than three candidates for each electorate. He also said most Aboriginal people, regardless of their numeracy and literacy skills, are able to navigate preferencing three candidates. I have sought advice about that and been told that for some people it is extraordinarily difficult to number one, two and three. It would be a lot easier and more convenient to put a one in the box. Most people can manage one, two, three and four with no trouble.
Although I acknowledge it will be easier, one of the main contentions I have with optional preferential voting is it is just that: optional preferential voting. It means that some people will decide to put one in a box next to their favoured candidate and not preference, and others will fully preference every candidate on the ticket. This effectively means that the person who votes one and does not preference their vote is of a lesser value than the person who fully preferences. I have explored this with various people and it is the case. Looking at how preferences are allocated, if you do not preference your vote lapses after the first round of counting. Your vote is worth far less than a person who preferences, because the vote of the person who preferences continues to carry weight as their preferences are allocated to the second, third and fourth candidate etcetera.
We are effectively introducing a system of voting where there are two values for a vote, one with a limited value and one with a full value. I do not see how that equates to a fair voting system. If people were to understand the preferential voting system they would agree it is better for them, and the candidates they are supporting, to continue to preference.
It is interesting that only two other jurisdictions in Australia have optional preferential voting, being New South Wales and Queensland. From the information I received, Queensland introduced optional preferential voting in 1992, which is 24 years ago. New South Wales introduced optional preferential voting in 1980, which is 36 years ago. In a quarter of a century no other jurisdiction in Australia has said, ‘Yes, we want optional preferential voting because it’s so good’. Suddenly the Northern Territory does, which begs so many questions it is not funny.
Why would the Northern Territory, the smallest jurisdiction in Australia by a country mile with 245 000 people, want optional preferential voting when no other jurisdiction for at least 24 years has contemplated this change seriously?
The other interesting thing is that in Queensland 55% of voters choose to vote optional preferential and 45% continue to fully preference. You have a mix of voters: 45% choosing to preference and 55% just putting one in a box, which means that 45% of the population of Queensland have a stronger, more valuable vote than the other 55%.
I have listened to debates on radio. We had quite a fulsome debate on our local ABC radio in Alice Springs. Some people called in to say, ‘I just want to vote one. I don’t like the preferential system.’ I get that. I believe all in, all out. Either we all go first-past-the-post or we all go preferential. Having two separately valued votes is inequitable. It is unfair, and should be debated a lot more widely in the community before it is introduced in the Northern Territory. People need to consider that it has not been seen as an attractive or viable option for any jurisdiction in Australia for at least 24 years. That needs to be put in the mix too. Why are we doing it in the Northern Territory? It seems to be impulsive. There seems to be very little rationale in why we are doing it.
The second issue I and most on this side of the Chamber have with the proposed changes to the Electoral Act is the ban on canvassing outside polling places. This is an interesting scenario to compare with what happens throughout Australia. The only other two jurisdictions in Australia with an extended limit to how far you can canvass within a radius of a polling booth are the ACT and Tasmania. Their limit is 100 m. All other jurisdictions in Australia have what we do at the moment, I understand, around 10 m.
For some polling booths in the bush, Hermannsburg for example, if you are half a kilometre from the polling booth you are halfway to Alice Springs. That is an exaggeration, but that is what it will feel like. You will be in the sticks, and the polling booth will be so far away it will be ridiculous. It will not even be within eyesight and you will soon find yourself extremely irrelevant. What is the purpose of this? Is it to minimise competition for the CLP at the next election? The CLP introducing this bizarre change to the Electoral Act tells me they are extremely worried and do not want to be competing with anyone on polling day. They want all the shenanigans to be well out of the way because they think they will lose. From what I see and hear that could be a distinct prospect.
It is not a good idea. Five hundred metres for most of us – I will be standing on the Stuart Highway when my polling booth is at Gillen Primary School. I will be trying to sell my message in no man’s land. People will wonder who the crazy lady is and what she is doing, which is probably what people think regularly. There she goes again. Why is she standing half a kilometre away from her polling booth? There is something wrong.
The something wrong is that this is a crazy notion, and 500 m from a polling booth is bizarre. In a piece I put together recently for a discussion paper on this I said that in the Northern Territory we have open speed limits and cracker night, but we do not like polling or canvassing outside polling booths. We do not like that type of fun. We like to drive like maniacs and let off crackers on cracker night, but we cannot have people up to shenanigans and politicking on polling day. Goodness me, we cannot have that. The hypocrisy is bizarre.
The government has made a big mistake. It has put in motion a ban which is unreasonable and ill-considered because there has been a lot of discussion throughout Australia on changes, improving the shenanigans, the show, the politicking that happens on election day. It can be completely over the top, and most of us would agree with that.
At some polling booths you have a cast of hundreds. There are people who are not even connected to the candidates lobbying on something they feel incensed about. It can be quite ridiculous. The issue is how the Electoral Commission contains that activity on polling day so it is ordered, relevant and restricted.
I agree with that and believe it is the best way to go. It is not about being 500 m away from the polling booth and therefore completely irrelevant. Other options can be considered. One option I spoke at length about with an expert in the field was limiting the number of supporters a candidate has on polling day.
The example given was each candidate can have two to three supporters on polling day. If there are 10 candidates there will be no more than 30 people, if you have two supporters per candidate, along the walk of delight on polling day. That makes sense and is a great idea. I would support the government if it were to see the light, realise how ridiculous the suggestion is and propose something useful. Even though you may get this through today you have only reduced it from 500 m to 100 m, and that was the much-awaited amendment to this proposed legislation.
Even 100 m is a significant distance away from the polling booth. For one of my main polling booths in Araluen that will put us down the street and we will be quite irrelevant. If you have 50 people standing down the street 100 m away from the polling booth at Gillen Primary School you are still trying to contain a crowd of people that may look rather displaced.
I will recommend through the consideration in detail that rather than put a restriction on the distance from the polling booth, we leave it as 10 m but restrict the number people allowed to accompany the candidate outside polling booths on election day. That is a much better option. It has been explored thoroughly within other jurisdictions, federally and within states and territories, and other jurisdictions have adopted that as an option.
When you think of cities where you have high congestion rates, buildings close together and narrow streets, requiring people to be 500 m away from a polling booth – it might be at a church, a school or a community hall – could cause a traffic problem. Even 100 m away from a polling booth could cause problems.
The other problem is how does the Electoral Commission, with all its other responsibilities, police people breaching this zone? Whether it is 500 m or 100 m, how do they police it? I asked that question of the Electoral Commissioner and he said he was not sure how he would do it.
That will be a major challenge for them on top of trying to get the message out about a new voting system and coordinating a one-in-four-year election. They will have to re-educate the community about new boundaries for canvassing outside a polling booth.
Many issues should have been teased out and debated within the community but have not been. This government is arrogant and disrespectful of the fact consultation means bringing people with you. If you consult, you get people to understand where you are coming from. They have their say, you have your say and you can bring people with you. You can even assist people to understand changes that are difficult and inevitable. However, this government does not like to consult or be part of a good and robust democratic system. It is about thrusting decisions at people, and if they do not like it then shove it. That is the way it is. That is the legacy of the CLP government, I fear.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin and wondered how many current CLP members of parliament won over 50% of the primary vote at the last election? There are a few, but a few did not. It is curious that the Chief Minister would put those seats at risk. It is inevitable there will be a swing against the government. In 2012 the CLP government won resoundingly with 16 out of 25 seats; it was a smashing.
That will not be repeated. There will be a swing against the government and the CLP should rely on preferences, because even with the existing crop we have there are many who would not be here if it was not for preferences. The member for Stuart scraped across the line with preferences. The member for Blain, in his by-election, depended on preferences. If memory serves me correctly the member for Port Darwin relied on preferences too.
There are marginal seats throughout the Northern Territory. If the CLP government thinks it will not need to rely on preferences to retain the seats it has it is preposterous and quite ignorant.
I will enjoy the last six months of this term of government. I am resolved to make sure that every day is fun and I make the most of the amazing opportunity I have to represent the people of Araluen, sit in this parliament on a regular basis and be part of the decision-making of this honoured and wonderful institution.
I despair that we are once again debating legislation that has not been put out for public consultation. I despair that we are debating thought bubbles of the Chief Minister and the CLP government.
I am making every day a winner. I am having fun and will continue to look after my electorate. Unlike some members of the government I can, in clear consciousness, say I have done a great job, have conducted myself with integrity and have respected each and every constituent within the electorate of Araluen.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, where do I start? I am sometimes a little bemused by the use of the word ‘consultation’. The government uses it quite regularly but does not understand the meaning of the word. I have worked out it is because the word has four syllables, and they are probably only used to deal with words of two or three syllables.
The Chief Minister’s second reading speech was pretty good. He said:
Chief Minister, what comments and suggestions did you receive and what are they? You introduced this bill in the December sittings. I had two briefings with staff from your office, and I thank you for that as I found them useful. They said they were doing some surveys. ‘Have Your Say’ was one of their fact sheets. What were the survey results? What were the suggestions and comments – the few you would have received? It is a sneaky trick to introduce a bill with major reforms over the Christmas/New Year period when at least 10 000 to 15 000 people leave Darwin on holidays, without worrying about people in the regions.
What were the survey results of Have Your Say? I request that the document be tabled. Clearly there are legitimate concerns, as I have heard from members who have spoken already. They will be addressed at the consideration in detail stage.
In the second reading you commented on the number of people on the roll and those people who vote. We only catch so many in the Northern Territory as some 28 000 do not vote. That is not unique to the Northern Territory; it is an issue around the country. If that is a problem it should be addressed. What is the government doing – not the Electoral Commission but the government – to get more people onto the roll and more people interested in Northern Territory parliament and the legislation process? What is the NT government doing, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission – the Australian and Northern Territory – to improve the rolls, get more people on the roll and get more people to go willingly to the polling booth?
Why are people not voting if they are on the roll? Many people in my electorate go bush and hide there, as they do in the member for Nelson’s electorate, because that is what they want to do. Why are they not voting?
It is a hypothetical question and the answer could be because they do not like the government. They probably do not like the crossbenchers or the Labor Party either. They do not want to vote for either so they are off the roll or go fishing.
The Electoral Commission’s data showed that at the last election 3.2% of votes across the Northern Territory were informal. In the scheme of things that is not a huge amount. Part of the justification for the Chief Minister introducing this bill is to improve the informal vote.
That argument does not hold substance because I was advised by the advisers in the briefings, and the Electoral Commission, that half of that 3.2% were intentional informal votes. That is, people who write rude things on their ballot papers which are then deemed informal.
I do not have an issue with drawing names of candidates in Alice Springs, but the proposed amendment to section 50 – which is the voting system – to optional preferential, where did that come from? Why is this the way for the Northern Territory to go? At no time has anyone come to my office to complain about the Electoral Act or our voting system in the Northern Territory being a compulsory preferential system.
Some people do not want to vote at all and believe it should be optional, as it is in England. However, the majority are very comfortable going to the polling booth.
Chief Minister, where is the evidence that the Northern Territory needs to change from the current system of voting to an optional preferential system? I mean real evidence not, ‘People spoke to me’. That does not really cut it.
If this is introduced we will have three systems of voting in the Northern Territory. We will have compulsory preferential for the Commonwealth, optional preferential for the Northern Territory and a different system for local government.
This will have a direct impact on this year’s federal election, which will occur before our Territory election. The person impacted the most will be the member for Solomon because voters will think that is optional preferential voting. That seat will experience more informal votes than normal, with the possibility that the current member may lose her seat.
Chief Minister, with three different voting systems in the Northern Territory how will you get information to the residents, including people in remote communities and those with English as a second language, that there are different systems of voting in federal, NT and local government elections?
Some parts of the bill are okay and parts of postal voting are okay, but the member for Araluen spoke at length, as did other members, about the amendment to section 725 of the act which restricts canvassing-type activities to within 500 m of the entrance to the polling booth.
People do not like things being thrust in their face. What evidence do you have that people have a problem with the current system? Yes we all have a little whinge, but show me where there is a problem which would make us move to 500 m from a polling place. Where are the complaints? It is not about distance; it is that sometimes people are mobbed.
The worst case of mobbing was during the Blain by-election. I know that because I was there and it was atrocious. No wonder people were ticked off after being accosted in a ruthless manner.
The Chief Minister mentioned – we had discussions with the Electoral Commissioner about this – having to run the gauntlet of party officials and spruikers. I did not hear anything about the candidate. If the distance is 100 m, even 500 m, and I go to the polling booth and stand next to the sausage sizzle the school is running, what is wrong with that, if I say to people, ‘Hello, I’m here. I can’t tell you anything, I’m just here to say hello’? There is nothing in the legislation to prohibit the candidate from standing somewhere near the booth. I would like clarity on that.
Also, how will they regulate the distance, whatever distance it may be? A distance of 10 m is relatively easy for the Electoral Commission to regulate, but who will do the measuring? How will they regulate it? Do not bring in laws if you cannot regulate them because that is just nonsense. Does this go into the atmosphere because I have plans?
I would like some clarification on candidates. Assuming the candidate has no T-shirt on and is dressed normally can they just walk around talking to people? I want to know how it will be regulated. Where is the information that there is a problem with the 10 m distance?
Where has this come from, or not, as the case may be? No one has called for electoral reform in the Northern Territory. I have heard no complaints, received no letters and have not seen anything. I have conducted research and the current Electoral Act – yes, there are always ways to improve legislation, but where is the system broken? If there is a problem with informal voting – particularly in Aboriginal communities we are told – we will address it. If there is a lack of enrolment in the Northern Territory, or people are not voting, we will deal with that too.
Perhaps government knows that voters are moving away from major parties. We know this from interstate, whether that be the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. The fact that more voters than ever opted for minor parties in the Senate in 2013 reflects mounting dissatisfaction with major parties. I thought the CLP government would want reforms which aim to foster new voices as opposed to silencing them. Where are the letters? Where is the evidence from the Have Your Say survey or anything else the government has? Why has the government not released a discussion paper as happened in Queensland when they undertook major reform of their Electoral Act?
The fact sheets were fine, but that is not good enough. When we had a briefing in the second week of December we received fact sheets. When we asked what consultation would occur we were told it would be on the Internet. Putting it on the Internet was their definition of consultation ...
Ms Walker: DIY consultation.
Ms PURICK: Yes, DIY consultation. There were no focus groups, no meetings, no discussion papers, no posters, nothing. They would just put it on the Internet. Nothing was e-mailed to members. We represent constituencies but nothing went to members. I understand nothing went to stakeholders, nothing to the Law Society and nothing to the land councils. I believe the Electoral Commissioner was consulted and he did not approve of the proposed changes. Perhaps a university academic was consulted, but that is symptomatic of the problem with this government and the word ‘consultation’.
At a briefing I received from the Attorney-General’s staff – I cannot remember what the legislation was – I asked, ‘Have you consulted with the Law Society of the NT, NAAJA and groups like that?’ The reply was, ‘No, because they won’t like it’. I said, ‘They don’t like it so you will not consult. If you introduce a new mining tax or change the mining legislation you will not consult with the mining industry because they will not like it.’ I found that appalling. Generally people do not like things because there is something wrong. That is a shameful attitude, and how the government has gone about consultation for this legislation is a scam.
Over the last week or two the Attorney-General issued a media release along with various documentation in relation to amendments to the Guardianship of Infants Act. There is massive consultation, meetings across the Northern Territory, and discussion papers, and rightly so as it is important legislation. Why is there consultation on a large scale for one piece of legislation and not another equally important piece? This dishonest government is trying to get this legislation amended by stealth. It is policy on the run based on personal experiences, which is often what happens. It results in poor policy which is detrimental to Territorians.
The Attorney-General said no one commented so he did not see anything. Perhaps no one had a say at haveyoursay.nt.gov.au/electoralact so he thinks that is okay. Because no one commented does not mean it is okay. No one commented because they did not know, because you have not talked to them. The only people who have discussed it are members of this parliament and perhaps those with a keen interest in parliamentary activities and politics in the Northern Territory, like the Antony Greens of this world.
Releasing it over the Christmas and New Year period is an old trick, and everyone has wised up to that. This will be seen for what it is.
Some of the information put out by some members of the government about jurisdictions overseas is not relevant to the Northern Territory. We have a particularly unique style of politics based on urban, rural and remote. We should be looking specifically at the Northern Territory and not looking for a one size fits all.
The Attorney-General, as the member for Port Darwin, claimed there are issues at booths. Yes, there have been issues at mobile polling booths. I was at a couple of small ones in the rural area. There were claims against the member for Daly, and I am sure there will be claims about others who go out bush – use of language and that type of thing – but that is not across the Northern Territory. I have two booths for my electorate and the member for Nelson has about three. We have never had any issues. A few people get a bit cranky because …
Mr Wood: I had the member for Fong Lim.
Ms PURICK: Yes, you had the member for Fong Lim saying nasty things about you at the Kormilda booth, but generally the urban booths are okay. The government is trying to make one size fit all and it will not work.
If the government was serious about electoral reform it would have done it properly. It would look at Queensland, which reformed legislation in 2013 through extensive consultation and review. If the government is serious about improving standards, integrity and accountability with fair and effective laws which promote participation in our democracy through political representatives and voting, it should do it properly, fairly and correctly. The government should have looked at voter enrolment, the voting system here versus elsewhere, and perhaps non-compulsory voting. There is a possibility the NT government could have amended the legislation to non-compulsory voting. If the government is serious about electoral reform, why not look at all the things that could be changed?
Mr Wood: No one would turn up.
Ms PURICK: Possibly no one would turn up; that is why the government did not look at it. The government is looking at the postal voting system but not political advertising. It is not looking at political donations in this electoral reform. Something has been cobbled together quickly and, as the member for Araluen said, this did not come from the Country Liberal Party. This has come from either the Chief Minister directly or from Cabinet. It is not for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is for self-interest only, we all know that. As we say in the bush, ‘We didn’t come down in the last shower of rain’, which I understand was about 20 minutes ago.
I expected better from this government but should not have. Its track record over the last 12 months or so has been abysmal when it comes to honesty, accountability, transparency and doing the right thing for Territorians. This is not one of them. This is not a good thing for Territorians.
As I and others have said, some parts of the legislation are fine and will improve things, but it is a hotchpotch. Things have been cobbled together by a government desperate to hang onto power, and it will push this through by stealth with support from the member for Arnhem. Her electorate will be most affected, and I do not believe she understands that. I have tried to inform her that the changes made to this legislation will be a serious detriment to her success at the next NT election, but it is her choice on how she votes.
People do not trust this government. I have said in the past that there is a trust deficit. There is no goodwill in the bucket – it has a big hole. There is no trust, people do not believe the government and do not like the government. They will be suspicious of the changes, the purpose behind them and what you are trying to achieve.
If you are serious about electoral reform do it properly. You should withdraw this legislation, or perhaps defer it so you can put out a proper discussion paper. Consult with Territorian stakeholders and get something that is for the true benefit of the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is appalling, unconsulted legislation. The electoral reforms put forward by the CLP are driven by self-interest. Let us not be fooled by this. The bill before the House, with some significant and fairly detrimental reforms to the Electoral Commission dressed up as, ‘This is good for you and good for democracy’, is absolute rot. What consultation? DIY consultation we might call it. I have seen some fact sheets on a website, but that is not what I call consultation.
My interest is in relation to our remote communities, both big and small, given that I am a bush member, have been on several campaigns during mobile polling and have seen firsthand what it is like.
This is entirely driven by self-interest by the most appalling government in the history of the Northern Territory, probably the nation the way it is going. It is so desperate to cling to power – Lord knows why. To bring in these reforms six months before an election with no true consultation process and with those who have lobbed into the consultation, like the Electoral Commission and experts like Antony Green and Ken Parish, a frequent commentator on Territory politics, is all driven by self-interest. It is not good reform and is all about the CLP holding on to power.
On the subject of consultation, this week I received a copy of a document called Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy. It is not a bad document. I remember bumping into some public servants in Nhulunbuy more than a year ago and chatting with them at our local bakery. They told me what they had been tasked with. It is good to see the fruits of their labour have come to fruition and a document produced that is a tool for assisting public servants, and potentially others, on some of the things you need to know about and understand when you consult with Indigenous communities.
Given these reforms are quite significant and will impact on our remote Indigenous communities, I am disappointed but not surprised that there has been no consultation about this. Let me read a little from the minister’s foreword. It is the message from the Minister for Local Government and Community Services with a foreword about why this document is so important. I will read from paragraph three:
Funny about that, on the closing the gap day in our nation, when front and centre but trying to be mindful of Indigenous Australians, we have electoral reform being bulldozed through this House with the support of the member for Arnhem. We do not know what deal she has done to support and prop up this dreadful minority government, but she supports it. It seems that on the important subject of consultation the minister is already in breach. She spoke in this debate about the importance of consultation. This process falls into the very thing the minister says we do not want: ‘poorly-planned, ill-timed affairs that do nothing more than create uncertainty and confusion’. Never a truer word was spoken.
It will be confusing for people. The member for Araluen mapped out particularly well how three different voting systems across the three tiers of government, all in the next 12 months, will create confusion for people as to how they cast their vote.
This is a joke. I do not need to go through the benefits or democratic reasons why preferential voting is a good, fair and equitable system as opposed to putting a one in the box.
While many of my constituents in remote communities struggle a little with literacy and numeracy, they are not fools. They can number things, particularly with a how-to-vote card in their hand given to them by a party official. In our remote polling booths I have witnessed some really good work where every level of assistance is offered to voters to ensure they complete a formal vote.
One of the best resources I have seen was the use of Centrelink staff during the federal election in 2013. They were already serving the communities. They know the people coming to vote and how to communicate with them.
They may not necessarily have read this document – the Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy – but they know how to communicate with Indigenous people because they are their client group as Centrelink people.
During the 2013 election I was impressed, in the remote communities I went to on mobile polling rounds, with how helpful it was to have Centrelink staff provide entirely non-political, impartial assistance. I observed that as a campaigner and as a scrutineer inside the booth.
One problem we have, which we know from the Territory election, is interpreters with the mask of language able to instruct voters on how to vote.
The other issue is too many people around a booth sometimes. The member for Goyder mentioned the Blain by-election. What a day that was! I do not spend a lot of time at by-elections, I am always in my electorate, but it was not a pleasant environment. It was not about running the gauntlet, but just about the sheer volume of people there. Rules around how many supporters and campaign workers might be there for each candidate or for each party, recognising their independence, might be a better way of looking at it.
I know people in my electorate want to receive a how-to-vote card. They may want to have a quick chat about who they are voting for and why, and we have good levels of formal voting.
Also, it has been fairly cordial on the mobile booths with members from other parties. I have been around the homelands mobile polling booth of northeast Arnhem Land with Senator Scullion and when there is only a few of you, perhaps with a supporter and interpreter, Electoral Commission staff and the community members wanting to vote, it is cordial. We are polite, we respect one another, we hand out our how-to-vote cards and are in and out of the community within an hour or two depending on how big it is. That is for mobile booths.
I remember during the federal election driving to Gapuwiyak, a two-day booth. I had a party member with me and we were there for two days. The member for Fong Lim was there with his wife, the member for Arnhem was there and it was quite cordial. We sort of had an agreement outside the polling booth about how we would set up. I thought it was almost beyond politeness when the member for Arnhem, in handing out how-to-vote cards when talking to a voter said, ‘Okay, you have that. Now you need to see Lynne because she will talk to you about the Labor Party.’ It was the federal campaign with Warren Snowdon. That was a good way to do it. It can be cordial when parties work together like that.
The 500 m rule is nonsense. I do not know how many people here know what it is like at remote booths. This is a picture of the remote booth at the homeland of Wulwuluy, one of the Marthakal homelands. The remote booth is under the wing of a plane on the airstrip. Generally three planes will fly in. The Electoral Commission, the Labor Party through its own fundraising, and similarly the CLP will have chartered a plane to get there. If there is an Independent they might struggle for funds and somebody might have driven them in. The Electoral Commission – this is on the airstrip. The community is about 1.5 km away and, God love them, they all walk out to meet the plane and that is how voting occurs.
In that scenario I could not be anywhere near there. I would be 500 m back in the bushes somewhere, and that is just crazy. It does not make sense. There is no gauntlet here, it is sensible. There is no gauntlet at Galiwinku. Even though it is a large booth it is cordial and people are very sensible.
The other practical thing is people need shade because it is hot there. You ask people to be 500 m away, but it is too far. I believe 100 m is too far and is crazy. I see nothing wrong with the distance and believe 10 m is fine. There are only two jurisdictions in the country that have a 100 m rule for no campaigning. I would be happy to stick with 10 m because it is workable. What should be sorted is how campaign workers operate and how many people are inside a booth.
I do not support this because it is crazy. It is the CLP desperate to hang on to power. It is definitely not about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, let us be honest. This is not good for democracy. Who is it good for? The CLP believes it will be good for them. They think it is the only way to cling to power if they get through the latest scandal, and no doubt the scandal around the corner.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of clarification, optional preferential voting occurs in the Northern Territory right now. For those who say this will make a third tier, optional preferential voting operates in the Northern Territory now.
I thank members for their contributions …
Ms Walker: You are wrong, Adam.
Mr GILES: You might learn something in this debate, Lynne.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr GILES: I was saying to John there is bullying and harassment in this workplace. The member for Araluen leads it quite well, as does the member for Karama, and the member for Nhulunbuy does a good job as well. I planned to say this has been a good debate. There have been some good contributions, but there has been some nastiness which continues as bullying and harassment.
I have listened to the debate and had some conversations with the member for Nelson, among other people, about this legislation, particularly in regard to changing the distance for canvassing near a polling booth. The silly nonsense played by the member for Karama about an amendment we agreed that we would put an amendment forward. That amendment will form part of changes to clause 17 of the bill seeking to omit ‘500’ and replace it with ‘100’, being 100 m.
Another area of interest is how this bill came about. This bill came about in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns at estimates about the process of voting in the Northern Territory. I said I had concerns and would conduct a review.
A review was undertaken in 2014 by the late Frank McGuiness. That review highlighted electoral donations and contributions, and also the Electoral Act. It was recommended at that time that there be a thorough review of the Electoral Act, and government is pursuing that. Also, a recommendation stipulated an opportunity to move forward with some low-hanging fruit that could be easily reached, which is the formation of this bill. This also came on the back of motions passed in this Chamber, particularly from the member for Nelson, about his desire to see some changes to the Electoral Act. The team and I supported that. I have long been a supporter of removing the gauntlet when we vote because it is wrong and should change.
The members for Araluen, Nhulunbuy, and Goyder spoke about their role in voting and how they cannot hand things out. There was also a conversation about consultation, and I believe they missed the point. The point is Territorians do not want to run the gauntlet. It is about the voter. When talking about consultation and listening, people want the opportunity to vote without having to run the gauntlet. That is the listening and consultation. Every point the members for Araluen, Goyder and Nhulunbuy made was about them in the polling booth, not the voter. That is where people get it wrong …
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Member for Nightcliff, I paid you the courtesy, and everyone else, of not interrupting their speech. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
There was a lot of talk about listening and consultation. I will not get into that now because I am aware of the time. I have a fair bit to say about that and will talk about consultation. However, this process started in estimates in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns which I share, particularly in regard to remote areas. It has gone through a review and report process. This is the first stage of electoral amendments to the low-hanging fruit. The other components are more controversial, and I thought it was not right to put them in before an election. I recommended to Cabinet doing it in two parts.
Debate suspended.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill to amend the Public Information Act aims to strengthen the existing act, which is in place to set up what is appropriate public information when funded by Territory taxpayers. This bill aims to make the standards and expectations around what is appropriate public information far clearer, especially in light of recent government advertising which has come into question.
As honourable members would agree, when advertising and information is produced by government for the public, Territorians expect that the information is accurate, factual and not promoting the interests of political parties or politicians.
Territorians want to have faith in the government of the day that advertising and information it produces is in the public interest, and is not funding items that should be paid for by political parties. This is a reasonable expectation and this bill sets clearer and more transparent standards in what is appropriate expenditure on government advertising and information.
The main amendments to this bill seek to strengthen it by inserting criteria and standards that were previously available under the public information guidelines. These guidelines were made by the relevant minister and were available to the Auditor-General to take into account in making a determination under the act.
The public information guidelines previously available under the act were revoked by the government in November 2013 after receiving advice from the Solicitor-General. Incorporating these previous guidelines into this bill will set a higher standard in what is appropriate public information to ensure it is in line with the expectations of Territorians.
The allowance within the Public Information Act for the minister to enhance and further strengthen public information guidelines remains to allow for future valid guidelines to be created if it is determined that they are required.
In clause 3 of the bill section 2A is inserted into the act, which outlines the object of the bill and sets out that all public information must meet at least one of the criteria that is outlined. These criteria were previously available in the former guidelines which accompanied the Public Information Act and this clause inserts them into the act. This ensures that public information meets at least one of the following criteria:
(a) the information serves to do any of the following:
Clause 4 inserts Part 1A into the bill which sets certain standards for giving public information and sets out that public information must be factual and arguments are presented objectively with data sourced, and that information must not comment on or attack views, policies or action of a political party or politician. Again, these sections were previously available in the guidelines that used to accompany the act.
Clause 5 seeks to amend section 6 to insert section 6(2)(d) to provide that including in advertising an image of the holder or occupier of the office of a minister may contravene the act. Further amendments in section 6 are in place so this would not apply if the audience was interstate or overseas in order to enhance the effectiveness of the information. This also does not apply in a time of an emergency, for example, a cyclone or a flood, when there would be an expectation of leadership from the community.
Clause 6 ensures that if the request for the review of public information is made to the Auditor-General by a member of the Assembly, the member will also receive a copy of the report on the findings of that review.
Territorians are right to expect that public money is not used to promote political parties and politicians. These amendments will deliver a clearer set of rules about what is appropriate public information when paid for by Territory taxpayers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this parliament notes the abject failure of the CLP to provide for the housing needs of remote Territorians and supports the Labor plan for increasing remote housing in the Territory. Further, this House calls on the Territory government to act on implementing Labor’s plans as soon as possible.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this tonight. This issue is of vital importance and is intrinsically linked to a range of other policy areas. It is very topical at the moment. We have had much discussion about remote housing over a long period of time, but a lot of discussion is happening today.
Remarkably, given the widespread understanding of the housing gap in the bush the CLP government, which today claimed it came into government with a strong plan, still relies on the federal government to continue the program under the national partnership agreement that ends in 2018.
Three-and-a-half years into its term, this government continues to demonstrate, as shown through its own figures, that it is not meeting its own targets in upgrading or building new dwellings in the bush. Despite what we have heard in the House today, there is much concern about housing and service delivery in the bush.
Let us get real and have an honest conversation about what is going on. It seems what is said here and what is really happening are two different things. This lack of acknowledgement of reality is a concern when the government is in the midst of developing a housing strategy three-and-a-half years into its term.
Indigenous Territorians in remote communities continually tell us the issue of most importance to them is housing. Yet the only government since self-government to put Territory funds into remote housing has been the Labor governments of Clare Martin and Paul Henderson, and the County Liberal Party has squibbed at every turn.
Labor recognises how important this matter is. That is why we released an extensive remote housing strategy prior to Christmas. I will outline more of Labor’s remote housing plans, which aim to address the failures of this government and successive Housing ministers to provide a long-term commitment to remote housing, something desperately needed.
The lack of housing for Indigenous Territorians in remote communities is significantly impacting on their health, education and wellbeing. We believe that access to good housing is a right for all Territorians. Having a place to sleep, shelter to raise a family and personal space is critical for social welfare, mental wellbeing and the health of Territorians.
Access to decent, affordable accommodation is a prerequisite for workers to perform their jobs adequately, parents to raise their children properly and students to succeed in education in remote areas. The lack of sufficient decent, affordable housing is the most significant infrastructure deficit and social issue impacting Territorians living in remote communities. We hear this all the time.
The housing crisis in many of our remote communities needs to be a priority. This crisis is resulting in poor outcomes for Indigenous Territorians, Territorians as a whole, and is exacerbated by an apparent vacuum in the CLP’s plan for a way forward after the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.
Failure to act now and over the next decade can only result in more social dysfunction and dislocation, poorer health and education outcomes, and deteriorating law and order.
We are concerned that the gap in housing is widening, which is what the evidence is showing, and the population of most remote communities is increasing. These concerns need to be addressed now so they do not worsen over time.
We should strive for significant improvement. Time and again we see a government that is not reaching its targets. During the estimates process this government said, ‘Just trust us. We will reach the targets even though our statistics say we are not three-and-a-half years in.’
Various housing stakeholders have been vocal about their needs. Safe and secure housing is intrinsically linked to education, health, crime and employment outcomes. They will worsen in the Territory and dysfunction will increase if there is no strong plan in place.
Another challenge is the provision of specialised or purpose-built housing or accommodation in remote communities for those who are aged, have a disability or one recovering from dependencies or addictions. This is severely lacking in most remote communities.
Labor is committed to getting more Territorians into their own home, a rental property or supported accommodation they can afford. Labor will focus on an intense Territory government investment in expanding the living space, bedrooms and housing available to remote Territorians.
An expansive and guaranteed rolling housing program will result in more jobs and economic growth during the construction phase. A rolling maintenance program will continue to supply employment to local tradespeople and other skilled and semi-skilled workers because we need to back our own.
We recognise that the Northern Territory does not have the budget to achieve the outcomes required in this area, and we will seek investment and support from the Australian government. However, to successfully argue the case for increased investment the Territory government needs to bring some real funds and commitment to the table.
One issue pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition is the need to address the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s decision to include funding for remote housing under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing in the GST provision to states and territories. Frankly, this is a disastrous decision for the Territory. This means additional funding for remote housing reduces the Territory’s overall GST result. We believe this decision should be reversed by the Australian government. We also believe that working with Indigenous Territorians and their representative bodies is vital to opening up greater housing options. That has been raised by a number of different housing stakeholders across the Northern Territory, particularly in Central Australia.
Housing decisions need to be made in close consultation with local people at a pace and in a way which is supported by them. We will work with Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation to provide greater solutions for housing. We will ensure that trained interpreters are employed as liaison officers in all phases of the housing program from planning, training and employment delivery through to maintenance and management activities. This is essential if we are to provide housing that addresses the real needs of people in remote areas. The involvement of local people and leading housing design innovators will ensure housing is appropriate and fulfils those needs.
We support the rights of Territorians living in remote communities to buy their own homes. This needs to be done as part of an overall plan with relevant communities. We want to hear the government’s plans. We are three-and-a-half years into the CLP’s term of government and have a draft housing strategy that does not seem to reflect the concerns raised across the Territory. This includes repairs and maintenance, local involvement, local voices and local contractors.
In December 2015 the Leader of the Opposition announced that, if elected, we would provide a 10-year $1.1bn remote housing program to increase the amount of housing, living space and rooms available to Territorians in remote communities. We have been talking to people across the Territory about that plan. The infrastructure funds will be allocated from within the Territory budget, and remote housing funding will be allocated to five housing construction and expansion programs. For those who have read our plan it is fantastic, and I would like to outline them for you.
One is HomeBuild NT, which is direct Territory government investment into building new housing, living space and rooms in remote communities. These will be additional to the Australian government’s commitment through the national partnership, and it is a provision of $500m over 10 years from the Territory infrastructure budget to pay for this program. It will be focused on bringing new homes online for Territorians in remote communities and will be flexible enough to include remote specialist housing for aged Territorians and those with a disability, mental condition or in recovery from addiction or dependency on alcohol or drugs.
The second is we will invest in repairs and maintenance of houses beyond the funds currently provided by the Australian government. Repairs and maintenance is something the minister knows comes up all the time. People talk about waiting lengthy periods of time. I heard today it took about 12 months for some simple repairs. The more we talk to people the more horror stories we hear about repairs and maintenance. There will be an additional $20m per year for repairs and maintenance programs beginning in the 2017-18 budget and extending through the full 10 years.
We will introduce a new program called Room To Breathe NT which will fast-track the building of rooms, granny flats and spaces designed to provide more living space, sleeping space and shelter for remote Territorians. This will include outdoor living and cooking areas. Again, there is $20m per year to be provided from 2017-18 onwards for five years. At the end of five years it will be reviewed, and will continue for a further five years if proved successful. A review and evaluation of what we are doing is essential to improving housing outcomes.
Expanded government employee housing accessible to locally recruited remote government employees, with access governed by transparent criteria based on annual assessment of priority needs – an additional $20m per year to support this initiative. That is a significant change to current policy.
Those living in remote communities who train, work and are employed locally by government should have access to the government employee housing program. We know that will add additional pressure to the program, but it is important to recognise and reward people for their achievement. It needs to be managed carefully so we ensure enough housing is available to bring in outside employees where necessary.
Allocation of housing for local recruits and government workers recruited from outside local communities will be jointly administered by the government and local people. It will balance the need for external employees to have housing to support locally recruited government employees. Expansion of this program to accommodate the additional pressure will be accompanied by thorough assessment of the type of housing that can be quickly put into place, which also satisfies all EBA requirements.
The fifth is an expanded Homelands Extra funding program. We will lift the program to $6000 per eligible family per year and reform the eligibility criteria. We believe this program has been effective, but the application and administration of the program requires improvement. We believe the guidelines for expenditure should allow for funds to be banked or rolled over so applicants can apply the funds to more expensive items rather than just the $6000. To make the rollover or contribution of funds easier, we need to investigate improved data management services and systems, and improve relationships between service providers and applicants.
We want to investigate use of a website or an app that will allow applicants to access their account to see what money has come in, what has been spent and what is currently available to use. That will make the process and communication around it much easier.
The Chief Minister may talk about devolution of powers but Labor will do it. It appears throughout the Housing Strategy Consultation Draft, which I have a copy of. It is the intention of Labor to devolve key decision-making over housing to Indigenous people in remote communities. We have consistently spoken about that. We are prepared to devolve to regional councils, regional authorities or local housing groups decision-making on what to build, where to build it, how to build it and who will build it.
We are prepared to work with decision-making models which engage communities and external groups. We recognise there is a need to support capacity-building amongst Indigenous leadership in communities, and different places will want a different amount of time and different method of devolution. Our solutions are place based and directly relate to flexible local priorities and time frames. A key principle will be that devolution will be done hand-in-glove with Indigenous people and representative groups. We will invest in the capacity building necessary to make this work. We will establish the outcomes to be achieved over a period of time, and work with the relative housing bodies to assure these are being achieved. Again, that has been lacking.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory has been vocal about housing needs. It held a housing forum last year, and made a number of recommendations about housing needs in remote areas of the Northern Territory. It has provided a way forward for improving housing in the Territory. I hope the government takes notice of it and thinks about how to incorporate those principles into its housing strategy.
On our bush visits we hear the same thing. There is continuing confusion and growing anger regarding tenancy management, repairs and maintenance and housing allocation decisions. It has made the media today. It was in an article in The Australian titled, ‘Remote NT residents call in lawyers on rundown housing’. Tangentyere Council members visited Parliament House today and have spoken to the media about some of the decisions made in tenancy management in Alice Springs.
These things lift the lid on the embarrassment that is government policy – or lack of – on remote housing delivery. Some residents are resorting to legal action to get this government to meet its landlord obligations. It is another shameful example of this government failing to deliver for the bush and match its rhetoric with practical action.
This is not happening in just one place. Everywhere we go we hear about peoples’ frustration with wait times for urgent repairs and maintenance. People are confused about what has happened with their repair and maintenance requests, including those directly affecting their safety, security and health. These issues have been raised in this House many times by local members.
As recently as today I heard atrocious stories about how long it takes for basic repairs. This is not a new story but is a challenge. It is a continual problem. People say they report things then do not hear anything for a long period of time. They do not know if anybody is looking at it or if they care, even if it is a breeze block above a doorway that they are scared will drop out and hurt their family. People across the Northern Territory are waiting for a response from the government on housing issues. People are resorting to legal action and speaking to the government through the media because the government is not listening.
Rather than normal arrangements, where a landlord has a tenancy agreement with a single principal tenant, we understand this government is making agreements with and charging rent of all adult residents of remote public housing. How is that fair and reasonable? How much extra revenue is collected under these arrangements? How is that money being used to improve remote housing? Perhaps the minister can let us know.
Residents tell us there is more rent collection and less standard of service. The CLP has made decisions about tenancy management in Alice Springs town camps that fly in the face of claims that they want to increase community control of housing decisions and that we need to develop the community housing sector. The draft housing strategy refers multiple times to greater community involvement. Some of my tags to flag this document are on that point. This one talks about assessing local community capacities and aspirations in regard to housing, identifying policies and procedures that could be improved to achieve better housing and non-housing outcomes for clients, potential clients and the community.
There is concern that government should consider how it assesses these contract decisions when putting up community organisations against businesses. How that social value is being assessed is an important question, one that has not been answered. I was very appreciative of the briefing with the Department of Housing, and I thank the minister for helping arrange that. However, people still want information about how social value is assessed. We are talking about building a community housing sector in the Northern Territory and some community housing organisations are trying to make a go of it, but if we do not assess social value it makes it hard for these organisations to compete. I hope the minister looks at and addresses this.
While things are being said about developing the community housing sector and supporting community-controlled organisations, the simultaneous decision-making does not seem to match the government’s desired direction. There is no connection, people are noticing that and are asking questions.
This week, after three-and-a-half years in government, the CLP released its new Aboriginal Affairs Strategy. It brags about significantly increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people to be directly involved at the community level and lead the design and delivery of relevant government policies, programs and funding. The clumsy handling of housing decisions is a clear example that what the CLP says and what it does are two different things.
Labor will do things differently. We will reinvigorate housing reference groups and ensure that communities have local housing officers to support local initiatives and improve government responses. Initially, Labor will ensure that housing officers exist across 25 major areas.
Labor is prepared to devolve the tenancy management for remote communities away from Territory Housing. Similarly, Labor will review the housing repair contract arrangements to make housing repairs and maintenance a more locally provided service with local trade workers onsite for a quicker response.
It is clear that the CLP government does not support investing in remote housing, Labor does. It is clear that the CLP are big talkers about devolving power back to Indigenous people. Labor will act on it. Finally, it is clear that the CLP has wasted three-and-a-half years trying to get their act together and has not acted in the best interest of remote Territorians. Labor is ready to hit the ground running from day one with a thought-through, clear policy to implement across the Northern Territory.
I call on the House to support this motion.
Mrs PRICE (Housing): Mr Deputy Acting Speaker, I understand remote because that is where I am from. I am Indigenous, so I know the issues my people have had to put up with in Labor’s 11 years of doing nothing. Now they want to jump up and down and be the saviours again but not deliver anything.
I oppose this motion. The Country Liberals have done a fantastic job fixing Labor’s mess in housing. We came into government in part because Labor failed in housing. Labor failed remote Territorians with the SIHIP failure.
The Country Liberals have a record of achievement. We build houses. We have rebuilt, refurbished and upgraded houses across the Northern Territory from Yuendumu to Bulman, Mount Liebig to Gapuwiak, Warruwi to Yirrkala, and Maningrida to Hermannsburg.
The Country Liberals’ achievement in Aboriginal housing has seen 439 new houses built in remote communities across the Territory, and 474 rebuilt or refurbished houses. The Country Liberals have also upgraded 678 houses in remote communities across the Territory.
The Country Liberals have beaten Indigenous employment targets. We have achieved 62% Indigenous employment in repairs and maintenance. In tenancy management, the Country Liberals have achieved 71% Indigenous employment. The Country Liberals have achieved over 30% in our capital works upgrades and new builds.
Labor failed remote Territorians when in government in relation to housing and everything else. Labor’s housing policy led to a rise in consultancies, where Labor mates were appointed on six-figure salaries to manage Aboriginal social programs. We stopped that and got on with the job of delivering.
At the time Marcia Langton said, ‘Everybody knows that housing is at the heart of the Aboriginal health situation, and we cannot go any further because of the hopeless gravy train prop of the Northern Territory administration’. Yet the same Labor advisers are crafting a policy which will go down the same path, one characterised by consultancies not consultation. We all know the failures of that path. They are well documented and consist of multimillion-dollar houses and a not too slow show, but it seems Labor may go down that path again.
Labor wants us to implement its lack of plan, because if there was a plan there would be some detail and costings, but there are not. How can we implement Labor’s policy? How can we implement a policy with no detail or no plan? It is words on paper and is not fully costed. This Labor plan is all talk and no detail. Labor is about consultancies not consultation. It is a Labor path to failure.
There is no overarching vision in Aboriginal affairs or remote investment. Instead they just talk about housing. The lesson is we need a whole-of-government approach. To build a house you need bricks, mortar, roofing, steel and cement. Labor’s plan includes money for that, however, they need to be built somewhere. Labor has no provision for serviced lots in remote communities. That means no sewerage, no water and no electricity. The Country Liberals understand the need for a holistic approach to housing and Aboriginal affairs which includes planning for services and servicing. That comes across in what we are and will be doing.
You cannot build additional houses on a lot in remote communities without infrastructure upgrades. However, the Leader of the Opposition said the big lesson of SIHIP was not having the civil works chew up your housing spend. This sets up another major waste of money and also was a big failure of SIHIP. That was the bureaucratic gravy train of the Labor government.
Labor wants to build granny flats and barbecues on existing lots to alleviate overcrowding. My people want to cook outdoors with fires. That is what we are used to. That is more comfortable than trying to get the gas barbie going. When I go to communities they say they do not want to be living in a caravan in a backyard, but that is exactly what Labor will deliver.
A house with no water and sewerage is not a house; it is a shed. If you put it on wheels it is a caravan. Labor could provide Aboriginal people with better outcomes if they do not find money to improve infrastructure in remote communities. It is clear they do not want to have a whole-of-government approach to Aboriginal affairs. It is haphazard and based on whatever they think will get them elected.
The Labor government would break the promise of quality housing because there is no provision for servicing. The Country Liberals support giving power to local people, which is why we created authorities and gave the voice back to the bush after Labor’s failed super shire reform.
We support locals doing work on houses. I have told the House how excited people were in Docker River and Mount Liebig to work on their own houses. I also saw that when I visited Galiwinku.
Labor promised to have tenancy managers in 26 communities. We currently have housing maintenance officers or community housing officers in 26 communities. This is just a promise to keep doing what we are. Labor made a promise to copy the Country Liberals because Labor is trying to be a popular carbon copy of this government.
Regarding consultation in the bush, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for endorsing the Country Liberals’ Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy. I believe the member said it is quite a good document. Where is Labor’s plan, apart from letting community members choose paint colours? Labor says it will consult and build culturally appropriate housing, but the only detail they have is tenants can paint their houses in whatever colour they choose. Do you know the Dulux colours? There are over 1000 colours and sample pots available in the top 50 colours for $7.50 each. Will you be providing tenants with sample pots to make an informed decision? What will happen if tenants do not like the colour? Will you change the colour for them?
It is hard to see the difference between white on white, china white, limed white, antique white USA, and whisper white. Also, it is sometimes tough to tell the difference between red box, red stop, Carmen Miranda and belly fire. For Labor’s information, culturally appropriate housing is more than giving Aboriginal people a Dulux colour chart and saying, ‘Choose your favourite’.
It seems they want to copy what the Giles Country Liberal government is doing at Galiwinku. We have a fast build and slow build approach to housing in Galiwinku. This decision was made by the local community, the Dilak group. The first houses in the fast build have been handed over. My department is talking to the leaders about house designs, to architects, and we are developing new designs for houses as part of the slow build in consultation with the Dilak group.
This goes to show that Labor is again copying the Country Liberals. Labor has promised to expand my Homelands Extra program and proposes we adopt this as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it is not costed. The Country Liberals will not introduce uncosted policy because that means more debt and deficit. That is the difference between responsible government on this side of the House and irresponsible government on that side. Labor is attempting to trump these economic credentials, but all they offer is more debt and deficit. They cannot say their policies are fully costed unless there is some secret cost they are not showing Territorians. The only alternative is Labor maybe promising an expanded Homelands Extra Allowance, but that additional expense is not budgeted. That may be the first broken promise of the Gunner Labor government.
I am well aware of concerns in the Aboriginal community about tender processes and Alice Springs town camps. In the Alice Springs transformation plan $150m funding was provided to Alice Springs town camps. There has been significant investment in Alice Springs town camps. The question is, should we go through a wasteful Labor approach or one that gets quality service for residents?
There will be no loss of service provision in relation to the tenancy management contract. The same service provisions will be achieved but at a lower cost. Government will not subsidise business models to provide the same services for less.
I met with the Tangentyere executives and they were disappointed with the result, but the nature of the business and the tendering is some organisations win and some lose. This same process saw Tangentyere Constructions win a tender for repairs and maintenance in town camps. Tangentyere has not said it won the tender for repairs and maintenance in town camps the same day the other tender went to Zodiac.
The Independents and Labor can talk about reviews all they like, but at the end of the day government should seek value for money. The fact is tenders were awarded in line with procurement directions, best practice guidelines and town camp leases. These leases say there has to be competitive and open tendering because the vast majority of town camp residents want quality services delivered with value for money.
The Chief Minister established the Alice Springs town camps task force, which is focused on illegal activity happening in town camps, child neglect, domestic violence, service delivery and the future. We should look at what we want town camps to look like.
Recently there has been some focus on Santa Teresa. There have been issues there for a long time, long before we came into government. Guess who the member is. It is the member for Namatjira. What has she done for them? Nothing. They should be asking her the question, not us now we are in government. Why has Labor not asked the member for Namatjira? What has she been doing for the people of Santa Teresa, Papunya and everywhere else? Are you too afraid?
The contractor with responsibility for repairs and maintenance at Santa Teresa is Ingkerreke. Guess who is now running for Labor in Stuart. It is Scott McConnell, who is Ingkerreke. Response times for repairs and maintenance are a key deliverable of the contract. The service provider must respond within set time frames, being immediate within four hours, urgent within two days, and standard or routine between 10 and 20 days. All emergency repairs will be completed within 14 business days, and the department is actively working with contractors to action and finalise all outstanding work as soon as possible.
The department first received advice on issues in Papunya on Monday 16 November. We followed up with the contractor, and all emergency repairs were completed within five days of actioning works. All other repairs and maintenance items have been completed, except for one fencing repair scheduled to be completed as part of the fencing program currently being undertaken at Papunya.
I support the right of tenants to utilise NTCAT. I also believe it is preferable for community members to communicate their issues directly to the department in order to resolve the issues they are experiencing more quickly and efficiently before it gets to NTCAT.
We are delivering in the Namatjira electorate. We have built 43 new houses, rebuilt and refurbished 123 homes, and are delivering over 159 upgrades.
Local work is being performed by local people in Areyonga, Docker River, Kintore and Mount Liebig, and is being completed at a high standard.
So far this financial year we have completed 83 upgrades in housing in Central Australian Indigenous communities. We are delivering for Central Australia, as we are delivering for the entire Territory.
Renal accommodation – the Country Liberals government has negotiated over $10m from the Commonwealth to support end-stage Aboriginal renal patients and their families in Central Australia. This funding is being used to deliver new renal clinics in Docker River, Papunya and upgrades in Mount Liebig so people can receive treatment in their home communities. We are also supporting those in need to relocate to Alice Springs and Tennant Creek by increasing the number of dwellings in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek for Indigenous renal patients and their families.
The request for proposal document was released to the industry and closed on 22 November 2015. A community housing provider will be selected through a public competitive process to deliver ongoing property and tenancy management services to the target client group for a minimum 10-year period. The Department of Housing anticipates that a contract will be awarded to the successful community housing provider shortly, with negotiations currently under way. This announcement will be fantastic for remote Indigenous renal patients and their families.
We listen to the needs of people living in remote areas. I go there and speak to them.
The Northern Territory government introduced a home ownership initiative in June 2014, allowing existing public housing tenants living in remote communities to buy their own home. This is a significant step to making home ownership more widely available to Territorians. It is also part of this government’s commitment to giving residents living in remote communities access to the same opportunities as anyone else.
The remote ownership program currently operates in the Tiwi Islands communities of Wurrumiyanga and Milikapiti, Umbakumba and Angurugu on Groote Eylandt, and Milyakburra on Bickerton Island where there are township leases in place. The response to the program continues to be positive. Six applications for remote home ownership are under active consideration. The Department of Housing is currently focusing efforts on applicants considered best able to meet all the requirements to purchase their own home. The Department of Housing is currently responding to a further four inquiries about home ownership by providing tenants with information and advice about the program. Three current applications and two inquiries are from tenants in Umbakumba. A case manager is working with them closely.
We are doing a lot for remote communities and I visit them as often as I can.
The Northern Territory government remains committed to supporting and encouraging home ownership in remote communities, with $4.5m over three years provided to support the remote home ownership program. There is also $20 000 for special assistance grants to help purchasers further improve the condition and functionality of their homes after purchase, ensuring their house suits their needs.
The government is currently developing its future housing strategy. We announced a review into housing in June last year. The Chief Minister and I visited the site of the Real Housing for Growth project at Runge Street.
There has been extensive consultation with people in remote communities and urban areas across the Territory. We produced a consultation draft and have received feedback. We are currently reviewing the feedback and will release the housing strategy later this year.
With regard to housing on homelands and outstations, approximately 10 000 Aboriginal Territorians live in 2400 dwellings on more than 500 homelands and outstations across the Territory. These dwellings are all privately owned either by the occupant or the land trust.
With the Northern Territory now having full responsibility for managing homelands, there is an opportunity to ensure homeland programs are positively contributing to the social and economic wellbeing of homelands residents.
Homelands, a shared responsibility is a Northern Territory government policy that recognises the economic, social and cultural advantages of people remaining on their homelands while aiming to improve provision of services. This is currently under review as well.
The Homelands Policy aims to provide a strategic framework for the delivery of municipal and essential services and housing maintenance services to homelands in the Northern Territory. The effective coordination of service delivery is dependent upon flexible models that focus on outcomes and are culturally appropriate, recognise local diversity, are fit for purpose and avoid duplication of funding.
In developing this policy the Northern Territory government sought to respond to feedback from homelands service providers and residents while balancing the budgetary, legal and jurisdictional constraints faced by all governments. The Homelands Policy review is expected to be completed by June 2016, and will help identify areas of the program that need refining to achieve maximum outcomes while being delivered cost effectively.
To conclude, the Country Liberals have done a great job. The Country Liberals have built 439 new houses in remote communities across the Territory, refurbished 474 houses and upgraded 678.
We will not go down the Labor path to failure. I will make sure of that because I visit all the town camps. I visit my family on weekends to make sure they are okay, and people are happy to talk to me.
Will the member for Casuarina be able to sit with my cousin Mary at the Warlpiri camp, have kangaroo tail with her and talk about her issues? Will she be able to talk to my sister-in-law who lives at Little Sisters? She has 10 to 15 children to look after because the parents are out drinking and having fun.
Could she talk to people at Docker River or Nyirripi? Would she sit on the ground and find out, in detail, the issues people have?
Labor did not listen in 11 years. This is why we are in this situation, even though Labor had 11 years to fix it. What did they do in all that time? They now have this gung ho policy on remote Indigenous housing where Michael Gunner’s Labor government will fix all the remote housing problems.
Opposition Leader, in the 11 years of Labor you were part of it, you worked for the government as an adviser and you did nothing.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not support the member for Casuarina’s motion. The member for Casuarina has shown her inexperience when it comes to remote housing. Part of the motion asks this parliament to support the Labor plan to increase remote housing. Labor’s plan is to build outdoor barbecue areas and granny flats not houses. The CLP is delivering on its commitment to constituents in my electorate to improve the lives of people living in the bush.
In my electorate 980 remote houses are managed by the Department of Housing. In 2015, 38 dwellings were built in the communities of Warruwi, Minjilang and Milikapiti. These dwellings were houses not granny flats or outdoor barbecue areas. In fact, these houses even have kitchens.
Breaking down those 980 remote housing dwellings by community shows Gunbalanya has 165; Maningrida has 255; Milikapiti has 82; Minjilang has 40; Pirlangimpi has 88; Warruwi has 63; and Wurrumiyanga has 287. The government has continued to refurbish and repair this housing stock as well as construct new houses.
The CLP came to government after 12 years of remote housing failure by Labor. The member for Casuarina is probably too young to remember this. When the CLP came to government we had a plan to improve the lives of people in the bush with things like remote economic development, infrastructure upgrades, improved education and by improving living conditions in remote communities. Our remote housing plan has made a significant difference to people in the bush but we still have a long way to go. The difference between us and those opposite is we have a plan not a silly thought bubble for barbeque areas.
I am proud to support the Minister for Housing in implementing this plan. She brings significant personal experience in the remote housing area. Perhaps those opposite could seek advice from people like her before bringing motions and plans like this to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am a little concerned about a theme emerging from the CLP government where the minister’s speech and the member for Arafura’s speech seemed to be written by spin doctors. My concern is that you have lost the confidence of the department. A minister’s speech is normally jam-packed full of factual evidence to support the debate. However, this minister has lowered herself to the level of victim blame rhetoric by trying to blame the previous Labor government written into her speech. It is of great concern that material is not produced by a professional department.
The minister needs to get on the front foot in an election year and be proactive, because the reactive stand is now old hat, worn out and nobody is listening. The unfortunate part is that nobody trusts the CLP.
I acknowledge the Minister for Housing, as well as Territory Housing, because an opposition member’s work is difficult, particularly in the environment of a punitive CLP government. However, writing support letters on behalf of needy and deserving constituents who are then given priority placements with Territory Housing has been a rewarding experience. I am not sure if the minister has participated in that process but I thank Territory Housing, from the regional officers through to head office.
It is good to feel trusted and that your knowledge of a region is interpreted in a professional context. We can then deliver results. Minister, if you came to Tennant Creek I could introduce you to some of the renal dialysis patients or the young families with lots of kids and foster kids who have gone through the priority housing list and are now settled with employment, critical clinical care and kids going to school. That is a good story. That is the way the system works and nothing is easy.
I thank the member for Casuarina, the Labor spokesperson for Housing, who has been working on new policy ideas. A government will be judged on its record and an opposition on the new ideas and policies it brings to the constituency. The member for Casuarina has led this on behalf of the Labor team, and this dialogue is resonating through both the bush and town. People are looking at new and better ways of doing things.
Member of Arafura, I reflect on that because Labor has considerable experience. The member for Port Darwin wisely advised the House yesterday it is hard work. You do not always get the wins. He knows the reality of being a minister after sitting on this side for so many years. It is true, and Labor had hard yards, there is no doubt about it, but nobody can deny the incredible infrastructure spend that went with a major national partnership agreement. The Country Liberals prefer to define it as SIHIP. However, it represents a national partnership agreement, of which they are still custodians, and that is where we have seen the ball drop.
Member for Arafura, you mentioned Maningrida. You said there were 980 homes across your electorate with 255 at Maningrida. However, 110 of those are new SIHIP homes in a new subdivision created for the town of Maningrida. Why do I know that? I had the privilege of working with the department that designed it, planned it and built it. I had the privilege of travelling to Maningrida on a number of occasions to see how that was going. It was great to see that four out of five houses in the streets were going ahead and landscaping was occurring.
There were concerns about one house in that group of five which needed work, and that was part of the job. There are now 110 houses that were not there before. This classic victim blame rhetoric has to stop, and if it is written into speeches then we are in desperate hands.
While preparing for debate on this motion I reviewed my correspondence file of 2015. I did not go back to 2008, because from 2008 to 2012 I was writing similar letters to our government, championing the cause, lobbying our government and achieving what I could. In 2015 I had correspondence around housing and services for Mungkarta, Tara, Epenarra, Corella Creek, Borroloola, Kiana, Ali Curung, Canteen Creek, Elliott and Tennant Creek. Ali Curung is a good example of trying to effect repairs and maintenance for some senior people with ongoing issues. It is part of the process, and once again I thank the department for its support. You do not always win, but you are in there trying.
I make specific comment about Borroloola because it dropped off the national partnership agreement. It incurred a reduction in the planned spend with nothing delivered yet. This is of great concern, yet the rhetoric on social media runs as recently as yesterday. A local commented that the minister was coming and had promised 25 houses would be built. We know they will have to replace houses beyond economic repair, so there is no argument about the headworks services of water, power, sewerage and storm water that Labor learnt valuable lessons about. There is still nothing, minister.
In Elliott I was working as the minister and the local member to tidy up issues around outstation tenure to incorporate Gurungu and Wilyugoo into the town plan then get them on the national partnership list. However, there is still nothing for Elliott. It is no good blaming – the buck stops with the minister. I need to work with her to deliver. It is about working together, not about blame. For Elliott, you have promised $3.5m on the proviso it be paid to an Aboriginal corporation which needs to be established and set up. You know how unrealistic that is. There is a body that could audit those funds. It would enhance the Barkly Regional Council considerably and create employment for young people. We could start with your promised $3.5m worth of repairs and maintenance.
The minister mentioned some facts and figures, both in Question Time and in this debate, which do not match the Department of Housing infrastructure program tabled in its annual report of 2014. We see significant decreases in funding and alarming completion rates for upgraded dwellings and new dwellings. Numbers have dropped from the hundreds to the tens. Upgraded dwellings in the 2014 budget go from 418 to an actual of 63. In 2014-15, 95 completed new dwellings were forecast with an actual of 35.
There has been an incredible reduction in the budget. This is reflected in vacant houses in the regions. In Tennant Creek, minister, I can show you a house that has been vacant for 12 months. It had all the windows replaced with Perspex because kids were vandalising it. It was still vacant over the Christmas period but I will check it when I get home. That reflects a massive reduction in your budget and your spend yet the waiting list still grows.
Regarding the regions, I attempted through the previous Housing minister, minister Conlan, with correspondence cc’d to the Chief Minister and the Minister for Essential Services – I revisited this issue as recently as 9 October 2015 with correspondence to minister Price as Minister for Housing, and also the Chief Minister. It relates to an issue at Epenarra. Under the national partnership agreement we left government with a dream come true for me. Twelve houses were promised for Epenarra to replace the tin sheds. I worked in this community 35 years ago and there were no houses. People lived in humpies, and I lived in a silver bullet caravan on the river.
The tin houses were some of the first infrastructure put in by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs under the old federal programs. These tin houses still exist at Epenarra. They were programmed to be knocked down and replaced with the new national partnership agreement houses.
There was resistance from the leaseholders. This is a complicated story, and I was trying to work through it with Mr Westra van Holthe as Minister for Essential Services, because the leaseholders’ main concerns were about water. Seven of those houses were reprogrammed and delivered at Murray Downs, not the 12. Epenarra is still waiting for its national partnership agreement houses.
I have the photos I sent to the CLP government on two occasions – six different ministers – and they are rather confronting. There is a confronting photo of a long-drop toilet which shows the challenge and what we need to do, minister.
The leaseholders I was working with to resolve the issues have sold the property and are moving on. When I undertook research around water saving devices with the possibility of establishing rainwater tanks for the new dwellings – there will not be that forecast water use.
We can conserve water through new infrastructure. These houses should be built and there are no more excuses. I seek leave to table these photos so other members may see the condition of these houses and the urgent need for the people at Epenarra.
Leave granted.
Mr McCARTHY: This issue is pertinent to families I have known for over 35 years, particularly the women. Some women in the community are now senior leaders, the custodians of the language and culture and have never experienced a normal house or a new house. They have lived in humpies, been given access to tin sheds and that is as far as it has gone. They ask for nothing, yet to deliver those houses, particularly with the amount of children they support, would be an incredible result for the department and these families, particularly their health, safety and security.
Minister, I thank the Department of Housing. A number of seniors were concerned about security issues at flats in Haddock Street before Christmas. They came to see me and we worked through the normal channels of our local police and the Department of Housing. We discussed how to personally deal with the issue of visitors and antisocial behaviour. A big shout out to Mr Mervin Hunter, who became the spokesperson for this group.
At a meeting in the electorate office we discussed asking the department to send Public Housing Safety Officers from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek for a week. Guess what? To the delight of Mervin Hunter and the other seniors at this complex, it happened. It was so welcome.
This was a great outcome. Once again I thank the staff of both Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Territory Housing who organised it. For a cashed-up government that has sold off the majority of our major public assets, it does not cost much to bring some Public Housing Safety Officers to Tennant Creek, put them in a local motel, supply them with a department vehicle from Tennant Creek, or they could drive their own from Alice Springs, and send that message which is an important element of housing, tenancy management.
This has been a great initiative, minister. We ask you, on behalf of the seniors and other tenants in Territory Housing, to look at blocks of time throughout the year when safety officers can come to Tennant Creek. They would make their presence felt as statutory officers who enforce the tenancy rules and regulations, set the standard, and send a clear message that this is not a one-off but a sustainable effort to make sure we normalise the behaviour of public housing tenants and their visitors.
There has been much criticism in the regions about repairs and maintenance, so I want to tell you what happens in government decision-making. I refer to Tennant Creek and the provision of services for building, painting, electrical and plumbing. If a company that wins the majority of the work majors in electrical and refrigeration, it will struggle to deliver in building and plumbing services. This has happened through the tendering processes and, in his debate yesterday, the Minister for Business summed up the CLP policy, ‘Some are doing really well, some are not doing really well, some are doing it tough’. When you go down this road there can be dire circumstances for service delivery.
If, in the same town, there is a building company with over 30 years’ experience in building, maintenance, painting, fit-outs in kitchens which misses out on that government work, not only have you a loss of business confidence with serious criticism of the government, you also lose continuity and sustainability in the repairs and maintenance schedule. The electrical refrigeration company is struggling to deliver in those areas, a building company with 30 years’ experience is going broke – in a regional town of 3500 people – add the regional footprint and the work available in the regions and you have a good opportunity to address the situation.
This conversation is not a comfortable one to have. I could be blunter, I could point fingers and name people, but I choose to put this in a philosophical sense because this has gone in the wrong direction. Minister, if you are copping complaints around the timing of repairs and maintenance then look at the structures you have created through the policies of your government.
The minister rubbished Labor’s plan to paint houses, Labor’s plan to engage families and young people, and to create teams to paint houses in regional and remote areas. If anybody has been to Murray Downs and seen Ned Kelly’s house painted in his favourite football team’s colours – it is a blessing. If you talk about Labor going into the regions and mobilising civil works around streetscapes, nature strips, storm water, engaging people to maintain their houses, gardens and yards and paint their houses, it will address a cross-section of health, education and local government that will be a win-win for everybody. Minister, how dare you say it is not a good idea. This is a good idea, a new idea and a Labor idea.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily supporting the motion, but this gives me an opportunity to talk about a few issues. At this time in the Assembly’s life there will be many political statements. That does not mean they are not worthy of discussion, but there will be an element of, ‘I’m better than you’, and ‘You didn’t do anything when you were in power’. Certain exaggerations have been made by the government in this debate.
Regardless of the initial problems with the SIHIP program – I wonder if the member for Arafura has forgotten many SIHIP houses were built on the Tiwi Islands. I visited early, when the first groups went to the Tiwi Islands to discuss design of the houses. A community group based – I believe it was partly Tiwi and partly people with some expertise in Aboriginal housing. Many houses were built. I lived there for eight years, and if I go back I struggle to remember where everything was because so many houses have been built. I do not mind the government patting itself on the back about its housing program, but if it does then say houses were not built before it denigrates its argument.
I saw lots of houses at Maningrida and also at Elcho Island. I went to Groote Eylandt, as did the member for Port Darwin. Of course there was a set-up with the journalist there looking at timber at the base of the houses, and the blocks were not quite square, but I digress. At least a committee looked at the standard of housing in communities, and houses were …
Mr Elferink: They passed muster.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and the houses were built. If we are to have a debate we do not want one side not operating while we criticise the other.
I was invited to Emu Point late last year to see what was happening. One issue I have raised with the Chief Minister relates to homelands and outstations. The government’s policy mentions housing construction in towns, but there does not seem to be a policy to address the shortage of houses on outstations.
Emu Point is a well-run outstation. It has a nice school and preschool. It has issues with a clinic, which I raised with the minister, and some work is happening there. However, houses are overcrowded. Those houses possibly go back to the ATSIC period. An elder, Terry Sams, a friend of mine, lived with my wife and me when we first married because he had a hole in his heart so we looked after him. I had not seen him for many years, but when I saw him in town he said, ‘Come out to Emu Point’, so we did. He is like many old people in Aboriginal communities – the house is full of relatives. They need to do something about overcrowding and employment.
I asked Terry if there was a good supply of sand there, because we have gone away from self-help housing. Many Daly River houses were built using sand from Daly River Crossing. When I first went to the Daly River in 1970 there was a brick factory. It was not modern in the sense of electricity – people made bricks by hand and rammed them down. You will see houses on the Daly River that have been through many floods and are still standing. They were built by Aboriginal people, with some non-Aboriginal carpenters and others with skills to build a house, but the community was employed. If you go to Daly River you have to say it is one of the best communities in the Northern Territory.
There are opportunities, and the member for Nhulunbuy might be able to say more about that than me. I understand in the Arnhem Land area some people are building houses from local resources. I believe there are timber mills in some places. That is where we should be heading. We are fooling ourselves if we expect governments to keep pouring money into public housing. We need to give people the opportunity to build their own house. That will create employment and reduce overcrowding in houses, and also give people pride in their communities.
If you want people to stay in communities and not drift to towns they must have a reason to live there not rot there. That has to happen and it should be a part of – I do not mind which government or political party wants to promote it. That is microeconomic reform in the bush. We can talk about gas pipelines, new projects and Tiger Brennan Drive, but many people need meaningful employment and there is room for that. I will take it from any party that promotes it because there is good scope for that to occur.
My criticism of the government relates more to my electorate. I was looking at the Hansard of Question Time. On 26 March 2014 – I have asked questions before and raised something earlier this year – I asked the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment:
I asked that question of the previous government and know nothing has happened. Those people still live in conditions that most of you would be upset about. There are good houses in both communities, but there are also some terrible ones. Luckily some are being demolished at the moment, hopefully to be replaced.
We know there are issues with governance and with the impact of alcohol and drugs. There are also issues with kids not attending school and people coming into the communities who probably should not be there.
I previously read out to this parliament a letter from a group of women from the Knuckey Lagoon community saying that if the government wants home ownership at Bagot – if the member for Fong Lim can say to people, ‘We want you to have some ownership of your community’, why are you not applying that to the Knuckey Lagoon and 11 Mile communities?
The minister for Aboriginal affairs is here. He issued a policy recently, but I saw nothing for Aboriginal people living in the Darwin region. I saw one for remote communities, and that is fine, but we need to do something positive about what is happening in our own back yard.
When will the government do something about land tenure? I know it is a difficult issue. The Aboriginal Development Foundation has a perpetual lease over the land, and the government seems to be not willing to, not able to, or it is too difficult to terminate that lease. I understanding there might not be a proper agreement, but Yilli Rreung is the manager of housing at 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and probably 1 Mile. I do not know if they have an official tenancy agreement. Someone recently said there was an informal one. Even if there is an official one, if someone is destroying a house they can only kick them out as far as the verandah. After that they have no power because they do not own the land the house is on.
Some people in those communities want to buy their house. Has the minister for Aboriginal affairs looked into home ownership for community people? I have spoken to some of the women there who would prefer to put their rent into a mortgage repayment and have ownership of their houses.
Even though some people are so-called leaders in that community, to some extent they are self-appointed. They are good people, but there has never been an opportunity, especially for the women, to say who should run the community. There has never been a meeting to say, ‘We’d like to elect a spokesperson for the Knuckey Lagoon or the 11 Mile’. There are many good people in those communities who have to suffer being bashed, problems with alcohol, problems with noise and all the things that make life difficult for people to live normally.
I have asked this government several times, as I asked the previous government, to work with the community – from the bottom up – to find out what they want.
This has been going on for years. I visit those communities and sometimes, even though I know people, it is scary because new people who do not care about the locals drift in. All they want is to get drunk, cause problems and use drugs.
These communities have potential but are being held back because governments are not able or willing to sort out the difficulties.
I find it hard to look along the highway. On the right hand side as I come to town is the 15 Mile community. Some houses are in good condition, some a bit bashed and sometimes the grass is long. On the other side is the flash new suburb of Johnston. There is a great contrast.
We need the government, and the Chief Minister as minister for Aboriginal affairs, to take the lead and sort out the issues relating to the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. The member for Fong Lim was used in reference to home ownership at Bagot. The people at Knuckey Lagoon want to know why they cannot do it and have written to the paper about it.
This cannot continue. I want a government – I do not care which side – to sort out the problems at Knuckey Lagoon and the 11 Mile so those people can look after themselves with a proper governance committee. We will give people the opportunity to buy their houses, and will talk to them to find out what their needs are and do something about it.
To me, those people have no hope. They have written letters, they have asked me, and the houses are no different than when I first started in the job, except they built some new ones. That is fine, but houses are just concrete. You can live in a dump and still have some pride. You do not have to be bashed at night, listen to parties late at night or have kids running amok. There are great opportunities for change in those communities, but we are not giving people the power to take control of their lives.
If the government is making statements on Aboriginal policy – I have no problem with that and I hope the opposition has one too before the next election. Neither party has done anything for these people and should be ashamed. You cannot sit on difficult problems forever.
Mr Tollner: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: No, you have not. Tell me what you have done at 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon!
Mr Tollner: They are communities.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and a lot of people live there.
I understand that you promised people at Bagot could have the opportunity to own their houses. The Knuckey Lagoon women wrote a letter to the NT News, and I believe to a minister saying, ‘Why can’t you say that to us?’ I know there are problems but we cannot say, ‘It’s too hard’.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the land. I have nothing against Bernie Valadian, he is a nice fellow, but we have a governance problem which is partly mixed up with land ownership. People living at those communities must have a say in running their communities.
I look forward to a response, even though the Minister for Housing has spoken. Before the next election I would like to hear that somebody will implement a plan to help these people. I do not believe we are treating them as equal Territorians if we leave them living in those conditions.
We can make a lot of noise about remote communities, and a lot of communities need work on them, but we have issues in our back yard we do not seem to want to tackle.
I hope, in raising this issue tonight, the Chief Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to, can put forward some concrete proposals that might work to help these people because that is the role of government.
Thank you, member for Casuarina, for moving this motion. It gave me an opportunity to talk on something that I have spoken about a few times. I will not necessarily bag the government and say Labor has a better policy – I will leave that to the electioneering – but this gave me an opportunity to raise issues I believe are important.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, while it is fresh in my mind I will respond to some things raised by the member for Nelson. He is dead right. We have to do more at Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and places owned by ADF and I am keen to. I know people want private ownership of houses, and I thoroughly support them, but until ownership of those communities changes nothing can be done.
I am at the preliminary stage of working through that. I am told by some people that this will be a bigger battle than we have ever had and I do not care. It is a battle we need to have because, ultimately, people should be able to live in their own house if that is their choice. I support them in that, and I support people in Alice Springs town camps who want to do similar things.
We have signed an MOU with the Gwalwa Daraniki Association where we intend to hand almost the entirety of that land – after we have done some planning – to the association as freehold land so place as they see fit – obviously through proper planning principles following proper process. We are encouraging them to do it.
It seems a bunch of people are somewhat envious and dead keen to stop that. A group of people do not want to see Aboriginal people progress in that manner and believe the land should be communally owned and people should live in poverty forever. It is not my view, but is the view of some people. It was my desire to see that occur at Bagot as well. I have been on the record for a number of years saying we want to encourage private home ownership.
At the moment Bagot is under administration. I believe in the future Bagot community government council will be liquidated. Who knows, they may find some way of trading out of the administration, but we will see. As a general principle, you are spot on. We want to see town camps freehold, and want them to and turn into normal functioning suburbs like any other suburb in the Territory where people can live as part of a suburban community rather than in a modern day ghetto. It is a disgrace that in a modern city like Darwin people are living in poverty. I would like to see that change.
This is an interesting motion and I understand why the government will not support it. The member for Casuarina is new to the job, and good on her. She has a bit of zeal and gusto, and as shadow Housing minister this seems appropriate to her. It is unfortunate that a more senior member did not propose the motion. For instance, the member for Barkly could have raised this but he knew better. He knew he would be laughed out of the joint for talking about long drops in Elliott. Has that long drop existed only in the last four years or has it been there for a long time?
Labor spent $1.6bn on the SIHIP program. At the end of that enormous spend, which they are so proud of, we had fewer rooms in the bush than we started with. It is an amazing thing to spend $1.6bn and end up with less than what you started with. Only a Labor government could manage such a feat. What a disgrace.
Member for Casuarina, I feel sad that your motion does not do much more than pour scorn on your political party. I have listened to all the contributions. There has been no real imagination from members of the Labor Party. There is no innovation in how you will build more houses, bring the cost of housing down, or deal with the massive problems of overcrowding in the bush. It is quite sad. Your motion simply says, ‘The government isn’t doing anything, but we waill do a lot when we get into government next time round’. It is typical of your latest jobs plan, the 14 000 workers that will cost government $5.5bn per year. It is great if you have $5.5bn to spend to create 14 000 new jobs.
Again, it is emblematic of the Labor way of spending without worrying where the money is coming from. It is spending almost the entirety of the budget to create 14 000 jobs. Now they are committing to a range of housing when they come into government, knowing the ask on government finance is enormous and with no real explanation of where they will generate further income from.
We know you want to kill economic development of Central Australia, particularly around the Barkly region. I am surprised the member for Barkly has not made a bit more fuss and kicked up more of a stink about Labor’s policy to ban onshore gas. Ultimately the member for Barkly’s electorate will benefit the most from that pipeline and the railway line going from Tennant Creek to Mount Isa. There are enormous job opportunities and a real revitalisation of the Barkly region, in particular Tennant Creek. It is my understanding that the Barkly Highway will be moved to connect up with Tennant Creek. That proposal is being investigated.
Fantastic opportunities for the Tennant Creek region are stemming from the announcement that we will build a NEGI, open up onshore gas – not open it up but pare back what Labor said it would allow for exploration. We have restricted it to a few key areas of the Northern Territory, but that is not good enough for Labor. Having put 95% of the Northern Territory out for gas exploration, less than four years later they want to put a moratorium, or a ban, on onshore gas in the Territory. That is a remarkable policy for a party contending to be in government. You have to question the sense involved.
How can you say you support a pipeline, but on the other hand say you do not support the gas that goes into the pipeline? The member for Barkly, if he had any inkling of moral decency, would say, ‘Come on guys, this is rather contradictory. You are hurting the people in my electorate, people who have potential jobs here, and hurting the economic development of the electorate’, rather than being like a blind sheep and following the Labor lead to ban onshore gas. It is remarkable!
You said, ‘There is a long-drop toilet in Elliott and that is a disgrace’. I can imagine that, but suggesting it is this government’s fault is not up to scratch. During the Labor period, with a Labor government federally and one in the Territory, they spent $1.6bn on remote housing. Member for Casuarina, your party spent $1.6bn on remote housing and delivered fewer rooms than existed when the program started.
It is fine to say we need to do more in remote housing, but where are the Labor Party’s runs on the board when it comes to building houses in the bush? How do you hope to build houses in the bush?
I remember the early stages of SIHIP – it might be an education for the member for Casuarina, you might want to listen to this – which came from the intervention, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response. That stemmed from Clare Martin, who swept the Little Children are Sacred report under the carpet and refused to show it to anybody in the country because it was so damning of the government’s functioning in the bush.
Eventually, Mal Brough, who was the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, found a copy of it on the Internet. He was horrified at the findings of the report and immediately said, along with John Howard, ‘We have to run an intervention into the Northern Territory because of the parlous state of Aboriginal affairs’. Labor hid the findings of the Little Children are Sacred report because of their own embarrassment.
One of the key issues identified in that report was overcrowding, along with the rivers of grog and other problems. It found overcrowding was a major cause of that. We allocated some $650m at the time to emergency housing responses in the bush. I remember Nigel Scullion and I, along with Mal Brough, were scouring the country to find low-cost housing options to meet this emergency in the Northern Territory. We looked at flatpack housing from South Australia, demountables, and housing in far north Queensland where they used drill pipe and form ply to create a shelter at very low cost. Those dwellings cost in the order of $30 000 to $40 000 to build at the time.
We were looking for the cheapest possible solution to get as much accommodation into remote communities because it was an emergency response. It was similar to the Victorian bushfires when peoples’ homes were burnt down. It was an emergency response. They put people on the racecourse and in tents on showgrounds for emergency accommodation. It was that fervour we and the federal government were in at the time, trying to find emergency response solutions to the housing crisis. We scoured the country for the cheapest housing options we could possibly find.
Unfortunately, the Howard government only continued for another three months after the intervention, then a federal Labor government took it on. At the time they said they supported the Northern Territory intervention – the emergency response. Whilst they said that, they also said, ‘This is ridiculous. We won’t spend $650m on remote housing unless we can be certain there are some quality standards in the buildings.’ Second, they said they would not spend that type of money unless there were employment outcomes for Indigenous people.
Things changed somewhat under the Labor government. The Labor government was more interested in building quality style houses and creating Indigenous employment than constructing houses. That meant instead of looking for $30 000, $40 000, $50 000 or $100 000 dwellings around the country, we were paying $0.5m to $1m for a house in remote areas.
Ms Walker: Never paid $1m for a house. Seriously, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Look around, member for Nhulunbuy. Check out what it costs to build houses in the bush.
We put the same codes in place for Indigenous housing that we have in the city, and quite often that is not what people are looking for. We know that people in the bush are looking for a different design of house than what you find in Darwin. The Labor way suggests, ‘No, we have to build the same type of house in the bush as in the city’. That is the experience we have had to date.
As Minister for Lands and Planning I have asked for a review of the building code. We have a committee working on that review as we speak. You might recall Phil Harris from Troppo Architects. He is chairing that group and coordinating meetings.
I receive reports from him from time to time about discussions they have on a range of design issues and how we can tweak the code to make sure we get better tropical-style housing, better designed housing for arid lands and better designed houses to meet the needs of people in the bush.
Territory Labor had 11 years to implement the same review, but nothing happened. We saw them spend $1.6bn and end up with fewer rooms in houses in the bush than when they started. The housing crisis was exacerbated under the Labor government despite the Little Children are Sacred report saying overcrowding in houses was one of the biggest contributors to some of the problems experienced in bush communities.
Labor simply dropped the ball. They lost sight of the goal. They lost sight of the fact we had an emergency and needed to build houses in the bush.
Thankfully this government has reversed that, largely on the back of the work the member for Stuart has been doing. Not only is she an Indigenous person who lives remotely and understands remote issues, she also gets things done and that is a credit to her. She is doing a magnificent job in the face of enormous opposition from Labor, which appears somewhat offended that we have an Indigenous woman on our side of parliament getting things done.
It seems to stick in their craw and they hound the member for Stuart like there’s no tomorrow. They constantly bait her, have a crack at her suggesting she is not too bright and have a go at her education. The member for Stuart is a great minister doing a great job in the housing area.
It is such hypocrisy for Labor to move a motion suggesting they will do something about housing in the bush. Four years ago the Northern Territory, particularly our urban areas, was experiencing the worst housing crisis in the Territory’s history. Property prices were through the roof.
Houses in Darwin and Palmerston were more expensive than houses in Sydney or any other capital city. Labor dropped the ball with housing in remote communities and urban areas. Our rents were the highest in Australia. This government has made policy changes, has released land, and we are finally seeing the heat go out of the housing market. What does Labor want to do? They want to go back to the old days. Every time we …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I request an extension of time for the member for Fong Lim to complete his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, she is such a babe. That is politically incorrect and you can have a crack at me about it. It is a shame I have to continue the diatribe about you and your party in government.
We had the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory under the previous Labor government yet they want to turn back the clock. Hardly a day goes by when they do not say, ‘Bring back the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses’. They seem to forget the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses adds inflationary pressures to the housing market causing it to overheat, and that drives up the cost of housing for everybody.
The First Home Owner Grant for existing houses is not a solution. In fact, since we have removed the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses property prices in the northern suburbs of Darwin have come down by around $100 000. That far outstrips any benefit a $26 000 First Home Owner Grant can generate. Houses are far cheaper now than under the Labor government. For some reason they want to fuel that inflationary effect on housing in the Northern Territory. This is the mind-bendingly stupid economic policy of Labor and demonstrates how they managed to have a $5.5bn projected debt, a $1.1bn budget deficit and a 98% debt to revenue ratio.
This government, after three-and-a-half years, has cut Labor’s projected debt by more than half and has balanced the budget. We have, for the first time in more than 10 years, gone into surplus. This is the only jurisdiction in the country currently in the black as far as posting a budget surplus. We have also reduced the debt to revenue ratio to just 30%, and Labor wants to go back to the days of big spending and not giving a stuff about debt or deficit. It does not matter to them, just throw money at it and create more of a problem, which is what they did.
It is mind boggling that you can spend $1.6bn on remote housing and end up with fewer rooms than you started with. Only a Labor government could do that and consider it an achievement. Building $500 000, $600 000, $700 000, $800 000 or $1m houses in the bush is an achievement. You have to be joking. We still have problems in the bush, and every time we try to fix them Labor gets in the way and always plays to the lowest common denominator. Labor always gets into the gutter straight up. Rather than looking at an issue in its entirety, they will nitpick. This week, for the first time in three years, the Sensis Business Index says there has been a dip in business confidence. Labor seized on that, and in the media and everywhere else said the Territory was going to hell in a hand basket because Territory business confidence had slipped in the last quarter.
You ask, ‘Who is killing business confidence again? Who is talking the place down? Who can never see a bright spot, thinks the Territory is a hellhole, constantly talks the place down and says it is going to wrack and ruin?’ Labor. That is what they do. You think you have a solution for remote housing but you do not. You are a disgrace and have never had a solution. You spent $1.6bn and ended up with fewer rooms than you started with.
Mr Giles: It was $1.8bn.
Mr TOLLNER: It was $1.8bn. You came into government saying you supported the Northern Territory National Emergency Response then did everything in your power to not treat it as an emergency.
All you do is spend heaps of money. Does it go to Indigenous people? No, it goes to white people who operate multinational businesses, very few from the Territory. If you call that generating jobs and activity you are joking.
Last week you said you would kill another industry before it started. Wiping out onshore gas is economic vandalism. You know the headwinds coming our way. There are problems in Europe, the Chinese economy is shrinking and Australia has a debt and budget problem. We will receive less money from Canberra in the future, yet you persist in browbeating us and suggesting we need to spend more money.
Shame on you! You are a disgrace and do not deserve government. I am sure, come August, Territorians will see through the lot of you.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, what is worse is that they have a plan for 10 years’ worth of funding beyond forward estimates. I thought you would have learnt from Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard, particularly with regard to health and education, where we find ourselves in a perilous state. You should have learnt not to budget beyond forward estimates; you budget for four years. That should be the premise of any Territory budget because nobody is allowed to budget beyond four years. It is in every budget, whether it the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia or Canberra. That is how the budget works.
I am not sure who your shadow Treasurer is, but your housing policy has obviously not gone to them, or you are trying to sell a pup to people in the bush regarding Indigenous housing.
The Treasurer spoke about your failures in SIHIP. I was a shadow minister for four years and saw the pathetic roll-out of the SIHIP program. You did not employ local people. Right now our Indigenous affairs strategy is turning that around. Our intent with the Indigenous affairs strategy is not just related to employment, economic development and getting jobs out of government contracts, but is also about decentralisation.
When you took housing management off communities you took jobs from those people and centralised them into one location, being Darwin. You have taken away the voice of people in communities with regard to housing. Not only did you not fund them properly, manage them properly or provide the right structure for construction of the houses so we had the $1m houses the Treasurer spoke about, you took away people’s opportunity for greater level of control. That is a major issue in the Northern Territory across a wide range of policy parameters. We are seeking to reverse that in local government, particularly around development of local authorities in 73 of the larger communities, with 10 more to go.
We will do the same in housing. We will give control back to people so they can manage their destiny and their housing opportunities. We should be doing the same with health centres. Of the Territory’s health centres in remote communities, 40% are community controlled. We need to hand the other 60% over so communities can control their health system the way they do in urban areas of the Territory and other parts of Australia.
We should be doing the same with education. We are already seeing success with global school budgets, particularly in our independent public schools. Independent public schools are achieving outcomes like never before. The successes of independent public schools are to be heralded. That is the same model we want to roll out in Aboriginal communities so we can hand control back ...
Ms Walker: You want to whack them all into boarding school.
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy screams across the Chamber, interjecting in that bully-bully fashion ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I take offence to that. An interjection is not screaming. I find that misogynous.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. You are behaving like a bully.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw that.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. We need to have thick skin. It is okay for me to be abused and yelled at all night, but if I accuse anyone of bullying it is offensive. I will take that on the chin; I will wear another one. I have worn it for hours and hours today from you, member for Nhulunbuy. I will keep wearing it.
This is a debate about policy. It is a debate about ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on a second if you will, Chief Minister. Guys, let us keep the interjections to a minimum. You guys had your chance to talk and it is their chance now. Let us do this in a civil way, thank you.
Mr GILES: This is a debate about policy. From the outset Labor’s financial modelling has failed, because they have a 10-year financial plan which they know is a misrepresentation. I would not call it a lie, but it is not the way things can be done financially by any government. That is wrong. If you are telling people in the bush you have a 10-year funded plan that is a lie.
If you are telling people they will have control of housing that would be a lie as well, because you took that away from people. If you are telling people they will get jobs – look at your history – that would be a mistake as well because you have not done that in the past.
I am surprised the member for Wanguri has not spoken on this topic because she was an adviser to the former Housing minister, Dr Chris Burns, who administered this poorly before he gave it to Rob Knight, who mucked it up even more. The member for Wanguri knows that because she gave advice on how to take houses off Aboriginal people, not give Aboriginal people in the bush jobs, and ensured there were fewer bedrooms than before the $1.8bn housing program commenced.
This is a house of debate of ideas, policies and expenditure of money. We know Labor could not administer SIHIP properly. That is when they fell into minority government and did a deal with the member for Nelson. That is how devastating the program was.
There is no confidence for Territory Labor to manage an Indigenous housing program.
When it comes to housing in general, there are many cost-of-living issues in the Northern Territory. We see that in the price of airline tickets, groceries, power tariffs, which we brought down on 1 January, fuel, which is coming down, and the price of housing. The cost of living is an issue. Many inroads have been made. At United on Daly Street unleaded fuel was $1.17 this morning. We will continue to see changes in the future.
When it comes to housing, too often we would turn on the television and see on Today or Sunrise reports about the cost of housing nationally. Darwin was leading the way because there was a lack of land release – Labor was afraid to release land – and a lack of expenditure on headworks. That was partly because there was no money in the bank – the government was broke – and because they were putting all the money into a $1.8bn prison.
It is interesting that the two programs are of the same value – $1.8bn for the Indigenous housing program with fewer bedrooms than before they started – and a $1.8bn prison with more bedrooms. Instead of housing for Aboriginal people we are housing an extra 1000 prisoners. That is the outcome of Labor’s $3.6bn expenditure program.
When it comes to the cost of housing, not only was there a lack of land release but Labor was unable to approve developments, particularly in urban locations like Darwin city. There has been an escalation in the number of units in Darwin. Compare that with the Treasurer’s comments about the change to the First Home Owner Grant.
The First Home Owner Grant was politically popular. It is easy to hand out free money and be popular. I remember buying a house in 1999. I was in New South Wales and missed out on the First Home Owner Grant by about one month. It was $7000 at the time and I was disappointed I missed out on it.
Here we had a $25 000 grant for established homes. That has been removed because we know, from economic analysis in all jurisdictions, a grant for an established home puts inflationary pressure on the price of the established home and sees an increase in the cost.
The $25 000 grant for an established home may help someone get a deposit, and that is good and I understand it. It also helps people get into a home. However, the $25 000 deposit sees the seller raise the price and it extends capacity onto the loan. Hypothetically, $25 000 on top of a $500 000 loan repaid at an interest rate of 5% over 30 years can mean up to $300 000. I am using back-of-the-envelope calculations not specific figures. The $25 000 grant becomes a hindrance for people at the back end of their loan, whatever the term may be. Not only does it increasing the purchase price, it increases the overall repayments because of that extra principle component.
We have removed the $25 000, increased it slightly to $26 000 on new homes, and are seeing development of new estates at Muirhead, Zuccoli, Katherine East, Kilgariff in Alice Springs, or any urban redevelopment that is occurring.
That is encouraging downward pressure on the established home market. We are seeing a drop of roughly $100 000 for houses and units. Units have had an even bigger drop. I know landlords will not want to see prices come down, and I appreciate that. I am a landlord myself; I have four properties of my own all with a mortgage …
Ms Fyles: Any in the Territory?
Mr GILES: Yes, thank you very much, member for Nightcliff. Your interjection is a personal attack on me. That is highly offensive, but I will not take offence. Yes, I have one on Knuckey Street, member for Nightcliff.
For landlords prices are going down. We do not want to create negative equity, but we want to make it easy for people to get into housing. House and unit prices are coming down, and rents are coming down. That is partly because of the vacancy rate. We have increased the number of developments so there are more units and houses around. Also, the new developments provide jobs for chippies, sparkies, bricklayers, concreters, tilers, landscapers and people who build swimming pools. One reason we have done this is because we need new housing, not just handing out government money to turn over existing housing.
There is method in what we are doing and it has seen gains. While there may be a downturn in sales for established homes, transactions are going up in the new construction sector. The real estate industry, conveyancers and banking and finance people are quite right to say the established homes sector is slowing down. I feel for those people, and we are working on ways to help stimulate the turnover of established homes without government handing out money or seeing inflationary pressures back on those properties. That just makes it harder for people trying to get into a home. We are working on those things. To Quentin Kilian at the real estate institute, and those in the finance and conveyancing industry, things may come out soon where we can provide assistance.
I say to Labor, do not see a political opportunity in the First Home Owner Grant. That is what you did last time and you over-cooked the property market. There were big returns for interstate investors, but the ordinary Territorian could not afford it. A house for a young family should not cost $800 000. People were facing challenges.
Regarding Indigenous housing, Labor’s previous program was unsuccessful. I doubt if they will be successful in the delivery of any program.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Casuarina for bringing this motion before parliament which says:
The old line she has used over the last couple of years of, ‘Labor did nothing for 11 years’ is a worn out phrase and everybody has a chuckle when she says it because it is not true.
It was good to hear from the member for Fong Lim. Whilst he holds a different view of the world to me when it comes to remote housing, he recalls the SIHIP debate and what happened there.
I want to remind the member for Stuart that the member for Casuarina’s contribution, as with any member of this House – it does not matter how young or old you are, your ethnic diversity or otherwise. As the minister is also Minister for Women’s Policy, her continued chiding of the member for Casuarina – as other members on that side do – by remarking on her age and implying that due to her younger years there is a lack of maturity and experience is offensive. Anybody who knows the member for Casuarina, listens to and watches her knows that is not true. The Minister for Women’s Policy should do better than that.
I did not spend 11 years in the Labor government, but had four years as a backbencher and a bush member and am therefore reasonably well qualified to participate in this debate. I was part of a special parliamentary committee named the Council of Territory Cooperation, which was formed when Labor went into a minority government in August 2009. At that time the member for Nelson had agreed with Chief Minister Paul Henderson to support a Labor government. Part of that deal …
Mr Wood: A transparent agreement.
Ms WALKER: I was about to say that, member for Nelson, it was a transparent agreement. It was a written agreement signed by the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. It was on the Chief Minister’s webpage so was readily available to anybody who wanted to see the negotiated agreement. That is unlike the member for Arnhem, who is supporting the minority CLP government, but we have no idea what arrangement she has secured. The member for Arnhem, a former CLP member, moved to the crossbench with two other Indigenous CLP government members. They were unhappy with the government about many things.
Given her history with the CLP, followed by a history with the Palmer United Party and now an Independent member of this parliament, in some very secretive agreement she now has a deal with the minority government to prop them up with a vote on the floor of the House. It remains a mystery to us, and I thought she might contribute to the debate this evening given that she represents a remote electorate. Sadly, her constituents do not see enough of her.
The member for Port Darwin was on the Council of Territory Cooperation for a while, as was the member for Fannie Bay, but it changed membership after a few months …
Mr Wood: The member for Katherine.
Ms WALKER: There you go. For the last few years I was on it with the member for Nelson and Marion Scrymgour, the former member for Arafura.
The Council of Territory Cooperation did a lot of work. It investigated various aspects of government service delivery.
Mr Wood: Mataranka moo cows.
Ms WALKER: We did all sorts of things. I chaired that committee, member for Nelson, and remember it very well.
We investigated and closely monitored SIHIP, the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, the largest housing program in the nation. I am pretty good at storing documents but have struggled going back through the CTC documents. We had a lot of spreadsheets. We monitored the progress of delivery of packages across the Northern Territory. I have the sum figures here. This is from a spreadsheet dated April 2010: the target was 750 new houses and 2730 refurbishments and rebuilds across 73 remote communities and town camps. There was a $672m housing budget over five years, with 20% Indigenous employment across alliance packages.
There is no doubt SIHIP had its problems. The program had significant funding time frames to be delivered, measurable around Indigenous employment – in the early days of the program some things were not working as they should have. Also, the alliance contracting packages were insisted on by the federal government, which was providing most of the money. The model we were working with was new to the Northern Territory.
It has delivered new, solid houses. When houses have a certain level of amenity they are healthier and you will have better outcomes for children and families. We knew at the time, even before SIHIP was completed, that it was not a sufficient number of houses. A legacy of housing in remote communities had not been addressed for decades, by either level of government, and an incredible catch up was needed. It is a bit rich for the members for Fong Lim and Braitling to throw stones at SIHIP and describe it in the way they have. It is unfounded.
SIHIP would never deliver what was necessary to address accommodation or build enough houses. So many houses were beyond economic repair that by the time the program was completed the net gain in regard to the number of rooms, if not the level of amenity delivered, was not where we wanted it to be. It was a lot better than where we had started, given that was with decades of deficit.
The member for Stuart needs to wake up to the fact she is the Minister for Housing. Several colleagues have held the portfolio prior to her in the last three years, but she needs to get out of the rut of saying, ‘Labor did nothing for 11 years’, because it starts to sound silly and she looks silly. A massive housing program was delivered, not without its problems, but there are 110 brand new houses at Maningrida and 90 brand new houses at Galiwinku. I cannot remember and could not find the spreadsheet of how many new houses were delivered across the Top End, in particular at Ramingining and Milingimbi.
With two cyclones coming through the Northern Territory a little under a year ago – 19 February is the anniversary of Cyclone Lam – there is no doubt the new houses built under SIHIP saved lives. Nobody would wish a cyclone upon any community, let alone two cyclones within the space of a month. By the grace of God, if anything good came out of the cyclones, apart from the fact that nobody was killed or seriously injured, which is remarkable, it can be attributed to the fact there were safe houses where people could gather. Many houses were damaged or destroyed because they were beyond economic repair.
This is under the CLP government’s watch in the last three years. Yes, lo and behold, there are still houses on remote Aboriginal communities that are beyond economic repair. We are dealing with decades of deficit and it will not be fixed in one term of government.
Those two cyclones have taken out houses, which is a terrible disruption to communities, to people’s lives and to kids going to school. People have had to deal with issues since those cyclones. However, it has bought new funding and new houses.
I was surprised when I visited Galiwinku after the so-called FAST NT housing program had started – not fast enough for many people. What style of houses are we building? Exactly the same as was built under SIHIP except smaller. When the member for Fong Lim said houses built under SIHIP were not entirely appropriate for the tropics and not designed well for people in remote communities, he was right. One of the key lessons we learnt from SIHIP was about design of the house. Even the colour we were painting houses was important to people. What are we doing with the rebuild on Galiwinku? We are building exactly the same style of house. Here was an opportunity to build something more appropriate for people’s lifestyles. People were asked what style of house they wanted. Basically, they have been given solid houses. They will be safe houses for sure, but they are not the style people wanted and that is the difference.
The Minister for Housing is very sceptical about Labor’s Tackling the Housing Deficit in Remote Communities policy. She described it as gung ho. It is gung ho, and certainly more gung ho than the minister is.
This is about not only tackling the housing deficit in communities, but recognising that we have a platform policy around addressing and improving the lives of children, with a focus on the zero to four year age group. We cannot get it right in that zero to four years group in one or two terms of government. However, in turning around the lives of children, improving their opportunities and their life chances and getting them to school, you have to deal with housing. You cannot expect children to go to school every day and adults to work every day when they are living in overcrowded conditions.
Labor’s policy, launched at Ngukurr before Christmas, was warmly welcomed by community members and the media who met us there. People really liked the idea that they would get a say in the type of houses built, and it will create job opportunities for people in communities. People really liked the Room To Breathe part of the program.
People in remote communities live on certain parts of the community associated with their clan group. They will not move into a house on the other side of the community at Beach Camp when their family lives at Top Camp.
The idea of building – for want of a better term – a granny flat within an existing home sits well with all our Indigenous families because family clan groups are so important to them. Having communal areas where families group around is how Indigenous Territorians like to live. I know that from the many visits I make in my electorate.
I have been through my fairly extensive photograph collection this afternoon. Like most members, I take my camera with me. These days you take your smartphone and snap along the way.
For the minister who thinks Labor did nothing for 11 years, this is one of the 750 new houses. In fact, that figure increased because federal Labor put more money into the program. Here is a house under construction at Galiwinku which is fairly typical of the package. It is one of the 90 houses built there, and these are the same style of houses, 110 of which were built at Maningrida.
If you look closely at that photograph you will see Indigenous people in hi-vis work gear. Some skills were built up and people earned certificates. Indigenous employment is important in the housing program so we can skill people up and they can move to housing maintenance and construction programs happening across the Top End where houses in remote communities have been damaged.
Dr Chris Burns was mentioned earlier in debate. There he is, Dr Burns, our Housing minister, visiting Galiwinku. That was the day we officially opened the new suburb of Bhutan, a couple of kilometres from the main community, an entire new suburb of houses.
What we learnt from that program – this has been factored into the Opposition Leader’s policy on tackling the housing deficit in remote communities – is when you have a budget for housing you need a separate budget for infrastructure because of the deficit of housing across our larger communities like Maningrida and Galiwinku.
A massive investment had to go into utilities for things like sewerage ponds, upgrading the power supply, water pipes etcetera. The budget for Elcho Island was around $50m, and that was almost doubled by the time we factored in the dollars needed to upgrade infrastructure.
Here is another house. This is a teacher house at Galiwinku. This was part of the $18m of federal government money to deliver teacher housing to remote communities across the Top End. Since that project further federal money has come through to build housing in remote communities for teachers as well as police and nurses.
Something we have announced in our policy which the current government has not addressed is that houses like this will be available to local recruits on communities who, until now – and it has been wrong – have not had access to government employee housing.
If you are a local recruit and work as a teacher, a nurse, possibly a policeman or woman or an Aboriginal health practitioner you do not have an entitlement to government employee housing. That is unfair. When we build new houses in communities people ask who they are for. They are told they are for new non-Indigenous teachers or non-Indigenous staff. They, understandably, see that as unfair when they may be sharing a house with 12, 15 or 20 other people.
Another important thing we have announced in our remote housing policy is we will provide housing to government employees who are local recruits. Yes, that means we will need to build additional housing, and that is why we have budgeted the way we have. We are serious about that. In the scheme of things, the budget for tackling the housing deficit in remote communities requires 8% of the Territory’s infrastructure budget. It is not unachievable and is certainly necessary.
If we look at last year’s annual report, the government had budgeted to upgrade 418 dwellings and did 63. They had budgeted for 95 new dwellings and delivered 35. That is not a proud record of achievement for the minister to crow about. We know there is a huge need for housing, and clearly targets have not been met by a long shot. The minister said, ‘We’re doing a lot’, but the reality is you are not doing enough.
As for her reference to $10m in renal support services and the accommodation to go with it, I remind the minister that is federal Labor money. It started at $13m and $3m went missing along the way. It has taken – shamefully – four years to see that delivered. I saw an item on the ABC news a short while ago about a patient living in Darwin for renal dialysis because she cannot access it in her home community of Numbulwar. It is sad when people who want to receive treatment on country decide not to receive that treatment if it means they have to leave their family and their country for it. It is high time the $10m, which was $13m, is delivered and a shame it has taken four years.
Sorry to harp back to SIHIP. I want to recognise the important work that the public service and our government agencies did in delivering this project. I remind members opposite that heading up SIHIP, as CEO of Housing at the time, was Mr Ken Davies, who I know is a well-respected senior public servant and currently CEO of Education. I know he will work very hard across the regions to make sure that our kids are going to school and that a boarding facility is delivered in Nhulunbuy.
The other person who worked extremely hard on SIHIP and meeting its targets was Mr Andrew Kirkman, who is currently heading up the Department of Transport. The government needs to think carefully when slapping left, right and centre about what went wrong with SIHIP and who did what. Some valued and hard-working Territory public servants invested a lot of blood, sweat and tears into seeing the program delivered. To say nothing over 11 years – there were 750 new houses, 2730 refurbishments and rebuilds and $672m plus a few million more. By the time we had left government this program had not been completed, so the new houses delivered at Yirrkala have been under this government not the previous one. They picked up and carried on with the program we had started.
I want to mention the poor attention to repairs and maintenance in housing. I saw an article in The Australian today about tenants at Santa Teresa who …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I understand your time has expired even though the clock does not reflect it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, including the minister, the members for Nelson, Nhulunbuy and Barkly, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister.
The suggestion that it is naive or laughable for someone to bring a motion to the House on major issues in remote housing delivery speaks volumes about this government. It is not naive. These are important issues that people want discussed with government. We are doing what we said we would, which was to raise concerns about remote housing delivery.
I thank the public servants who do an incredible job in housing. Every member of this Chamber would have dealt with housing on behalf of their constituents, I know I have. When you have a successful outcome it is an amazing feeling for everybody, and a real testament to the work that goes on in housing every day.
I want to address some of the points raised by the minister. Her contribution was interesting. The minister said repeatedly I had put forward a motion without any costings or details, when in fact I went into costings and details extensively. I mentioned a $1bn commitment over 10 years. I mentioned $500m over 10 years for the HomeBuild NT initiative. I mentioned $20m per year for repairs and maintenance throughout the 10-year plan. I mentioned $20m over five years for the Room To Breathe program, with an opportunity to recommence once that was evaluated and if it was successful. I mentioned $20m per year for the new improved government employment housing initiative, and an increase in the Homelands Extra Allowance to $6000.
The remote housing plan is public. The Leader of the Opposition launched the plan and it is available for the minister to read. The minister’s focus was interesting.
The member for Barkly talked about a national agreement, and it was unfortunate to not hear from the Minister for Housing or the Chief Minister about what might happen when the national agreement finishes in 2018. What is the government’s plan? Is the government thinking about how we might deal with that as 2018 is not too far away? It was not mentioned by the Minister for Housing or the Chief Minister, which is disappointing because the agreement is important to remote housing service delivery. There was little detail from any government member as to what the government intends to do going forward, what its policies and ideas are on remote housing. How will it deal with some of the issues raised tonight?
We want to know the government’s plans. I asked questions about rent collection which were not answered. One concern I raised was how social value is assessed in the contract process. This is something we and the government need to think about.
The minister talked about Tangentyere Council and the concerns they have raised in Darwin with the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers about a tenancy management service decision. The comments made about that decision do not address the concerns raised. The minister said they got another contract through another entity associated with them for something completely different, and therefore their concerns about the other contract were null and void. That makes no sense. It was confirmed tonight the assessment was made on the dollar value and who could deliver services cheaper.
Again, I would be happy to hear from the Minister for Housing on how social value is built into this process? How are you assessing that? Value for money is not just based on the cheaper option. There are many other considerations in how you get the best for the dollars invested. Perhaps if there was an explanation and some thought given to the question people might feel their concerns have been heard. The number one thing I hear in my talks with council and other stakeholders is they do not feel the other value they offer has been taken into account. The government might want to think about addressing that. We have been discussing this since the first week of January. The decision was made, I believe, and news delivered on New Year’s Eve. We have been talking about this for some time so it is not unreasonable the conversation should be had.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. It is great that he used the opportunity to highlight housing issues in his electorate, and also talk about the honest record of the Labor government. It was not that we did nothing for 11 years. That is disingenuous, repeated constantly in this House and is not true. The government knows it is not true, and does no credit to itself when it is unable to recognise the achievements of another government.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for his insights. He managed to talk about many other things than remote housing. I thank him for his insights all the same, and his reflections on business confidence. I am sure all the businesses that have been raising concerns over the last few weeks, both with members of parliament and on talkback radio, will be thrilled to hear what has been said in this House about business confidence, how we are travelling so well and their concerns are imagined.
Homelessness has not been mentioned. This morning I looked at an interesting interactive article on the ABC about homelessness in Australia. If you get the opportunity please look at it. The top five regions for homelessness are still in the Northern Territory. That interactive mentioned close to 30% of the population in East Arnhem Land are homeless, and NT services only accommodate 3.7% of homeless people. They received that data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
This issue requires leadership, a good plan and is mentioned in the draft housing strategy. Stakeholders have made comments around the need for a homelessness plan. I hope we see it because it is desperately needed. I have been contacted and lobbied about the need for a national homelessness plan. We need one here, and we need leadership on this policy issue.
It seems like a small thing, but when talking about leadership, it does not instil confidence when people go to the NT government Department of Housing website and the page on homelessness has not been updated since 2012. It is hard to find out how we are going with our benchmarks and the national agreement. It is not easily accessible. It has not been reported on with gusto so we can be accountable for homelessness targets. We need to keep an eye on this and put it at the forefront of what we are doing.
While mentioning things that have not been updated or touched on tonight, waitiing lists seem to be growing but accountability in letting people know what the current waiting lists are is decreasing. The website waiting lists do not seem to have been updated since March 2015. We all know waiting lists are a huge problem. I am sure many members would experience the same issues coming through their office as I do, which is people trying to access public housing under often difficult circumstances and are told they cannot for increasing lengths of time depending on where they are in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing not to be able to find the information as we could in the past.
I was disappointed nobody in the government wanted to address service delivery in housing. A budgeted 418 dwellings were due for upgrades in 2014-15 and only 63 were delivered. A budgeted 95 new dwellings were to be built and only 35 were delivered. These are the numbers from the annual report tabled on the last day of sittings last year not made up numbers.
You had an opportunity tonight to talk about that and chose not to. We have repeatedly raised the issue of the targets you set and reaching them. I am disappointed that no one spoke about what the government is doing to reach its targets.
The member for Fong Lim was particularly interested in the member for Wanguri and her time as a government adviser. During that time about 3500 new or refurbished homes were delivered. If I was the member for Wanguri, I would be proud to be involved in that. It is a good achievement for any government, and you should be giving credit and being truthful about what has been delivered.
The Australian National Audit Office audit found the 2009 SIHIP targets had been met or exceeded, and various other reports talk about our achievements in delivering new houses, refurbishments and rebuilds. Frankly, the re-writing of history does not measure up against the facts, and at the end of the day this is about the facts.
The reduction in Indigenous housing funding and infrastructure delivery is appalling. This parliament deserves more, and Territorians in remote areas deserve more than tonight’s contributions. There was a real opportunity for the government to lay out its plan.
The Minister for Housing mentioned a draft housing plan to be released this year. I hope it is released this month because that is what the media release said.
We are six months out from an election, but also three-and-a-half years into a Country Liberals government. After three-and-a-half years the minister says the housing strategy will come out later in the year. We are talking about giving people confidence that we are listening to them and we understand their needs.
We released a plan we believe reflects the needs in remote housing. We have been talking to people, as the member for Nhulunbuy said. She has been getting really good feedback about this. She has had discussions about what we are putting forward, and that is an ongoing conversation because we believe in listening to people, getting feedback and refining our ideas. We are not afraid to pitch new ideas based on our conversations with Territorians. That is what we are expected to do.
I hope to see something solid from the government, and I hope they consider taking on board what has been put forward today. It is easy to say you do not like our plan, but we are not seeing or hearing anything about the government’s housing strategy.
The Housing Strategy Consultation Draft document does not reveal much about what the government is doing. There are some strategic directions but no specific actions. We talk about hypocrisy. I believe that the Minister for Housing and the Chief Minister are hypocritical when criticising the Territory Labor team, which is working exceptionally hard to bring together the thoughts of and the feedback from Territorians and put that into something we believe will make a difference for the Territory. We are prepared to do that but are not hearing the same from the government.
The impact that proper housing planning will have on the Territory comes from the Housing Strategy Consultation Draft. It mentions a concern raised about a lack of whole community service delivery process and the fact it is leading to avoidable inefficiencies and poor services.
On page 27 of the document it says:
We need to make a difference in the Northern Territory, and to do that we need a long-term vision. We need commitment, new ideas, and we need to demonstrate that we are listening to Territorians. The government has not demonstrated any of those things, and members have used their contributions tonight to prove otherwise.
Labor will listen to and involve Territorians in the housing process. We are committed to it, and are doing it through the plan we have put forward today. Territorians are an active part of providing us with feedback. We will continue to do that and make no apologies for it.
We cannot keep waiting for the government’s plan because we have been waiting for three-and-a-half years. That is a long time and people are over waiting. ‘We are at three-and-a-half years so will release our frameworks; hope you like them.’ It is time to look at what you are delivering, which according to the annual report is pretty appalling, and show us your plan to improve on that.
The Assembly divided:
Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It was intended to introduce this bill into parliament last year, but on advice it was delayed to allow the High Court to make its determination about a challenge to a similar law operating in New South Wales called the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act.
The High Court ruled in favour of the New South Wales legislation, saying that the ban on political donations from property developers is not an impediment to political communications, and that the law simply targets funds from a group that has a great deal to gain from influencing political decisions.
The bill before you is based on the same New South Wales law but does not include a section on the capping of donations. I have been considering alternatives to the capping of donations, the capping on expenditure by each candidate, but that may be for another day.
The New South Wales High Court determination upheld a state-wide ban on political donations from property developers. The court said these bans support and enhance equality of access to government and, more broadly, the whole system of representative government. For too long we have had a system of political donations which allow governments to be easily influenced by groups which, by donating to a political party or to a person within that party, are able to influence decision-making for personal gain. The areas where this is likely to happen are in land and property development, and within the alcohol, gambling and, to a lesser extent, the tobacco industry where, in the NT, the government controls planning and licensing.
Anyone going through our electoral records would easily recognise the source of donations to both sides of politics. At the last election considerable sums of money were donated from the AHA (NT), the representative of the alcohol industry in the Northern Territory. Since then there have been more liquor licences granted in the Palmerston area, and there are probably more to come. The government changed the rules to raise the number of pokies allowed in venues and passed the legislation at a time to try to avoid both parliamentary and public scrutiny.
There have been changes approved to planning schemes, rezoning approvals and other matters which potentially benefited property developers. Look at the election returns and you will see the number of property developers donating to political parties. Some developers will hedge their bets and donate to both parties while others stick with just one, which is usually the CLP.
This proposed legislation adds a new section to the Electoral Act specifying prohibited donors and the penalties for breaches of sections of the act. Obviously there will be concern by political parties that they may lose revenue they need to fight in an election. There will be concern from those classified as prohibited donors who believe they have the right to donate to the party of their choice, and if they cannot they believe they will not have the ear of government when lobbying for their projects. Remember what the Treasurer once said, ‘Donations would open my door if you ever need to talk to me about something’. That is from the ABC webpage.
Under these amendments, developers will appreciate that when their applications are approved they are approved on merit not donation. The Electoral Commissioner has expressed some concerns about his ability to have the resources to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial work, but if extra staff are needed that is something the government could consider.
This legislation should go out for public comment, as happens in Queensland with a unicameral system. The norm would be for a parliamentary committee to consider the legislation, invite public comment and report back to parliament with amendments if required, then final debate and a vote would be taken.
I will go into this later, but I propose that the committee be made up of four members, two from government, one opposition member, and me as the Independent, with the government member holding the chair. The committee would be required to report back to parliament by 20 April.
Madam Speaker, I also include the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Nelson, I remind honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 43, the member for Nelson has 10 minutes. The next member speaking has 10 minutes, and each subsequent member has five minutes to debate why standing orders should or should not be suspended. In the substantive debate on the motion if standing orders are suspended to allow that, then the normal time frames apply.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow me to move a motion after my second reading speech on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (Serial 155) to:
(a) refer the bill to a particular committee and, if necessary, establish that committee, to consider whether the bill should be passed or amended for report to the Assembly by a particular date
(c) allow me to speak again to the second reading for up to 20 minutes when the debate on the second reading resumes.
The reason for the suspension of standing orders is to allow the bill to go to a committee before it is debated in parliament. We could debate the bill now then ask if it could go to a committee at the end of the debate, but if it goes to the committee first it can come back to parliament with changes if needed, and the bill, with amendments, can then be debated. This saves a wasted debate at the beginning, which may be of little relevance to the amended bill after public consultation. This is similar to the way bills are dealt with in Queensland, which is also a unicameral system.
A bill dealing with election donations will, I am sure, interest a number of people – donors, recipients such as political parties, the Electoral Commissioner, corporate lawyers and the public. So this bill has an opportunity to be scrutinised by these groups before it is debated in parliament, the committee can call for submissions, and if need be have public meetings. This will enable the committee to present to parliament what has come from the meetings. The suspension of standing orders will allow this process to go ahead.
It is unusual for this to happen. If we get to the next stage I will explain why I believe putting this through at this stage is a good thing. That is all I have to say for the moment.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I had a discussion with the member for Nelson immediately prior to this debate commencing. The member for Nelson is asking for an unusual pathway for a bill to pass through this House. I understand he has a passion for a committee process, and I note that in paragraph (a) he seeks to refer the bill to a particular committee – I assume he means a select committee – in relation to having this bill discussed in the public domain.
I have not seen or read the bill and therefore I have no knowledge of its content. The only knowledge currently extended to me is the second reading speech, not all of which I heard because there was a division immediately prior to it and the first minute or so was lost in some of the noise happening around me.
That is normally not a problem because we then take the bill away. The member for Nelson is arguing that we take the bill away and look at it. Under normal circumstances it would lay on the table and such negotiation and conversation in the public domain would occur, and then it would be returned to this House.
Nothing in the member for Nelson’s comments suggested sufficient urgency to encourage the suspension of standing orders. Nevertheless, I have heard the member for Nelson on a number of occasions and this is his bill not the government’s or the Labor opposition’s.
He wants to pursue the bill in a way which includes his cherished approach to a committee looking into it. He refers to the unicameral Queensland model, which has been unicameral since 1923, and their system of referring matters to committees.
That is not the system we use here. However, in deference to the member for Nelson’s desire to see his bill follow a certain path, government will be accommodating to a point. I go to the amendments I discussed with the member for Nelson immediately prior to this debate.
On the basis that this is not the normal process – the member for Nelson could have done a lot more in the 24 hours since giving notice to convince government this was extraordinary by negotiating, as we often do, behind the scenes – he has chosen not to go down that path but to negotiate it on the table. The conversation that should have probably taken place yesterday occurred about 15 minutes ago.
Nevertheless, it is the government’s intention to allow paragraph (a) of the motion to stand. The particular date I am not sure about, but I suspect a subsequent motion to establish a committee is about to come before the House. Am I correct in understanding that?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. The government will support paragraph (a). However, the government is not satisfied that this bill will carry precedence. There is nothing unusual in this bill to set it apart from any other bill. I have spoken to the member for Nelson and he has indicated his acceptance of the removal of paragraph (b).
I will propose amendments to the motion in the following terms: paragraph (a) be allowed to stand, paragraph (b) be omitted and paragraph (c) be amended so the number ‘20’ is omitted and replaced with the number ‘10’. The effect of that is paragraph (c) of the motion will now read: allow me to speak again to the second reading for up to 10 minutes when the debate on the second reading resumes.
That was the conversation I had with the member for Nelson. I do not have a written form of those amendments, but this was done with the acquiescence of the member for Nelson. I am sure we can sort out the paperwork shortly unless, Madam Speaker, you want me to write it now.
Government can indicate that if the member for Nelson – he still gets to wrap the debate under the new standing orders, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: I presume he will indicate his acceptance of the government’s position or, alternatively, press on with his motion. I will listen to the debate to make sure this motion passes through the proper processes.
I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I try to maintain levels of communication behind the scenes. I sometimes err, I sometimes stumble and sometimes politics get in the way, but if we want things to work in this House often the process of massaging and negotiating things needs to be pursued.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, your amendment to the Medical Services Amendment Bill – I have been fulsome and forthright in communicating my concerns long before we get into the House because it is a courtesy we, as far as we can and as politics would allow, should extend to each other.
The matters to be debated by the member for Nelson are not insubstantial. Amendments to the Electoral Act have had far-reaching consequences in New South Wales. These things saw the former Premier of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell, step away from his premiership over receipt of something as meagre as an expensive bottle of wine.
Therefore, these matters need to be considered. We understand the member for Nelson’s approach to this and that he wants to go through a committee process. I have spoken briefly to the Chief Minister, as well as other members, and hopefully we will get sufficient government members to meet the terms of the motion the member is about to move.
This is an unusual process. Under normal circumstances I would resist it but this is not John Elferink’s bill, not the government’s bill, not a Labor bill, but a process the member for Nelson wishes to pursue. I will wait for other members’ comments, and hope I have sufficiently explained the proposed amendments to members so they understand the government’s position.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Leader for Government Business say he hopes he gets sufficient numbers from his side. It does not sound like much of a team.
Unlike the government, we are more than happy for this to go to a committee. The proposed changes are significant and deserve the time and extra scrutiny that a committee would provide, unlike the government, which continually rush things through.
The member explained quite clearly this evening his thoughts on this bill and why he needs to take it to a committee. The opposition is more than happy to provide support for that to occur.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Nightcliff said the government continually rushes things through ...
Mr Chandler: Far more consultation than the previous Labor government.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection that there is far more consultation than the previous Labor government. That is a valid point.
For the member for Nightcliff’s information, we are discussing standing orders. Almost everything in this House is done in accordance with the standing orders. You say the government continually rushes things through. It would be nice if you could back that up with some evidence rather than making broad statements. ‘Yes, the government puts it all through.’
The member for Nelson wants to suspend standing orders; he wants to change the process. We do not rush everything through. Sure, we rush things through from time to time, but a broad statement saying we continually rush things through is not fair. For people watching and listening, I ask you to think about what the member for Nightcliff said and decide if it is true or not.
The member for Port Darwin explained this is not what we normally do in this House. I have looked at the amendments.
I have spoken to people about the Electoral Act and some of the things contained in it, and I have had various comments from my constituents. When you doorknock you can throw a few things around. It is not a bad way to poll what is happening …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Because we are dealing with the suspension of standing orders should we be discussing the contents of the bill?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, this is about the suspension of standing orders. Please keep to point.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, that is my point. Why suspend standing orders? I want to debate it.
I was trying to discuss this with the Leader of Government Business. Where is the negotiation? We now have to scramble around and ask, ‘What do you want to do?’ The Leader of Government Business has not been able to communicate some of the things you discussed with him about 25 minutes ago. I have heard some comments from the Leader of Government Business about changes to the Notice Paper.
We heard some reasons from the Leader of Government Business about suspending standing orders but I do not necessarily agree with them. The Leader of Government Business said he has to make sure everyone on this side is comfortable with that. Some members have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the Leader of Government Business. He is correct when he says we could have done this 24 hours ago.
Why do we need to suspend standing orders to form a committee? I would like to hear what other members have to say and if we suspend standing orders and send this to a committee we are outside the norm. Being able to convey the views of people I have been talking to is different. We go through a process then we want to change it. Those comments will not be made.
Why can this not be done in the usual manner? Why not debate it here? Is the member for Nelson concerned about debating the bill in the Chamber? What will a committee bring? There is a motion to send it to a committee, but people would have members’ comments from the debate in Hansard and could refer to that for information. They could also call for other things.
I have not seen any information on the committee, nor has the Leader of Government Business been able to give me much. This should be taken into consideration, as well as the Leader of Government Business being able to inform his colleagues of the arrangement with the member for Nelson.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we are making this up as we go along at the moment. I have just spoken to the Deputy Clerk, who advised me that my understanding of the effect of paragraph (b), which I read as giving precedence to the matter returning to the House, is not correct. The paragraph is merely a mechanism for the motion to return to the House. Am I reading that correctly, Mr Clerk?
In that case the amendment to paragraph (b) is unnecessary and we should restore it. Therefore, the only amendment I seek to make to the motion would be in paragraph (c) to omit ‘20’ where appearing an insert ‘10’. It restores your position a little further, Gerry, if that suits. The only amendment …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a motion?
Mr ELFERINK: No. The only amendment we seek is rather than 20 minutes reply to have 10 minutes when the matter comes back from committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support that amendment and have had a discussion with the Leader of Government Business. Sometimes in my mad rush to do things – it was not intentional to exclude the Leader of Government Business. Part of what is happening is experimental and not in a bad way. I will probably say that in the next section if we have time. We might have to suspend standing orders to finish this.
Leader of Government Business, because this comes from an Independent who does not have the wherewithal of the fifth floor, it enables the House the see if my bill makes sense because it will be scrutinised by a committee. Obviously, the committee can ask for legal advice to make sure the wording is correct. It is also ensures that when people like me present a bill any flaws – because I do not have legal backing – can be sorted out during the scrutiny period.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that in paragraph (c) ‘20’ is omitted and ‘10’ is inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:
(a) a select committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 comprising two government members and one opposition member to be nominated in writing to the Speaker by the relevant Whip and Mr Wood be appointed
The reason for a committee is by having a select committee look at this legislation the parliament can assess the view of donors, recipients, the Electoral Commission, corporate experts and the public. The committee will have the power to call for public submissions and/or arrange public meetings to hear what people have to say.
The proposed legislation will form the basis of these discussions. The committee may even examine the recent High Court rulings about similar laws in New South Wales after they were challenged by a donor. The committee will be required to report back to parliament …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We need a copy of the motion. I am wondering if it is ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure a copy is coming. Maybe the Table Office can get a copy of the motion to photocopy.
Mr WOOD: There will be some of my handwritten notes on the back.
Madam SPEAKER: They will not copy them.
Mr WOOD: It does not matter because I will include them, if that is okay. I did not prepare a second copy of this motion, but I can get it for you.
The committee will be required to report back to parliament to allow the debate to continue and a vote taken on the bill, whether amended or not.
For bills like this it is an appropriate way to make sure that proposed changes are given some airing in public. We should do this more often, and a number of bills currently before parliament should be required to go through the same process.
The return date for debate is 20 April, which should give ample time for scrutiny and for members of parliament to do their own research. The committee may also look at the findings of the McGuiness report, which was about similar issues.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I am surprised with the process tonight. I understand the intent of referral to a committee, of which I am a fan. Scrutiny is a useful practice when looking at changes to the democratic processes. I made my views clear about changes to the Electoral Act and the failure to consult in an earlier debate.
I lack information at the moment because I do not have the motion itself so do not know what will be scrutinised by the committee. I would prefer to debate referral to a committee when I have access to the details. For consistency’s sake I place on the record concerns I have, as an Independent member of parliament, about not being provided information to assist me to have considered input into whether referral is something I wholeheartedly support. I support the principle but do not have the motion.
I also want to flag that the committee consists of two government members, a Labor opposition member and Mr Wood. Given the makeup of this parliament, a significant number of Independent members sit on the crossbench. It may have been valuable for more members to be on the committee to provide a greater degree of scrutiny, knowledge and understanding.
What are the rules around political donations that affect someone in a remote constituency versus someone in a rural/regional constituency versus an urban constituency? I do not know if the experience in New South Wales drilled down to that or not.
There is an enormous disparity between major political parties and their funding ability versus Independents. To counterbalance that, Independents do not require as much funding for a campaign because they do not run large, expensive political advertising campaigns, which the major parties do.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is now 9 pm. We have to go back to government business.
Mr WOOD: A point or order, Madam Speaker! I ask for a suspension of standing orders. This debate could finish fairly shortly. We have gone this far and it would be appropriate to finish it.
If the government supports it they should support a suspension of standing orders to finish this debate. If not, this debate will go back to the bottom of the list and there needs to be some flexibility, especially when we are close to a vote on this.
Madam SPEAKER: The problem is, member for Nelson, there is already a question before the Chair that the motion be agreed to or not. We need to conclude that, which we cannot because it is now 9 pm.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, it is now 9 pm and I still do not have a copy of the motion. There are potentially 24 other people to …
Madam SPEAKER: There is a motion. Business has been interrupted. Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is 9 pm. Will this debate continue?
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson has the call. There was nothing before the Chair between just before 9 pm and just after 9 pm.
Mr ELFERINK: I need your guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have given it to you.
Mr ELFERINK: When does he finish and how does this debate go?
Madam SPEAKER: I have given him the call. He has the call for whatever he wants because it is 9 pm and he jumped. I am asking him what he wants.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I presume I have to suspend standing orders to continue?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you do.
Debate suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended so that, notwithstanding the Routine of Business, the debate on referral of the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (Serial 155) to a committee could be concluded prior to the resumption of Government Business.
The Assembly divided:
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will pick up where we left off some hours ago. I said that optional preferential voting is already operating in the Northern Territory. I also said that based on the debate today we will be seeking an amendment to clause 17 of the proposed bill to amend the prohibition on canvassing near a polling booth from 500 m to 100 m, but I will come back to that.
I will restate why we brought this bill to the Assembly. We introduced this bill in December 2015 to fix a significant problem with democracy in the Northern Territory. In Australia voting is not just a right; it is a responsibility and an obligation. In the Northern Territory we have a problem with enrolment and voter turnout.
In regard to enrolment, the Australian Electoral Commission estimates that 93.5% of Australians are enrolled to vote, but for the Northern Territory that figure is only 74.9%. In regard to voter turnout, since compulsory voting in federal elections was introduced in 1924, the Australia-wide turnout has always been above the 93% mark. At the last Northern Territory election, turnout was just 76.9%. If you combine the enrolment and turnout figures, only 61% of Territorians who could have voted in 2012 did so. That means 39% of Territorians are disenfranchised when it comes to voting. Digging deeper we find that Darwin is similar to the national average, but rural parts of the Territory are much worse. This is particularly the case in Indigenous communities and remote electorates.
Elector participation in Wanguri, for example, was 89%. However, voter participation in the six most rural electorates only averaged 60%. For example, Arafura 58.1%; Arnhem 51.9%; Barkly 64.9%; Namatjira 59.8%; Nhulunbuy 62.7%; and Stuart 62.9%.
The Australian Electoral Commission webpage states:
That is why this bill also contains amendments to reduce voter informality.
This week the government launched its Aboriginal Affairs Strategy, designed to increase economic empowerment for Indigenous Territorians. This bill effectively increases political empowerment for Indigenous Territorians, which makes it hard to understand why Labor is so opposed to assisting Indigenous Territorians to vote with their feet.
To fix the problems of low enrolment and low turnout, the government is seeking to make voting simpler and more convenient. In regard to community feedback, I listened to the serious content of the debate and disregarded the less serious. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition claimed in his shouting contribution, in the three months since bringing the bill to parliament the government has actively sought community feedback on the proposed changes.
The member for Nelson specifically asked for details on that community consultation and the public response, and I am happy to oblige. This process started at estimates in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns and I agreed to seek changes. The member for Barkly was on the panel that day, and we all agreed to try to fix it.
In regard to the consultation, there were a range of different areas. The consultation included Facebook advertising, which achieved 19 comments, 22 shares, 47 likes and 1618 clicks. A total of 13 newspaper advertisements appeared across the Northern Territory. Letters were sent to key stakeholders, including Aboriginal legal aid, the NT Bar Association, the Country Liberal Party, the Council on the Ageing, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner, the Legal Aid Commissioner, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Northern Territory Greens, the Northern Territory Labor Party, the Law Society of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. We also provide a briefing for MLAs. I am aware some briefings were accepted and some MLAs did not turn up.
Information on a dedicated feedback website attracted 947 visits, 102 downloads of fact sheets with 71 feedback submissions. I thank those members of the community who took the time to share their views with government.
I will now go through the provisions of the bill and highlight some of the feedback we received in each section.
The provision to reinforce the statutory requirement that enrolment is compulsory: the amendment aims to increase enrolment by inserting a reference to the requirement that for eligible people enrolment and changing address details are compulsory. Enrolment is currently compulsory, but to reach that conclusion you have to refer to the provisions in section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This act is applicable because the Northern Territory uses the Commonwealth electoral roll.
It is appropriate to have an express reference to the requirement to enrol in Northern Territory legislation even though the provision does not change existing statutory requirements. The change is supported by the Electoral Commissioner. Of the little other feedback received on this amendment, the majority supported the change.
To increase voter participation a number of amendments seek to make voting more convenient. One is to remove the restrictions for applying for a postal vote or voting by the way of pre-poll voting. Currently, to be eligible to apply for a postal vote, a person’s situation must fall within one of the specified circumstances described in the act. The proposed amendment will remove the need to fall within any of the listed criteria and simply provide that any person entitled to vote may apply for a postal vote. We should be looking at every possible way to make voting easier, not putting limitations in the way or restricting availability. This change is also in harmony with local government elections in the Northern Territory.
The proposed amendments will also remove the requirement that a postal vote application is to be made within three months before the election is to be held. The new provision will provide that an application can be made at any time in the calendar year in which the polling day occurs. Removal of the three-month restriction would expand the availability of voting choices for the public, a positive move in the eyes of voters seeking convenience voting.
The proposed amendment to section 71 of the act is similar to the removal of the criteria for applying for a postal vote. The act currently provides that only those who expect to be unable to attend a polling place on polling day are able to vote at a pre-election voting centre set up by the Electoral Commission. The proposed amendment will remove this requirement and may provide that any person entitled to vote may vote at a pre-election voting centre. This means that those who make plans on election day are not restricted to remain in their electorate to cast a vote. Instead, if you know you are heading out on the water for a fish, to take your child to a sporting event or visiting relatives interstate you can head to a pre-election polling centre and cast a vote.
The majority of the feedback received through the consultation period showed there was a high level of support for the changes which create a more flexible voting opportunity for Territorians. The Electoral Commissioner stated that more Territorians are embracing convenience voting and that proposed changes for more flexible voting are in line with this. Convenience voting continues to grow in popularity as Territorians go about their increasingly busy lives.
The next area was about facilitation of assistance for the electronic lodgement of postal vote papers once security and secrecy issues are addressed. Under the current act the only way that postal votes can be returned is through the postal service. An amendment is proposed to the act that will allow for development of a system for the electronic lodgement of scanned postal vote certificates and ballot papers. This would be through the existing mechanism of section 85A that contains safeguards in regard to secrecy, security and the availability of technology. This government wants to increase voter participation, particularly for those living in areas where mail services are irregular, such as pastoral properties or remote parts of the Northern Territory. The change is also consistent with the other proposed amendments to extend the availability of voting services and choice.
Feedback received from members of the community was supportive of a change to electronic voting. In fact, many people are asking why not in regard to voting by way of application or an online version for the broader electorate. The bill has been constructed in such a way that until and unless the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that privacy and security issues have been addressed, the option may not be introduced to voters. However, we are working to enforce regulation to ensure this becomes available as soon as possible. Only once these issues have been worked through may the system be changed for electronic lodgement.
In regard to allowing an extra week for eligible postal votes to be received and included in the count of votes, currently under the act, for a postal vote to be included in the count it must be received by the Electoral Commission no later than 6 pm on the Friday following polling day.
Given remoteness, vast distances and connectivity, particularly around postal services, this is an extremely tight time frame considering that irregularity in some parts of the Territory. The proposed amendment will allow for receipt of postal votes up until 12 noon on the second Friday following polling day.
During consultation the Electoral Commissioner noted that the proposed changes to remove eligibility criteria for postal votes and introduce electronic lodgement of postal votes may negate the need for a one-week extension to accept postal votes. However, the government believes that any change which results in the counting of more legitimate and formal votes should be considered a positive move not a negative one.
In regard to reducing voter informality, an area of interest for many who screamed across the Chamber earlier, the Electoral Commission’s data show that of the 95 215 votes in the 2012 general election, 3.2% were informal.
Informal votes rate highest in remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory. In Darwin electorates it is generally between 2% and 3%, but in remote electorates it is generally around 4.4%. I will give a few examples: in the seat of Arafura it is 4.7%; Arnhem 3%; Barkly 3.7%; Namatjira 4.7%; Nhulunbuy 4.6%; and Stuart 5.9%.
It is, and will remain, perfectly legal to cast an informal vote if you choose to do so. You can deposit your paper unmarked in the ballot box, or in any other form. The concern is about unintentional informal votes where the voter clearly wanted to vote for a candidate but made a mistake which has made his or her vote informal. This is much more of a problem in the bush than the city.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commission found that 47% of informal votes could be classed as unintentional, mainly due to numbering defects. I believe the 47% referred to was around 600 votes in the Northern Territory which the Leader of the Opposition declared not worthy of pursing.
The rate was 35.2% in urban divisions, but 65% in rural or remote districts with high Indigenous populations. That is, 65% of informal votes occurred in remote areas with high Indigenous populations and were unintentional informal votes.
In remote districts, 21.5% of ballot papers were informal through being marked with a single one, and another 17.2% were informal due to sequence errors. Clearly some people were trying to cast a formal vote but made a mistake when numbering the ballot papers.
Given that the government is trying to empower Indigenous people with a range of administrative functions in their communities and return what Labor took away, the opportunity for empowerment around democratic voting should be supported. I am surprised that the Labor Party does not support remote, rural and Indigenous democratic voting.
To decrease informal voting this bill proposes a change to the system of voting. It is proposed that the Northern Territory move from a full preferential system of voting to an optional preferential system, or OPV, similar to that in Queensland and New South Wales.
An important point to note is that OPV, or optional preferential voting, already partially exists in the Northern Territory. Labor changes prior to the last election allowed voters to vote one in electorates where only two candidates were standing. Thus, the members for Arnhem, Brennan, Casuarina and Wanguri were all elected under optional preferential voting. I reject the claims from the opposition and some Independents that we are introducing optional preferential voting for a political benefit. We are trying to increase the number of formal votes. There is no evidence to support that slur. In fact, Labor introduced optional preferential voting to the Northern Territory.
In the election blog of 11 January, ABC analyst Antony Green says:
We now know the reason Labor introduced OPV. For those who want to throw political mud across the Chamber, even while quoting Antony Green – his comment refutes what Labor and the Independents are saying.
Under the proposed scheme a person may place a one in the candidate’s square to indicate their first preference, and then place consecutively increasing whole numbers in the square for some or all of the other candidates. For example, hypothetically speaking, in the seat of Arnhem someone may choose to vote one for the Independent member for Arnhem, two for the Country Liberals and not number any other boxes. Hence, a person could vote in exactly the same way they have in the past by giving a preference to each candidate, or only mark some preferences after their first preference, or give a first preference only.
Those amendments should give voters greater freedom of choice to indicate their preferences and would likely result in a decline in informal votes. That is what this is all about. The change will also mean those who do not want to cast a vote in support of an individual do not have to. This gives Territorians freedom. As a result of the change to optional preferential, some modifications are required to the way votes are counted if one candidate does not get more than 50% of votes on first preferences.
The proposal to change the voting system from full preferential to optional preferential attracted a high level of interest and received the second-largest amount of feedback. The feedback was fairly balanced, and no overwhelming support either against or for the proposed change was evident. Of those who supported the change, the idea of not having to vote for a candidate they did not support was a drawcard.
Issues raised about creating confusion by developing a third voting system in the Northern Territory are offset by the number of votes which would be considered formal by an optional preferential system which would not be counted under a full preferential system. Anyway, optional preferential voting occurred in the 2012 election.
This amendment should be passed through the House. I expect the Electoral Commissioner will run a public information campaign informing people about the changes. This should be tailored to the audience to ensure that people in remote communities also get the message about what the new system means for them.
I want to reduce the fear of running the gauntlet. The member for Araluen said how unfair it is that she will not be able to pester people as they come through the polling booths and that this change is unfair. We want to make it fairer on the voter. I am sick of running the gauntlet, voters are sick of running the gauntlet, we have listened to what people say, which is why this bill has been introduced.
Prohibiting canvassing within 500 m of a polling booth, including the distribution of how-to-vote cards and other political literature, is what this is about. The current act restricts canvassing-type activities within 10 m of the entrance of a polling place, and there is a similar restriction on the use of loud speakers and the like for such purposes that are audible within 10 m. The current bill proposes a 500 m exclusion zone. When that is put into place Territorians will no longer be faced with the uncomfortable, often confronting, prospect of running the gauntlet of party officials, spruikers and union thugs thrusting how-to-vote material into their hands, or abusing them.
The objective is to have elections conducted in an orderly, proper fashion, free from undue pressure by any party or Independent affiliate, particularly those nasty union thugs. I want to change this. Consultation has revealed that voters see running the gauntlet as a major problem and want something done immediately to address it. Many who provided feedback on this believed that the move to extend the prohibited zone for canvassing at polling booths is a positive idea and would eliminate the need to run the gauntlet on polling day, making voting a more pleasant experience.
While supportive of the change, many considered 500 m an excessive distance considering the area this would extend to, including schools, shops and houses. Additionally, it was considered that in remote areas this distance may encompass much of the town. There were many suggestions to reduce the distance to 200 m, 100 m or 50 m. The government has listened to these concerns and, particularly through this debate and conversation with the members for Arnhem and Nelson, will amend clause 17 of the bill to reduce the distance to 100 m.
Decentralising the draw for positions on the ballet paper: the proposed amendment will allow the Electoral Commissioner discretion on where to hold the public draw. For example, the commissioner might determine that the draw for Central Australian seats should more appropriately be held in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek. The Electoral Commissioner is supportive of this amendment. Anything which improves public access to the democratic process is a worthwhile objective and, while it was not a major issue in the consultation process, it was generally supported.
In conclusion, this has been a good debate about a good bill for those who actively and professionally contributed. This is about strengthening democracy. Do not believe what Labor and some of the Independents want to peddle. This is not about politics. The politics were when Labor changed the optional preferential voting before the last election. This is about trying to increase formal votes, give Territorians ease of access to vote, and looking at new technologies such as electronic voting by e-mail.
I hope that in the future this bill provides opportunities for more advanced technologies for electronic voting. Nobody likes going to vote, let alone running the gauntlet. This bill will clean up voting day so people are not bombarded at schools. Labor saying they want voters to continue running the gauntlet is not listening to Territorians.
The main impact of this bill, outside the gauntlet component, will occur in rural parts of the Territory. It will enfranchise many of the 39% of eligible Territorians who did not vote in 2012. It is about political empowerment of the disadvantaged in our community, especially from a geographical perspective.
I urge the Legislative Assembly to support these important reforms and commend the bill to the House. I recommend that we go to consideration in detail to make amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
(a) in accordance with Standing Order 148(2), the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 149) be referred to a select committee for a report to the Assembly by 20 April
(b) the members of the select committee shall be two government members and one opposition member, to be nominated in writing to the Speaker by the relevant Whip, and an Independent
(c) the chair of the committee must be a government member.
The reason I ask for that is because there has been no review of the government’s feedback from the Tell Us What You Think program. There has been no discussion about some of the serious matters we are dealing with.
The Chief Minister has clouded the issue of people attending a polling booth with informal votes. They are not the same thing. Informal votes are from someone who has not filled out the form correctly. Not turning up is to do with encouraging people to vote, and that is a different thing altogether. We need to look at this legislation thoroughly. This type of legislation should not be put forward by one side of the parliament.
The Leader of Government Business will complain bitterly about going to a committee. He also said that in the United Kingdom they took it to a referendum, and that it was not a government decision. The government said, ‘Let’s find out what the people think’, and took it to a referendum. When I asked why not do the same thing he said, ‘Governments need to make tough decisions’. Whoo! It is one or the other, not both. This has not been thought through.
The other aspect of this that needs to be carefully looked at, especially this year …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Are we aiming to suspend standing orders?
Mr WOOD: No, I am moving a motion. Excuse me, if you had been listening, member for Port Darwin. We are good with standing orders, thank you, minister …
Mr Elferink: There was no notice of it.
Mr WOOD: The notice is being distributed right now in accordance with Standing Order 148(2). I hope the member for Sanderson understands that I have stuck to the process.
We have issues with the federal election this year. I gave you the evidence from the Queensland Attorney-General saying if you have one form of voting close to another you get a high informal result. That needs to be looked at carefully. There will be a federal election this year. The Queensland Attorney-General said that will increase the number of informal votes. This debate is about decreasing the number of informal votes. That is a consequence of not thinking this through properly.
A committee could look at those issues and the appropriateness of electronic voting. The committee could look at any technical issues. When the Chief Minister responded to the 100 m zone free of electoral paraphernalia, he said the details would be in regulations. He told me that before the vote. Why was that not done? Again, if it went to a committee the micromanagement of polling areas could be looked at.
Whilst I understand the government wants this to happen and has put forward its case, the public has not had a real chance, nor have the people you would expect to, to have input.
We have the chance to look at what the government has done, to test it and change it if necessary, and to report back to parliament. We can, under the standing orders, send it to a committee.
The principle behind changing the way we vote should not be just because one side of parliament has the numbers. It is different if you want to change the law on registration of motor vehicles or the liquor licensing laws. Governments have policies and carry them out through legislation.
This is different. This is about how we are governed. These changes should not be at the whim of one party having 13 and the other having 12. There needs to be proper scrutiny.
It is also at an inappropriate time, being six months out from an election. The Chief Minister said it was not political. If it is not political allow it to come back in the next term of government. That way you can take the heat out of it. Politics in involved in what you are saying, Chief Minister.
The term ‘disenfranchising Aboriginal people’ is political because if there are informal votes in communities education is necessary. If people are not turning up at the polling booth – they do not turn up in my area – it is because our system does not encourage people to vote and does not teach them the value of voting in a democracy.
You are clouding things to avoid some of the fundamental issues that need to be looked at. This is not about improving voter turnout or reducing informal votes because there are already ways to do that. This, as we know from the reports of the Queensland Attorney-General, will increase informal votes in another election. You say it will decrease ours but I do not believe that.
The other furphy is that the previous government introduced optional preferential voting. No, it did not; it just used common sense. A second preference when there are only two people standing does not make sense.
Mr Giles: Optional preferential.
Mr WOOD: Please do not sell me a second-hand car. I know what you are talking about, and you can call it optional preferential, but it was a normal vote with a commonsense approach. A second preference when there are only two candidates does not make sense. Who do you give you second preference to?
It is obvious that if you put ‘one’ and there are only two spaces that is the person you vote for. It is different when you have three, but when you have two it does not make any difference. If you want to get fancy, when you have two people standing you have a proportional vote, that is, 50% plus one.
That has also not been debated properly. When you bring in optional preferential – look at the figures. Our Electoral Commissioner showed you what happens. If a third candidate is taken out his votes without a preference are removed from the count, and you get 50% plus one of the remaining votes. You do not get 50% of the whole vote, which is undemocratic. That is not the way we do things in Australia. It might be in Queensland, but who cares, Queensland is a different kettle of fish in the sense that was done for political reasons. The funny thing is the person who introduced it lost the election.
The principle of our electoral system is that you have to get one vote above the halfway mark. You have to be the most popular person. This is not a racehorse. A racehorse can win an election, but everyone put their bets on the other nine. That does not make him the most popular, just first past the post.
Our system means you need 50% plus one. I explained the way it is done in other places, but they do it over a period of weeks. We do it on the one day. That is the beauty of preferential voting.
I am concerned that if government has a view against preferential voting, or can see an advantage in optional preferential, they will not explain the benefits to people. Where are the benefits explained in these sheets of paper? That is what I am concerned about. This should show for and against and explain preferential voting. This was biased. It is like going to a referendum without the no vote; we will only have the yes vote. That is why we need to discuss this fully in a committee which can take an unbiased approach to the issues you raise.
I am not against what you are suggesting, Chief Minister. It is good to look at changes if they are necessary. I am concerned that coming from the government, which has some political reasons for doing it six months out from an election, the reasons do not stand up. I would like it to go out to the public, and a bipartisan committee discuss the issues. They may have to bring the Electoral Commissioner along with them, or an expert in the area, to work through the issues you raised. The issues are worthy of debate, but just because the government has the numbers it should not pass this tonight. This should go to a committee.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports this motion to refer this to a committee for important scrutiny and an informed decision. As the member for Nelson said, changing our electoral system and the way we vote is something we should not rush through. I appreciate the Chief Minister gave some detail around an online consultation, but even that – with less than a thousand visits to a website – when you think about the whole Territory, is not significant.
A committee would allow scrutiny to take place so we can make sure our electoral system is reflective of what the community wants and needs. It should not be pushed through by a government which wants to pass it without proper consultation or listening to the community.
The opposition would be happy for a committee to look at this to make sure we make the right decision.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff, and I thank the member for Nelson for moving his amendment. We will not be supporting it.
In this debate I have learnt a little more about politics because this legislation – the reason it was introduced last year is because in 2013 I promised I would do something about it. In 2014 we conducted a review, and in 2015 we drafted the legislation. As part of preparing that, and following the McGuiness report, there was some, ‘Do the low-hanging fruit now and the hard controversial stuff after the election’. Knowing you had introduced a motion to make some changes, and – member for Nelson, I will not attack you personally, but I will politically. I will tell you why if you give me a moment.
I listen to a lot of what you say and have a high degree of professional respect for you, but you move motions in parliament on a GBD, try to get support, and sometimes they sound good and we can support them. There are things in this legislation you could have supported.
Last year I said I wanted a long consultation process. We went through a process. In the media last week there was uproar from the Independents and Labor saying we are trying to rush this through. Let me give you some honest feedback, and this is following a conversation as well: there were no plans for this legislation to come back before the election. Zero. That is 100% truth. There were no plans for it to come back this week.
I had heard a lot of feedback about this, because unlike some people on that side of the Chamber, I worked through Christmas. I did not have holidays. I do not see December and January as a time to stop work. For me, work kept going and consultation kept occurring. Last week in the media people were saying, ‘Getting rid of the gauntlet, how good is that? Not forcing me to vote for the Greens, Labor or whoever, how good is that?’ I spoke to people in the street and had conversations I was not expecting to. I told my colleagues that we were not planning to bring this back but maybe we should because there is a lot of debate and everybody supports it. Clearly we are listening.
I am learning that when it is time for a decision on some matters it is, ‘Hang on, let’s put it to a committee’. This is backing what you wanted to do and what Bill Shepheard inferred at the 2013 estimates. This is trying to empower people who accidentally cast an informal vote. It is moving towards new technology, being electronic voting. It makes sense.
There are harder things we can look at which can be dealt with by the next government, whether that is the Country Liberals or not. This is the low-hanging fruit. To say that optional preferential is not really called that because it is one and two – that was introduced in 2012. Read the debates and communication. It was optional preferential, introduced by Labor, and was used in four electorates at the last election.
We will not support a committee. I am upset that you bring things to the Chamber, want them supported and we act in good faith. We had no intention of debating it this week – not until Monday. We bring in low-hanging fruit to help voters and get it thrown back in our face. I am offended by that. We will not support this.
Motion not agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that clause 7 be defeated. I do not believe changing the voting system will help anybody, except some people who think this will lower informal voting. I do not accept that because commonsense changes were made which have reduced informal voting. Ticking one box when there are two is counted, which makes good sense, and we need to concentrate on educating people.
The minister gave a series of figures, and 1.6% was the total number of unintentional informal votes. In some areas it is high and in some it is low. I showed you the Electoral Commissioner’s draft plan for a video. He is just bringing that out. Fill in all the boxes. Now we will change it, and when the next federal election takes place people will just put one number.
I know what will happen with the parties, especially the party pushing it. There will be a big ‘put one only’. They will not promote the idea of filling in all the boxes. I have seen it before in other places and that is what will happen.
Regardless of whether you think this will help more people vote there will be a federal election, and our local government system says fill in all the boxes. If we want a discussion about optional preferential we should talk to local government and the federal government. I am not the only one saying this. It is mentioned in the Queensland Attorney-General’s report, and also by our Electoral Commissioner. He said the same thing in his response to your changes.
I pick up on something you said previously. Wanting to send this to a committee does not mean I do not support some of this. I moved a motion previously but this is new. I have not agreed to any of this apart from distance from the polling booth. I do not agree with clause 7.
This fundamental issue will disenfranchise people who do not put preferences because their vote will disappear. Again, see the back page of the Electoral Commissioner’s report. See what happens when votes do not go to preferences. They are lower than the rest and removed from the count altogether, something we do not do in Australia. This change will mean we do not have 50% plus one of the total votes, and you might think that is okay. As the Queensland Attorney-General said, you then introduce a de facto first-past-the-post system …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You might think it is not an important change, member for Fong Lim. You might have been brought up with this system. I was brought up with full preferential. It is a powerful tool because it does not disenfranchise people. It enfranchises them because they have the power to vote for someone else. It might be the best of the worst.
Someone mentioned not wanting to vote for the Greens, the socialists or the communists. However, if your number one vote goes to the bottom of the pile you have no say in who else you might want elected. You might get the worst person. There might be four people and three of them you do not want. ‘I voted for this one. This one didn’t get enough votes so to the bottom of the pile.’ You have no say in which of the worst you would prefer because you will get them regardless. That is the power of full preferential.
Chief Minister, this is a backward step for people in the Northern Territory. If you are serious about informal voting fix the education program. This is not about choice. If you want choice have non-compulsory voting because that is part of choice. We have a set of rules for voting and it is not hard to fill in one, two, three, four and five. It might be different in New South Wales, where you may have 45 people, but in the Northern Territory it is not hard. There is a 1.6% informal vote and we can fix that with education and retain the system we have.
This will cause confusion. People in the know realise what will happen, and the statistics show it. Introducing it in the same year as a federal election could affect your own party because there could be many informal votes.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Chief Minister ...
Mr WOOD: It is not Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: I will make a statement then, and I would like to respond to the member for Nelson. In the member for Nelson’s world you have to choose someone.
What about the person who wants to not choose someone? They want to make sure that person never gets their vote. If there is a five-horse race and three are duds, three are people or parties, or whatever, that you do not want …
Mr WOOD: It is not a race; it is a popularity poll.
Mr TOLLNER: You might consider it popularity contest, member for Nelson, but most people are elected to govern. It is not about popularity, it is about the best person for the job.
Mr WOOD: How did you get here?
Mr TOLLNER: That is a damn good question, member for Nelson. That is interesting because my popularity has always been poor. There is confusion that politics is a popularity contest. I know you are popular, but does that make you effective? That is hardly likely because you did not get a swimming pool for the rural area, and goodness knows how many turns you had. Being popular is great, but in my view being effective is better.
If there are three candidates and you cannot tolerate the thought of them getting a go from your vote, how do you register your protest that you do not want them?
Mr WOOD: If your vote is wiped out you have no choice.
Mr TOLLNER: In this case it is optional, member for Nelson. You do not seem to understand that. People can number every box if they want to. It is like people who complain about advertising on the TV. Walk over and turn it off. You do not have to watch it. You do not have to vote for every person, but if you want to you can.
Someone who bangs on about choice and the right of democracy is now shunning the fundamental right not to vote for someone.
Mr WOOD: No.
Mr TOLLNER: You say, ‘If you don’t want to vote for something just vote informal or rip your ticket up’. That does not give you the option of voting for the person you want to.
This is optional and that is the key word, member for Nelson. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose that.
I am opposed to putting a number next to the names of people I cannot tolerate. I cannot tolerate their political views or the thought of what they would do if they got a seat in government, but for some reason I have to put a number against their name. When there are two or three, or in some cases more, it makes a debacle of the system. If I am in Nelson and think, ‘There is no way known I want that anti-developer Gerry Wood to get my vote, and there is no way known I will vote Labor’, all I can do now is rip up my ballot paper.
Member for Nelson, we are giving people a choice. It is optional to allocate preferences and how you allocate them. There is nothing undemocratic about that.
Member for Nelson, you have never won on the primary vote.
Mr WOOD: What?
Mr TOLLNER: I may be wrong. When have you won the primary vote?
Mr WOOD: Three times.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, I am wrong. Some Independents have never won a primary vote. There are probably occasions when I did not win the primary vote.
Mr WOOD: The famous Nelson vote.
Mr TOLLNER: I think I won the primary vote in Nelson but lost on Labor preferences. They preferenced the Country Liberals, thank goodness, otherwise I could be sitting in that chair never having achieved anything in my political life.
We are trying to give people choice, and that is fundamentally what this is about. I am thrilled that the Chief Minister has brought this to the parliament. You have mentioned one tiny aspect of these reforms. They are worthwhile changes. You want to delay this, get in the way and send it off to a committee with no regard for the punter. These changes will happen. The Electoral Commission needs time to educate people on the changes. You would like to defer this for 10 years if you could.
Chief Minister, I encourage you to push on with this. Get this over and done with tonight so that everybody can have certainty about how the system will work at the next Territory election.
Clause not defeated.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr WOOD: I had an amendment to clause 13 but I will not move it. Clause 7 has been defeated so there is no point listening to the member for Fong Lim again. I withdraw that.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an amendment to clause 17 as circulated to omit ‘500 m’ and insert ‘100 m’.
This comes about for several reasons, namely because two jurisdictions run a 100 m rule, for ease of understanding, following the principles interstate and feedback from the consultation process.
Three different things came from the consultation process. Almost everybody supported getting rid of the gauntlet. Some said make it 200 m, some 500 m, some 100 m and some 50 m. We consider 100 m as the middle figure, and I have also had conversations with the member for Arnhem, who suggested 100 m. I have had conversations with the member for Nelson – this amendment was done on the floor tonight. I intended to speak to it before the shenanigans from the member for Karama.
I am aware of logistics and geographical differences in the Northern Territory and individual voting booths in communities, and there are challenges. I believe 500 m would be hard to police. There will be challenges with 100 m, but it needs to be enforced. The current rule of 10 m, and the flexibility for individual booth operators nominated by the Electoral Commissioner or otherwise needs to now be changed to 100 m and must be enforced at 100 m. The purpose of this legislation is for enforcement of 100 m not an interpretation of 100 m. For those who read Hansard at a later date, this legislation is about the 100 m rule. This will give voters certainty that they can vote without fear of pressure or intimidation, and they will have a free choice.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned choice. This is about the freedoms within our democracy. People might think that is a big statement for 1.6% of the vote, whether looking at informal or the small size of the electorate, but people should be able to express their vote whichever way they want. This is not a political party point of view.
I invite comment.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister. The vote is also a mechanism and not something to play with.
I agree with clause 17 because it was the motion I put in parliament. It is a mechanism to make sure you elect people on a fair basis, which is another thing. There is some science about why certain things happen, but we will not go further down that path.
I support the change. The Chief Minister spoke to me earlier. One of my concerns is the micro, and you said there would be regulations. There is the issue of whether, for instance, how-to-vote cards can be displayed inside booths, as has been recommended at times, or whether they could be placed in a rack on the wall.
People laugh when I say this should go to a committee. It is not to delay it for 10 years, because that is rubbish. It is because some of the micro issues have not been covered. It is a pity this debate will be over tonight. It will help me by not having certain CLP members of this House try to stop people at Knuckey Lagoon or Kormilda College vote for me. Three CLP people took my how-to-vote cards out of people’s hands. I have witnesses – my sister and my wife – and both were disgusted. My sister was upset that people could say, ‘If you vote for Gerry Wood you vote Labor’. That stunk, and is part of the reason I moved my motion. I hate what happens at elections.
When I was at the mobile polling booth at Robertson Barracks a cardboard sign was put up – soldiers do not know much about local government – which said, ‘Independent Gerry Wood, if you vote for him you vote for Labor’. That was a straight lie. I had no way of stopping it. It also happens at mobile polling booths. I have lived in the bush and know the manipulation that sometimes happens, but I copped it from the party. This will give people a chance to walk into the polling booth without that rubbish happening.
My wife is not a political person, and my sister comes to help me. She is not a political person either. They come because they are family. When my sister became so upset with what she saw – I did not get to Kormilda College. The system stinks. If this change can stop that it is fantastic.
It applies to both sides. I have worked at both Daly River and Bathurst Island and know what happens. That is why I support this. People should be able to vote without all that. That is why education has to be better. People will not be able to help others vote. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people should be able to walk into a polling booth understanding the system and knowing who they want to vote for. You can get around it by giving people how-to-vote cards some other time, or advertise in the paper.
I did some work on this last year before I introduced my motion. New Zealand does not have the same problem, nor does the United States. The ACT and Tasmania got rid of it as well. We have some peculiarities because of mobile polling booths in remote areas, and I heard some of that discussion today. However, on the last day when all the advertising and hullabaloo are finished, people should be able to walk into the polling booth to cast a free vote without being harassed or have people telling lies about other candidates.
We need education about why it is important in a democracy to vote, and why and how we vote to reduce informal voting. Unfortunately, you are introducing another level of confusion, but that is for another day.
Chief Minister, it is good. Somehow you were inferring I supported all of this. The only thing I brought forward was the motion, which I wanted support for. I did not know the rest would happen. I support the change to 100 m because it makes sense. People at the Howard Springs supermarket will be able to continue cooking their chickens in the rotisserie without it being said they are representing a certain member of parliament. They will be happy.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have never taken a how-to-vote card out of anybody’s hand in my entire life. Have I discouraged people from voting for Gerry Wood in a Nelson election? Absolutely. In almost every election I have been involved in I have discouraged people from voting for the member for Nelson, and tried my level best to achieve that. However, as far as assaulting someone or stealing a how-to-vote card from their hand, that is not the case.
The member for Nelson said he did not like that someone put up a sign saying, ‘A vote for Gerry Wood is a vote for Labor’. Last term the member for Nelson had the choice of going to an election, supporting a Labor government or supporting a Country Liberal government. He chose to support a Labor government.
I am sorry, member for Nelson, it might be a simplistic way of looking at things, but if you lie with dogs you get fleas, and if you fly with crows you are shot at. That is the nature of the business.
As far as telling lies, I remember during the last election campaign our comrades opposite ran a smear on the County Liberals saying, ‘Vote for the Country Liberals and you will lose your job’. There were to be thousands of redundancies in the public service. It was a great fear campaign on plastic rollout things at every polling booth across the Territory. People were in the mall. It was a lie. It did not matter how many times we said we would not sacking anyone, they told everyone.
Member for Nelson, I appreciate the fact you do not like people saying you are a Labor man …
Mr WOOD: No, I am Gerry Wood.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, you are Gerry Wood, but people say things in election campaigns. Labor thought it could justify what it did. I can justify a sign saying, ‘A vote for Gerry Wood is a vote for Labor’. In my mind, you are part and parcel of the same crew ...
Mr WOOD: Rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: You say rubbish, but in my mind your track record is that you supported Labor.
Mr WOOD: When?
Mr TOLLNER: Last term. You signed the deal. Is that supporting Labor or is it supporting the Country Liberals? Member for Nelson, you seem to be so offended by your own actions and when people take exception you get on your high horse and say, ‘I’m not a Labor man’. You were! You supported Labor. You kept them in government. That is supporting Labor. That is a vote for Labor ...
Mr WOOD: Are you in charge of propaganda? You are doing a mighty good job.
Mr TOLLNER: You recently ran the line that the government was telling fibs when you tried to block the ice legislation. You did. You blocked the ice legislation. You stopped it being debated and passed. That is blocking the ice legislation. Then you say, ‘No, we didn’t block it’. You did. Stand up for what you believe in, mate. You either support Labor or you do not. You either block ice legislation or you do not, but be honest and say, ‘We’re blocking the ice legislation for this reason’. You blocked the ice legislation and you support Labor. You cannot have it both ways.
You went to an election supporting open speed limits then voted to get rid of them. You went to an election saying you did not want the prison moved then you moved the prison into your electorate. You went to an election saying you did not want a worker’s camp in your electorate and then got one. You brought all those things on yourself! You seem to dither, you are all over the shop, but in your world you are consistent. You are not consistent at all! You are all over the place all the time.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 242, I move that the Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2013 I table travel reports from the member for Blain.
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on a topic that is quite sad. I acknowledge and remember the life and legacy of Paul Pholeros AM, who sadly passed away on 1 February this year. He is survived by his partner Sandra and his mother Betty.
Paul was born in Sydney in 1953 and he first visited the Northern Territory as a student in the early 1970s where he spent time with Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people who were camped at Daguragu during the Wave Hill walk-off.
He went on to study at the University of Sydney, completing a Batchelor of Science in Architecture in 1974 and a Batchelor of Architecture in 1976.
He was invited to work in Alice Springs in 1985 by Yami Lester, the Director of the Nganampa Health Council. Cindi Cole from Alice Springs stated that Paul’s:
He accepted the position working with medic Dr Paul Torzillo and local anthropologist Stephen Rainow. Dr Torzillo acknowledged Paul’s contribution stating:
Pholeros, Torzilla and Rainow worked together to discover why disease treatment was improving when Indigenous health was not. Together they produced the UPK report, a plan to prevent people from becoming sick, which became nationally regarded as a yardstick for environmental intervention in Indigenous communities. In 1994 the three went on to form Healthabitat, a not-for-profit company which developed the Housing for Health program based on safety and health principles, known as Healthy Living Practices. He stated on the ArchitectureAU website, architectau.com:
Between 1998 and 2011, Healthabitat partnered with the federal, state and Territory governments, the Fred Hollows Foundation and individual Indigenous communities to survey, test and fix health hardware in more than 8000 houses around Australia, 1800 of which were within the Northern Territory. His work positively impacted the lives of an estimated 55 000 people.
Brian Doolan of the Fred Hollows Foundation described the impact of Paul’s work on communities:
A review of Healthabitat projects in New South Wales by the New South Wales state health department found a 40% reduction in hospital admissions for illnesses that could be attributed to poor environment. In a TEDx talk Paul presented, he talked about the project and its success stating:
In the last five years, Paul partnered with Common Ground to run housing for health projects in New York and with the Community Health Development Society in Nepal to undertake sanitation projects. He was also actively engaged in projects in India, Africa, Bangladesh and Nepal following the devastating 2015 earthquakes. During this time he was also working with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency to prepare a submission to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal in relation to township leases.
Throughout his career, Paul’s work was recognised through numerous awards, including: the World Habitat Award from the UN Habitat and Building and Social Housing Foundation in 2011; the Architects Institute of Australia’s Leadership in Sustainability Prize in 2011; the Special Jury Prize from the 2008 National Architecture Awards Jury for architectural contribution to Indigenous housing over 25 years; the Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ President’s Award in 1994 for publication of Housing for Health: Towards an improved living environment for Aboriginal Australians; and in 2012 Healthabitat was one of six participants in Australia’s exhibition, Formations, at the Venice Architect Biennale.
In 2007 Paul was appointed as a member for the Order of Australia for his ‘service to the community by improving the living conditions and, consequently, the health of Indigenous communities through design, development and improvement of housing and the surrounding living environment, and working with and creating employment for local Indigenous people’.
He was also a Life Fellow of the Australian Institute of Architects.
Paul’s passing is a huge loss for the Northern Territory, Australia and the world. I thank his friends and colleagues who approached me and asked me if I would take the opportunity to read this into the Northern Territory Parliamentary Record. Our thoughts are with his partner and mother. Paul will be remembered at a funeral in Sydney and a memorial service held to coincide at Speaker’s Corner in Parliament House in Darwin.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a fantastic event that is getting better and better each year. Last Saturday I had the fortunate experience to attend the Welcome to the Top End Family Day and Expo held at the Darwin Convention Centre.
The aim of this welcome family day event is to principally provide newly-posted Defence personnel and families with an opportunity to meet other individuals in the Defence community, as well as to provide access to information with all the stalls and exhibits on display to assist them in adapting to a new lifestyle in the Northern Territory. What a fantastic lifestyle that is under the leadership of a Giles government.
A member interjecting.
Mr STYLES: This welcome event – some things amuse people …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STYLES: The welcome event also enables newly-arrived non-Defence personnel and their families to learn much about what their new city and its surroundings and environment have to offer. Even those residents who have been living in Darwin for a while would have learnt something by attending this welcome to Darwin event.
The event was open to Defence personnel on Saturday morning then, for the first time, to the general public between 12 and 2 pm. Having spent quite some hours there talking to Defence personnel and non-Defence people I can attest it was a fantastic success.
My congratulations go to the Department of Defence Community Organisation and their community development personnel for coordinating the organisation of this annual welcome event, which in 2016 is also being held in 21 other places around Australia. Some of these Defence welcome events that have or are being held around Australia are low key in some instances, with just a meet-and-greet session over a cup of tea or coffee. However, other Defence welcome events similar to what I saw in Darwin last weekend involve extensive preparation and organisation, with about 185 exhibitors and 540 people involved in the event in the NT’s capital city.
In Darwin, the Defence Community Organisation partnered with the Northern Territory Department of Chief Minster’s Strategic Defence Support Group and Tourism NT, and also with the Darwin Convention Centre. By providing some in-kind support, all assisted to present a wonderful event for the Top End’s new and not-so-new residents.
On entering the convention centre, I saw a buzz of activity that engendered a friendly and happy atmosphere. Exhibitors on display in this welcome to the Top End event ranged from not-for-profit organisations, service organisations, government agencies, tourism operators, sporting associations and businesses.
The foyer of the convention centre had various sporting groups displaying activities that encouraged especially younger visitors to have a go at a sporting activity.
In walking around the display of exhibits around the hall of the convention centre, there were many things for new residents to learn about lifestyle choices in the Top End. Visitors to this event were able to speak to representatives of schools, education services, healthcare services, businesses, non-government organisations and sport and recreation groups.
The Northern Territory government was once again proud to provide support for this fantastic event. The government support for this event was very prominent, with a large number of representatives attending from various agencies or departments, including the Chief Minister’s Department, the Departments of Business, Children and Families, Attorney-General and Justice, Transport, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Education and Sport and Recreation, as well as Consumer Affairs, Parks and Wildlife, the Electoral Commission and Jacana Energy. With some of these government displays, visitors were able to meet with officials to organise their personal matters.
At some non-government and government exhibits, there were opportunities for either the partners of Defence personnel or non-Defence people visiting the event to apply for employment.
There was also a variety of activities on display that were principally aimed at enthusing and encouraging children and youth during the time their family spent at this event. Besides the sporting groups seeking new members, there were also jumping castles, obstacle courses, face painting, crafts and games, snakes and crocodiles, and different types of military equipment displayed to excite the younger visitors of the Top End. It was great that the young people could hold the shoulder-launch surface-to-surface missile launcher and look at some of the Bushmaster vehicles on display.
Visitors to this event were also treated to a number of performance displays on the main stage including swing dancing, whip cracking, Irish dancing and Muay Thai kick boxing.
For the Territory, this annual welcome to the Top End event is a true local event aimed principally at providing information and support for the many Defence and non-Defence families who have relocated to this wonderful north end of Australia.
I again congratulate the organisers of this, in particular the different services involved. The police and St John were there, along with all types of organisations and, of course, the Army, Navy and Air Force. I also congratulate the cadets from those organisations who gave up their time. The military personnel who were there gave their time freely; no one was paid for attending the event.
It was great to see how the Defence force community pulled together, along with local businesses, to provide a fantastic event where people can find out what is available for them in this part of the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations and well done to all those people who organised it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, last night the member for Nhulunbuy spoke about Australia Day in the town of Nhulunbuy and it sounded like a wonderful day. She said it was hot but the Litchfield Australia Day was hotter than the hubs of Hades. Ours was incredibly hot, but it was a lot of fun.
The Australia Day celebrations were held at Freds Pass Reserve, coordinated by the Litchfield Council. The new mayor, Maree Bredhauer, officiated over proceedings, which was wonderful. All the councillors attended and had a role to play in the ceremony. I congratulate them, not only for the wonderful day they organised, but also on their election to Litchfield Council. Letchimi Wright for the North Ward, Christine Osborn for Central Ward, Doug Barden for South Ward and Kirsty Hunt for the North Ward, plus all the Litchfield Council staff, organised a wonderful day. I met the new CEO, Kayleen Conrick, who also attended. I will have a lot more to do with her as time passes. It was a great fun run and day. It was one of the better ones I have been to, and I have attended a lot at Freds Pass Reserve and elsewhere.
It was not so much hot as humid. It was a great turnout. The hall was full. It was preceded by a fun run. I do not know why people do this at 6.30 am or 7 am. I completely understand the member for Nhulunbuy saying that she does not do it either ...
Mr Chandler: Silly!
Ms PURICK: To pick up on an interjection, the member for Brennan says they are silly people too. They are very silly. I did all my running in my youth; I do not need to do any more running.
But there were many people who participated in the fun run at 7 am. Some ran and some walked. There was a large turnout of dogs, which I thought which was nice, but I felt sorry for the poor little doggies because it was a humid morning in the rural area on Australia Day.
Hundreds of people attended. There was the fun run, the flag raising, the citizenship ceremony and the award presentations. There was a whip cracking demonstration and a competition to see who could crack the whip the strongest – which meant the loudest. Mick Denigan from Mick’s Whips had a machine that could measure the volume. There were swag roll and painting balloon competitions. Of course, there was food. It was a wonderful day with the student citizenship awards.
I congratulate the Litchfield Council and all those who put in the effort to make it such a successful morning. It went from about 6 am through to about midday. There was breakfast and morning tea, and a good time was had by all.
I pass on my congratulations to the new Australian citizens who were presented and swore their oath to this country of ours: Mrs Sau Thi Lawson, who has an address in Humpty Doo; Mr Paul Teutenberg, who came from New Zealand – I had a lovely chat with him; and Ms Katherine Chaffey. They were not necessarily living in the rural area; some people choose to come to the rural area for their citizenship ceremony because they have heard about the wonderful ceremony we conduct. Every person who becomes a citizen at the Australia Day ceremony of the Litchfield Council receives a native tree which they take home and plant. The Litchfield Council has done this for many years and it is quite special. Those three people were very pleased and happy not only to become citizens of our country but also to receive that special gift. So congratulations to those three new Australian citizens.
The recipients of the awards included those for junior citizen, senior citizen, and the Event of the Year. Congratulations to Young Citizen of the Year, Rease Casey, for her wonderful work in regard to her rugby league achievements. She will go on to bigger and better things. She really enjoys the sport.
Margaret Moore was the senior Citizen of the Year. Margaret is a special, lovely person. She was shocked and quite tearful when she received the award. She is such an unassuming person, yet she gives so much to her community, not only in her singing, dancing and helping in many ways, but generally wanting to be a good community person. She is lovely and it was a well-deserved award.
The Litchfield Rugby League Club won the Community Event of the Year for their Pink Jumper Day. Congratulations to them, because they did well. They are to be complimented on how they are trying to not only raise funds for, but awareness of, breast cancer and all things associated with women’s health. Congratulations to the Litchfield Rugby League Club on achieving the Community Event of the Year.
Last, but not by no means least – I am not sure if we have this at every ceremony – there were the student citizenship awards and that is always lovely. The students who won the awards this year were: Cheyanne Leach, who is from the Berry Springs Primary School; Jason MacDonald from the Good Shepherd Lutheran’s College; Oanh Ngo from Middle Point Primary School; Billy Ingham from St Francis of Assisi Primary School; and Holly Harvey from Bees Creek Primary School. Congratulations to those students on their citizenship awards. I know some of them. They do a good job and love going to their schools, helping people and being good citizens.
It was a great morning. Thanks to everyone who contributed, not least the councillors and the mayor, but also the many volunteer organisations that make these Australia Day ceremonies and special days so lovely for all of us who participate.
The volunteer organisations involved in the day at the Freds Pass Reserve were the Litchfield Lions Club, the Rotary Club of Litchfield and the Humpty Doo Rovers, who always do a good job with the raising the Australian flag at the ceremony.
The NT Polocrosse Association put on a display of how you play polocrosse, or perhaps how you stay on a horse and not fall off whilst you are trying to pick a ball off the ground.
Also attending were the Bees Creek Virginia Volunteer Bushfire Brigade and the Darwin Rural Hash House Harriers. Thank you to Noddy for again organising the fun run around Fred Pass Reserve. He has done it for many years. He is a lovely fellow who loves his running. Crazy at 7 am, but that is how it is with some people.
St John Ambulance attended. Thank you to John Connelly, David Anderson and Lyn Gerdes for helping. Thank you to Reverend Ian McDonald from the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd, who undertook the special blessing of the gathering. Also thanks to Mick Denigan who not only was the emcee for the day but also conducted the Mick’s Whips whip cracking demonstration and ran the whip cracking competition.
I also thank Kim Koole, who sang the Australian National Anthem. She also sang other songs. Kim is a great singer who went to Tamworth recently. She has written her own songs and plays around the rural area in the local pubs and other places. If you ever get the chance to hear her sing, she is quite special.
The special Australia Day Ambassador was Paula Duncan. When Paula Duncan arrived, everyone was in a doo-dah, including me, because she is such a wonderful Australian actress. There were lots of people lining up to have a picture taken with her. She was quite special and made a wonderful speech and made us feel very relaxed and very thoughtful, and caused us to reflect on what being an Australian means to us, all our fellow friends, citizens and families.
Congratulations to everyone involved with it. It was a hot, fun day, but the refreshments at midday were so much more enjoyable. Thank you to the Litchfield Council and congratulations to the new councillors and mayor. I wish you the very best because I know you have the best interests of the rural community at heart and you will be a very open and hard-working council. I look forward to future engagement with you and everything that you do trying to make the rural area a good place to live, which it is.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory Chief Fire Officer, Steve Rothwell, retires from his position today. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Rothwell on behalf of the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory.
Positions held by those within the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services are positions of service and are more than just a job or a career choice. They require a dedicated service to the individuals who make up the communities of the Northern Territory. This service to others requires selflessness, integrity, trust and respect. Mr Rothwell, you have embodied this service during your tenure, and the Northern Territory and I thank you for your efforts.
I inform the House of Mr Rothwell’s achievements. Chief Fire Officer Steve Rothwell commenced his fire service career on 1 September 1977 with the Australian Capital Territory. He served in operations, community safety, training and various support roles before taking a position with Queensland Fire and Rescue Services in November 1993, first stationed in Mackay. Chief Officer Rothwell’s career within the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services saw him promoted into a senior management role in Brisbane South Region in 1997 and to Assistant Commissioner South Western Region in 2002. Prior to leaving the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service to accept the position of Chief Fire Officer, Director of Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, he led the Queensland’s Rural Fire Service and all of its 34 000 volunteers.
In 2005, Chief Fire Officer Rothwell was awarded the Australian Fire Services Medal for his leadership in advancing the portfolios of Training, Community Safety and Officer Development. He also received the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services Commissioner’s Distinguished Service Medal for his leadership as State Fire Controller during the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell commenced with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service on 5 September 2011. His previous service and leadership within other jurisdictions in the areas of operations, community safety, training and volunteerism has been evident in his leadership of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services. Operationally, Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has overseen the expansion of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service career stations with the opening of the Berrimah Fire Station, which also houses the members of the Capability Development Command, Operations Darwin and Operations Northern.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services has deployed members interstate to assist with emergencies in other jurisdictions, internationally as members of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, and locally most recently assisting with the emergency accommodation on Bathurst and Elcho Islands following Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Nathan.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell sought the Northern Territory government’s agreement in the support of a twinning partnership arrangement with the Bombaros of Timor-Leste under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Emergency Management Alliance. The memorandum of understanding sees the support and development of the Bombaros through training, resource development and community education initiatives provided by the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services. In September 2015, the Northern Territory endorsed the signing of the memorandum of understanding that established the twinning partnership arrangement with the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has recently returned from Timor-Leste following the signing of those documents.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell’s vision has seen the development and implementation of a volunteer brigade training officer concept, the re-introduction of the Volunteer Training Consultative Committee and the Volunteer Community Education Program. Chief Fire Officer Rothwell supported new and innovative initiatives of the successful Building Fire Safety Inspection Program for operational crews and the development and implementation of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services’ management system.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell oversaw the Australian Road Rescue Competition held in Alice Springs in 2015, bringing the competition to the Northern Territory for the first time since the inaugural event in 1996. I had the pleasure – in fact, the privilege – of visiting Alice Springs for that event. Seeing what those people do firsthand is quite remarkable.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell had been the President of the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation, the peak body in Australasia for the development and exchange of information, knowledge and skills in road rescue which has delivered the annual Australasian Road Rescue Competition since 2009. Stepping down in July 2015, he remains an active committee member, first joining the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation in 2002.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, a Graduate of the Institute of Fire Engineers and holds a postgraduate qualification in Applied Management and Leadership, along with diplomas in Business and Frontline Management.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has represented the Northern Territory on the Commissioner’s and Chief Officer’s Strategic Subcommittee of the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Council, as well as membership on other Australian Fire and Emergency Services committees.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell will be retiring to Queensland’s Whitsunday region to enjoy sailing and other aquatic exploits with his partner Jenny. Steve leaves the Territory in a much stronger position, and the Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services will continue the hard work he commenced.
To Steve, I hope you will always carry with you fond memories of your time in the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services as you enter retirement. Earlier this week at his morning tea, I was very impressed with how much respect he had in the team and how much work they had gone to to dress up the office in a very nautical theme in preparation for his retirement. I wish him and Jenny all the very best. Please do not send photos of selfies of you with fish on the back of your new 48 foot catamaran. Thanks, Steve, job well done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the last and grand finale for the Tennant Creek school holiday activity program was the Tennant Creek colour fun run funded by a Youth Vibe grant for holiday activities. It was a sensational event that engaged the whole community. The kids had a ball and participated in what was a very dynamic and energetic activity circuit around the town’s Australian Rules football oval. They were dressed in white, supplied with sunglasses, and essentially ended up splashed with every colour of the rainbow.
Parents, toddlers and volunteers were involved, and nobody was spared. The senior sergeant of police ended up displaying the brand new police uniform in the Northern Territory, which was all colours of the rainbow. The St John Ambulance volunteers ended up also colour splashed. It was a fantastic way to end what was a very good and coordinated holiday activity program.
Special mention to Emma Newman, John Fitz and Derek Clarke from Red Cross; Sean Spencer and Courtney Barber at the Barkly Regional Council; Irena Edwards-Kelly, what a great young woman and emerging young leader she is; Stewart Willey, who has a great passion for youth work and is a hard worker; Tanya Jones, who represented the language centre; Sidhant Vashisht and many of those volunteers from CatholicCare; Michelle and Sally and many people from Lifestyle Solutions.
It was good to see the Tennant Creek community come together to celebrate and have a bit of fun and essentially conclude what is a very challenging holiday period for many youth in a regional town. Things can go wrong. We had a few rough edges, but essentially the project that was an ad hoc Tennant Creek Youth Centre worked very well.
Chief Minister, your government provided $40 000 to buy some equipment for Youth Links to do some minor renovations. You challenged Tennant Creek. You provided $919 000 to Alice Springs, $515 000 to Katherine and Tennant Creek received $40 000. As I continued to challenge you last year, there is $485 000 still in the bank for Tennant Creek. You put on the public record that the government was looking at Tennant Creek to see if there was a possibility of the development of a youth centre.
I can assure you, Chief Minister, you would be very proud of the Tennant Creek youth workers and great crew of volunteers who put on a program over five nights every week with some special activities that concluded in the big Tennant Creek colour fun run. The program was conducted at the Tennant Creek Youth Links building, so there is a good base. The activities were run at the building, with a lot of activities at the swimming pool and of course at the Anyinginyi Congress sport and recreation facility next door. It has a great future.
I encourage the Chief Minister to look at releasing some more of that funding, because the Tennant Creek youth leadership group had a lot of experience in watching, learning and participating with a very solid group of youth workers. Stewart Willey needs a special shout out, as do Irena Edwards-Kelly, Shaun Spencer and Emma Newman. They were instrumental in attracting many volunteers. Having stayed at home in town over Christmas and New Year I took an interest and made a number of visits. I had a great night when my wife Dawn cooked tea one night for 60 kids. It was a great time as well.
Yes, Chief Minister, the concept will work. We need further support. The Barkly Regional Council has shown it is a great auspicing organisation. They can use that support to employ more young people to enhance this Tennant Creek youth leadership group. Make it happen and real. Let us build on the positives.
There are some other great youth stories coming out of Tennant Creek, with four young men who have made a big name in Australian Rules football and international rules football. Liam Holtz-Fitz, Matthew Green, Mattaniah Bain and Kyrell Barton were selected through national trials and joined Wanderers Australia to tour Ireland, England and France over the Christmas and New Year period.
You can imagine these young men coming out of Tennant Creek and the Barkly and representing Australia playing football at the height of winter in Ireland, England and France. All these young men are members of the Tennant Creek Clontarf Academy. The incredible news that was filtering back through town was that they celebrated wins against four separate Irish teams. So great work, Australian Wanderers. On a national perspective, to have Tennant Creek and the Barkly get four representatives in a national squad was big news back home and those guys need the acknowledgement.
When they returned to Darwin I was very surprised to hear that after the acclimatisation of a matter of hours, Matty Green and Mattaniah Bain played in the NTFL Under 18s competition. Liam Holtz-Fitz, who is making quite a name for himself in Australian football, played with Nightcliff. These reps were getting straight off a plane, pulling on a jumper for Darwin teams and running out onto the paddock – a sensational outcome.
It was a great report in the NT News on Friday 29 January 2016 about a South African adventure. I quote from the article:
So one young guy from Darwin and Liam Holt-Fitz from Tennant Creek were on the Gold Coast in training camps, where they were prepared. They also celebrated a week with the AFL Club Melbourne in December. They were put through leadership programs. Liam Holt-Fitz from Tennant Creek emerged with an award from that leadership program. Then they went on to tour South Africa with an Under 15 schoolboys team.
You can imagine the stories that a young Liam Holt-Fitz has recommencing school at Tennant Creek High School. The role modelling he now has at his fingertips amazes me. He is a top young man from a great local family. All of those guys – Liam, Mathew, Mattaniah and Kyrell – are excellent emerging leaders. Wow, what a story.
They are all great stars of the Clontarf program. A quick shout out to Clontarf in Tennant Creek for not only the work it does with football and sports but what it has done in training to employment. These guys all have part-time jobs. The Clontarf program has some significant school industry partnerships. I was honoured to attend the Emmerson Resources’ AGM last year and see – on-site on a drill rig – the operations of a drill rig working for an exploration company where all these guys and others work.
The Stronger Sisters program has bought into that concept. There are children with after-school jobs working in mineral exploration companies and around town. Clontarf has been able to broker these partnerships, follow these children through, mentor them and they are well on their way to training.
Emmerson Resources provided them with a valuable sponsorship before the trip to Europe. Those guys spoke in front of the board of directors and the shareholders of a national minerals exploration company and did a fantastic job. There are some great new stories.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Chief Minister listened to that. We really need his ongoing support.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, teal ribbons have been placed on each member’s desk to show their support for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.
In 2016, 1480 women in Australia will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Some 43% of these women will die within five years of their diagnosis. I urge all members to get involved in supporting Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month by hosting or going to an ‘afternoon teal’ in the month of February.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Hayden Woodrooffe and Gaetano Gugliotta, Mr G. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
INQUIRIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 151)
(Serial 151)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Inquiries Act (the act) to allow a member of a board of inquiry or a commissioner, or any person authorised by the act, to have the power to seize any item, any book, document, or paper that they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry. The bill creates an offence and penalty provision if a person intentionally obstructs a board member, commissioner or authorised person acting in an official capacity. The bill also creates a penalty provision for the existing breach of confidentiality provisions within the act. The bill updates the act to comply with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act, and makes several grammatical changes to the act regarding statute law revisions matters.
The act provides for inquiries into matters in relation to the Northern Territory, and usually requires a board of inquiry or commissioner to examine the relevant issues, prepare a report and make recommendations as set out in the particular terms of appointment or terms of reference.
The bill has arisen as a result of Recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry by Commissioner Lawler, where he found that the act was deficient in the documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure, and there were also no penalty provisions for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings and documents. The current process provided under section 8 of the act does not provide a power to seize documents or compel production of documents or goods.
The act only goes so far as to allow access to be gained and searches for documents and goods to be undertaken. There is no power to seize any relevant documents or items located during the search. There is also no penalty provision applicable if a person hinders or prevents access to places, premises, buildings or documents.
The new section 3A provided by the bill confirms that Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act applies to an offence against the act. Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act states the general principles of criminal responsibility establish general defences and deals with burden of proof.
The new section 6A provided by the bill adds a new section that provides a commissioner or a board appointed to inquire into and report on a matter may authorise a person or persons to exercise powers and perform functions for the inquiry. It also requires an instrument of authorisation. This new section is required because the act is not clear on how a person may be authorised to perform a function under the act. The new process provided by the bill under proposed section 8(c) will allow a board member, commissioner or authorised person without a warrant to seize any item, book or paper that they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry. Such situations are contemplated when there is a reasonable possibility that documents or goods such as computers might be concealed, lost, mutilated, destroyed or disposed of.
The new section 8A provided by the bill creates an offence and penalty provision if a person intentionally obstructs a board member, commissioner or authorised person and a person knows that they, the board member, the commissioner or authorised person are acting in an official capacity. The new maximum penalty applicable is 100 penalty units. The new section 8A(2) makes the offence an offence of strict liability.
The new section 14A creates a penalty provision for the disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of performing functions connected with the administration of the act. The maximum penalty is 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. This amendment is necessary because the existing confidentiality sections within the act do not have a penalty attached to the offence. The bill also cleans up the act in line with statute law revisions to make the language within the act gender neutral. For example, the word ‘him’ is replaced with the word ‘person’.
The passage of the bill will improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system. This approach recognises that to be effective an inquiry requires the tools with which to obtain the information necessary to fulfil its terms of reference, and provides a deterrent in the form of an offence and penalty for breaching the act by hindering or obstructing a person in the exercise of the powers conferred under proposed section 8 of the act.
The passage of the bill will also improve the confidentiality provisions by inserting a penalty for a breach. The existing provisions within the act do not currently provide for a penalty if confidentiality is breached by a commissioner, board member or authorised person.
Finally, the passage of the bill will modernise the act and rectify the deficiencies in the legislation as identified by Commissioner Lawler in the Stella Maris inquiry report.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
BUILDING AMENDMENT (OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION) BILL
(Serial 152)
(Serial 152)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building Act to create two new tiers of occupancy certification in addition to the existing occupancy permit, and to enable occupancy certification to be issued on an expired building permit.
Buildings in the Northern Territory generally reflect the regulations and building standards of their time. Anyone familiar with building control in the Northern Territory will know that legislation has evolved and has been enhanced throughout the years. Regulated building areas have also expanded as the population has increased.
In the past, Commonwealth ordinance regulated the construction of buildings. After Darwin was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy in 1974, buildings had to comply with higher wind code standards. Shortly after self-government, in 1983, the Northern Territory Building Act was introduced and buildings were constructed in accordance with the NT Building Code. This was suspended by the 1993 Building Act, which created private certification and adopted the national construction code. This is the system that exists today.
In 2006 when the Northern Territory, and especially Darwin, was on the brink of significant development, requirements for certification were tightened to require additional documentation and inspections to cover critical stages of building work. The basis for the issue of an occupancy permit was also amended to require full compliance with the requirements of the act and regulations.
A more robust regulatory environment, however, created an inflexible certification system. As a result impasses occur when the requirements of the act and regulations are not met in full. For example, if there are unapproved variations and the building permit has expired, a new permit is needed. If by this time technical standards have changed, the building must be upgraded. It is also unlikely for a certifier to complete certification if all the prescribed conditions and requirements have not been fulfilled.
As an occupancy permit is the only mechanism for certification, there are building works that may comply with the relevant technical standards but cannot be lawfully occupied because the legislative requirements have not been complied with in full. There is also a culture of non-compliance and, anecdotally, it is understood that there are many unapproved works and works that do not comply with relevant technical standards. In addition, the public is generally unaware of its obligations, and the enforcement of regulations has been inadequate.
Since a moratorium was declared in 2009 there has been a focus on reducing the thousands of building permits that have been lodged but not finalised by an occupancy permit. To date, many of these building matters remain unresolved.
The proposed amendments to the act are in response to calls from building owners and industry for a practical resolution to finalise outstanding certification. When the proposal to create alternative pathways to certification was discussed in 2014, there was a positive reaction overall as it presented an opportunity for certification impasses to be finalised and for buildings to be lawfully occupied. In addition there was to be recourse for existing unapproved building works to apply for certification. At the same time there was recognition that the existing building matters must not be resolved in any way that compromises building standards and public safety. The amendments require that in relation to all categories of occupancy certification the building works must be suitable for occupation, otherwise the works cannot be occupied and enforcement action may commence.
The bill will introduce two new alternative pathways to certification. For works covered by a building permit the certifier will consider the relevant building legislation and standards that were in force at the time of the permit. If all of the conditions and requirements for an occupancy permit are not fulfilled, the building owner will have the ability to seek certification by applying for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance. The certifier must, however, be satisfied that the works comply with all relevant technical standards and were completed under a valid building permit.
If the certifier is unable to determine that works meet the criteria for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, the owner may apply for a Certificate of Existence. An application for this certificate may also be made if works are unapproved. The bill enables the issue of a Certificate of Existence by the Director of Building Control on recommendation by a certifier. The certifier must assess that the building works comply with a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity. It is intended that the Director of Building Control will issue guidelines under section 167B of the Building Act that will describe what is considered a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity.
Certificates of Existence cannot be issued for hospitals, schools, emergency shelters or any other high-risk buildings and essential facilities. This category of certification will also only apply to buildings completed before the amending legislation has commenced as it has been specifically created to address legacy building issues.
The bill also inserts a provision that makes it clear that occupancy certification can be issued if the building permit has expired.
I expect building owners to welcome these amendments as they introduce some flexibility within the current certification system in order to resolve certification impasses without compromising its integrity. The integrity of the building certification system will not be compromised as, at present, unapproved building works have not undergone any form of assessment. By introducing a mechanism whereby the work can be assessed and determined to be suitable for occupancy, public safety is expected to be enhanced.
Once these amendments are in place an effective enforcement regime is necessary to ensure ongoing compliance. At least initially, there will be a focus on facilitating compliance, not active enforcement. Building owners and industry will be given reasonable time to manage the new system from an administrative point of view. It is, however, expected that owners of buildings that have reached an impasse initiate the certification process once the new system is in place. If a building owner refuses to obtain certification, enforcement action may commence.
These amendments will achieve the right balance between regulatory compliance, public safety and pragmatism. The new system recognises that unavoidable events occur during construction. While there is now a practical mechanism to deal with these events, the different occupancy certifications will reflect the true level of compliance achieved by buildings and creates an incentive for people to do the right thing. This creates transparency, increases confidence in property transactions and enhances consumer protection. With better information, potential buyers are likely to price the true value of a property. This, in return, is expected to encourage owners to comply with certification requirements in order to achieve the highest level of occupancy certification and, therefore, price for their properties.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SMALL CLAIMS BILL
(Serial 144)
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(SMALL CLAIMS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 145)
(Serial 144)
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(SMALL CLAIMS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 145)
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing before the House the Small Claims Bill 2015 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Small Claims and Other Matters) Bill 2015. I can assure members that whilst I have 45 minutes allocated and an extension of 10 minutes if required, I will be using a smidge of that time.
The opposition supports the general principles and policy direction encapsulated within the bills, which the government introduced with the intention of streamlining the determination of small claims and increasing the jurisdictional limit from $10 000 to $25 000. We also recognise that these bills aim to make justice accessible and affordable to others who previously may have baulked at going down this path.
I thank the minister’s office for the briefing on these bills. I acknowledge that a consultation process was established with an issues paper being put out by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice with an invitation for submissions and culmination of a report on the review of the jurisdictional limit and legal representation in the Small Claims Act. This paper – June 2014 – contains the consultation outcomes.
As a shadow it is always useful for me to read what has happened, who put in a submission, what they had to say, and how things are balanced out. Of course, the Attorney-General’s department does not have to take on board all the recommendations for whatever reasons, and there are always reasons. I appreciate that these documents assisted me to have an informed debate in this House. As always, I seek out the legal stakeholders who made the submissions, and perhaps those who have not, to gauge their views. There is consensus amongst the legal stakeholders I had contact with either via teleconference, meeting or e-mail. They tell me that, by and large, they are generally satisfied with these bills.
There are some matters people feel still need to be addressed, and I will turn to those during the course of my contribution.
The opposition supported the bills to establish the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT, when the Attorney-General brought them to the House in 2014. At that time I was not the shadow Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I acknowledge the enormous body of work which has been undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice to make these reforms progress. I have been in and out of this portfolio twice in the last three-and-a-half years. I recall in the very early days, after the change of government in 2012, being briefed by Mr Andy Macrides on the process being mapped out to put an administrative tribunal in place. I remember thinking during that briefing what a huge amount of work there was to do to see an NTCAT come to fruition. I congratulate all those people who, less than three years down the road, have reached the point we are at today.
Back in 2014 the Attorney-General foreshadowed transfer of the small claims jurisdiction from the Local Court to NTCAT, the intention being to establish an accessible, non-judicial body with straightforward procedures and minimal formality that lends itself to the small claims jurisdiction. I recognise that the changes in the Small Claims Bill run parallel to major court reform in the Local Court, and that the JLA bill dovetails with amendments in the Local Court Bill I anticipate will pass through this House tomorrow.
The inquisitorial approach of NTCAT, as opposed to adversarial processes of the courts, is also compatible with resolving complaints in the small claims jurisdiction. I note the Attorney-General’s assertion in his second reading speech that small claims matters vie for priority with more substantial criminal and other matters before the Local Court. If we can separate those, streamline them and make those jurisdictions more efficient then that is a good thing.
The second reading speech also states that some 1600 small claim applications were made to the Local Court in 2014-15. That is a massive amount of work. However, the number of complaints which ultimately lead to proceedings is unclear. Do those stats appear somewhere in an annual report? Or perhaps the Attorney-General has access to them and can comment on the fact there were 1600 small claims applications, but how many led to proceedings? That figure it would be helpful ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, we have it here.
Ms WALKER: That is great, thank you, minister. At face value the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction to NTCAT will free up the time and resources of the Local Court. There is, however, a resource application flip side to the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction which I will expand on shortly.
We also support the increase in the upper limit of small claims. It has been more than 13 years since the small claims limit was increased to $10 000. The increase to $25 000, as proposed in the bill, is reasonable and not an arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air. The increase to $25 000 has been assessed and informed by research data, the CPI and an across jurisdiction analysis of what the appropriate quantum should be. That was the advice I received during my briefing in the Attorney-General’s office when I asked that question. It will mean businesses with small claims over $10 000 will no longer have their claims examined under the more expensive and time-consuming processes of the Local Court, and that is sensible.
Given the attributes of NTCAT I mentioned earlier, it also makes good sense to transfer disputes under the Cullen Bay Marina Act, Unit Title Schemes Act and the Unit Titles Act to NTCAT as well.
I foreshadowed some concerns about administrative and resource issues. Whilst not the subject of specific provisions in these bills – nor would I expect them to be – I still require some assurances from the Attorney-General for myself and others who are legal stakeholders. It is one thing to have good policy intent in the bills, but it is quite another to resource the new arrangements so that they are not compromised in the implementation phase.
My concerns about workload and resource allocation for NTCAT were confirmed during consultation with the NT Law Society on these bills via a telephone conference last week. I thank the Law Society president and CE for taking the time to speak with me. The society made a submission to the issues paper when it was released.
I asked about the adequacy of resourcing during my briefing on these bills. I was advised that resourcing from what will be the Local Court has been shifted to NTCAT, but I seek further assurance from the Attorney-General that the appropriate resources will be allocated to cover increased workloads for NTCAT members and support staff arising from the transfer of the small claims jurisdiction. That is why it is important to know how many of the 1600 small claims proceeded to hearings ...
Mr Elferink: Taking it to budget Cabinet is the short answer.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister. This should include a substantial investment in staff training on the new arrangements, particularly as they relate to more complicated cases and in which jurisdiction they should commence. For instance, given that until now all counter staff at the Magistrates Court in Nichols Place have handled walk-ins from people wanting to lodge claims in the small claims court, do they now direct those people to NTCAT? This means people will need to drive to Casuarina, where NTCAT operates from. There will be circumstances – I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong – where a disputed claim may be heard before a court if there is a level of complexity with it. Not all cases will go to the NTCAT. The second reading speech notes that when referring to clause 6 of the Small Claims Bill citing:
- … the jurisdiction to determine claims – for example, in relation to equitable relief and damages – will remain with the Local Court.
If the Attorney-General were able to address that matter further and be clear about where a claim needs to be lodged it would be helpful.
To a point I understand this is an operational matter, but the new arrangements will require a substantial communications exercise to explain the changes to the public and stakeholders, and to ensure that in transferring small claims from the Local Court to the NTCAT it is clear to jurisdictions, their clients and their legal counsel where an individual should file a claim to avoid any confusion.
It would seem the vast majority of small claims fall into unpaid rates. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of data on the nature of small claims. From what legal stakeholders have told me, the vast majority of small claims cases are unpaid rates and bills from entities like Power and Water.
Members interjecting.
Ms WALKER: Excuse me colleagues, you are distracting me with your conversation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, could you go to the back gallery please?
Ms WALKER: We are talking about unpaid rates or bills from entities like Power and Water or local councils. Where does a claim sit for somebody who is seeking damages? Let us say somebody has driven a motor car into their car, their front fence or through the front window of their business. Where can that individual go to rightfully seek costs associated with that damage?
I understand the intent of moving small claims to the NTCAT is about creating a non-adversarial jurisdiction, and that is a good thing. It is covered in clause 7 with representation of the Small Claims Bill 2015.
In the second reading speech the Attorney-General stated:
- The small claims jurisdiction is intended to provide people, many of whom could not afford representation, with cheap and expeditious access to justice which may otherwise be beyond their means. It is designed to encourage and support more people in commencing proceedings within the jurisdiction.
I have put two ticks alongside that because it is sensible and I could not agree more. However, on the issue of representation, how even is the playing field before NTCAT where those who appear cannot have legal representation unless leave is granted through the NTCAT?
Given that small claims for unpaid fees such as Power and Water bills or local councils – those who represent those entities may be lawyers. They spend a lot of time trying to claim unpaid debts. If they are not lawyers they are representatives of those organisations, with a certain amount of expertise in appearing before what was previously a magistrate and is now the tribunal. These experienced representatives will be conversant with the provisions and have an advantage over the litigants who appear before the tribunal.
The NT Law Society has asked this question and that is why I bring it to the floor of the House: who can assist a self-represented litigant in these circumstances? I understand a commitment was made some time ago around a handbook for self-represented litigants to assist them as they appear before the court process, as promised years ago. Given that funding to community legal aid centres is dropping more and more people are self-represented litigants. In the NTCAT, given you can only have legal representation by leave of the tribunal president, what does the Attorney-General have to say about an unfair playing field where there is, if not legal representation, very experienced representation on behalf of clients like councils or Power and Water against a litigant who has no representation?
Obviously, apart from a handbook, a website that provides information would be extremely helpful in explaining some of the broader changes afoot. Let people know where they can lodge their small claim. Is it at the Nichols Place Magistrates Court or Casuarina?
I spent quite some time on the department’s website seeking information, the issues papers and what have you. Last week I could not, for the life of me, find anywhere on the website with – I knew it was there somewhere – a schedule of court fees. I was looking for court fees when preparing for the bill on personal violence restraining orders to understand what it cost to lodge one. I could not find them anywhere. I was pleased that it was not just me, as the registrar of Nhulunbuy court house could not find them either. In this day and age website technology is a useful means for people to access information. More and more people use it. I am flagging with the Attorney-General something he already knows, I am sure, and will talk about. In this process of reform there needs to be an education and communication process so people are aware of what these changes mean and how to access them.
I note that the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate and the president of NTCAT were consulted on the development of the bills, and that is good. I again thank the minister’s staff and the departmental officers for the briefing on the bills, and acknowledge once again the enormous efforts from the agency to progress these reforms further.
Madam Speaker, we support the bills, but given the significant reforms we support a review of the Small Claims Act 2015 in three years’ time, as noted in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, so these new provisions can be assessed in the context of operational experience.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have read both bills and support what the government is trying to do. Obviously one bill is more about trying to change a heap of other bills. Looking at the amendments to the Cullen Bay Marina Act, the Local Court Act, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act etcetera, a fair bit of work has been done to reach that stage. By updating it and making it more relevant to today, hopefully it will be more accessible for people as well.
I have one question about the second reading speech regarding the limitations on the use of a lawyer. The second reading said:
- By having people represent themselves, instead of lawyers representing them, I believe that this will be a more cost-effective and fairer way of resolving small claims disputes. It may result in more equitable outcomes than was previously the case, for example, where one party does not have the means to engage a lawyer and has commenced proceedings, or is defending proceedings against a well-resourced litigant with representation.
I agree with that, but are there disadvantages if a person has a low level of literacy? They may not have the gift of the gab. Can a person get assistance if they do not understand the law?
If they cannot have a lawyer can anyone else help them, especially if they do not have a good understanding of the law or are unable to express themselves well? It is only a minor issue but the principle is good. There may be some disadvantages if a person does not understand the law enough to present their case in a fair and understandable way.
Otherwise, minister, I support the legislation.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, as someone who has been in business and had to take people to the small claims court, this is a breath of fresh air for business people and small- and medium-sized enterprises wanting to recover monies owed to them. It is a sensitive area as no one likes going to court. For smaller amounts, no one wants to engage a solicitor and spend an enormous amount of money to recover a small amount. The economics are not there.
This government works hard to create efficiency and effectiveness. In economics those two words are like early intervention in other areas of what government does. Efficiency and effectiveness are really important to this government, and we are trying to make this system better for business.
Community legal services can give advice to people on low incomes who struggle to understand the law but they cannot send lawyers into the small claims court. Generally, when people go into a small claims court and present their case, magistrates are aware of their inability to articulate legal arguments. Matters in small claims courts are not necessarily about legal issues. They are small issues where someone has failed to pay and you need to recover a debt. Moving this from the small claims court to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a way to resolve these issues in a far more effective and efficient manner. Economically, this argument makes sense.
The minister mentioned when this was first introduced and the limits. The increase from $10 000 to $25 000 enables you to appear without legal representation if you have some advice, some assistance or a friend. I agree with the increase. It is a great initiative and I hope the members opposite support it.
The member for Nelson raised a good point. I suspect that was adequately covered by the previous system. This simply moves resolution of small claims from the Local Court to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction.
The other important thing in this bill is that legal representation in small claims matters is only to be provided with the approval of NTCAT. For a small claim the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal makes a judgment call. Years ago, when I had to take people to the small claims court to recover debts – it is something they are aware of. They have done a reasonable job. Things change, they improve and that is what governments do.
I can assure you that across the board government has been looking for efficiencies and at making the system more effective. It is about listening to people in the community. In this case the minister has listened to business people, the legal fraternity, and those who have had experience in this area and would like some changes.
I support the comments made by the member for Nelson regarding consideration. The NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal is able to consider that. I recommend that members opposite support this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, perhaps I could best reply to this bill and some of the questions asked by going from the general to the specific in relation to what I have attempted to do as the Attorney-General. Starting from that position, the best place to begin is by comparing the Northern Territory with other state jurisdictions.
A substantial amount of work in the area of Local Court reform had been done prior to me becoming Attorney-General. I embraced that because it gave me an opportunity a number of years ago to pursue what I wanted to as Attorney-General.
By way of a comparison between this and other state jurisdictions, members may or may not be aware that in other jurisdictions it is very common to have three tiers of courts: the magistrates, the district or county court – depending which jurisdiction you are in – and the Supreme Court of each jurisdiction, with the final appellable body being the High Court of Australia.
From my perspective it would be unwise to create a three-tier court system in this jurisdiction. Nevertheless, when I was in opposition I, on a number of occasions, made observations about the absence of an administrative appeals tribunal in the Northern Territory. In determining, upon becoming the Attorney-General, to pursue a civil and administrative appeals tribunal as well as embracing amendments to the Local Court system, I have been able to create a system which works well for the people of the Northern Territory and is somewhat reflective of a three-tiered system.
I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to very complex amendments to the Local Court legislation last year. Those amendments to the Local Court legislation, in some instances of jurisdiction, give the Local Court, or what we currently call the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the flavour of a district court. It dallies in indictable offences, the thresholds for dealing with civil disputes are quite high in that legislation, and as a consequence these matters, if heard in another jurisdiction, would be heard by a district court. It is for that reason I have not blanched at the request of the Chief Magistrate to have the judges of the Local Court called judges going forward. In fact, that should be coming into force in the not so distant future.
That raises the question of the rats and mice type issues that the Magistrates Court has to deal with on a regular basis. No better example of a rats and mice type issue would be the small claims jurisdiction. The small claims jurisdiction, as it currently applies in the Magistrates Court, does not preclude legal representation. As a consequence, if you were lodging a $10 000 claim you could still get lawyered up and go into the small claims jurisdiction. It would not happen that often because if you claim something with a $5000 value, by the time you pay your lawyers you recover a couple of grand.
It was useful to turn my mind to how we could diminish the rats and mice issues out of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, which still operates essentially as a court, and place them in front of a tribunal, which the shadow Attorney-General quite rightly pointed out is inquisitorial in nature rather than adversarial.
I said during debate yesterday when describing the court process that in many respects somebody sitting on the bench is not a participant in the trial other than necessarily directing traffic through their courtroom. It is not always the case, but it is a reasonable description. In an inquisitorial environment – if you compare it with a Coroner’s Court for argument’s sake, the Coroner in the Coroner’s Court actively becomes engaged in the matters before him by asking questions and participating in the inquiry into a person’s death. The inquisitorial nature of a tribunal enables it to act in a court-like way but still have the presiding authorised person, president or president’s representative sitting in judgment of the matter before them.
I was asking my wife not that long ago how I can describe a three-tier system such as we have created in the Northern Territory, and this is just another step towards it. How do I describe this to people? How do I demonstrate or easily explain this to people? My wife, who I suspect is a lot smarter than me, said, ‘That’s easy. NTCAT is Judge Judy, the Local Court will be The Practice and the Supreme Court will be Boston Legal.’ I thought, ‘Of course. That’s a great way to describe it, because in that process people get the idea of what will occur in each environment.’ The Judge Judy comparison, whilst it is not how NTCAT practices its role, clearly is, based on the few episodes I have watched for my macabre amusement, a small claims jurisdiction.
That is all it is, and the style is quite inquisitorial. People come before the judge utterly unrepresented and often have no clue about how the law works. They come before her and she passes judgment based on the evidence she discovers. Whilst NTCAT will have a more formal structure, that will essentially be the experience of the average person. It will not be as glitzy and glamorous, but it will be the experience of a person saying, ‘I have a dispute over a rental matter or a car purchased from me and the person hasn’t paid it’. Those are the things the small claims jurisdiction is there for.
The small claims jurisdiction is constructed in such a way, even now, as to make the approach to the small claims jurisdiction as easy as possible. Nevertheless, because the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is structured, it does not have and will not have, necessarily, the flexibility a tribunal will have. That is the reason we are sending these matters to the tribunal.
That is not to say we do not take the tribunal’s capacity seriously. For that reason we have looked at the small claims threshold and raised it from $10 000 to $25 000 because CPI takes us in that direction and, as the shadow Attorney-General correctly pointed out, other jurisdictions have similar amounts, and, frankly, there is a certain element of arbitrariness in setting these thresholds. The test of reasonableness in all the circumstances would determine what the thresholds are.
Not all matters, as the shadow Attorney-General correctly pointed out, will be disposed of in the NTCAT. Nevertheless, for the shadow’s information, I imagine all matters will commence in the NTCAT. What will attract interference from the Local Court is, in particular, the law of equity. The principles of equity – there are 12 or 13 maxims – primarily have to be dealt with by lawyers.
An example of where you would seek equitable relief would be specific performance of a contract. To give members an example of how that works, specific performance of a contract is where you seek the enforcement of a contract because of the unique nature of it. It particularly applies to land, but it may apply to something like an art work. If I buy a $10 000 Rembrandt and pass my money to the person supplying it, and as a consequence he says, ‘I don’t have that one, but I have this other one’, I can seek the relief of specific performance because exchange to similar value is not what I am after. It is the specific item claimed in the contract.
The maxims of equity have to be retained in an environment like the court and would not often find their way into the small claims jurisdiction. From time to time it is understandable that they might. The maxims of equity include concepts such as those who seek equity must do equity, and those who come to equity must do so with clean hands. Those maxims determine whether or not equitable relief will be given in a matter.
As a consequence of that and advice received from the Chief Magistrates – soon to be the Chief Judges – and the Chief Justice, these are the things we have determined to refer back to the courts so those courts might deal with the principles of law and the maxims of equity effectively.
The vast majority of small claims will not go down that pathway; they will be determined by NTCAT. The short answer about resourcing is it is in front of budget Cabinet and we will let you know how it is going. Clearly, there will be a substantial increased workload in the NTCAT. It was always the intention, and remains the intention of this government, that the NTCAT pays for itself by virtue of the fact those departments or other elements of the system that are relieved of duties contribute to the operation of the NTCAT. That is what I continue to work on.
In relation to legal representation, we leave that to the judgment of the President of the NTCAT. I would always be anxious to make sure that justice is not only done but seen to be done, but people who come before the small claims jurisdiction, even now in an unrepresented form, will still get a fair hearing. On each individual occasion when a specific type of respondent or complainant comes before any tribunal and is represented, the courts still bend over backwards to ensure that fairness is delivered in that process.
The President of the NTCAT, Richard Bruxner, is a very good lawyer. He came from the Solicitor-General’s office. He is smart and perhaps a little on the black letter side, but nevertheless a good lawyer. He understands the principles of generating a fair hearing and I trust him to continue doing so. People who take up the presidency in the future will show similar levels of expertise when dealing with these small claims issues.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that in three years’ time, if memory serves me – it has been a while since I read the material – there will be a review of the whole process to ensure what is intended is being delivered. That will be a matter for another Attorney-General to deal with on another day. I am sure that Attorney-General will be pleased to discover this system works well and serves the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 149)
(Serial 149)
Continued from 2 December 2015.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today, six months from an election, the Chief Minister is intending to make radical changes to how we vote at the next Territory election. Six months from an election the CLP is about to make significant changes to how we determine who is a member of parliament in the Northern Territory.
A desperate Chief Minister wants to change the rules. There is only one reason the CLP would comprehensively change the way votes are cast and counted in the NT: it is throwing the dice and hoping it is loaded. The CLP will do anything to remain in power, and that includes radically changing how we vote. Let us be clear about this, the Chief Minister, Adam Giles, and the CLP are doing everything they can to load the dice at the next Territory election. They are making these changes six months from an election without the consultation with Territorians the Chief Minister promised. Not that this would surprise anyone, breaking promises and not consulting is simply par for the course for the CLP.
At estimates last year the Chief Minister said:
- … there have been three reviews and one internal going over electoral matters. That will now be collated into a discussion paper, or a paper to be put out to the public and then community consultation can occur. Looking forward it will look at a range of things, including donations, publicly funded elections, the voting system whether that is optional preferential, exhaustive preferential or first past the post, and how we clean up on election day to ensure the amenity for voters is improved so you do not have to run the gauntlet.
They are some of the things that will be within the paper for community discussion. I encourage people to get involved in that consultation process and we will try to get that done as quickly as possible, so that if there are any changes to the Electoral Act or to any processes we can get it done at the earliest time, given the fact there will be an election in 2016. From a Legislative Assembly point of view, we want to ensure we bed down those processes as quickly as we can.
That was estimates last year. There has been no discussion paper. This bill does not go to donations or other rather ugly things that have occurred during this term, despite promises and encouragement from the Chief Minister. There was no consultation process. There was no conversation with Territorians about how to genuinely clean up our electoral system, particularly in relation to political donations, and how the rorting of the system by Foundation 51 can never happen again, despite the encouragement of the Chief Minister and despite his promise there would be a paper to facilitate consultation in the Northern Territory. None of that has occurred.
The Chief Minister, in those comments, identified the issues involved with radically changing the system six months out from an election. Yet despite those promises, despite that encouragement, there was no discussion paper and no conversation with Territorians. Again, a promise was broken by the CLP and the Chief Minister. There are reforms that people want to discuss. They want to talk about how we can clean up donations and restore trust after the ugly CLP scandals of this term. That has not happened. There was no consultation by this Chief Minister and this government despite their promises. Despite encouraging people to participate in the consultation process the government did not consult. They did not bring that paper forward, and there are no reforms to political donations in this bill. This was a breach of the promise the Chief Minister made at estimates last year, but again, how can we be surprised with the behaviour of this government?
Now they want to impose on Territorians an entirely new way to cast votes and have them counted, six months out from an election. The government introduced legislation about changing our system of voting over the Christmas period, put some fact sheets on a website after the bill was introduced and labelled it consultation while the legislation sat on the Notice Paper. Territorians are not fooled. We have debated this with the CLP many times this term. The period between introducing a bill and passing it is not consultation. The CLP refuses to learn. You can never hold proper consultation over the Christmas period as people are distracted and are away. This is not incompetence. The CLP know these things.
This is a deliberate decision to not consult or be open and transparent, and to hope attempts to completely change the way elections are decided in the Territory are not noticed. The CLP cannot be trusted, as its own taxpayer-funded research has declared. Territorians would already have a natural inbuilt concern about anyone who wants to change the rules during the last quarter, but when it is done by this Chief Minister and a CLP government they already do not trust, they will see it for what it is: a desperate Chief Minister doing anything he can to cling onto his job, just like he did when his team rolled him out nine to five. Just like he did then, he will do anything to cling to power.
Back then he threw the biggest tantrum in Australian political history. He announced full inquiries and alleged a police coup in the Territory. That is the Chief Minister we have, the Chief Minister who will do anything to cling to power. Today this Chief Minister wants to change how we vote in the Territory.
The spurious ground the Chief Minister is using for completely recasting how elections are run is he wants to reduce the informal vote. That is the reason given for changing from a full preferential voting system to an optional preferential voting system in the new section 50(2). The CLP wants to change a system of optional preferential where you do not have to number every box. That means every vote, once they are exhausted, will effectively be binned and not counted in the final result. The CLP is trading potentially informal votes for votes that will be binned. The CLP is making a trade-off.
At the last Territory election, according to the Electoral Commission, there were 1448 unintentional informal votes. At the briefing I had, I learnt that about 600 of those would have been counted under these changes. They are making these changes for 600 votes out of a total cast vote of 95 000. That is a very small proportion of unintentional informal votes by any standard and any jurisdiction.
By masking their intent to reduce informality the CLP’s true intention is shown. The potential consequence of this electoral amendment is to eradicate the voting intentions of 11 896 people who chose not to vote for a major party at the last election. By choosing not to vote for a major party and not filling out your preferences, your vote has the potential to be binned and over 11 000 Territorians will not have their voice heard. That means the government is potentially disenfranchising 11 votes to every one extra vote. That is an incredible change. In the attempt to maybe get 600 votes counted they will lose 11 000. That is a radical change to how votes are counted in the Territory.
This change may push candidates – major party or minor – to pursue a ‘vote one’ campaign. As we have already demonstrated, that means we can have candidates elected who do not have the majority support of their electorate. This erodes democracy.
A practical example from the last election is the seat of Arafura. Arafura had 110 unintentional informal votes. The booth at Maningrida was won by the Greens with 177 votes. Second place was First Nations with 123. Labor was third with 68, and the CLP was fourth with 28. There were 110 informal votes, and 300 of the 396 votes were cast for minor parties, much more than the 110. If the Greens and First Nations had actively pursued a vote one only campaign then 75% of Maningrida would have been disenfranchised, their votes effectively binned and not counted towards the final result. That is 75% of the people living in one of the largest Indigenous communities not having their say and their voice being silenced by a CLP government.
These terrible changes will silence people in the Territory. These are deplorable changes to how we vote in the Territory. Thousands of votes will have the potential to now not be counted in the final result after these CLP changes.
This election bill debate neatly sums up what we are debating in the Territory right now, in many respects this term. Territory Labor believes every Territorian should have their voice heard, and the CLP believes only some people’s voices should be counted. That is the effect of this legislation. They are putting into law how they have behaved this term, where they think only some Territorians should have their voices heard. It is a disgrace. It goes to the heart of why people do not trust this government. It is six months out from an election and the government is trying to change the rules of how an election is run.
This is a desperate government and a desperate Chief Minister who will do whatever it takes to cling to power. We have seen that in the conduct and behaviour of this Chief Minister during this term. This is a disgrace, and informal voting is just an excuse to make desperate changes to how votes are cast and counted. We do not have an informal voting crisis in the Northern Territory. The percentage of informal votes at the last Territory election shows it is simply not there. We have heard from the CLP a conversation about how people in the bush do not know how to fill out their ballot paper. That is disgraceful in its ignorance.
The seat of Arnhem, for example, at the last election had fewer informal votes than the seat of Araluen. We do not have a crisis when it comes to informal voting. The votes that may be included after these changes pale in comparison to the votes that have the potential to be lost when deciding who is a member of parliament.
That is why this is a disgrace. The CLP is choosing to have some people’s voices in the Territory silenced. We believe that every vote must count, and every member of this House must be elected with the majority support of their electorate. Otherwise, like this Chief Minister, the candidate does not have a true mandate from the majority of people in the electorate.
The Electoral Commissioner sums up the argument best in his submission of December 2015:
- There is a consistency in the information campaigns regarding formality and this consistent approach across the three levels of government minimises the potential for elector confusion and higher informality that differing vote marking systems could cause. Given the numeracy and literacy issues of some areas of the NT, using consistent ballot paper marking systems assists electors to cast a formal vote and minimises unintentional informal voting.
Optional preferential voting is a move from an absolute majority voting system (one which requires a candidate to receive more than 50% of formal votes to be elected) to a system that allows election with a lower level of support … In small electorates like the NT, the optional preferential voting system could result in a de-facto ‘first-past-the-post’ system, with candidates elected with less than half the vote.
The CLP is proposing to radically change the system, and those changes will have the potential to increase informal voting in the Territory. In the next 12 months there will be three elections in the Territory, and having the same system will reduce informal votes. The CLP is creating a higher chance of informal voting with people being forced to vote proportional at the local government level, full preferential at the federal level and optional preferential at the Territory level. That is three different ways. This is a disgrace from the CLP and a desperate attempt to change the rules six months from an election.
The fig leaf of informal voting is not there. You are trading off potentially 600 votes for over 11 000 potentially lost, and you are creating the chance for higher levels in informality by creating different ways of voting at different elections. Antony Green is right when he says these changes are driven more by self-interest than principle.
This is also the case in amendments to section 275, which amends the 10 m rule for handing out how-to-vote cards to 500 m. The proposed 500 m limit is too extreme. These laws prevent members, candidates and volunteers from campaigning and handing out how-to-vote cards in some bush communities. You will be sitting outside the community limits. This change could, and probably will, increase the informal vote. Compounded, these changes are likely to lead to more informal voting at the next Territory election than improve it so why do it? The one obvious reason is the government wants to load the dice going to the next election.
The CLP believes the problems of the gauntlet lie in the bush, according to their discussion papers. Our experience, and the feedback we have received from consultation, does not show that at all. The change is not needed in the bush. The chalk line can stay as is in the bush. The problem with the gauntlet lies in our urban booths. We believe we should make polling places friendly. Let us fix the problems where they are, in our urban centres where every booth is plastered and there are dozens of volunteers. However, 500 m is too far and the motives are transparent. Antony Green, who has not had the delight of witnessing up close the actions of this government, wrote:
- For unpopular governments, banning opponents from campaigning against you outside polling places is a tempting option … I suspect a stronger motive for the change is political advantage, and that certainly seems to be the case for a second proposal in the bill, to ban campaigning and the distribution of how-to-vote material within 500 metres of a polling place.
In practical terms, in my electorate it would mean not only would I have no information for voters at the Parap Primary School booth, I would also not be able to provide any at Parap Markets next door. The 500 m would wipe out Parap Markets. Voter information is often available at Parap Markets. Five hundred metres is a significant distance and would be devastating for the bush. This is an erosion of democracy. We can make urban booths friendly without going to 500 m. The furthest in other jurisdictions is 100 m. Under the 500 m proposal, if a voter wanted information or to ask a question of a volunteer, member or candidate, they would have to walk about 1 km to get it – clearly impractical, clearly works against the interests of having information provided to voters. We can make these booths friendly, but we do not need to erode democracy to do it. We do not have to go to the absurd distance of 500 m. We can fix the gauntlet without going to 500 m.
If the Chief Minister was serious about electoral reform he would take this vote-grabbing legislation off the table and introduce a comprehensive package of reforms after genuinely talking to Territorians. At the last estimates he promised that consultation paper would be there and that there would be a conversation with Territorians about it. Let us have a proper conversation with Territorians.
Labor supports the other amendments in the bill, but we can do this in six months’ time. We can do it hand in hand with the donation reforms, and we can restore trust in our electoral processes. We can have a proper conversation with Territorians. We do not have to rush rash changes through this Chamber six months out from an election, which will radically change the way votes are cast and counted in the Territory. That will silence some Territorians and we do not have to do that. We do not have to go down a path that will see some votes binned and not counted. That is a disgrace and we do not have to do it, and certainly not six months out from an election. The genuine consultation that was promised by the Chief Minister was not undertaken.
We have released a discussion paper to restore trust and integrity to government. We have flagged parliamentary reform and electoral reform, including donation reform. These are all necessary and will all happen under Labor. We will undergo a proper process and will consult. We have released a discussion paper and are having that conversation. We are not rushing changes through this House.
This is an appalling way to run a government, but we have a low standard when it comes to this CLP. Can we expect better? I am not sure if the community is surprised that this is the way the government conducts itself. I guarantee, if we were in government, Labor would not introduce significance changes that affect an election six months out from that election. This is serious.
________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I welcome to the gallery Year 5/6 students from Nakara Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Vicki Manley. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hope they are studying democracy because we are failing with this legislation ...
Mr Barrett: Oh, turn it up!
Mr WOOD: The member for Blain can say that. Obviously he has not studied this very well and does not know the repercussions. If he wants to follow the party line, well and good, but I do not have a party to follow.
What is before us is not about good governance. Even if you agree with optional preferential voting, you do not bring this out six months before an election. You send this out for proper, mature debate and discussion before it comes back into this House. This was rushed through in the last sittings before Christmas with an indication there would be consultation.
Can you tell me how many people in your electorate know this page exists? I would like the Chief Minister, when responding, to tell us the number of people who have replied to the so-called consultation.
Member for Blain, this is poorly thought through legislation. Some things may be supported, but this is one of the most ridiculous ways of introducing important legislation affecting the way we vote. Surely that needs more than a little flier asking for online discussion.
I was at the launch of the Aboriginal policies and said, ‘Chief Minister, please drop this’. He said, ‘Well, you wanted change’, with that smile on his face that I am always suspicious of. He said, ‘You were on about this’.
I said I wanted to get rid of all the paraphernalia and the hullabaloo you run into when you vote. One motion took nearly 12 months to be passed, and that was at the last sittings. That motion said 100 m, and it was not legislation so it was not binding on this House. It certainly opened up discussion for parliament to look at ways to introduce changes to the way people could vote at the polling booth.
I will get to the issue of 500 m later. I do not support the changes. They have been brought in without any reasonable consultation with the community, and there has been no opportunity for those who disagree to express their point of view. It is a bit like a referendum. The government has the money to do this, so where is the no vote. Where is the money to advertise the equivalent? This is a yes vote but where is the no vote? Where is the no argument? We already have a system so why has the government not provided information or had a proper debate in support of the existing legislation?
This is a government campaign in support of this legislation and is paid for by the government. We are dealing with the way we are governed, and that should not be party political. Perhaps this should have gone to a committee dealing with legislation to discuss the government’s proposal, but this has come straight from the government. It has not gone through a committee which could say, ‘Let’s see how we can put the for and against argument’. It has just been introduced and will be passed if the government has the numbers and people will be none the wiser.
I have asked people, ‘Do you know anything about the government changing the voting system?’ They say, ‘No, never heard of it’. It is not commonly known or understood. If the government has a problem with people understanding this it should put some money into education. This is about politics, not good governance.
Did we see ads in the paper? Occasionally we have ice ads, and ads about work with big backhoes and front end loaders. Have we seen ads like that on television or in the newspaper promoting discussion of this issue? I have never seen them.
We put effort into saying how good the government is and how bad we are on this side, but have we put the same effort into telling people we are bringing in changes to the Electoral Act that could affect them? No, we have just brought some pages with one opinion of why we should make that change.
These changes, especially the voting changes, have nothing to do with the McGuiness report and only a small amount to do with the NT Electoral Commission 2012 report. I do not know if people have read that report, which came out after the last election and had a series of recommendations. There were recommendations about party registration and about increasing the application fee. There was also a recommendation about canvassing at static and mobile polling places, which we will discuss today. The report, titled NT General Election 25 August 2012, also said:
- In consultation with stakeholders, the NTEC develop agreed protocols, practices and control mechanisms in relation to improving campaign behaviour in regard to remote mobile polling, commencing with a stakeholder forum on the subject.
Hello! Can someone tell me when that stakeholder forum was? There is deadly silence as you cannot answer a question that has no answer.
There is mention of the election timetable, enrolment and roll services, nominations and an increase in the nomination deposit. It mentions postal voting and early voting, both of which we deal with in this legislation.
In all the recommendations made by the Electoral Commissioner after the 2012 election there is nothing to say we should change the voting system. This has not come from the Electoral Commission, but from the CLP and the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister mentioned the McGuiness report. That report mentions political donations and other matters, but his final recommendation is:
- It is recommended, therefore, that the Electoral Act (NT) be reviewed in its entirety with the objective of ensuring that the Act remains relevant and consistent with contemporary thought in the field of electoral administration.
Where is the review? The McGuiness report only came out last year. I do not know of a review, maybe others do.
The Chief Minister has not been up front about why we need this change. He wants to change our voting system from full preferential to optional preferential for electorates which rarely have more than five candidates. Why would you do that? This move could only be described in the words of John McEnroe as, ‘You cannot be serious’. There is nothing in either the McGuiness report or the 2012 NT Electoral Commissioner’s report to recommend any changes to full preferential voting. It was not even mentioned so why is it being introduced? Clearly this is about politics not good governance.
Antony Green, the ABC political commentator, said when referring to the optional option:
- The lesson here is that optional preferential voting always advantages the party with the highest first preference vote.
Why would you want a system that is biased towards one party? He says it is biased and that is it in a nutshell. The change is to strengthen the CLP’s chances by eliminating preferences to Independents or smaller parties. This is not being done for the good governance of the Northern Territory but the survival of the CLP at the next election.
The Chief Minister says these changes will give voters a greater choice not in who they vote for but how they vote. That was not recommended by NTEC. It is a smokescreen trying to fool voters. There is a choice of not voting at all and a choice of using our system. Why not introduce a system which says, ‘I want to put number five for the candidate I least want’? That is a choice too but it would be informal. Since self-government in the Territory we have had a preferential system of voting
The Chief Minister also says this might result in a decline in the informal vote. That is a very poor reason and one that has not been researched. The Electoral Commissioner, in his response – if you go through the stats you will find that 1.6% of the total vote was unintentional informal. Why change a voting system because 1.6% of the population cast an informal vote? Why not do what the NT Electoral Commission is doing right now? It has a program to promote filling out all the boxes. They have put out for comment – I do not know if members have seen it – a draft NTEC Storyboard for ‘How to Vote’ video. It says:
- This storyboard is to provide an approved message to electors on how to cast a formal vote. The final storyboard will be produced in various languages.
Comment is invited from stakeholders, on this draft storyboard script. Any questions or comments should be sent to: …
…
When making a comment, or providing a suggestion to improve the storyboard script, please include sufficient detail to assist with its development.
This is going out from the NT Electoral Commission while we are talking about changing the system. It says:
- This is what a ballot paper looks like.
The peoples’ names next to the photo are the candidates.
Once you get your ballot paper, take the ballot paper over to the voting booth.
You then fill in the ballot paper by putting a number in the box next to the candidate photo. You must put a number in every box.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner has put out a video showing people out bush how to vote. How should they vote? Full preferential. On the other hand the government is telling them they should only put one for 1.6% of the population. The stats for the Territory show some bush places, also urban places, with high informal votes, but overall it is 1.6%. Does that not tell you perhaps the understanding of preferential voting has not reached everybody? Does it not say you should be investing more in developing education material, in language, to help people understand what preferential voting is about?
I bet today we will not hear from government members because the party will have said, ‘This is the way we are going’. How many members will stick up for the basis of preferential voting? That basis has two important central issues that should not be played around with. When you give your preference you have the power to influence a candidate who you may not have had as your first preference, but you would prefer them if your first candidate was not elected.
The other basic philosophy behind full preferential is that you must win 50% plus one of the vote. You must be the most popular person. Under optional preferential – as the Attorney-General of Queensland said when he conducted a review of this system – you are going down the path of de-facto first past the post. People can be elected without getting 50% plus one of the total votes because the votes that do not have preferences for the candidate that are taken away quickly will not be counted as part of the 50% plus one. You will have the equivalent of someone getting elected with 40% of the total vote. If you do not believe me look at the review of this legislation on the back page of the Electoral Commissioner’s report. Also, look at the Queensland Attorney-General’s review. I do not think some of you have looked at what is being said by the people who investigate these things. We will end up with a shambles. This will cause confusion in the bush, no doubt, and probably in urban areas as well. If this goes through, when people vote at local government elections they will be told they have to fill in all the boxes. When they vote in the federal election this year they will also have to fill in all the boxes.
If you support this change we will vote differently in NT elections. You might say there is a choice, but I bet CLP how-to-vote cards will have clearly marked at the top the number one only and in small print it might say, ‘You can fill in the rest’, because they know this is an advantage to the party. It is not about good governance or fairness.
If there are issues about informal voting – I am sure the member for Stuart will tell me there are, and I have discussed it with other people – improve the education system. Do not treat Aboriginal people as second-rate voters by downgrading the system. Keep the system, improve the education and treat people equally. It is downsizing the voting system by saying to Aboriginal people, ‘You aren’t good enough to understand; therefore, just put number one.’ That is not the right way to go.
We are moving into the realm of political advantage over what this parliament should be doing, which is a proper review of the electoral system in a bipartisan way. If it was a bipartisan approach it would have gone to a committee but it did not. That is what they are set up for, but this was plonked on our desks. People do not have a chance to hear a different point of view, and today the government hopes it has the numbers.
If people do not believe me, get hold of the Queensland Attorney-General’s report on optional preferential voting. It is not all against optional preferential voting, but the report said that the AEC, the Australian Electoral Commission, conducted an analysis of informal votes for the House of Representatives elections. In 2004 and 2007 both recorded the highest informal votes. That is in New South Wales and Queensland, which have OPV or optional preferential voting.
The same thing will happen here. People will go to the federal election thinking that the Northern Territory government has changed the system and will put ‘1’ on a federal ballot paper. If you do not believe me believe the people who have conducted the analysis. Queensland and part of New South Wales have this system and the figures show, especially when two elections are close together, that they have the highest number of informal votes.
You say you are doing this to reduce informal votes, but the evidence is that you will increase informal votes in other elections. Why would you do that? Even the Electoral Commissioner asked why you would want to change to a system with two types of voting, one where you fill in all the boxes and the other where you do not. What kind of logic is that?
If there are informal votes why are you not changing local government elections? Why are you not telling Nigel Scullion that informal votes are bad for the Northern Territory? You will be left with a mess caused by a government six months out from election.
That says it all. If you want a fair and mature debate about this subject have it after the next election. Let us take it to people with an education campaign. Let us see what the problems are in the bush and why they exist. Let us find out why some people in my electorate do not understand and there are informal votes. Many people do not understand our voting systems so we simplify it; we dumb it down.
I will give you an example of why preferential is such a good thing. In Dili six candidates stood for president and they needed 50% plus one from the total population. In the first vote nobody got 50% and they dropped the bottom two. Next week they go back again and guess what? They all voted, and under optional preferential the people who lost their candidate at the beginning did not have a say. In Dili you have a say because all the people have a choice in the next four candidates. If you still do not get 50% plus one they take the bottom two off and away they go again. You will definitely get 50% plus one. The important thing is that all the people had a choice down to the last ballot.
Optional preferential takes that away from you. People may not be able to understand that, fair enough. That might show we need to educate the public about good forms of voting. It is special, and preferential voting is something Australia should be proud of. It is a fair and just way to elect a representative. It makes sure the most popular person with over half the votes is elected, not someone who gets less than that. That is what will happen with optional preferential.
I hope the Chief Minister drops this. The Attorney-General in Queensland mentioned the advantages of optional preferential. He also included disadvantages. He said:
- Full preferential voting elects candidates most preferred by voters, due to the allocation of preferences.
That is exactly what I said and you want to take it away. You say it is choice but you will not promote it as choice, you will promote number one. I know what has happened in Queensland and know how parties work.
The Queensland Attorney-General also said:
It is reasonable to expect voters to express a full ordering of preferences, even when they have a philosophical or intellectual inability to differentiate between candidates;
Full preferential voting allows parties which are allied, or in coalition, to run against each other without necessarily affecting the electoral prospects of either party;
Full preferential voting allows minor parties to have an influence on the election process through the election of preferences; and
OPV could undermine democracy if voters simply follow party instructions to vote for one candidate and do not allocate preferences out of ignorance or unfamiliarity.
It is not just about parties, it is about the people having a say in who they would like. You could say, ‘We will give them a choice’, but this choice has a subliminal reason for entering the Northern Territory voting system. It is not done for a wonderful, ‘I love democracy’ feeling. It is for, ‘I want to be elected at the next election’.
This is not about saying how great our electoral system is or how fair. We give people a choice. Technically, voting is compulsory, but you do not have to vote if you do not want to. You can go to the Electoral Commission and not vote. You have the choice of picking the candidate you want and the second and third, as they do in other countries.
The Electoral Commissioner talks about this in his response to the changes:
- Changing full preferential voting to optional preferential voting (OPV)
Current vote marking systems in the NT (for the Commonwealth House of Representatives – full preferential, NT Legislative Assembly – full preferential and NT local government …
- … require the elector to number every box on the ballot paper in order of preference for the candidates listed. There is a consistency in the information campaigns regarding formality and this consistent approach across the three levels of government minimises the potential for elector confusion and higher informality …
The government is arguing for low informality and the Electoral Commissioner says this will produce high informality. Did people not read these reports? They probably did not because this would interfere with the concept that this might be good for winning the next election:
- … that differing vote marking systems could cause. Given the numeracy and literacy issues in some areas of the NT, using consistent ballot paper marking systems assists electors to cast a formal vote and minimises unintentional informal voting.
Do you disagree with the Electoral Commissioner? Do you think he is a dill? Was this just a waste of time? He is the expert, but the Chief Minister says this will reduce informal voting. That is not what the Electoral Commissioner said and not what the Queensland Attorney-General said. It is rubbish. You are avoiding what the experts are saying because you want the political advantage. If you believe there is informal voting get education programs running and leave the system alone. If there is an excuse it is to spend more money on education. It is sad that we have reached a stage where our governance is part of a political campaign.
There are several other issues we need to discuss, being distance and canvassing. I introduced a motion on 25 March 2015, which said:
- … not to permit a person to canvass for votes, solicit a vote or induce or attempt to induce an elector not to vote for a particular candidate or candidates within 100 m of a polling place
and/or not permit the distribution of an advertisement, how-to-vote card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice containing any electoral matter on polling day. This would also include advertising or comment in a newspaper on that day.
What does the Electoral Commissioner say about that? The Electoral Commissioner asked that we review that. In his report he said:
- In consultation with the stakeholders, the NTEC developed agreed protocols, practices and control mechanisms in relation to improving campaign behaviour in regard to remote mobile polling, commencing with a stakeholder forum on the subject.
Where is the stakeholder forum?
I do not like all the paraphernalia you have to go through at election time …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin.
My motion emphasised that a lot of people do not like going through that great hall of death where people shove things in your face and there are posters on the fences. At elections in Taiwan they stick a few posters on the wall and people walk in peacefully. It is similar in the United States. I looked at some of the United States polling and people are left alone. One thing wrong with the British system is having people stuck in front of a polling booth annoying the hell out of you. All you want is a sausage sandwich from the local firies and to vote. There are some complications with that, I am not that silly.
I did not ask for 500 m. Please, on that side, tell me you do not believe in 500 m. The Howard Springs shopping centre is within 500 m of the polling booth. Fred Nerk will come in with a, ‘I support the member for Stuart’ T-shirt on, will get an ice cream and be booked because he is within 500 m of a polling booth. The member for Stuart might think that is a bit hard and may pay the fine, but I am arguing the practicality. I would prefer, if we want these changes, that a standing committee look at and discuss the issues.
Should you have how-to-vote cards? Are you saying that if this legislation passes you cannot have how-to-vote cards? Can you display one within 500 m? Can I display a poster of any chicken within 500 m of the wall of the supermarket?
Mr Higgins: That is fowl play.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is fowl play. There would be problems with the rotisserie at Howard Springs supermarket because it would be seen as a symbol of a certain person and they would have to stop cooking chickens that day. This is ridiculous and should not be debated today. It should go to a standing committee for discussion.
Queensland had the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission investigate the electoral system. Whether you agree with it or not, we have not done that. We are shoving this down people’s throats at a moment’s notice saying, ‘Here you are’. People do not know anything about it. Some of your friends might, but most people know nothing about it and probably could not care. Who cares about voting? It is a flamin’ pest. You have to stand there on a Saturday. Luckily we have early voting now, which helps a bit.
I care, as a member of this parliament, that the system we have for electing members is fair. This is not fair and is driven by other purposes, which is where it falls down.
We have not dealt with the detail. People have been asking, ‘Can the member for Daly stand within 500 m of the polling booth and say hello?’ We have not done the micro work on this, which is why it is so foolish. Can he stand there or should he be kicked out and fined for being within 500 m? Will you tell all the countrymen at Wadeye, ‘You had better not go in with that bag Gary Higgins gave you’? It probably has lunch from the supermarket in it. That could happen if you do not think this through. It has not been thought through, is poor legislation, should not go any further than today and should be withdrawn.
My issues may not coincide with everybody on this side. I want to see the practical implications of allowing another week for postal votes, especially for frustrated candidates who might be waiting for last votes to see if they have been elected. People are already frustrated with the time it takes for postal votes to be counted. Will this make it worse? This should be discussed.
Also, there is an option for e-mailing postal votes. I do not have anything against the concept, but – this was discussed in local government years ago – it is important because we have to make sure using technology does not mean a vote is not secret. We have to make sure the security systems are applied in such a way to be secret. If I can e-mail my vote, what guarantees do I have that someone is not looking over my shoulder telling me to vote for a particular person? When we vote at a polling booth it is secret and no one sees it. What guarantee is there against someone saying, ‘How about we all vote for this fellow’? I am not saying that will happen.
Giving power to the Electoral Commissioner creates some fundamental issues in relation to electronic voting which should not be left to the Electoral Commissioner. I am not saying he is not important, but parliament needs to scrutinise what electronic processes could be used to make sure our vote remains secret and safe, and no one knows who we are when we vote or when they count that vote.
I would not like any form of electronic voting until it had been scrutinised by parliament and experts. It is too important a change to be left to one person because it is a change in the way we vote today. Although it is only a note in the bill it needs much more scrutiny. The Electoral Commissioner alone is not the way to do it. We need some guidelines based on facts and information from experts in this field as to whether we can introduce that voting system. It is only for postal voting but the principle is the same. If I lodge a postal vote you could say people looked over my shoulder, but it is also obvious that people in the electoral office do not know who the person is because there is a separation between the person who voted and the person counting the vote.
I do not support most of these changes. I ask the Chief Minister, if he believes these changes are good – I gather some members on his side will say they have issues with informal voting – to look at fixing the reasons behind the informal vote and not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is what we are doing. We have a relatively minor problem and are using that excuse to bring in change. If you read Antony Green you will see this is being done for a political purpose, which is to favour parties with a high first preference vote.
I ask members of the government to think carefully about this. Is it right that you, as a government, use your numbers to change something which is not your right to change? The parliament as a whole should decide. One political party should not have the power to change the voting system. It needs to be brought to this House in a respectable way, go through the committee system, taken to the public then brought back for debate and a final vote. That has not happened. We have a second rate advertisement on one piece of paper with no alternative view which people know nothing about. If that is consultation I will eat my hat. We should do better than that. I ask the government and the Chief Minister to withdraw this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Katherine
Member for Katherine
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been approached by the member for Katherine seeking to make a personal explanation pursuant to Standing Order 26. It is the practice of this Assembly that these be heard in silence, not be debated and not raise allegations against other members.
I give the call to the member for Katherine to make his explanation.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I will start by saying the personal smear campaign against me from both within and outside this House has been nothing short of vile. Many lies have been told and vengeful accusations flung.
Today I would like to dispel some of the myth and vitriol by breaking it down bit by bit. Firstly – it is extremely important that this is on the record – I do not have, and never have had, any financial or legal interest or investment with the CT Group whatsoever. Allegations have been made to the contrary, and documents produced that contend to support the theory that I do. That theory is wrong. Did I consider investing in Vietnam? Yes, I did. Did I sign a contract to invest in a mall project? Yes, I did. Did I ever send that contract anywhere? No, absolutely not. The contract was never sent and therefore never executed. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with a signature on it. I decided not to invest for a good reason, that being the potential for a conflict of interest. At the end of the day that was the right decision to make.
I consider the work I do as a representative of the Northern Territory government on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory to be of paramount importance, more important than my personal business activities. If I had invested in the CT Group would I have declared it? Yes, I would. However, at the end of the day there is no completed contract, no investment and no conflict of interest, end of story. In hindsight I should never have considered investing in a company the government was doing business with. For that I am sorry and I apologise for making such a mistake.
I have never used taxpayers’ dollars for personal gain. My official trips overseas have been for one purpose and one purpose only, to advance opportunities for the agribusiness sector of the Northern Territory, and my trade missions have been overwhelmingly successful.
With industry we brought back from the brink the live cattle trade with Indonesia and then some. We increased live cattle exports to Vietnam from a value of $0.5m in 2011 to over $38m last year. Vietnam has also seen an increase in buffalo imports from zero under the previous Labor government to a value of $3.6m during my time as the Primary Industry minister. We have established new trades with Cambodia and Thailand. The success of these trade missions speak for themselves. Ask anyone who has been on a trade mission with me; schedules are tight and the workload is huge.
I have also never received undeclared hospitality from the CT Group. My personal trips to Vietnam have been just that, personal. Due to the nature of those trips I have accepted, and gratefully so, the warm hospitality of my partner in her home country. That is where any hospitality starts and stops. I am on the record as saying that I accepted a lift from the CT Group once. I believe it was a 10-minute ride to the airport. This was never declared because it was under the cap and does not have to be. That is the rule and I am sure those opposite, despite wanting people to believe otherwise, know that I do not make the rules.
In relation to hospitality provided by the CT Group on official trips, I understand the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has several records in its 2015 OTS report, while the Office of Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment has several others. The exact details around these are not a matter for me and, as such, can be obtained through the relevant departments.
As everyone in this House knows, my private life has, unfortunately, been played out in the public arena with the release of these documents being the latest chapter. I am by no means a perfect man and never claimed to be; however, these latest attacks on my character are nothing short of disgraceful and completely untrue.
I am disappointed that personal documents, such as my private bank statements, normally confined to the sanctity of the matrimonial home, have been leaked to the media and the Labor Party. For those members opposite, if only you had bothered to do your research, you would have realised the Chief Minister issue a media release on 22 August 2015 which detailed that expressions of interest would soon be open for a luxury hotel development. That was about eight days before I contacted the CT Group about the project.
I understand some have called for a police investigation – a police investigation into what, my personal accounts and financial matters? That is not only a bogus suggestion and a stunt, but also highly offensive to me.
It is disappointing that the opposition has called for my resignation; it has a rather boring ring to it. I have now joined a list which includes calling for the Chief Minister to resign at least 15 times, calling for minister Elferink’s resignation about 10 times, minister Tollner five times, and let us not forget those sustained and unwarranted attacks on minister Price.
I am sure if it were up to the opposition there would be no politicians in the Northern Territory. I am proud to be in this House today representing the people of Katherine, and as a minister of this government, looking out for the true welfare of Territorians.
I thank my colleagues for their support during what has been a difficult time since my personal problems became public some months ago. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 149)
(Serial 149)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, this parliament should strive to do the best it can to improve processes, reduce informal votes and remove restrictions on people’s capacity to vote.
I will especially address the proposed exclusion zone at polling places and provision of more postal voting options. This new exclusion zone will bring us into line with Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. This will be of benefit to people in the bush. This will allow people in the bush to make their own decisions ...
Ms Fyles: Not with Tasmania and ACT …
Mrs PRICE: Excuse me, can I speak? I listen to you respectfully every time.
This will be of benefit to the people in the bush. This will allow people in the bush to decide who to vote for, free from interference and intimidation from bullies. People will no longer be faced with the uncomfortable and often confronting prospect of voting. They will also be offered the option to be a general postal voter. This will allow elections to be conducted in an orderly fashion free from undue pressure.
Last election I witnessed appalling behaviour from the Labor Party. One of the many dirty tricks the Labor Party uses is telling people how to vote through the use of interpreters. The scrutineers have no idea what is being said, as the Labor Party pays unqualified people to instruct voters to vote for Labor, in language, while spreading lies such as, ‘Bess Price started the intervention’ ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Ms PRICE: This is no laughing matter, member for Nhulunbuy. I have also witnessed the Labor Party treating Aboriginal people like cattle. Shame on them! Last election I witnessed a group of women being forced into a polling booth together, without the opportunity to have their own independent choice.
This new change of the exclusion zone will allow people to be better involved in the electoral process. The amendments put forward in the bill will also remove restrictions and give voters greater freedom of choice in how they can cast their vote.
This government is committed to having as many eligible people as possible enrolled and participating in an election. The proposed changes should assist in the maintenance of a healthy democratic society. My people should not be treated as second-rate voters. I would like to see people being treated equally, and not just when elections are on.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this legislation is extremely important because it is how we vote and the basis of our democracy.
We have an arrogant government, led by an unelected Chief Minister, trying to ram through changes to legislation six months before the next election. This man did not accept the verdict of his team last year when he was voted out of the top job. He clung to power desperately and held the team to ransom. Now, when Territorians so deserve the opportunity to vote and have a say in their future, he is attempting to change legislation to suit his purposes. He is arrogant and will do anything to cling to power. He should be ashamed of this legislation.
This legislation has not gone to a committee or undergone proper public consultation. If other states or the federal government were to change legislation such as this, it would go through a huge consultation process with the community to make meaningful changes.
One must question the basis for this legislation. Where did it come from? One might assume it was a thought bubble of the Chief Minister.
Today we have not seen the advisers in the box who usually provide support to ministers when debating legislation. The Chief Minister has not even been listening to debate so he can answer questions. Normally when legislation comes before this parliament, the government agencies provide great support to ministers and we all appreciate that. Normally there are at least two people on hand to take us through this legislation and answer questions. Yet for this legislation there are no advisers in the building, and one must ask where the idea came from. One cannot help but be sceptical and think it is simply a thought bubble from this desperate Chief Minister to hang on to power.
This side of the House has had a number of speakers, as has the cross bench, who have put thought into it, done a lot of research and looked at it across Australia. However, the Chief Minister announces something then tries to ram it through. Who recommended these changes? Off the back of a 1.6% informal vote, why are we making such significant changes to the Electoral Act that could potentially see hundreds if not thousands of votes not counted? People need to understand the seriousness of this legislation. We are open to reform and change if that is what the community wants, but we need to consult with the community. Take this to the community and to a parliamentary committee. Do not ram it through in an attempt to cling to power.
The opposition has issues with this not being consulted on. We have issues with the optional preferential system, which potentially can take away Territorians’ rights to vote. At the moment your vote is exhausted; it goes through. It will count in who your representative is, but changing this system today could see people elected on very small numbers. Why would we change a system that is used federally and for council elections with no consultation? Some of our communities will go to both those elections and a Territory election in a 12-month period, and we are pushing another system through. We will see more chaos and confusion in the process rather than anything being achieved.
We have to be cynical. Six months from the election, without any discussion, these changes are before us. If you are genuine about these changes put them out for the community to see and take them to the next election. There must be members opposite who do not agree with these changes. You must understand the significance of these reforms and what they will change. There has been no committee and no discussion paper. We have not even had any agency advice in this House. I understand briefings have been provided to the Leader of the Opposition’s office prior to this, but when we debate legislation it is a minimum to expect that. There has been no conversation about how we can genuinely make changes that will have an impact. We agree that people are frustrated with running the gauntlet. Make these reforms genuine; talk to people!
One of the most significant reforms is that you cannot have any candidates or party members handing out information 500 m from a polling place. Where did that figure come from, Chief Minister? Did you pluck it out of thin air? These questions need to be answered. In some booths you will be out of town. My house may be within 500 m of a booth, that is how ridiculous this is. If we need to make change, and Territorians want us to make that change, let us talk to them to see what they want.
If the government was genuine it would take this legislation to a committee and defer it until after the election. We need to be genuine about any change we make because this will have a big impact. Advice suggests some members in this House would not be here if we made these changes. We need to be careful. This needs to be considered not rushed through.
The Labor Party, when in government, acknowledged it needed to help people have their vote counted, so informal votes – if the other boxes were numbered correctly – had a tick or a cross. If there was an indication they wanted to vote for that person it was accepted to genuinely help reduce the number of informal votes. We do not have any detail from the government so I urge it to slow down.
If the Chief Minister was genuine about these electoral reforms he would have a comprehensive package. He would talk to Territorians about what they want and what is best for all Territorians. This side of the House cannot support this legislation. We urge the Chief Minister to take this to a parliamentary committee and to talk to people. Something this significant should be consulted on for many months. One cannot help but be cynical, so close to an election, that these changes are being rammed through.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, one could be forgiven for thinking, listening to, particularly, the member for Nelson, but also the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nightcliff, that some great travesty is being visited upon the people of the Northern Territory. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the nature of the argument they are presenting.
The bottom line is that we keep talking about democracy as though the exhaustive preferential system is the only form of democracy around. I urge honourable members to look at the voting system in the Senate if they want to be thoroughly confused about a voting system. Ultimately it is a proportional representation system, something I am generally critical of.
Equally so, a couple of jurisdictions use the Hare-Clark system. Other jurisdictions – I believe Queensland – have the optional preferential system. None of these systems are inherently undemocratic, and that is the first thing we have to talk about.
We hear language like ‘rammed through’. This matter was laid on the table, has been in the public domain and discussed in the public domain, and people had an opportunity to make their comments. If, generally, there is public silence or not a great deal of noise about it one way or the other, it is because people are generally comfortable with the idea.
If the conversations I have heard on talkback radio are any yardstick, people are well and truly sick and tired of the gauntlet, as we like to call it, as am I.
I will make a revelation about my personal attitudes in relation to the electoral system in this country. I have thought about it long and hard over a number of years, and on balance – whilst I understand the arguments for a compulsory voting system – it as a greater democratic principle to have a choice whether you vote or not.
In countries where voting is not compulsory, such as the United States, presidents are elected to their position as head of state with as little as 30% or 35% of the popular vote. In England, where they use the first-past-the-post system – few people could say with any comfort that the English democratic system has failed. That is a straight first-past-the-post system, so much so that in a recent referendum in England, where they tried to change the voting system to a full preferential system, it was rejected.
The vast majority of jurisdictions around the world would not have compulsory voting. The voting systems in those jurisdictions are not reflective of an exhaustive preferential system. The preferential system is supposed to capture an idea that your vote counts. That was articulated reasonably well by the member for Nelson. However, the member made a link which I find unsupportable, which was that a person will want or demand that their second preference be counted. Nothing in this legislation suggests, even momentarily, that if a person wants to express their voting opinion by filling out all the boxes they cannot do so. It is still a preferential system. The only change the government is suggesting is that if you do not want to cast a second vote you do not have to.
Surely it is a more democratic principle for people to choose whether or not they cast their second, third, fourth or fifth vote, depending on how many people are on the ballot paper at the time. It will do no harm other than if you are voting with a number one and your candidate does not get up, that is the end of your vote. You have voluntarily abrogated any claim on the voting system beyond that point. One must assume that when somebody puts the number one into a box, and one box only, they have made that choice consciously.
The assumption from the member for Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition is that no such conscious choice exists. They are suggesting that a person must be impelled to vote for a second party. People may not choose to. I will be a voter at the next Northern Territory election. I shall not be seeking re-election, as I made abundantly apparent. If in my electorate there are three names on the ballot card and I have a choice between the Labor Party, the Country Liberal Party and a left wing candidate, I would not give my second preference to the left. I would like to cast my vote for my conservative or Liberal candidate without being impelled to give secondary support to a left wing independent or the Labor Party. That is what I would prefer as a citizen exercising my democratic right in this country …
Mr Wood: Change it by referendum as in England then, not this way.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. In our system we elect the parliament and from that parliament a government is drawn. That government has the power, as granted by the people and the majority in that parliament, to amend legislation as it sees fit. If the majority of members of parliament do not agree …
Mr Wood: Not under the party system.
Mr ELFERINK: … then it will not pass. You may complain about the party system, but it is the system we put to the people and you rail against it. That system is re-elected by the people each time around.
The member for Nelson does not want to accept these realities. He lives in a fantasy world where it has to be about independence. There will be a group hug. Governments must be formed out of the parliament. Parliaments, where a government enjoys the majority, operate within the system.
Every time it does not suit the member for Nelson he says, ‘Have a referendum; form a committee. Let’s make the place completely ungovernable through committees and group hugs.’ I do not accept your interpretation. He is particularly sensitive to criticism in this area and I understand that ...
Mr Wood: I was copying your words.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that, but just because I do not agree with the member for Nelson it does not make me wrong.
The member for Nelson needs to understand his opinion is one of 25 in a democratically elected parliament. Given the Electoral Act is a statute that this parliament can choose to amend in any way it sees fit, it is not government ramming it through but the parliament agreeing with the government’s position ...
Mr Wood: Put it to a referendum like in the United Kingdom.
Mr ELFERINK: It is how the system works. Why does everything that does not suit the member for Nelson have to go to a referendum?
Mr Wood: Because I am copying what you said. You said it and I am agreeing with it.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I turn to Standing Order 30. I need your rescue. It might be Standing Order 20.
Madam SPEAKER: What seems to be the problem, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: The constant interruptions. I cannot hear myself think.
Mr Wood: That is respect for the head of state, Standing Order 30.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. I suggest you just keep talking.
Mr Wood: Sorry, he must have thought I was a king.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not agree with the member for Nelson. If the majority of this House does not agree with the member for Nelson, that is how our system works. If, after the next Territory election, a new government is formed it will operate under the same system, and the member for Nelson and others can complain as much as they like.
This is about reforms people want and, I believe, expect, not least of which is in relation to conduct around booths which, over the years, has been very disappointing. Legislation to create a buffer zone around those booths will be welcome.
I recall watching a Sky News broadcast of the New Zealand election several years ago, because I am a tragic who always watches election broadcasts. I remember the cameras at the polling booths. There was clearly a substantial exclusion zone around the polling booths because the only thing to identify them was a sign that said ‘polling booth’. There were no party workers, no political material, nothing. Voters were walking quietly, unmolested and undisturbed into the polling booth to exercise their democratic right then they walked out.
As somebody who has stood on many booths over the years – hundreds, considering the bush work over the years – watching people quietly walking in, exercising their democratic right and quietly walking out struck me as being very attractive.
When speaking to the Chief Minister and my parliamentary colleagues about these issues I have reminded them of those instances. I am glad the Chief Minister brought this to Cabinet. I am glad we are on the verge of passing legislation which most people will welcome, particularly when it comes to running the gauntlet. I am grateful we will go to the polling booths at the next election without Territorians being badgered, harassed, and occasionally – as I have seen in the bush – bullied and instructed how to vote. I suspect they are instructed because it is always done in languages that I am unfamiliar with. When you see people standing less than 15 yards from the polling booth in a lunch shed at the local school in a community yelling in language and pointing to a how-to-vote card, you becomes suspicious about what is being relayed. In short, it is fairly obvious what is going on.
Those things should stop. Let the voter walk in, cast their vote unmolested and walk out. That is our duty as citizens in a democratic country and our responsibility. When the state imposes a responsibility in the form of compulsory voting then we must, as a state, defend those voters from protagonists in the voting environment.
I do not need a referendum every time I want to express an opinion in this House which I share with the government. I do not need a referendum for every decision of government. I may not even like decisions of government when they are of a flavour other than ours. I did not call for referendums on legislative instruments introduced into this House when the Labor Party was in government – I cannot recall one off the top of my head but stand corrected – because I believe in this system. This system will not be undermined by a preferential system which does not impose itself necessarily on the voter, or by the voter going into the polling booth unmolested. For those reasons I find this bill entirely supportable.
I understand there will be an amendment in relation to distance, but I will let the Chief Minister discuss that. There is nothing radical, amazing or dishonest about this bill ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the predictable response from the member for Nhulunbuy. If it was that important why have you not been on street corners for the last few months? You have had this bill for how long? Is it three months?
Ms Walker: Do not worry I have been out there, John. I have a few words to say.
Mr ELFERINK: I have spoken to many people about the proposed changes and the general response by a country mile is, ‘Bring it on!’
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the contribution from the member for Port Darwin, as usual. However, one thing does not stack up, member for Port Darwin. This is not honourable; it is completely dishonourable. I was one of the first people to speak on changes to the Electorate Act introduced by the member for Nelson in a GBD session.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business just flagged an amendment to this legislation to be led by the Chief Minister. We are in a second reading debate. When will members of this House be provided with that amendment so those who are speaking to the legislation have the opportunity to speak to the amendment as well, let alone read and consider it?
Mr ELFERINK: It will be brought in shortly and circulated as soon as we are ready.
Ms LAWRIE: Can we suspend because the member for Barkly, for example, might want to see the amendment, consider it and speak to it. This is outrageous.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, nonsense. You do not even know what it is.
Ms LAWRIE: That is my point.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, amendments by any member do not have to come in until consideration in detail. I understand that this bill will go into the consideration in detail stage, and maybe the government will bring the amendments then. I accept what you are saying, but that is the only way to do it. The crossbenchers also have some amendments they wish …
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister is the sponsoring minister for this legislation. It has always been the case that amendments are distributed to members by the sponsoring minister prior to debate.
Madam SPEAKER: That has been the course, I agree. Perhaps I can get some guidance from the Leader of Government Business.
When do you expect amendments to be in the parliament?
Mr ELFERINK: They will be here soon enough.
Madam SPEAKER: Is that 10 minutes or half an hour?
Mr ELFERINK: I cannot tell you exactly, but they will be circulated in good time and are not complex enough to throw members off.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 102. Are we not meant to have the amendments when the original question is put? Can we get some clarification on what the amendments are? Are you willing to give us any detail?
Mr ELFERINK: The Chief Minister will wrap shortly and will tell you. It will be circulated in proper course for consideration in detail.
Ms FYLES: So it is secret and there is a surprise in the wrap. We have to wait.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, the amendments are circulated when the person is moving them so you can talk to them. The Leader of Government Business says they are coming soon, which I presume is half an hour.
Ms FYLES: Can we suspend debate until we get the amendments?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the debate should be suspended until we all see the amendments proposed by the government.
Madam SPEAKER: Someone will have to move to suspend standing orders to suspend the debate.
_________________________
Suspension of Standing Orders –
Suspend Assembly Sittings
Suspend Assembly Sittings
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that standing orders be suspended to permit the sittings of the Assembly to suspend pending distribution of proposed amendments to the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 14
- Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mrs Lambley Mr Conlan
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Ms Moss Mr Higgins
Ms Purick Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vowles Ms Lee
Ms Walker Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion not agreed to.
_________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, the amendments will be circulated forthwith.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the amendment, as proposed by government, will be circulated shortly.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this is not at all honourable. We have more of the government’s make it up as we go along.
When the member for Nelson brought the issue of electoral reform to the House in a GBD I was one of the first to contribute. I debated the member for Nelson over the distance of exclusion zones at polling booths with regard to regional and remote polling booths. It was a good, healthy debate. The member for Nelson, being one of the hardest working members in this House, brought an important issue to the House and consequently challenged the government with honesty and integrity.
The member for Nelson mentioned not trusting the Chief Minister’s wry grin. The member for Nelson has to accept that over the last few years he has been well and truly used by this government, and I find that disgraceful. He is a man of integrity, does not react to it and does not challenge the government. He has more important things to do. I have noticed this pattern of abuse and patronising behaviour. The Chief Minister would be one of the best at this type of behaviour, and this legislation represents that. That is why I call it dishonourable. There has been good contribution to the debate about lack of process and protocol and no consultation. That seems to be the earmark of this beast called the CLP. Besides that, it has a dishonourable agenda. The agenda is to patronise the member for Nelson, but it is way overdone. Elements of this have been changed to create a political agenda.
The member for Port Darwin referred to elections conducted in the bush. I would like the Chief Minister to consider a Northern Territory scenario where a mobile polling team arrived on a cattle station and the European members of that station, the workers and their families cast their vote. However, 100 Aboriginal people living in the creek cast no vote. The electoral team packed up and left, and that was considered democracy in the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, you have not been here long, but that happened not so long ago. As an Aboriginal person from New South Wales you need to reflect on that history. I will fill in a few gaps, because when I arrived in the Northern Territory one of the first injustices I saw was lack of application of democracy in the bush. It was very much a government self-titled ‘born to rule’. There was no energy for inclusivity around election time. I discovered that, through the very important issue of a CLP Chief Minister wanting to build a toxic waste incinerator at an old copper smoulder at Warrego, to be one worth fighting for. I joined a movement which started looking at that disenfranchised vote – those people who were not included, who were completely alienated by a system when they had been given that right in 1967.
We embarked on a course of empowering people. It was not about who to vote for; it was about how to vote. There was an intensive period of education and awareness, and I took delight in being part of that movement in some of the most remote areas in the country, areas where I was living and working. That system took a form, an organised application, and the result was taking the seat of Barkly from the born-to-rule CLP to electing a Labor member. It took 10 years but that was the result. Once again, people chose who to vote for.
I love Territory history. This is a brief contemporary history that I have been privileged to be part of. At that time the Commonwealth also picked up on the disenfranchisement and the disempowerment of voters in regional and remote areas. Active education teams visited stations and communities to conduct electoral business, enrolment and education.
At an estimates hearing several years ago I challenged the Electoral Commissioner about that great initiative and the investment in it. The government was not interested. The Electoral Commissioner was, but we have not really seen any movement. It was almost flicked as a Commonwealth initiative, no responsibility to the Territory, and that was that. I still lobby for that initiative because we have further generations of disenfranchised voters, many because of low educational levels, and we need to make sure Territorians are fully informed and fully participate in our freedom and democracy.
This motion before the House resonates with me on a number of levels. First, it is completely disingenuous. It commenced as trying to patronise the member for Nelson by a minority government desperate to cling to power. It has now gone into the political realm of trying to manipulate the preferential system of voting.
Chief Minister, continuing with that contemporary history, it was always important – I enforced it with the teams I worked with – when teaching people about democracy, their right to vote and how to vote, that they fill in every box. Do not leave any box blank. It was about numeracy and literacy, and was a powerful thing to work with because it had grassroots connotations of freedom and democracy. It was about Australia.
I continue to educate, make aware and encourage all constituents to fill in all the boxes and not leave anything blank. If they have any problems with their English literacy levels they should seek help.
I get to the member for Port Darwin’s comments about help/interference. It is ironic that we are debating this bill, because there was a change of government in 2012, and from the beginning a hot debate continued for months about that election. I am on the record saying many things. In 30 years I had never seen such an aggressive campaign conducted in the bush by the CLP. I had never seen that aggression, the cash involved, the inducements or all the cleverly crafted episodes. Why not put it on the public record? The rumour in the Barkly is that Clive Palmer provided the cash for the CLP campaign, and Campbell Newman’s campaign director orchestrated it. That rumour has been running rife. The Chief Minister is shaking his head as if he knows nothing about it, but that was the rumour. I saw the cash and knew the strategy, but the aggression was something to be believed.
The member for Stuart had the audacity to read a prepared script and talk about the Labor Party treating people like cattle during the 2012 election. Check the Parliamentary Record because some of the most radical complaints about this activity during the 2012 election came from booths in Stuart and CLP officials. It was hotly contested in debate and appears in Electoral Commission reports. It was this aggressive style of inducement that made the difference, changed the vote and changed the government.
Here we go again. Will the CLP have that cash? Will it have the numbers? Will it have the energy to do that again in the 2016 Territory general election? I honestly believe this disingenuous bill probably reflects the answers to those questions that no, it has not. Now it is clinging to desperate politics to try to gain any advantage possible.
I am quite honoured because it is focused on the bush. The bush will not cop anymore disingenuous politicians. You have had your time in the sun. You have had three years and we will get to four. I will give you another one off the record: I reckon we will go sooner. After Question Time today and this joker from the Katherine area, I reckon we will be there sooner than you think, Chief Minister, but I digress.
In regard to those three questions, no. Is the focus on the bush? Yes. Is it with honour? No. Is it disingenuous? Yes. Is it an interference with the preferential system of voting in our country? That is the attempt. We will see some amendments later. Let me gaze into my crystal ball and suggest one of those amendments will bring 500 m back to 100 m.
I debated with the member for Nelson that it should be 50 m, because people in this House do not know where Epenarra is or where the people at Epenarra Station poll. They do not know where Canteen Creek is or where Corella Creek is. To enforce 100 m could put me in the bush, but I am quite comfortable with that. I have already planned a new way of doing business because I have been doing this for 30 years.
Tennant Creek is a regional town. If a ban of 500 m were to be enforced it would put the political workers and booth workers on the western side of the Stuart Highway. Anybody who understands Tennant Creek knows the main polling day in the Barkly is Saturday in Civic Hall. We would be located on the west side of the Stuart Highway. I wonder if we would still choose to gather together or whether a new strategy would emerge about vantage points. No thought has been put into that. This is a make-it-up-as-you-go-along bill which started with a disingenuous agenda.
Chief Minister, that wry grin gave you up. The member for Nelson will not judge harshly. He is a man of character and conviction. I am glad to see he has discovered some of the body language. There is a disingenuous agenda behind that body language which was mentioned quite innocently.
This bill needs to be defeated and we need an alternative. You do not, as the CLP likes to call it, carp on. You come here as a representative of the people from the electorate where you work, live and raise your family. I have had discussions about this and it has been a hot topic. There is not much coming from the government; it has all been left to me. I am sure you are okay with that because I have taken a balanced view. It is about empowering people in the bush.
This bill should be defeated and already some clear alternatives have been offered. The member for Nelson suggests taking a breath. If you want to make major changes there are defined processes for that and one is the consideration in detail.
I thank all Legislative Assembly staff over many years, but in this term of government especially, who organise and facilitate the committees. It is a huge team effort. I enjoy that level of professionalism, the work that is completed and the results achieved.
On Monday I was speaking to a lobby group about the exploration of onshore oil and gas and we mentioned the NT’s energy future committee work. I told them that as a local member and someone elected to speak with authority, that has been one of the best learning curves I have embarked upon. From that committee process I feel well-measured and balanced decisions can be made based on knowledge and experience. That committee, facilitated by Legislative Assembly staff, has been excellent.
The member for Nelson has put a clear alternative and there are others. This House, through its standing orders and complex processes, offers quite a diverse choice for something so important. We should take the time as this is extremely important. This does not have an honourable agenda. I believe it is completely disingenuous. I support the member for Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition and our colleagues on this side. I hope to hear from more members and look forward to the vote.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Iain Loganathan, for his time, at the request of Independents, in briefing us on the discussion and information paper he put out on reforms to the Electoral Act. I also acknowledge the blog by ABC commentator Antony Green, who put forward his views on the proposed changes to the Electoral Act. I am thankful for the offer made by the Office of the Chief Minister for a briefing. I did not avail myself of that because I am well and truly over the spin of the Giles government.
I will not support the legislation. Some elements of it are fine, but I do not support the contempt the Chief Minister continues to show to the Northern Territory community. He wants to introduce broad-ranging reforms to the electoral process which create a procedure for the bedrock of our democracy, but with such contempt that there has been no consultation with the broader community, the people who will genuinely be affected by these wholesale changes, the voters across the Territory.
We heard in debate that it will have a different impact in remote mobile polling booths to that in regional towns and our suburban and city environs. However, this Chief Minister does not give a damn about Territorians and the impact his foolish decisions make on their lives. This debate shows that stark and clear. Chief Minister, while this may be a desperate act of a desperate man to do whatever you can to cling to power because these changes help the incumbency, nothing will save you or your government. The people of the Territory are waiting to vote you out of office.
If rumours around the Darwin business community are right, you will decide about March whether or not to resign from parliament altogether. That is, if your polling does not improve – it is so toxic – you will get out. You will resign from parliament and clear the path for someone else to carry the losing Chief Minister mantle for the CLP. You have taken a wrecking ball to your government over the last few years after knifing the previous Chief Minister, Terry Mills. You have taken a wrecking ball to the Territory, and this desperate piece of ill-thought-through legislation shows your contempt for the Territory will be rammed through on your dodgy deal numbers today. Shame on you, but we are used to that from you.
Personally, I see the pros and cons of an optional preferential voting system and would like to know what Territorians think about it. I understand culturally and linguistically diverse voters find the preferential system difficult. I understand that some of my non-English speaking background constituents – English is not their first language but often their second or third language – and Indigenous voters find the preferential system difficult. As an incumbent, if I choose to run again I have no issue with running a vote one for Delia campaign. The feedback I receive is that in my electorate the CLP will be smashed. I get that across Darwin, and people are lying in wait in Palmerston and in the bush.
Nothing will save the CLP, not this show of contempt to ram through changes to the Electoral Act. In Queensland Wayne Goss introduced the optional preferential voting system in 1999 and was defeated at the next election. It did not save him and it will not save you, Chief Minister, or your government. Will it disenfranchise many voters? Sadly, it may. I have heard the concerns of the member for Nelson and others about people not understanding the system.
People who vote one for the minority candidate will not have their voices heard because they will be knocked out too early in the process. They will not understand that because, Chief Minister, you are not about consultation but all about spin. You run ads spinning which do not work. Your focus groups show you they do not work. You are disenfranchising people, but that is your style so we should not be surprised to see it reflected in the changes to this legislation.
As for the nonsense of the 500 m exclusion zone around polling booths, that was your thought bubble not the advice of experts. It is unworkable and ludicrous. In your arrogance we have an amendment to reduce it to a 100 m exclusion zone because your Leader of Government Business let slip that you were amending the legislation. You did not even have the decency to distribute the proposed amendment to members when the debate commenced. You cannot be that decent. It is appalling and a new low, even for you. I will deal with 100 m, 7 m, 12 m or 10 m if I choose to run. It is not an issue because I am the incumbent.
The problem will be – this is why you are desperately trying to do it – for people who do not hold incumbency, who genuinely want to see a change to the way government occurs in the Northern Territory and who put their hand up bravely to be tested at the polls as new candidates. Many of the changes to the Electoral Act will disadvantage them. It is part of your desperation to cling to power, but just as it did not work for Wayne Goss in 1999 it will not work for you, because you are too toxic.
The analogy run by the Chief Minister is, ‘Don’t worry. The CLP is like a truck that is stuck under the bridge and is letting air out of the tyres.’ The air out of the tyres is the announced departure of the member for Port Darwin, who spends his time undermining the member for Braitling, who undermined the former member for Blain, former Chief Minister Terry Mills. Do not worry because he is going so that will let some air out of the tyres. Do not worry because the member for Fong Lim, who is incredibly unpopular, was not pre-selected so he is going too. That is the air out of the tyres so the truck can move forward. They might save this and might not lose the next election.
My response is: does the Chief Minister not understand he is the truck that got them stuck? While he is there they are stuck. Is he so delusional as to not understand that? Sadly, that appears to be the case and he does not get it.
Maybe a glimmer of feedback from the community is starting to crack the veneer because he is talking about – so I hear – bailing from parliament altogether. That would be a blessing. I urge you to resign, Chief Minister, as you have done so much damage to the Territory already.
You will push this legislation through, but I have confidence that when Territorians cast their vote at the next election, whenever that may be, they will vote against the CLP because it has treated them with contempt. The government is also treating the Chamber and the electoral process with contempt with this legislation.
It started with your knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was representing the Northern Territory on a trade mission to Japan. It continued through your disastrous Cabinet reshuffles. You continued to show contempt with the sale of TIO and the lease of our port. You showed contempt with the way families have to find $2000 a quarter to pay their electricity bills, yet you pretend Darwin is a cheap capital city when it comes to the cost of living.
You show contempt when you will not say the word ‘fracking’ in regard to the interstate gas pipeline interconnector. No, it is gas. You will rant and rave about the Leader of the Opposition being against gas, but you will not be honest enough to say ‘fracking’. Fracking, and your support for it, will ensure that many Territorians vote against the CLP. Will they vote Labor or Independent? I do not know as I am not privy to the polls. However, it will be against the CLP and you will lose government. So many of you will lose your seats and be gone because of the contempt you show the people of the Territory on issues they dearly care about.
Try being a family living in a flood zone, or someone with a small business in a surge zone having to deal with insurance. They cannot. Go to the waterfront and ask the small business people if they can get insurance in the surge zone or at Cullen Bay. Lloyds of London will, at prohibitively expensive prices. Families in the flood and surge zones are priced out of the market even though you said it would be okay, and that with the sale of TIO jobs would not be lost – jobs were lost – and premiums were increasing anyway. Premiums went through the roof.
The lease of the port has been one of the most insane things I have seen the Northern Territory government do, and I have seen many governments come and go over decades. Every day, despite your bubble of denial you exist in, businesses in the Territory are going to the wall because you have failed to deliver the diversity in the economy you said you would. The INPEX Ichthys project has held the economy up. All the figures you rely on for gross state product flow from that project.
Under the CLP we have seen mine closures. It has been an extraordinarily dark period of regressive outcomes for Territorians.
The contempt shown to people in the school system – you have ripped funding from every school. You have sacked teachers, teacher aides, and shifted costs to schools through global school budgets. You then blame schools for any further cuts because the budgets were insufficient. No one in the education system will forget that.
A critically important project was shelved at Royal Darwin Hospital – the new paediatric wing. That would have helped the squeeze on outpatients. You shelved that then proceeded to delay the improvements to the existing paediatric ward. The Palmerston hospital debacle is a volume in itself.
The infrastructure projects you claim are all delays on the capital works program. The odd exceptions – there is some small road-type infrastructure on the Tiwi Islands. Good on you, member for Arafura, for striking that deal. Everything you beat your chest about, whether it is the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication, bridges, Territory roads, health clinics or trade training centres were all projects agreed to with identified funding under previous Labor federal and Territory governments.
All you have done is delayed them. It has been surprising and shocking to watch the degree of incompetence. Do not get me started on the cover-up we see in this Chamber at Question Time. You refuse to answer the most basic questions and treat Territorians with contempt, thinking they are fools. You believe they do not notice that you are not answering questions. Today was yet another example of that.
Whilst there are some aspects of this legislation I do not have an issue with, I acknowledge the privacy commissioner has some concerns with electronic voting. I am satisfied that the Electoral Commissioner has done his homework in regard to the electronic system used in Tasmania. If it is as fair and robust as the Electoral Commissioner hopes it to be, I have some confidence that it will help people exercise their vote when overseas, for example, on holidays.
I am surprised the CLP is even touching optional preferential. That party usually runs a host of people to cross-preference each other in order to roll the frontrunner over and secure the vote. I have seen that happen in different seats over the years. As a party you have used preferential voting to your advantage and are now stripping that away from your own party. You are on a losing limb which is breaking, and you are falling while you desperately cling to the last weeks and months of power.
I feel sad that the CLP party has been brought into such disrepute by a disgraceful Chief Minister. Whatever damage you do on the way through, many of us left standing will do everything we can to help people and make their life better. That is why some of us put our hand up. We care about the impact that government decisions make on people’s lives. Some eggs cannot be unscrambled, such as the port lease and the TIO sale, and I am concerned about that. I hope the incoming government has a comprehensive inquiry into the north Australia development recommendations on insurance for northern Australia and that something can be packed together from that.
I hope the next government will tackle the disastrous mess left in the wake of the members for Fong Lim and Braitling that was once our essential services. There have been massive blackouts due to stripping critical repairs and maintenance programs out of the system and, at the same time, hitting every family and every business with bills they cannot afford. Every time a bill hits the desk of a business, or of a young person paying rent or a family, they are reminded that the CLP did this and they will want to vote you out.
I will not even talk about the impact of your failures in the bush but leave that to the bush members. People in remote communities know how fast their power cards are burning through. They saw the housing program stop for about 18 months. You may treat them with contempt, but Territorians are not fools.
Ram through these changes by all means. Make an off-the-cuff change from the ridiculous 500 m exclusion zone to 100 m. I will vote against it. This type of reform should have gone, at the very least, to a parliamentary committee for scrutiny of systems around Australia and consultation across the Territory, including remote communities, regional towns and major urban centres to come up with a fair series of improvements to the way people exercise their vote.
I have not begun to talk about how confusing it will be for people in a federal election year to vote one way while the Territory act changes require them to vote differently. That is chaos, but that is what you want, Chief Minister, and that is what you will get, but you will not succeed. You will lose, the CLP will lose government, and I hope you have gone well before then.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I speak on the government’s proposed changes to the Northern Territory Electoral Act. Like previous speakers from this side of the Chamber, I have some issues with certain changes proposed by the government. What we see here, particularly in the change from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting and the ban on canvassing outside polling places, is a thought bubble.
I know it is a thought bubble because I have spoken to people in the CLP and asked what the heck was going on. Did the party endorse these policies? The answer was, ‘Definitely not, Robyn’. The Country Liberal Party knew nothing about these proposed changes. They are a thought bubble of the Chief Minister’s.
With no consultation in the Country Liberal Party it is not hard to understand why he has not consulted with Territorians. Indeed, there has been no consultation on these changes whatsoever. In my briefing with the Electoral Commission one question I wanted an answer to was had there been any consultation about the proposed changes to the Electoral Act? The answer was no.
Today we discuss changes that are not reflective of a good, robust, transparent process of government. This is a brain snap of one individual in government, I suspect the Chief Minister, who has come up with these crazy ideas hoping for the House to pass them on the numbers. We know the government has the numbers because the Chief Minister has done a deal with the member for Arnhem, Larisa Lee, and she appears to be voting blindly on every piece of legislation and every motion the government puts forward.
The opportunity for extremely robust debate on this is limited, but as the members of the opposition and various Independents have stated already, there are problems with some of the proposed changes. For the most part the proposed changes are palatable and not offensive in any way. However, two changes have created some debate and rejection. The change from full preferential voting to optional preferential voting is one of the contentious changes proposed by the government today.
The member for Karama is right when she says there will be confusion in the Northern Territory. When this passes today – it will based on the government’s support from the member for Arnhem – we will have three different systems of voting in the Northern Territory. Federally we will have the full preferential voting system, in the Northern Territory we will have optional preferential voting, and for local government elections we will have proportional voting. How confusing is that? In what other jurisdiction in Australia do you have three different systems of voting for three different levels of government?
The problem will become more intense when Territorians face three elections within 12 months. Literally, Territorians will face a Territory election, a federal election and a local government election within 12 months. We expect Territorians to get their heads around three different voting systems, which is unfair. It is irrational, the timing is very curious and it is not respectful. Most people only think about voting systems or how to vote as they approach the polling booth on polling day. Most people do not put their mind to anything like what parliament is contemplating today.
It is irresponsible of the government to make these changes to the Northern Territory electoral system six months out from a general election given that Territorians face three elections within a 12-month period. I implore the government to think about this. It is fine for thought bubbles to transcend into policies and legislation, but the real test is how they apply to people, their behaviour and what we expect of them on polling day.
What we will see in the federal election, which most people predict will be before the Northern Territory general election, is that people will be very confused. I was told by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission that as soon as this legislation passes, which will be today no doubt, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission will embark on a robust and strong education campaign. There is little time for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to get the message out about these changes taking effect. Whilst they are doing that we will have a federal election where the rules are completely different – a full preferential voting system.
The prediction I and many other people make, including experts like Antony Green and Ken Parish, is that the informal vote for the federal election will be high because confusion will reign. Perhaps the Chief Minister has done this because confusion might play into his seemingly hard task of winning the next election. Without making those predictions it is unfair to impose this change on Territorians.
I acknowledge that optional preferential voting will be an easier system for some people in our community to navigate. There are statistics around the numbers of informal votes and where the majority of informal voting occurs within the Northern Territory. Other speakers have identified a very high informal vote within Aboriginal communities.
Ken Parish, I believe on radio soon after the Chief Minister’s second reading speech late last year, said in the scheme of things optional preferential voting does not make a huge difference to people living in bush communities because there are rarely more than three candidates for each electorate. He also said most Aboriginal people, regardless of their numeracy and literacy skills, are able to navigate preferencing three candidates. I have sought advice about that and been told that for some people it is extraordinarily difficult to number one, two and three. It would be a lot easier and more convenient to put a one in the box. Most people can manage one, two, three and four with no trouble.
Although I acknowledge it will be easier, one of the main contentions I have with optional preferential voting is it is just that: optional preferential voting. It means that some people will decide to put one in a box next to their favoured candidate and not preference, and others will fully preference every candidate on the ticket. This effectively means that the person who votes one and does not preference their vote is of a lesser value than the person who fully preferences. I have explored this with various people and it is the case. Looking at how preferences are allocated, if you do not preference your vote lapses after the first round of counting. Your vote is worth far less than a person who preferences, because the vote of the person who preferences continues to carry weight as their preferences are allocated to the second, third and fourth candidate etcetera.
We are effectively introducing a system of voting where there are two values for a vote, one with a limited value and one with a full value. I do not see how that equates to a fair voting system. If people were to understand the preferential voting system they would agree it is better for them, and the candidates they are supporting, to continue to preference.
It is interesting that only two other jurisdictions in Australia have optional preferential voting, being New South Wales and Queensland. From the information I received, Queensland introduced optional preferential voting in 1992, which is 24 years ago. New South Wales introduced optional preferential voting in 1980, which is 36 years ago. In a quarter of a century no other jurisdiction in Australia has said, ‘Yes, we want optional preferential voting because it’s so good’. Suddenly the Northern Territory does, which begs so many questions it is not funny.
Why would the Northern Territory, the smallest jurisdiction in Australia by a country mile with 245 000 people, want optional preferential voting when no other jurisdiction for at least 24 years has contemplated this change seriously?
The other interesting thing is that in Queensland 55% of voters choose to vote optional preferential and 45% continue to fully preference. You have a mix of voters: 45% choosing to preference and 55% just putting one in a box, which means that 45% of the population of Queensland have a stronger, more valuable vote than the other 55%.
I have listened to debates on radio. We had quite a fulsome debate on our local ABC radio in Alice Springs. Some people called in to say, ‘I just want to vote one. I don’t like the preferential system.’ I get that. I believe all in, all out. Either we all go first-past-the-post or we all go preferential. Having two separately valued votes is inequitable. It is unfair, and should be debated a lot more widely in the community before it is introduced in the Northern Territory. People need to consider that it has not been seen as an attractive or viable option for any jurisdiction in Australia for at least 24 years. That needs to be put in the mix too. Why are we doing it in the Northern Territory? It seems to be impulsive. There seems to be very little rationale in why we are doing it.
The second issue I and most on this side of the Chamber have with the proposed changes to the Electoral Act is the ban on canvassing outside polling places. This is an interesting scenario to compare with what happens throughout Australia. The only other two jurisdictions in Australia with an extended limit to how far you can canvass within a radius of a polling booth are the ACT and Tasmania. Their limit is 100 m. All other jurisdictions in Australia have what we do at the moment, I understand, around 10 m.
For some polling booths in the bush, Hermannsburg for example, if you are half a kilometre from the polling booth you are halfway to Alice Springs. That is an exaggeration, but that is what it will feel like. You will be in the sticks, and the polling booth will be so far away it will be ridiculous. It will not even be within eyesight and you will soon find yourself extremely irrelevant. What is the purpose of this? Is it to minimise competition for the CLP at the next election? The CLP introducing this bizarre change to the Electoral Act tells me they are extremely worried and do not want to be competing with anyone on polling day. They want all the shenanigans to be well out of the way because they think they will lose. From what I see and hear that could be a distinct prospect.
It is not a good idea. Five hundred metres for most of us – I will be standing on the Stuart Highway when my polling booth is at Gillen Primary School. I will be trying to sell my message in no man’s land. People will wonder who the crazy lady is and what she is doing, which is probably what people think regularly. There she goes again. Why is she standing half a kilometre away from her polling booth? There is something wrong.
The something wrong is that this is a crazy notion, and 500 m from a polling booth is bizarre. In a piece I put together recently for a discussion paper on this I said that in the Northern Territory we have open speed limits and cracker night, but we do not like polling or canvassing outside polling booths. We do not like that type of fun. We like to drive like maniacs and let off crackers on cracker night, but we cannot have people up to shenanigans and politicking on polling day. Goodness me, we cannot have that. The hypocrisy is bizarre.
The government has made a big mistake. It has put in motion a ban which is unreasonable and ill-considered because there has been a lot of discussion throughout Australia on changes, improving the shenanigans, the show, the politicking that happens on election day. It can be completely over the top, and most of us would agree with that.
At some polling booths you have a cast of hundreds. There are people who are not even connected to the candidates lobbying on something they feel incensed about. It can be quite ridiculous. The issue is how the Electoral Commission contains that activity on polling day so it is ordered, relevant and restricted.
I agree with that and believe it is the best way to go. It is not about being 500 m away from the polling booth and therefore completely irrelevant. Other options can be considered. One option I spoke at length about with an expert in the field was limiting the number of supporters a candidate has on polling day.
The example given was each candidate can have two to three supporters on polling day. If there are 10 candidates there will be no more than 30 people, if you have two supporters per candidate, along the walk of delight on polling day. That makes sense and is a great idea. I would support the government if it were to see the light, realise how ridiculous the suggestion is and propose something useful. Even though you may get this through today you have only reduced it from 500 m to 100 m, and that was the much-awaited amendment to this proposed legislation.
Even 100 m is a significant distance away from the polling booth. For one of my main polling booths in Araluen that will put us down the street and we will be quite irrelevant. If you have 50 people standing down the street 100 m away from the polling booth at Gillen Primary School you are still trying to contain a crowd of people that may look rather displaced.
I will recommend through the consideration in detail that rather than put a restriction on the distance from the polling booth, we leave it as 10 m but restrict the number people allowed to accompany the candidate outside polling booths on election day. That is a much better option. It has been explored thoroughly within other jurisdictions, federally and within states and territories, and other jurisdictions have adopted that as an option.
When you think of cities where you have high congestion rates, buildings close together and narrow streets, requiring people to be 500 m away from a polling booth – it might be at a church, a school or a community hall – could cause a traffic problem. Even 100 m away from a polling booth could cause problems.
The other problem is how does the Electoral Commission, with all its other responsibilities, police people breaching this zone? Whether it is 500 m or 100 m, how do they police it? I asked that question of the Electoral Commissioner and he said he was not sure how he would do it.
That will be a major challenge for them on top of trying to get the message out about a new voting system and coordinating a one-in-four-year election. They will have to re-educate the community about new boundaries for canvassing outside a polling booth.
Many issues should have been teased out and debated within the community but have not been. This government is arrogant and disrespectful of the fact consultation means bringing people with you. If you consult, you get people to understand where you are coming from. They have their say, you have your say and you can bring people with you. You can even assist people to understand changes that are difficult and inevitable. However, this government does not like to consult or be part of a good and robust democratic system. It is about thrusting decisions at people, and if they do not like it then shove it. That is the way it is. That is the legacy of the CLP government, I fear.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin and wondered how many current CLP members of parliament won over 50% of the primary vote at the last election? There are a few, but a few did not. It is curious that the Chief Minister would put those seats at risk. It is inevitable there will be a swing against the government. In 2012 the CLP government won resoundingly with 16 out of 25 seats; it was a smashing.
That will not be repeated. There will be a swing against the government and the CLP should rely on preferences, because even with the existing crop we have there are many who would not be here if it was not for preferences. The member for Stuart scraped across the line with preferences. The member for Blain, in his by-election, depended on preferences. If memory serves me correctly the member for Port Darwin relied on preferences too.
There are marginal seats throughout the Northern Territory. If the CLP government thinks it will not need to rely on preferences to retain the seats it has it is preposterous and quite ignorant.
I will enjoy the last six months of this term of government. I am resolved to make sure that every day is fun and I make the most of the amazing opportunity I have to represent the people of Araluen, sit in this parliament on a regular basis and be part of the decision-making of this honoured and wonderful institution.
I despair that we are once again debating legislation that has not been put out for public consultation. I despair that we are debating thought bubbles of the Chief Minister and the CLP government.
I am making every day a winner. I am having fun and will continue to look after my electorate. Unlike some members of the government I can, in clear consciousness, say I have done a great job, have conducted myself with integrity and have respected each and every constituent within the electorate of Araluen.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, where do I start? I am sometimes a little bemused by the use of the word ‘consultation’. The government uses it quite regularly but does not understand the meaning of the word. I have worked out it is because the word has four syllables, and they are probably only used to deal with words of two or three syllables.
The Chief Minister’s second reading speech was pretty good. He said:
- The intention in regard to this bill is to seek comment and suggestions while it lies on the Notice Paper until this Assembly reconvenes in the new year.
Chief Minister, what comments and suggestions did you receive and what are they? You introduced this bill in the December sittings. I had two briefings with staff from your office, and I thank you for that as I found them useful. They said they were doing some surveys. ‘Have Your Say’ was one of their fact sheets. What were the survey results? What were the suggestions and comments – the few you would have received? It is a sneaky trick to introduce a bill with major reforms over the Christmas/New Year period when at least 10 000 to 15 000 people leave Darwin on holidays, without worrying about people in the regions.
What were the survey results of Have Your Say? I request that the document be tabled. Clearly there are legitimate concerns, as I have heard from members who have spoken already. They will be addressed at the consideration in detail stage.
In the second reading you commented on the number of people on the roll and those people who vote. We only catch so many in the Northern Territory as some 28 000 do not vote. That is not unique to the Northern Territory; it is an issue around the country. If that is a problem it should be addressed. What is the government doing – not the Electoral Commission but the government – to get more people onto the roll and more people interested in Northern Territory parliament and the legislation process? What is the NT government doing, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission – the Australian and Northern Territory – to improve the rolls, get more people on the roll and get more people to go willingly to the polling booth?
Why are people not voting if they are on the roll? Many people in my electorate go bush and hide there, as they do in the member for Nelson’s electorate, because that is what they want to do. Why are they not voting?
It is a hypothetical question and the answer could be because they do not like the government. They probably do not like the crossbenchers or the Labor Party either. They do not want to vote for either so they are off the roll or go fishing.
The Electoral Commission’s data showed that at the last election 3.2% of votes across the Northern Territory were informal. In the scheme of things that is not a huge amount. Part of the justification for the Chief Minister introducing this bill is to improve the informal vote.
That argument does not hold substance because I was advised by the advisers in the briefings, and the Electoral Commission, that half of that 3.2% were intentional informal votes. That is, people who write rude things on their ballot papers which are then deemed informal.
I do not have an issue with drawing names of candidates in Alice Springs, but the proposed amendment to section 50 – which is the voting system – to optional preferential, where did that come from? Why is this the way for the Northern Territory to go? At no time has anyone come to my office to complain about the Electoral Act or our voting system in the Northern Territory being a compulsory preferential system.
Some people do not want to vote at all and believe it should be optional, as it is in England. However, the majority are very comfortable going to the polling booth.
Chief Minister, where is the evidence that the Northern Territory needs to change from the current system of voting to an optional preferential system? I mean real evidence not, ‘People spoke to me’. That does not really cut it.
If this is introduced we will have three systems of voting in the Northern Territory. We will have compulsory preferential for the Commonwealth, optional preferential for the Northern Territory and a different system for local government.
This will have a direct impact on this year’s federal election, which will occur before our Territory election. The person impacted the most will be the member for Solomon because voters will think that is optional preferential voting. That seat will experience more informal votes than normal, with the possibility that the current member may lose her seat.
Chief Minister, with three different voting systems in the Northern Territory how will you get information to the residents, including people in remote communities and those with English as a second language, that there are different systems of voting in federal, NT and local government elections?
Some parts of the bill are okay and parts of postal voting are okay, but the member for Araluen spoke at length, as did other members, about the amendment to section 725 of the act which restricts canvassing-type activities to within 500 m of the entrance to the polling booth.
People do not like things being thrust in their face. What evidence do you have that people have a problem with the current system? Yes we all have a little whinge, but show me where there is a problem which would make us move to 500 m from a polling place. Where are the complaints? It is not about distance; it is that sometimes people are mobbed.
The worst case of mobbing was during the Blain by-election. I know that because I was there and it was atrocious. No wonder people were ticked off after being accosted in a ruthless manner.
The Chief Minister mentioned – we had discussions with the Electoral Commissioner about this – having to run the gauntlet of party officials and spruikers. I did not hear anything about the candidate. If the distance is 100 m, even 500 m, and I go to the polling booth and stand next to the sausage sizzle the school is running, what is wrong with that, if I say to people, ‘Hello, I’m here. I can’t tell you anything, I’m just here to say hello’? There is nothing in the legislation to prohibit the candidate from standing somewhere near the booth. I would like clarity on that.
Also, how will they regulate the distance, whatever distance it may be? A distance of 10 m is relatively easy for the Electoral Commission to regulate, but who will do the measuring? How will they regulate it? Do not bring in laws if you cannot regulate them because that is just nonsense. Does this go into the atmosphere because I have plans?
I would like some clarification on candidates. Assuming the candidate has no T-shirt on and is dressed normally can they just walk around talking to people? I want to know how it will be regulated. Where is the information that there is a problem with the 10 m distance?
Where has this come from, or not, as the case may be? No one has called for electoral reform in the Northern Territory. I have heard no complaints, received no letters and have not seen anything. I have conducted research and the current Electoral Act – yes, there are always ways to improve legislation, but where is the system broken? If there is a problem with informal voting – particularly in Aboriginal communities we are told – we will address it. If there is a lack of enrolment in the Northern Territory, or people are not voting, we will deal with that too.
Perhaps government knows that voters are moving away from major parties. We know this from interstate, whether that be the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. The fact that more voters than ever opted for minor parties in the Senate in 2013 reflects mounting dissatisfaction with major parties. I thought the CLP government would want reforms which aim to foster new voices as opposed to silencing them. Where are the letters? Where is the evidence from the Have Your Say survey or anything else the government has? Why has the government not released a discussion paper as happened in Queensland when they undertook major reform of their Electoral Act?
The fact sheets were fine, but that is not good enough. When we had a briefing in the second week of December we received fact sheets. When we asked what consultation would occur we were told it would be on the Internet. Putting it on the Internet was their definition of consultation ...
Ms Walker: DIY consultation.
Ms PURICK: Yes, DIY consultation. There were no focus groups, no meetings, no discussion papers, no posters, nothing. They would just put it on the Internet. Nothing was e-mailed to members. We represent constituencies but nothing went to members. I understand nothing went to stakeholders, nothing to the Law Society and nothing to the land councils. I believe the Electoral Commissioner was consulted and he did not approve of the proposed changes. Perhaps a university academic was consulted, but that is symptomatic of the problem with this government and the word ‘consultation’.
At a briefing I received from the Attorney-General’s staff – I cannot remember what the legislation was – I asked, ‘Have you consulted with the Law Society of the NT, NAAJA and groups like that?’ The reply was, ‘No, because they won’t like it’. I said, ‘They don’t like it so you will not consult. If you introduce a new mining tax or change the mining legislation you will not consult with the mining industry because they will not like it.’ I found that appalling. Generally people do not like things because there is something wrong. That is a shameful attitude, and how the government has gone about consultation for this legislation is a scam.
Over the last week or two the Attorney-General issued a media release along with various documentation in relation to amendments to the Guardianship of Infants Act. There is massive consultation, meetings across the Northern Territory, and discussion papers, and rightly so as it is important legislation. Why is there consultation on a large scale for one piece of legislation and not another equally important piece? This dishonest government is trying to get this legislation amended by stealth. It is policy on the run based on personal experiences, which is often what happens. It results in poor policy which is detrimental to Territorians.
The Attorney-General said no one commented so he did not see anything. Perhaps no one had a say at haveyoursay.nt.gov.au/electoralact so he thinks that is okay. Because no one commented does not mean it is okay. No one commented because they did not know, because you have not talked to them. The only people who have discussed it are members of this parliament and perhaps those with a keen interest in parliamentary activities and politics in the Northern Territory, like the Antony Greens of this world.
Releasing it over the Christmas and New Year period is an old trick, and everyone has wised up to that. This will be seen for what it is.
Some of the information put out by some members of the government about jurisdictions overseas is not relevant to the Northern Territory. We have a particularly unique style of politics based on urban, rural and remote. We should be looking specifically at the Northern Territory and not looking for a one size fits all.
The Attorney-General, as the member for Port Darwin, claimed there are issues at booths. Yes, there have been issues at mobile polling booths. I was at a couple of small ones in the rural area. There were claims against the member for Daly, and I am sure there will be claims about others who go out bush – use of language and that type of thing – but that is not across the Northern Territory. I have two booths for my electorate and the member for Nelson has about three. We have never had any issues. A few people get a bit cranky because …
Mr Wood: I had the member for Fong Lim.
Ms PURICK: Yes, you had the member for Fong Lim saying nasty things about you at the Kormilda booth, but generally the urban booths are okay. The government is trying to make one size fit all and it will not work.
If the government was serious about electoral reform it would have done it properly. It would look at Queensland, which reformed legislation in 2013 through extensive consultation and review. If the government is serious about improving standards, integrity and accountability with fair and effective laws which promote participation in our democracy through political representatives and voting, it should do it properly, fairly and correctly. The government should have looked at voter enrolment, the voting system here versus elsewhere, and perhaps non-compulsory voting. There is a possibility the NT government could have amended the legislation to non-compulsory voting. If the government is serious about electoral reform, why not look at all the things that could be changed?
Mr Wood: No one would turn up.
Ms PURICK: Possibly no one would turn up; that is why the government did not look at it. The government is looking at the postal voting system but not political advertising. It is not looking at political donations in this electoral reform. Something has been cobbled together quickly and, as the member for Araluen said, this did not come from the Country Liberal Party. This has come from either the Chief Minister directly or from Cabinet. It is not for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is for self-interest only, we all know that. As we say in the bush, ‘We didn’t come down in the last shower of rain’, which I understand was about 20 minutes ago.
I expected better from this government but should not have. Its track record over the last 12 months or so has been abysmal when it comes to honesty, accountability, transparency and doing the right thing for Territorians. This is not one of them. This is not a good thing for Territorians.
As I and others have said, some parts of the legislation are fine and will improve things, but it is a hotchpotch. Things have been cobbled together by a government desperate to hang onto power, and it will push this through by stealth with support from the member for Arnhem. Her electorate will be most affected, and I do not believe she understands that. I have tried to inform her that the changes made to this legislation will be a serious detriment to her success at the next NT election, but it is her choice on how she votes.
People do not trust this government. I have said in the past that there is a trust deficit. There is no goodwill in the bucket – it has a big hole. There is no trust, people do not believe the government and do not like the government. They will be suspicious of the changes, the purpose behind them and what you are trying to achieve.
If you are serious about electoral reform do it properly. You should withdraw this legislation, or perhaps defer it so you can put out a proper discussion paper. Consult with Territorian stakeholders and get something that is for the true benefit of the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is appalling, unconsulted legislation. The electoral reforms put forward by the CLP are driven by self-interest. Let us not be fooled by this. The bill before the House, with some significant and fairly detrimental reforms to the Electoral Commission dressed up as, ‘This is good for you and good for democracy’, is absolute rot. What consultation? DIY consultation we might call it. I have seen some fact sheets on a website, but that is not what I call consultation.
My interest is in relation to our remote communities, both big and small, given that I am a bush member, have been on several campaigns during mobile polling and have seen firsthand what it is like.
This is entirely driven by self-interest by the most appalling government in the history of the Northern Territory, probably the nation the way it is going. It is so desperate to cling to power – Lord knows why. To bring in these reforms six months before an election with no true consultation process and with those who have lobbed into the consultation, like the Electoral Commission and experts like Antony Green and Ken Parish, a frequent commentator on Territory politics, is all driven by self-interest. It is not good reform and is all about the CLP holding on to power.
On the subject of consultation, this week I received a copy of a document called Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy. It is not a bad document. I remember bumping into some public servants in Nhulunbuy more than a year ago and chatting with them at our local bakery. They told me what they had been tasked with. It is good to see the fruits of their labour have come to fruition and a document produced that is a tool for assisting public servants, and potentially others, on some of the things you need to know about and understand when you consult with Indigenous communities.
Given these reforms are quite significant and will impact on our remote Indigenous communities, I am disappointed but not surprised that there has been no consultation about this. Let me read a little from the minister’s foreword. It is the message from the Minister for Local Government and Community Services with a foreword about why this document is so important. I will read from paragraph three:
- This toolkit contains simple and important, yet often overlooked points to consider, which can be the difference between good, respectful negotiations and poorly planned, ill-timed affairs that do nothing more than create uncertainty and confusion.
Funny about that, on the closing the gap day in our nation, when front and centre but trying to be mindful of Indigenous Australians, we have electoral reform being bulldozed through this House with the support of the member for Arnhem. We do not know what deal she has done to support and prop up this dreadful minority government, but she supports it. It seems that on the important subject of consultation the minister is already in breach. She spoke in this debate about the importance of consultation. This process falls into the very thing the minister says we do not want: ‘poorly-planned, ill-timed affairs that do nothing more than create uncertainty and confusion’. Never a truer word was spoken.
It will be confusing for people. The member for Araluen mapped out particularly well how three different voting systems across the three tiers of government, all in the next 12 months, will create confusion for people as to how they cast their vote.
This is a joke. I do not need to go through the benefits or democratic reasons why preferential voting is a good, fair and equitable system as opposed to putting a one in the box.
While many of my constituents in remote communities struggle a little with literacy and numeracy, they are not fools. They can number things, particularly with a how-to-vote card in their hand given to them by a party official. In our remote polling booths I have witnessed some really good work where every level of assistance is offered to voters to ensure they complete a formal vote.
One of the best resources I have seen was the use of Centrelink staff during the federal election in 2013. They were already serving the communities. They know the people coming to vote and how to communicate with them.
They may not necessarily have read this document – the Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy – but they know how to communicate with Indigenous people because they are their client group as Centrelink people.
During the 2013 election I was impressed, in the remote communities I went to on mobile polling rounds, with how helpful it was to have Centrelink staff provide entirely non-political, impartial assistance. I observed that as a campaigner and as a scrutineer inside the booth.
One problem we have, which we know from the Territory election, is interpreters with the mask of language able to instruct voters on how to vote.
The other issue is too many people around a booth sometimes. The member for Goyder mentioned the Blain by-election. What a day that was! I do not spend a lot of time at by-elections, I am always in my electorate, but it was not a pleasant environment. It was not about running the gauntlet, but just about the sheer volume of people there. Rules around how many supporters and campaign workers might be there for each candidate or for each party, recognising their independence, might be a better way of looking at it.
I know people in my electorate want to receive a how-to-vote card. They may want to have a quick chat about who they are voting for and why, and we have good levels of formal voting.
Also, it has been fairly cordial on the mobile booths with members from other parties. I have been around the homelands mobile polling booth of northeast Arnhem Land with Senator Scullion and when there is only a few of you, perhaps with a supporter and interpreter, Electoral Commission staff and the community members wanting to vote, it is cordial. We are polite, we respect one another, we hand out our how-to-vote cards and are in and out of the community within an hour or two depending on how big it is. That is for mobile booths.
I remember during the federal election driving to Gapuwiyak, a two-day booth. I had a party member with me and we were there for two days. The member for Fong Lim was there with his wife, the member for Arnhem was there and it was quite cordial. We sort of had an agreement outside the polling booth about how we would set up. I thought it was almost beyond politeness when the member for Arnhem, in handing out how-to-vote cards when talking to a voter said, ‘Okay, you have that. Now you need to see Lynne because she will talk to you about the Labor Party.’ It was the federal campaign with Warren Snowdon. That was a good way to do it. It can be cordial when parties work together like that.
The 500 m rule is nonsense. I do not know how many people here know what it is like at remote booths. This is a picture of the remote booth at the homeland of Wulwuluy, one of the Marthakal homelands. The remote booth is under the wing of a plane on the airstrip. Generally three planes will fly in. The Electoral Commission, the Labor Party through its own fundraising, and similarly the CLP will have chartered a plane to get there. If there is an Independent they might struggle for funds and somebody might have driven them in. The Electoral Commission – this is on the airstrip. The community is about 1.5 km away and, God love them, they all walk out to meet the plane and that is how voting occurs.
In that scenario I could not be anywhere near there. I would be 500 m back in the bushes somewhere, and that is just crazy. It does not make sense. There is no gauntlet here, it is sensible. There is no gauntlet at Galiwinku. Even though it is a large booth it is cordial and people are very sensible.
The other practical thing is people need shade because it is hot there. You ask people to be 500 m away, but it is too far. I believe 100 m is too far and is crazy. I see nothing wrong with the distance and believe 10 m is fine. There are only two jurisdictions in the country that have a 100 m rule for no campaigning. I would be happy to stick with 10 m because it is workable. What should be sorted is how campaign workers operate and how many people are inside a booth.
I do not support this because it is crazy. It is the CLP desperate to hang on to power. It is definitely not about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, let us be honest. This is not good for democracy. Who is it good for? The CLP believes it will be good for them. They think it is the only way to cling to power if they get through the latest scandal, and no doubt the scandal around the corner.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of clarification, optional preferential voting occurs in the Northern Territory right now. For those who say this will make a third tier, optional preferential voting operates in the Northern Territory now.
I thank members for their contributions …
Ms Walker: You are wrong, Adam.
Mr GILES: You might learn something in this debate, Lynne.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr GILES: I was saying to John there is bullying and harassment in this workplace. The member for Araluen leads it quite well, as does the member for Karama, and the member for Nhulunbuy does a good job as well. I planned to say this has been a good debate. There have been some good contributions, but there has been some nastiness which continues as bullying and harassment.
I have listened to the debate and had some conversations with the member for Nelson, among other people, about this legislation, particularly in regard to changing the distance for canvassing near a polling booth. The silly nonsense played by the member for Karama about an amendment we agreed that we would put an amendment forward. That amendment will form part of changes to clause 17 of the bill seeking to omit ‘500’ and replace it with ‘100’, being 100 m.
Another area of interest is how this bill came about. This bill came about in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns at estimates about the process of voting in the Northern Territory. I said I had concerns and would conduct a review.
A review was undertaken in 2014 by the late Frank McGuiness. That review highlighted electoral donations and contributions, and also the Electoral Act. It was recommended at that time that there be a thorough review of the Electoral Act, and government is pursuing that. Also, a recommendation stipulated an opportunity to move forward with some low-hanging fruit that could be easily reached, which is the formation of this bill. This also came on the back of motions passed in this Chamber, particularly from the member for Nelson, about his desire to see some changes to the Electoral Act. The team and I supported that. I have long been a supporter of removing the gauntlet when we vote because it is wrong and should change.
The members for Araluen, Nhulunbuy, and Goyder spoke about their role in voting and how they cannot hand things out. There was also a conversation about consultation, and I believe they missed the point. The point is Territorians do not want to run the gauntlet. It is about the voter. When talking about consultation and listening, people want the opportunity to vote without having to run the gauntlet. That is the listening and consultation. Every point the members for Araluen, Goyder and Nhulunbuy made was about them in the polling booth, not the voter. That is where people get it wrong …
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Member for Nightcliff, I paid you the courtesy, and everyone else, of not interrupting their speech. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
There was a lot of talk about listening and consultation. I will not get into that now because I am aware of the time. I have a fair bit to say about that and will talk about consultation. However, this process started in estimates in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns which I share, particularly in regard to remote areas. It has gone through a review and report process. This is the first stage of electoral amendments to the low-hanging fruit. The other components are more controversial, and I thought it was not right to put them in before an election. I recommended to Cabinet doing it in two parts.
Debate suspended.
PUBLIC INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 156)
(Serial 156)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill to amend the Public Information Act aims to strengthen the existing act, which is in place to set up what is appropriate public information when funded by Territory taxpayers. This bill aims to make the standards and expectations around what is appropriate public information far clearer, especially in light of recent government advertising which has come into question.
As honourable members would agree, when advertising and information is produced by government for the public, Territorians expect that the information is accurate, factual and not promoting the interests of political parties or politicians.
Territorians want to have faith in the government of the day that advertising and information it produces is in the public interest, and is not funding items that should be paid for by political parties. This is a reasonable expectation and this bill sets clearer and more transparent standards in what is appropriate expenditure on government advertising and information.
The main amendments to this bill seek to strengthen it by inserting criteria and standards that were previously available under the public information guidelines. These guidelines were made by the relevant minister and were available to the Auditor-General to take into account in making a determination under the act.
The public information guidelines previously available under the act were revoked by the government in November 2013 after receiving advice from the Solicitor-General. Incorporating these previous guidelines into this bill will set a higher standard in what is appropriate public information to ensure it is in line with the expectations of Territorians.
The allowance within the Public Information Act for the minister to enhance and further strengthen public information guidelines remains to allow for future valid guidelines to be created if it is determined that they are required.
In clause 3 of the bill section 2A is inserted into the act, which outlines the object of the bill and sets out that all public information must meet at least one of the criteria that is outlined. These criteria were previously available in the former guidelines which accompanied the Public Information Act and this clause inserts them into the act. This ensures that public information meets at least one of the following criteria:
(a) the information serves to do any of the following:
(i) report on the performance in relation to government undertakings
Clause 4 inserts Part 1A into the bill which sets certain standards for giving public information and sets out that public information must be factual and arguments are presented objectively with data sourced, and that information must not comment on or attack views, policies or action of a political party or politician. Again, these sections were previously available in the guidelines that used to accompany the act.
Clause 5 seeks to amend section 6 to insert section 6(2)(d) to provide that including in advertising an image of the holder or occupier of the office of a minister may contravene the act. Further amendments in section 6 are in place so this would not apply if the audience was interstate or overseas in order to enhance the effectiveness of the information. This also does not apply in a time of an emergency, for example, a cyclone or a flood, when there would be an expectation of leadership from the community.
Clause 6 ensures that if the request for the review of public information is made to the Auditor-General by a member of the Assembly, the member will also receive a copy of the report on the findings of that review.
Territorians are right to expect that public money is not used to promote political parties and politicians. These amendments will deliver a clearer set of rules about what is appropriate public information when paid for by Territory taxpayers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Remote Housing
Remote Housing
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this parliament notes the abject failure of the CLP to provide for the housing needs of remote Territorians and supports the Labor plan for increasing remote housing in the Territory. Further, this House calls on the Territory government to act on implementing Labor’s plans as soon as possible.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this tonight. This issue is of vital importance and is intrinsically linked to a range of other policy areas. It is very topical at the moment. We have had much discussion about remote housing over a long period of time, but a lot of discussion is happening today.
Remarkably, given the widespread understanding of the housing gap in the bush the CLP government, which today claimed it came into government with a strong plan, still relies on the federal government to continue the program under the national partnership agreement that ends in 2018.
Three-and-a-half years into its term, this government continues to demonstrate, as shown through its own figures, that it is not meeting its own targets in upgrading or building new dwellings in the bush. Despite what we have heard in the House today, there is much concern about housing and service delivery in the bush.
Let us get real and have an honest conversation about what is going on. It seems what is said here and what is really happening are two different things. This lack of acknowledgement of reality is a concern when the government is in the midst of developing a housing strategy three-and-a-half years into its term.
Indigenous Territorians in remote communities continually tell us the issue of most importance to them is housing. Yet the only government since self-government to put Territory funds into remote housing has been the Labor governments of Clare Martin and Paul Henderson, and the County Liberal Party has squibbed at every turn.
Labor recognises how important this matter is. That is why we released an extensive remote housing strategy prior to Christmas. I will outline more of Labor’s remote housing plans, which aim to address the failures of this government and successive Housing ministers to provide a long-term commitment to remote housing, something desperately needed.
The lack of housing for Indigenous Territorians in remote communities is significantly impacting on their health, education and wellbeing. We believe that access to good housing is a right for all Territorians. Having a place to sleep, shelter to raise a family and personal space is critical for social welfare, mental wellbeing and the health of Territorians.
Access to decent, affordable accommodation is a prerequisite for workers to perform their jobs adequately, parents to raise their children properly and students to succeed in education in remote areas. The lack of sufficient decent, affordable housing is the most significant infrastructure deficit and social issue impacting Territorians living in remote communities. We hear this all the time.
The housing crisis in many of our remote communities needs to be a priority. This crisis is resulting in poor outcomes for Indigenous Territorians, Territorians as a whole, and is exacerbated by an apparent vacuum in the CLP’s plan for a way forward after the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.
Failure to act now and over the next decade can only result in more social dysfunction and dislocation, poorer health and education outcomes, and deteriorating law and order.
We are concerned that the gap in housing is widening, which is what the evidence is showing, and the population of most remote communities is increasing. These concerns need to be addressed now so they do not worsen over time.
We should strive for significant improvement. Time and again we see a government that is not reaching its targets. During the estimates process this government said, ‘Just trust us. We will reach the targets even though our statistics say we are not three-and-a-half years in.’
Various housing stakeholders have been vocal about their needs. Safe and secure housing is intrinsically linked to education, health, crime and employment outcomes. They will worsen in the Territory and dysfunction will increase if there is no strong plan in place.
Another challenge is the provision of specialised or purpose-built housing or accommodation in remote communities for those who are aged, have a disability or one recovering from dependencies or addictions. This is severely lacking in most remote communities.
Labor is committed to getting more Territorians into their own home, a rental property or supported accommodation they can afford. Labor will focus on an intense Territory government investment in expanding the living space, bedrooms and housing available to remote Territorians.
An expansive and guaranteed rolling housing program will result in more jobs and economic growth during the construction phase. A rolling maintenance program will continue to supply employment to local tradespeople and other skilled and semi-skilled workers because we need to back our own.
We recognise that the Northern Territory does not have the budget to achieve the outcomes required in this area, and we will seek investment and support from the Australian government. However, to successfully argue the case for increased investment the Territory government needs to bring some real funds and commitment to the table.
One issue pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition is the need to address the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s decision to include funding for remote housing under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing in the GST provision to states and territories. Frankly, this is a disastrous decision for the Territory. This means additional funding for remote housing reduces the Territory’s overall GST result. We believe this decision should be reversed by the Australian government. We also believe that working with Indigenous Territorians and their representative bodies is vital to opening up greater housing options. That has been raised by a number of different housing stakeholders across the Northern Territory, particularly in Central Australia.
Housing decisions need to be made in close consultation with local people at a pace and in a way which is supported by them. We will work with Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation to provide greater solutions for housing. We will ensure that trained interpreters are employed as liaison officers in all phases of the housing program from planning, training and employment delivery through to maintenance and management activities. This is essential if we are to provide housing that addresses the real needs of people in remote areas. The involvement of local people and leading housing design innovators will ensure housing is appropriate and fulfils those needs.
We support the rights of Territorians living in remote communities to buy their own homes. This needs to be done as part of an overall plan with relevant communities. We want to hear the government’s plans. We are three-and-a-half years into the CLP’s term of government and have a draft housing strategy that does not seem to reflect the concerns raised across the Territory. This includes repairs and maintenance, local involvement, local voices and local contractors.
In December 2015 the Leader of the Opposition announced that, if elected, we would provide a 10-year $1.1bn remote housing program to increase the amount of housing, living space and rooms available to Territorians in remote communities. We have been talking to people across the Territory about that plan. The infrastructure funds will be allocated from within the Territory budget, and remote housing funding will be allocated to five housing construction and expansion programs. For those who have read our plan it is fantastic, and I would like to outline them for you.
One is HomeBuild NT, which is direct Territory government investment into building new housing, living space and rooms in remote communities. These will be additional to the Australian government’s commitment through the national partnership, and it is a provision of $500m over 10 years from the Territory infrastructure budget to pay for this program. It will be focused on bringing new homes online for Territorians in remote communities and will be flexible enough to include remote specialist housing for aged Territorians and those with a disability, mental condition or in recovery from addiction or dependency on alcohol or drugs.
The second is we will invest in repairs and maintenance of houses beyond the funds currently provided by the Australian government. Repairs and maintenance is something the minister knows comes up all the time. People talk about waiting lengthy periods of time. I heard today it took about 12 months for some simple repairs. The more we talk to people the more horror stories we hear about repairs and maintenance. There will be an additional $20m per year for repairs and maintenance programs beginning in the 2017-18 budget and extending through the full 10 years.
We will introduce a new program called Room To Breathe NT which will fast-track the building of rooms, granny flats and spaces designed to provide more living space, sleeping space and shelter for remote Territorians. This will include outdoor living and cooking areas. Again, there is $20m per year to be provided from 2017-18 onwards for five years. At the end of five years it will be reviewed, and will continue for a further five years if proved successful. A review and evaluation of what we are doing is essential to improving housing outcomes.
Expanded government employee housing accessible to locally recruited remote government employees, with access governed by transparent criteria based on annual assessment of priority needs – an additional $20m per year to support this initiative. That is a significant change to current policy.
Those living in remote communities who train, work and are employed locally by government should have access to the government employee housing program. We know that will add additional pressure to the program, but it is important to recognise and reward people for their achievement. It needs to be managed carefully so we ensure enough housing is available to bring in outside employees where necessary.
Allocation of housing for local recruits and government workers recruited from outside local communities will be jointly administered by the government and local people. It will balance the need for external employees to have housing to support locally recruited government employees. Expansion of this program to accommodate the additional pressure will be accompanied by thorough assessment of the type of housing that can be quickly put into place, which also satisfies all EBA requirements.
The fifth is an expanded Homelands Extra funding program. We will lift the program to $6000 per eligible family per year and reform the eligibility criteria. We believe this program has been effective, but the application and administration of the program requires improvement. We believe the guidelines for expenditure should allow for funds to be banked or rolled over so applicants can apply the funds to more expensive items rather than just the $6000. To make the rollover or contribution of funds easier, we need to investigate improved data management services and systems, and improve relationships between service providers and applicants.
We want to investigate use of a website or an app that will allow applicants to access their account to see what money has come in, what has been spent and what is currently available to use. That will make the process and communication around it much easier.
The Chief Minister may talk about devolution of powers but Labor will do it. It appears throughout the Housing Strategy Consultation Draft, which I have a copy of. It is the intention of Labor to devolve key decision-making over housing to Indigenous people in remote communities. We have consistently spoken about that. We are prepared to devolve to regional councils, regional authorities or local housing groups decision-making on what to build, where to build it, how to build it and who will build it.
We are prepared to work with decision-making models which engage communities and external groups. We recognise there is a need to support capacity-building amongst Indigenous leadership in communities, and different places will want a different amount of time and different method of devolution. Our solutions are place based and directly relate to flexible local priorities and time frames. A key principle will be that devolution will be done hand-in-glove with Indigenous people and representative groups. We will invest in the capacity building necessary to make this work. We will establish the outcomes to be achieved over a period of time, and work with the relative housing bodies to assure these are being achieved. Again, that has been lacking.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory has been vocal about housing needs. It held a housing forum last year, and made a number of recommendations about housing needs in remote areas of the Northern Territory. It has provided a way forward for improving housing in the Territory. I hope the government takes notice of it and thinks about how to incorporate those principles into its housing strategy.
On our bush visits we hear the same thing. There is continuing confusion and growing anger regarding tenancy management, repairs and maintenance and housing allocation decisions. It has made the media today. It was in an article in The Australian titled, ‘Remote NT residents call in lawyers on rundown housing’. Tangentyere Council members visited Parliament House today and have spoken to the media about some of the decisions made in tenancy management in Alice Springs.
These things lift the lid on the embarrassment that is government policy – or lack of – on remote housing delivery. Some residents are resorting to legal action to get this government to meet its landlord obligations. It is another shameful example of this government failing to deliver for the bush and match its rhetoric with practical action.
This is not happening in just one place. Everywhere we go we hear about peoples’ frustration with wait times for urgent repairs and maintenance. People are confused about what has happened with their repair and maintenance requests, including those directly affecting their safety, security and health. These issues have been raised in this House many times by local members.
As recently as today I heard atrocious stories about how long it takes for basic repairs. This is not a new story but is a challenge. It is a continual problem. People say they report things then do not hear anything for a long period of time. They do not know if anybody is looking at it or if they care, even if it is a breeze block above a doorway that they are scared will drop out and hurt their family. People across the Northern Territory are waiting for a response from the government on housing issues. People are resorting to legal action and speaking to the government through the media because the government is not listening.
Rather than normal arrangements, where a landlord has a tenancy agreement with a single principal tenant, we understand this government is making agreements with and charging rent of all adult residents of remote public housing. How is that fair and reasonable? How much extra revenue is collected under these arrangements? How is that money being used to improve remote housing? Perhaps the minister can let us know.
Residents tell us there is more rent collection and less standard of service. The CLP has made decisions about tenancy management in Alice Springs town camps that fly in the face of claims that they want to increase community control of housing decisions and that we need to develop the community housing sector. The draft housing strategy refers multiple times to greater community involvement. Some of my tags to flag this document are on that point. This one talks about assessing local community capacities and aspirations in regard to housing, identifying policies and procedures that could be improved to achieve better housing and non-housing outcomes for clients, potential clients and the community.
There is concern that government should consider how it assesses these contract decisions when putting up community organisations against businesses. How that social value is being assessed is an important question, one that has not been answered. I was very appreciative of the briefing with the Department of Housing, and I thank the minister for helping arrange that. However, people still want information about how social value is assessed. We are talking about building a community housing sector in the Northern Territory and some community housing organisations are trying to make a go of it, but if we do not assess social value it makes it hard for these organisations to compete. I hope the minister looks at and addresses this.
While things are being said about developing the community housing sector and supporting community-controlled organisations, the simultaneous decision-making does not seem to match the government’s desired direction. There is no connection, people are noticing that and are asking questions.
This week, after three-and-a-half years in government, the CLP released its new Aboriginal Affairs Strategy. It brags about significantly increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people to be directly involved at the community level and lead the design and delivery of relevant government policies, programs and funding. The clumsy handling of housing decisions is a clear example that what the CLP says and what it does are two different things.
Labor will do things differently. We will reinvigorate housing reference groups and ensure that communities have local housing officers to support local initiatives and improve government responses. Initially, Labor will ensure that housing officers exist across 25 major areas.
Labor is prepared to devolve the tenancy management for remote communities away from Territory Housing. Similarly, Labor will review the housing repair contract arrangements to make housing repairs and maintenance a more locally provided service with local trade workers onsite for a quicker response.
It is clear that the CLP government does not support investing in remote housing, Labor does. It is clear that the CLP are big talkers about devolving power back to Indigenous people. Labor will act on it. Finally, it is clear that the CLP has wasted three-and-a-half years trying to get their act together and has not acted in the best interest of remote Territorians. Labor is ready to hit the ground running from day one with a thought-through, clear policy to implement across the Northern Territory.
I call on the House to support this motion.
Mrs PRICE (Housing): Mr Deputy Acting Speaker, I understand remote because that is where I am from. I am Indigenous, so I know the issues my people have had to put up with in Labor’s 11 years of doing nothing. Now they want to jump up and down and be the saviours again but not deliver anything.
I oppose this motion. The Country Liberals have done a fantastic job fixing Labor’s mess in housing. We came into government in part because Labor failed in housing. Labor failed remote Territorians with the SIHIP failure.
The Country Liberals have a record of achievement. We build houses. We have rebuilt, refurbished and upgraded houses across the Northern Territory from Yuendumu to Bulman, Mount Liebig to Gapuwiak, Warruwi to Yirrkala, and Maningrida to Hermannsburg.
The Country Liberals’ achievement in Aboriginal housing has seen 439 new houses built in remote communities across the Territory, and 474 rebuilt or refurbished houses. The Country Liberals have also upgraded 678 houses in remote communities across the Territory.
The Country Liberals have beaten Indigenous employment targets. We have achieved 62% Indigenous employment in repairs and maintenance. In tenancy management, the Country Liberals have achieved 71% Indigenous employment. The Country Liberals have achieved over 30% in our capital works upgrades and new builds.
Labor failed remote Territorians when in government in relation to housing and everything else. Labor’s housing policy led to a rise in consultancies, where Labor mates were appointed on six-figure salaries to manage Aboriginal social programs. We stopped that and got on with the job of delivering.
At the time Marcia Langton said, ‘Everybody knows that housing is at the heart of the Aboriginal health situation, and we cannot go any further because of the hopeless gravy train prop of the Northern Territory administration’. Yet the same Labor advisers are crafting a policy which will go down the same path, one characterised by consultancies not consultation. We all know the failures of that path. They are well documented and consist of multimillion-dollar houses and a not too slow show, but it seems Labor may go down that path again.
Labor wants us to implement its lack of plan, because if there was a plan there would be some detail and costings, but there are not. How can we implement Labor’s policy? How can we implement a policy with no detail or no plan? It is words on paper and is not fully costed. This Labor plan is all talk and no detail. Labor is about consultancies not consultation. It is a Labor path to failure.
There is no overarching vision in Aboriginal affairs or remote investment. Instead they just talk about housing. The lesson is we need a whole-of-government approach. To build a house you need bricks, mortar, roofing, steel and cement. Labor’s plan includes money for that, however, they need to be built somewhere. Labor has no provision for serviced lots in remote communities. That means no sewerage, no water and no electricity. The Country Liberals understand the need for a holistic approach to housing and Aboriginal affairs which includes planning for services and servicing. That comes across in what we are and will be doing.
You cannot build additional houses on a lot in remote communities without infrastructure upgrades. However, the Leader of the Opposition said the big lesson of SIHIP was not having the civil works chew up your housing spend. This sets up another major waste of money and also was a big failure of SIHIP. That was the bureaucratic gravy train of the Labor government.
Labor wants to build granny flats and barbecues on existing lots to alleviate overcrowding. My people want to cook outdoors with fires. That is what we are used to. That is more comfortable than trying to get the gas barbie going. When I go to communities they say they do not want to be living in a caravan in a backyard, but that is exactly what Labor will deliver.
A house with no water and sewerage is not a house; it is a shed. If you put it on wheels it is a caravan. Labor could provide Aboriginal people with better outcomes if they do not find money to improve infrastructure in remote communities. It is clear they do not want to have a whole-of-government approach to Aboriginal affairs. It is haphazard and based on whatever they think will get them elected.
The Labor government would break the promise of quality housing because there is no provision for servicing. The Country Liberals support giving power to local people, which is why we created authorities and gave the voice back to the bush after Labor’s failed super shire reform.
We support locals doing work on houses. I have told the House how excited people were in Docker River and Mount Liebig to work on their own houses. I also saw that when I visited Galiwinku.
Labor promised to have tenancy managers in 26 communities. We currently have housing maintenance officers or community housing officers in 26 communities. This is just a promise to keep doing what we are. Labor made a promise to copy the Country Liberals because Labor is trying to be a popular carbon copy of this government.
Regarding consultation in the bush, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for endorsing the Country Liberals’ Remote Engagement and Coordination Strategy. I believe the member said it is quite a good document. Where is Labor’s plan, apart from letting community members choose paint colours? Labor says it will consult and build culturally appropriate housing, but the only detail they have is tenants can paint their houses in whatever colour they choose. Do you know the Dulux colours? There are over 1000 colours and sample pots available in the top 50 colours for $7.50 each. Will you be providing tenants with sample pots to make an informed decision? What will happen if tenants do not like the colour? Will you change the colour for them?
It is hard to see the difference between white on white, china white, limed white, antique white USA, and whisper white. Also, it is sometimes tough to tell the difference between red box, red stop, Carmen Miranda and belly fire. For Labor’s information, culturally appropriate housing is more than giving Aboriginal people a Dulux colour chart and saying, ‘Choose your favourite’.
It seems they want to copy what the Giles Country Liberal government is doing at Galiwinku. We have a fast build and slow build approach to housing in Galiwinku. This decision was made by the local community, the Dilak group. The first houses in the fast build have been handed over. My department is talking to the leaders about house designs, to architects, and we are developing new designs for houses as part of the slow build in consultation with the Dilak group.
This goes to show that Labor is again copying the Country Liberals. Labor has promised to expand my Homelands Extra program and proposes we adopt this as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it is not costed. The Country Liberals will not introduce uncosted policy because that means more debt and deficit. That is the difference between responsible government on this side of the House and irresponsible government on that side. Labor is attempting to trump these economic credentials, but all they offer is more debt and deficit. They cannot say their policies are fully costed unless there is some secret cost they are not showing Territorians. The only alternative is Labor maybe promising an expanded Homelands Extra Allowance, but that additional expense is not budgeted. That may be the first broken promise of the Gunner Labor government.
I am well aware of concerns in the Aboriginal community about tender processes and Alice Springs town camps. In the Alice Springs transformation plan $150m funding was provided to Alice Springs town camps. There has been significant investment in Alice Springs town camps. The question is, should we go through a wasteful Labor approach or one that gets quality service for residents?
There will be no loss of service provision in relation to the tenancy management contract. The same service provisions will be achieved but at a lower cost. Government will not subsidise business models to provide the same services for less.
I met with the Tangentyere executives and they were disappointed with the result, but the nature of the business and the tendering is some organisations win and some lose. This same process saw Tangentyere Constructions win a tender for repairs and maintenance in town camps. Tangentyere has not said it won the tender for repairs and maintenance in town camps the same day the other tender went to Zodiac.
The Independents and Labor can talk about reviews all they like, but at the end of the day government should seek value for money. The fact is tenders were awarded in line with procurement directions, best practice guidelines and town camp leases. These leases say there has to be competitive and open tendering because the vast majority of town camp residents want quality services delivered with value for money.
The Chief Minister established the Alice Springs town camps task force, which is focused on illegal activity happening in town camps, child neglect, domestic violence, service delivery and the future. We should look at what we want town camps to look like.
Recently there has been some focus on Santa Teresa. There have been issues there for a long time, long before we came into government. Guess who the member is. It is the member for Namatjira. What has she done for them? Nothing. They should be asking her the question, not us now we are in government. Why has Labor not asked the member for Namatjira? What has she been doing for the people of Santa Teresa, Papunya and everywhere else? Are you too afraid?
The contractor with responsibility for repairs and maintenance at Santa Teresa is Ingkerreke. Guess who is now running for Labor in Stuart. It is Scott McConnell, who is Ingkerreke. Response times for repairs and maintenance are a key deliverable of the contract. The service provider must respond within set time frames, being immediate within four hours, urgent within two days, and standard or routine between 10 and 20 days. All emergency repairs will be completed within 14 business days, and the department is actively working with contractors to action and finalise all outstanding work as soon as possible.
The department first received advice on issues in Papunya on Monday 16 November. We followed up with the contractor, and all emergency repairs were completed within five days of actioning works. All other repairs and maintenance items have been completed, except for one fencing repair scheduled to be completed as part of the fencing program currently being undertaken at Papunya.
I support the right of tenants to utilise NTCAT. I also believe it is preferable for community members to communicate their issues directly to the department in order to resolve the issues they are experiencing more quickly and efficiently before it gets to NTCAT.
We are delivering in the Namatjira electorate. We have built 43 new houses, rebuilt and refurbished 123 homes, and are delivering over 159 upgrades.
Local work is being performed by local people in Areyonga, Docker River, Kintore and Mount Liebig, and is being completed at a high standard.
So far this financial year we have completed 83 upgrades in housing in Central Australian Indigenous communities. We are delivering for Central Australia, as we are delivering for the entire Territory.
Renal accommodation – the Country Liberals government has negotiated over $10m from the Commonwealth to support end-stage Aboriginal renal patients and their families in Central Australia. This funding is being used to deliver new renal clinics in Docker River, Papunya and upgrades in Mount Liebig so people can receive treatment in their home communities. We are also supporting those in need to relocate to Alice Springs and Tennant Creek by increasing the number of dwellings in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek for Indigenous renal patients and their families.
The request for proposal document was released to the industry and closed on 22 November 2015. A community housing provider will be selected through a public competitive process to deliver ongoing property and tenancy management services to the target client group for a minimum 10-year period. The Department of Housing anticipates that a contract will be awarded to the successful community housing provider shortly, with negotiations currently under way. This announcement will be fantastic for remote Indigenous renal patients and their families.
We listen to the needs of people living in remote areas. I go there and speak to them.
The Northern Territory government introduced a home ownership initiative in June 2014, allowing existing public housing tenants living in remote communities to buy their own home. This is a significant step to making home ownership more widely available to Territorians. It is also part of this government’s commitment to giving residents living in remote communities access to the same opportunities as anyone else.
The remote ownership program currently operates in the Tiwi Islands communities of Wurrumiyanga and Milikapiti, Umbakumba and Angurugu on Groote Eylandt, and Milyakburra on Bickerton Island where there are township leases in place. The response to the program continues to be positive. Six applications for remote home ownership are under active consideration. The Department of Housing is currently focusing efforts on applicants considered best able to meet all the requirements to purchase their own home. The Department of Housing is currently responding to a further four inquiries about home ownership by providing tenants with information and advice about the program. Three current applications and two inquiries are from tenants in Umbakumba. A case manager is working with them closely.
We are doing a lot for remote communities and I visit them as often as I can.
The Northern Territory government remains committed to supporting and encouraging home ownership in remote communities, with $4.5m over three years provided to support the remote home ownership program. There is also $20 000 for special assistance grants to help purchasers further improve the condition and functionality of their homes after purchase, ensuring their house suits their needs.
The government is currently developing its future housing strategy. We announced a review into housing in June last year. The Chief Minister and I visited the site of the Real Housing for Growth project at Runge Street.
There has been extensive consultation with people in remote communities and urban areas across the Territory. We produced a consultation draft and have received feedback. We are currently reviewing the feedback and will release the housing strategy later this year.
With regard to housing on homelands and outstations, approximately 10 000 Aboriginal Territorians live in 2400 dwellings on more than 500 homelands and outstations across the Territory. These dwellings are all privately owned either by the occupant or the land trust.
With the Northern Territory now having full responsibility for managing homelands, there is an opportunity to ensure homeland programs are positively contributing to the social and economic wellbeing of homelands residents.
Homelands, a shared responsibility is a Northern Territory government policy that recognises the economic, social and cultural advantages of people remaining on their homelands while aiming to improve provision of services. This is currently under review as well.
The Homelands Policy aims to provide a strategic framework for the delivery of municipal and essential services and housing maintenance services to homelands in the Northern Territory. The effective coordination of service delivery is dependent upon flexible models that focus on outcomes and are culturally appropriate, recognise local diversity, are fit for purpose and avoid duplication of funding.
In developing this policy the Northern Territory government sought to respond to feedback from homelands service providers and residents while balancing the budgetary, legal and jurisdictional constraints faced by all governments. The Homelands Policy review is expected to be completed by June 2016, and will help identify areas of the program that need refining to achieve maximum outcomes while being delivered cost effectively.
To conclude, the Country Liberals have done a great job. The Country Liberals have built 439 new houses in remote communities across the Territory, refurbished 474 houses and upgraded 678.
We will not go down the Labor path to failure. I will make sure of that because I visit all the town camps. I visit my family on weekends to make sure they are okay, and people are happy to talk to me.
Will the member for Casuarina be able to sit with my cousin Mary at the Warlpiri camp, have kangaroo tail with her and talk about her issues? Will she be able to talk to my sister-in-law who lives at Little Sisters? She has 10 to 15 children to look after because the parents are out drinking and having fun.
Could she talk to people at Docker River or Nyirripi? Would she sit on the ground and find out, in detail, the issues people have?
Labor did not listen in 11 years. This is why we are in this situation, even though Labor had 11 years to fix it. What did they do in all that time? They now have this gung ho policy on remote Indigenous housing where Michael Gunner’s Labor government will fix all the remote housing problems.
Opposition Leader, in the 11 years of Labor you were part of it, you worked for the government as an adviser and you did nothing.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not support the member for Casuarina’s motion. The member for Casuarina has shown her inexperience when it comes to remote housing. Part of the motion asks this parliament to support the Labor plan to increase remote housing. Labor’s plan is to build outdoor barbecue areas and granny flats not houses. The CLP is delivering on its commitment to constituents in my electorate to improve the lives of people living in the bush.
In my electorate 980 remote houses are managed by the Department of Housing. In 2015, 38 dwellings were built in the communities of Warruwi, Minjilang and Milikapiti. These dwellings were houses not granny flats or outdoor barbecue areas. In fact, these houses even have kitchens.
Breaking down those 980 remote housing dwellings by community shows Gunbalanya has 165; Maningrida has 255; Milikapiti has 82; Minjilang has 40; Pirlangimpi has 88; Warruwi has 63; and Wurrumiyanga has 287. The government has continued to refurbish and repair this housing stock as well as construct new houses.
The CLP came to government after 12 years of remote housing failure by Labor. The member for Casuarina is probably too young to remember this. When the CLP came to government we had a plan to improve the lives of people in the bush with things like remote economic development, infrastructure upgrades, improved education and by improving living conditions in remote communities. Our remote housing plan has made a significant difference to people in the bush but we still have a long way to go. The difference between us and those opposite is we have a plan not a silly thought bubble for barbeque areas.
I am proud to support the Minister for Housing in implementing this plan. She brings significant personal experience in the remote housing area. Perhaps those opposite could seek advice from people like her before bringing motions and plans like this to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am a little concerned about a theme emerging from the CLP government where the minister’s speech and the member for Arafura’s speech seemed to be written by spin doctors. My concern is that you have lost the confidence of the department. A minister’s speech is normally jam-packed full of factual evidence to support the debate. However, this minister has lowered herself to the level of victim blame rhetoric by trying to blame the previous Labor government written into her speech. It is of great concern that material is not produced by a professional department.
The minister needs to get on the front foot in an election year and be proactive, because the reactive stand is now old hat, worn out and nobody is listening. The unfortunate part is that nobody trusts the CLP.
I acknowledge the Minister for Housing, as well as Territory Housing, because an opposition member’s work is difficult, particularly in the environment of a punitive CLP government. However, writing support letters on behalf of needy and deserving constituents who are then given priority placements with Territory Housing has been a rewarding experience. I am not sure if the minister has participated in that process but I thank Territory Housing, from the regional officers through to head office.
It is good to feel trusted and that your knowledge of a region is interpreted in a professional context. We can then deliver results. Minister, if you came to Tennant Creek I could introduce you to some of the renal dialysis patients or the young families with lots of kids and foster kids who have gone through the priority housing list and are now settled with employment, critical clinical care and kids going to school. That is a good story. That is the way the system works and nothing is easy.
I thank the member for Casuarina, the Labor spokesperson for Housing, who has been working on new policy ideas. A government will be judged on its record and an opposition on the new ideas and policies it brings to the constituency. The member for Casuarina has led this on behalf of the Labor team, and this dialogue is resonating through both the bush and town. People are looking at new and better ways of doing things.
Member of Arafura, I reflect on that because Labor has considerable experience. The member for Port Darwin wisely advised the House yesterday it is hard work. You do not always get the wins. He knows the reality of being a minister after sitting on this side for so many years. It is true, and Labor had hard yards, there is no doubt about it, but nobody can deny the incredible infrastructure spend that went with a major national partnership agreement. The Country Liberals prefer to define it as SIHIP. However, it represents a national partnership agreement, of which they are still custodians, and that is where we have seen the ball drop.
Member for Arafura, you mentioned Maningrida. You said there were 980 homes across your electorate with 255 at Maningrida. However, 110 of those are new SIHIP homes in a new subdivision created for the town of Maningrida. Why do I know that? I had the privilege of working with the department that designed it, planned it and built it. I had the privilege of travelling to Maningrida on a number of occasions to see how that was going. It was great to see that four out of five houses in the streets were going ahead and landscaping was occurring.
There were concerns about one house in that group of five which needed work, and that was part of the job. There are now 110 houses that were not there before. This classic victim blame rhetoric has to stop, and if it is written into speeches then we are in desperate hands.
While preparing for debate on this motion I reviewed my correspondence file of 2015. I did not go back to 2008, because from 2008 to 2012 I was writing similar letters to our government, championing the cause, lobbying our government and achieving what I could. In 2015 I had correspondence around housing and services for Mungkarta, Tara, Epenarra, Corella Creek, Borroloola, Kiana, Ali Curung, Canteen Creek, Elliott and Tennant Creek. Ali Curung is a good example of trying to effect repairs and maintenance for some senior people with ongoing issues. It is part of the process, and once again I thank the department for its support. You do not always win, but you are in there trying.
I make specific comment about Borroloola because it dropped off the national partnership agreement. It incurred a reduction in the planned spend with nothing delivered yet. This is of great concern, yet the rhetoric on social media runs as recently as yesterday. A local commented that the minister was coming and had promised 25 houses would be built. We know they will have to replace houses beyond economic repair, so there is no argument about the headworks services of water, power, sewerage and storm water that Labor learnt valuable lessons about. There is still nothing, minister.
In Elliott I was working as the minister and the local member to tidy up issues around outstation tenure to incorporate Gurungu and Wilyugoo into the town plan then get them on the national partnership list. However, there is still nothing for Elliott. It is no good blaming – the buck stops with the minister. I need to work with her to deliver. It is about working together, not about blame. For Elliott, you have promised $3.5m on the proviso it be paid to an Aboriginal corporation which needs to be established and set up. You know how unrealistic that is. There is a body that could audit those funds. It would enhance the Barkly Regional Council considerably and create employment for young people. We could start with your promised $3.5m worth of repairs and maintenance.
The minister mentioned some facts and figures, both in Question Time and in this debate, which do not match the Department of Housing infrastructure program tabled in its annual report of 2014. We see significant decreases in funding and alarming completion rates for upgraded dwellings and new dwellings. Numbers have dropped from the hundreds to the tens. Upgraded dwellings in the 2014 budget go from 418 to an actual of 63. In 2014-15, 95 completed new dwellings were forecast with an actual of 35.
There has been an incredible reduction in the budget. This is reflected in vacant houses in the regions. In Tennant Creek, minister, I can show you a house that has been vacant for 12 months. It had all the windows replaced with Perspex because kids were vandalising it. It was still vacant over the Christmas period but I will check it when I get home. That reflects a massive reduction in your budget and your spend yet the waiting list still grows.
Regarding the regions, I attempted through the previous Housing minister, minister Conlan, with correspondence cc’d to the Chief Minister and the Minister for Essential Services – I revisited this issue as recently as 9 October 2015 with correspondence to minister Price as Minister for Housing, and also the Chief Minister. It relates to an issue at Epenarra. Under the national partnership agreement we left government with a dream come true for me. Twelve houses were promised for Epenarra to replace the tin sheds. I worked in this community 35 years ago and there were no houses. People lived in humpies, and I lived in a silver bullet caravan on the river.
The tin houses were some of the first infrastructure put in by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs under the old federal programs. These tin houses still exist at Epenarra. They were programmed to be knocked down and replaced with the new national partnership agreement houses.
There was resistance from the leaseholders. This is a complicated story, and I was trying to work through it with Mr Westra van Holthe as Minister for Essential Services, because the leaseholders’ main concerns were about water. Seven of those houses were reprogrammed and delivered at Murray Downs, not the 12. Epenarra is still waiting for its national partnership agreement houses.
I have the photos I sent to the CLP government on two occasions – six different ministers – and they are rather confronting. There is a confronting photo of a long-drop toilet which shows the challenge and what we need to do, minister.
The leaseholders I was working with to resolve the issues have sold the property and are moving on. When I undertook research around water saving devices with the possibility of establishing rainwater tanks for the new dwellings – there will not be that forecast water use.
We can conserve water through new infrastructure. These houses should be built and there are no more excuses. I seek leave to table these photos so other members may see the condition of these houses and the urgent need for the people at Epenarra.
Leave granted.
Mr McCARTHY: This issue is pertinent to families I have known for over 35 years, particularly the women. Some women in the community are now senior leaders, the custodians of the language and culture and have never experienced a normal house or a new house. They have lived in humpies, been given access to tin sheds and that is as far as it has gone. They ask for nothing, yet to deliver those houses, particularly with the amount of children they support, would be an incredible result for the department and these families, particularly their health, safety and security.
Minister, I thank the Department of Housing. A number of seniors were concerned about security issues at flats in Haddock Street before Christmas. They came to see me and we worked through the normal channels of our local police and the Department of Housing. We discussed how to personally deal with the issue of visitors and antisocial behaviour. A big shout out to Mr Mervin Hunter, who became the spokesperson for this group.
At a meeting in the electorate office we discussed asking the department to send Public Housing Safety Officers from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek for a week. Guess what? To the delight of Mervin Hunter and the other seniors at this complex, it happened. It was so welcome.
This was a great outcome. Once again I thank the staff of both Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Territory Housing who organised it. For a cashed-up government that has sold off the majority of our major public assets, it does not cost much to bring some Public Housing Safety Officers to Tennant Creek, put them in a local motel, supply them with a department vehicle from Tennant Creek, or they could drive their own from Alice Springs, and send that message which is an important element of housing, tenancy management.
This has been a great initiative, minister. We ask you, on behalf of the seniors and other tenants in Territory Housing, to look at blocks of time throughout the year when safety officers can come to Tennant Creek. They would make their presence felt as statutory officers who enforce the tenancy rules and regulations, set the standard, and send a clear message that this is not a one-off but a sustainable effort to make sure we normalise the behaviour of public housing tenants and their visitors.
There has been much criticism in the regions about repairs and maintenance, so I want to tell you what happens in government decision-making. I refer to Tennant Creek and the provision of services for building, painting, electrical and plumbing. If a company that wins the majority of the work majors in electrical and refrigeration, it will struggle to deliver in building and plumbing services. This has happened through the tendering processes and, in his debate yesterday, the Minister for Business summed up the CLP policy, ‘Some are doing really well, some are not doing really well, some are doing it tough’. When you go down this road there can be dire circumstances for service delivery.
If, in the same town, there is a building company with over 30 years’ experience in building, maintenance, painting, fit-outs in kitchens which misses out on that government work, not only have you a loss of business confidence with serious criticism of the government, you also lose continuity and sustainability in the repairs and maintenance schedule. The electrical refrigeration company is struggling to deliver in those areas, a building company with 30 years’ experience is going broke – in a regional town of 3500 people – add the regional footprint and the work available in the regions and you have a good opportunity to address the situation.
This conversation is not a comfortable one to have. I could be blunter, I could point fingers and name people, but I choose to put this in a philosophical sense because this has gone in the wrong direction. Minister, if you are copping complaints around the timing of repairs and maintenance then look at the structures you have created through the policies of your government.
The minister rubbished Labor’s plan to paint houses, Labor’s plan to engage families and young people, and to create teams to paint houses in regional and remote areas. If anybody has been to Murray Downs and seen Ned Kelly’s house painted in his favourite football team’s colours – it is a blessing. If you talk about Labor going into the regions and mobilising civil works around streetscapes, nature strips, storm water, engaging people to maintain their houses, gardens and yards and paint their houses, it will address a cross-section of health, education and local government that will be a win-win for everybody. Minister, how dare you say it is not a good idea. This is a good idea, a new idea and a Labor idea.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily supporting the motion, but this gives me an opportunity to talk about a few issues. At this time in the Assembly’s life there will be many political statements. That does not mean they are not worthy of discussion, but there will be an element of, ‘I’m better than you’, and ‘You didn’t do anything when you were in power’. Certain exaggerations have been made by the government in this debate.
Regardless of the initial problems with the SIHIP program – I wonder if the member for Arafura has forgotten many SIHIP houses were built on the Tiwi Islands. I visited early, when the first groups went to the Tiwi Islands to discuss design of the houses. A community group based – I believe it was partly Tiwi and partly people with some expertise in Aboriginal housing. Many houses were built. I lived there for eight years, and if I go back I struggle to remember where everything was because so many houses have been built. I do not mind the government patting itself on the back about its housing program, but if it does then say houses were not built before it denigrates its argument.
I saw lots of houses at Maningrida and also at Elcho Island. I went to Groote Eylandt, as did the member for Port Darwin. Of course there was a set-up with the journalist there looking at timber at the base of the houses, and the blocks were not quite square, but I digress. At least a committee looked at the standard of housing in communities, and houses were …
Mr Elferink: They passed muster.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and the houses were built. If we are to have a debate we do not want one side not operating while we criticise the other.
I was invited to Emu Point late last year to see what was happening. One issue I have raised with the Chief Minister relates to homelands and outstations. The government’s policy mentions housing construction in towns, but there does not seem to be a policy to address the shortage of houses on outstations.
Emu Point is a well-run outstation. It has a nice school and preschool. It has issues with a clinic, which I raised with the minister, and some work is happening there. However, houses are overcrowded. Those houses possibly go back to the ATSIC period. An elder, Terry Sams, a friend of mine, lived with my wife and me when we first married because he had a hole in his heart so we looked after him. I had not seen him for many years, but when I saw him in town he said, ‘Come out to Emu Point’, so we did. He is like many old people in Aboriginal communities – the house is full of relatives. They need to do something about overcrowding and employment.
I asked Terry if there was a good supply of sand there, because we have gone away from self-help housing. Many Daly River houses were built using sand from Daly River Crossing. When I first went to the Daly River in 1970 there was a brick factory. It was not modern in the sense of electricity – people made bricks by hand and rammed them down. You will see houses on the Daly River that have been through many floods and are still standing. They were built by Aboriginal people, with some non-Aboriginal carpenters and others with skills to build a house, but the community was employed. If you go to Daly River you have to say it is one of the best communities in the Northern Territory.
There are opportunities, and the member for Nhulunbuy might be able to say more about that than me. I understand in the Arnhem Land area some people are building houses from local resources. I believe there are timber mills in some places. That is where we should be heading. We are fooling ourselves if we expect governments to keep pouring money into public housing. We need to give people the opportunity to build their own house. That will create employment and reduce overcrowding in houses, and also give people pride in their communities.
If you want people to stay in communities and not drift to towns they must have a reason to live there not rot there. That has to happen and it should be a part of – I do not mind which government or political party wants to promote it. That is microeconomic reform in the bush. We can talk about gas pipelines, new projects and Tiger Brennan Drive, but many people need meaningful employment and there is room for that. I will take it from any party that promotes it because there is good scope for that to occur.
My criticism of the government relates more to my electorate. I was looking at the Hansard of Question Time. On 26 March 2014 – I have asked questions before and raised something earlier this year – I asked the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment:
- You have responsibility for the Darwin town Aboriginal community task force which was established some time ago. Could you say how many meetings the task force has held over the last 12 months? Could you also say whether members of the community were included in these meetings and, if so, how many and from what communities? Could you advise the results of these meetings so far, and is the government still talking to the Larrakia Nation about taking over the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon communities?
I asked that question of the previous government and know nothing has happened. Those people still live in conditions that most of you would be upset about. There are good houses in both communities, but there are also some terrible ones. Luckily some are being demolished at the moment, hopefully to be replaced.
We know there are issues with governance and with the impact of alcohol and drugs. There are also issues with kids not attending school and people coming into the communities who probably should not be there.
I previously read out to this parliament a letter from a group of women from the Knuckey Lagoon community saying that if the government wants home ownership at Bagot – if the member for Fong Lim can say to people, ‘We want you to have some ownership of your community’, why are you not applying that to the Knuckey Lagoon and 11 Mile communities?
The minister for Aboriginal affairs is here. He issued a policy recently, but I saw nothing for Aboriginal people living in the Darwin region. I saw one for remote communities, and that is fine, but we need to do something positive about what is happening in our own back yard.
When will the government do something about land tenure? I know it is a difficult issue. The Aboriginal Development Foundation has a perpetual lease over the land, and the government seems to be not willing to, not able to, or it is too difficult to terminate that lease. I understanding there might not be a proper agreement, but Yilli Rreung is the manager of housing at 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and probably 1 Mile. I do not know if they have an official tenancy agreement. Someone recently said there was an informal one. Even if there is an official one, if someone is destroying a house they can only kick them out as far as the verandah. After that they have no power because they do not own the land the house is on.
Some people in those communities want to buy their house. Has the minister for Aboriginal affairs looked into home ownership for community people? I have spoken to some of the women there who would prefer to put their rent into a mortgage repayment and have ownership of their houses.
Even though some people are so-called leaders in that community, to some extent they are self-appointed. They are good people, but there has never been an opportunity, especially for the women, to say who should run the community. There has never been a meeting to say, ‘We’d like to elect a spokesperson for the Knuckey Lagoon or the 11 Mile’. There are many good people in those communities who have to suffer being bashed, problems with alcohol, problems with noise and all the things that make life difficult for people to live normally.
I have asked this government several times, as I asked the previous government, to work with the community – from the bottom up – to find out what they want.
This has been going on for years. I visit those communities and sometimes, even though I know people, it is scary because new people who do not care about the locals drift in. All they want is to get drunk, cause problems and use drugs.
These communities have potential but are being held back because governments are not able or willing to sort out the difficulties.
I find it hard to look along the highway. On the right hand side as I come to town is the 15 Mile community. Some houses are in good condition, some a bit bashed and sometimes the grass is long. On the other side is the flash new suburb of Johnston. There is a great contrast.
We need the government, and the Chief Minister as minister for Aboriginal affairs, to take the lead and sort out the issues relating to the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. The member for Fong Lim was used in reference to home ownership at Bagot. The people at Knuckey Lagoon want to know why they cannot do it and have written to the paper about it.
This cannot continue. I want a government – I do not care which side – to sort out the problems at Knuckey Lagoon and the 11 Mile so those people can look after themselves with a proper governance committee. We will give people the opportunity to buy their houses, and will talk to them to find out what their needs are and do something about it.
To me, those people have no hope. They have written letters, they have asked me, and the houses are no different than when I first started in the job, except they built some new ones. That is fine, but houses are just concrete. You can live in a dump and still have some pride. You do not have to be bashed at night, listen to parties late at night or have kids running amok. There are great opportunities for change in those communities, but we are not giving people the power to take control of their lives.
If the government is making statements on Aboriginal policy – I have no problem with that and I hope the opposition has one too before the next election. Neither party has done anything for these people and should be ashamed. You cannot sit on difficult problems forever.
Mr Tollner: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: No, you have not. Tell me what you have done at 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon!
Mr Tollner: They are communities.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and a lot of people live there.
I understand that you promised people at Bagot could have the opportunity to own their houses. The Knuckey Lagoon women wrote a letter to the NT News, and I believe to a minister saying, ‘Why can’t you say that to us?’ I know there are problems but we cannot say, ‘It’s too hard’.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the land. I have nothing against Bernie Valadian, he is a nice fellow, but we have a governance problem which is partly mixed up with land ownership. People living at those communities must have a say in running their communities.
I look forward to a response, even though the Minister for Housing has spoken. Before the next election I would like to hear that somebody will implement a plan to help these people. I do not believe we are treating them as equal Territorians if we leave them living in those conditions.
We can make a lot of noise about remote communities, and a lot of communities need work on them, but we have issues in our back yard we do not seem to want to tackle.
I hope, in raising this issue tonight, the Chief Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to, can put forward some concrete proposals that might work to help these people because that is the role of government.
Thank you, member for Casuarina, for moving this motion. It gave me an opportunity to talk on something that I have spoken about a few times. I will not necessarily bag the government and say Labor has a better policy – I will leave that to the electioneering – but this gave me an opportunity to raise issues I believe are important.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, while it is fresh in my mind I will respond to some things raised by the member for Nelson. He is dead right. We have to do more at Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and places owned by ADF and I am keen to. I know people want private ownership of houses, and I thoroughly support them, but until ownership of those communities changes nothing can be done.
I am at the preliminary stage of working through that. I am told by some people that this will be a bigger battle than we have ever had and I do not care. It is a battle we need to have because, ultimately, people should be able to live in their own house if that is their choice. I support them in that, and I support people in Alice Springs town camps who want to do similar things.
We have signed an MOU with the Gwalwa Daraniki Association where we intend to hand almost the entirety of that land – after we have done some planning – to the association as freehold land so place as they see fit – obviously through proper planning principles following proper process. We are encouraging them to do it.
It seems a bunch of people are somewhat envious and dead keen to stop that. A group of people do not want to see Aboriginal people progress in that manner and believe the land should be communally owned and people should live in poverty forever. It is not my view, but is the view of some people. It was my desire to see that occur at Bagot as well. I have been on the record for a number of years saying we want to encourage private home ownership.
At the moment Bagot is under administration. I believe in the future Bagot community government council will be liquidated. Who knows, they may find some way of trading out of the administration, but we will see. As a general principle, you are spot on. We want to see town camps freehold, and want them to and turn into normal functioning suburbs like any other suburb in the Territory where people can live as part of a suburban community rather than in a modern day ghetto. It is a disgrace that in a modern city like Darwin people are living in poverty. I would like to see that change.
This is an interesting motion and I understand why the government will not support it. The member for Casuarina is new to the job, and good on her. She has a bit of zeal and gusto, and as shadow Housing minister this seems appropriate to her. It is unfortunate that a more senior member did not propose the motion. For instance, the member for Barkly could have raised this but he knew better. He knew he would be laughed out of the joint for talking about long drops in Elliott. Has that long drop existed only in the last four years or has it been there for a long time?
Labor spent $1.6bn on the SIHIP program. At the end of that enormous spend, which they are so proud of, we had fewer rooms in the bush than we started with. It is an amazing thing to spend $1.6bn and end up with less than what you started with. Only a Labor government could manage such a feat. What a disgrace.
Member for Casuarina, I feel sad that your motion does not do much more than pour scorn on your political party. I have listened to all the contributions. There has been no real imagination from members of the Labor Party. There is no innovation in how you will build more houses, bring the cost of housing down, or deal with the massive problems of overcrowding in the bush. It is quite sad. Your motion simply says, ‘The government isn’t doing anything, but we waill do a lot when we get into government next time round’. It is typical of your latest jobs plan, the 14 000 workers that will cost government $5.5bn per year. It is great if you have $5.5bn to spend to create 14 000 new jobs.
Again, it is emblematic of the Labor way of spending without worrying where the money is coming from. It is spending almost the entirety of the budget to create 14 000 jobs. Now they are committing to a range of housing when they come into government, knowing the ask on government finance is enormous and with no real explanation of where they will generate further income from.
We know you want to kill economic development of Central Australia, particularly around the Barkly region. I am surprised the member for Barkly has not made a bit more fuss and kicked up more of a stink about Labor’s policy to ban onshore gas. Ultimately the member for Barkly’s electorate will benefit the most from that pipeline and the railway line going from Tennant Creek to Mount Isa. There are enormous job opportunities and a real revitalisation of the Barkly region, in particular Tennant Creek. It is my understanding that the Barkly Highway will be moved to connect up with Tennant Creek. That proposal is being investigated.
Fantastic opportunities for the Tennant Creek region are stemming from the announcement that we will build a NEGI, open up onshore gas – not open it up but pare back what Labor said it would allow for exploration. We have restricted it to a few key areas of the Northern Territory, but that is not good enough for Labor. Having put 95% of the Northern Territory out for gas exploration, less than four years later they want to put a moratorium, or a ban, on onshore gas in the Territory. That is a remarkable policy for a party contending to be in government. You have to question the sense involved.
How can you say you support a pipeline, but on the other hand say you do not support the gas that goes into the pipeline? The member for Barkly, if he had any inkling of moral decency, would say, ‘Come on guys, this is rather contradictory. You are hurting the people in my electorate, people who have potential jobs here, and hurting the economic development of the electorate’, rather than being like a blind sheep and following the Labor lead to ban onshore gas. It is remarkable!
You said, ‘There is a long-drop toilet in Elliott and that is a disgrace’. I can imagine that, but suggesting it is this government’s fault is not up to scratch. During the Labor period, with a Labor government federally and one in the Territory, they spent $1.6bn on remote housing. Member for Casuarina, your party spent $1.6bn on remote housing and delivered fewer rooms than existed when the program started.
It is fine to say we need to do more in remote housing, but where are the Labor Party’s runs on the board when it comes to building houses in the bush? How do you hope to build houses in the bush?
I remember the early stages of SIHIP – it might be an education for the member for Casuarina, you might want to listen to this – which came from the intervention, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response. That stemmed from Clare Martin, who swept the Little Children are Sacred report under the carpet and refused to show it to anybody in the country because it was so damning of the government’s functioning in the bush.
Eventually, Mal Brough, who was the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, found a copy of it on the Internet. He was horrified at the findings of the report and immediately said, along with John Howard, ‘We have to run an intervention into the Northern Territory because of the parlous state of Aboriginal affairs’. Labor hid the findings of the Little Children are Sacred report because of their own embarrassment.
One of the key issues identified in that report was overcrowding, along with the rivers of grog and other problems. It found overcrowding was a major cause of that. We allocated some $650m at the time to emergency housing responses in the bush. I remember Nigel Scullion and I, along with Mal Brough, were scouring the country to find low-cost housing options to meet this emergency in the Northern Territory. We looked at flatpack housing from South Australia, demountables, and housing in far north Queensland where they used drill pipe and form ply to create a shelter at very low cost. Those dwellings cost in the order of $30 000 to $40 000 to build at the time.
We were looking for the cheapest possible solution to get as much accommodation into remote communities because it was an emergency response. It was similar to the Victorian bushfires when peoples’ homes were burnt down. It was an emergency response. They put people on the racecourse and in tents on showgrounds for emergency accommodation. It was that fervour we and the federal government were in at the time, trying to find emergency response solutions to the housing crisis. We scoured the country for the cheapest housing options we could possibly find.
Unfortunately, the Howard government only continued for another three months after the intervention, then a federal Labor government took it on. At the time they said they supported the Northern Territory intervention – the emergency response. Whilst they said that, they also said, ‘This is ridiculous. We won’t spend $650m on remote housing unless we can be certain there are some quality standards in the buildings.’ Second, they said they would not spend that type of money unless there were employment outcomes for Indigenous people.
Things changed somewhat under the Labor government. The Labor government was more interested in building quality style houses and creating Indigenous employment than constructing houses. That meant instead of looking for $30 000, $40 000, $50 000 or $100 000 dwellings around the country, we were paying $0.5m to $1m for a house in remote areas.
Ms Walker: Never paid $1m for a house. Seriously, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Look around, member for Nhulunbuy. Check out what it costs to build houses in the bush.
We put the same codes in place for Indigenous housing that we have in the city, and quite often that is not what people are looking for. We know that people in the bush are looking for a different design of house than what you find in Darwin. The Labor way suggests, ‘No, we have to build the same type of house in the bush as in the city’. That is the experience we have had to date.
As Minister for Lands and Planning I have asked for a review of the building code. We have a committee working on that review as we speak. You might recall Phil Harris from Troppo Architects. He is chairing that group and coordinating meetings.
I receive reports from him from time to time about discussions they have on a range of design issues and how we can tweak the code to make sure we get better tropical-style housing, better designed housing for arid lands and better designed houses to meet the needs of people in the bush.
Territory Labor had 11 years to implement the same review, but nothing happened. We saw them spend $1.6bn and end up with fewer rooms in houses in the bush than when they started. The housing crisis was exacerbated under the Labor government despite the Little Children are Sacred report saying overcrowding in houses was one of the biggest contributors to some of the problems experienced in bush communities.
Labor simply dropped the ball. They lost sight of the goal. They lost sight of the fact we had an emergency and needed to build houses in the bush.
Thankfully this government has reversed that, largely on the back of the work the member for Stuart has been doing. Not only is she an Indigenous person who lives remotely and understands remote issues, she also gets things done and that is a credit to her. She is doing a magnificent job in the face of enormous opposition from Labor, which appears somewhat offended that we have an Indigenous woman on our side of parliament getting things done.
It seems to stick in their craw and they hound the member for Stuart like there’s no tomorrow. They constantly bait her, have a crack at her suggesting she is not too bright and have a go at her education. The member for Stuart is a great minister doing a great job in the housing area.
It is such hypocrisy for Labor to move a motion suggesting they will do something about housing in the bush. Four years ago the Northern Territory, particularly our urban areas, was experiencing the worst housing crisis in the Territory’s history. Property prices were through the roof.
Houses in Darwin and Palmerston were more expensive than houses in Sydney or any other capital city. Labor dropped the ball with housing in remote communities and urban areas. Our rents were the highest in Australia. This government has made policy changes, has released land, and we are finally seeing the heat go out of the housing market. What does Labor want to do? They want to go back to the old days. Every time we …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I request an extension of time for the member for Fong Lim to complete his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, she is such a babe. That is politically incorrect and you can have a crack at me about it. It is a shame I have to continue the diatribe about you and your party in government.
We had the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory under the previous Labor government yet they want to turn back the clock. Hardly a day goes by when they do not say, ‘Bring back the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses’. They seem to forget the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses adds inflationary pressures to the housing market causing it to overheat, and that drives up the cost of housing for everybody.
The First Home Owner Grant for existing houses is not a solution. In fact, since we have removed the First Home Owner Grant for existing houses property prices in the northern suburbs of Darwin have come down by around $100 000. That far outstrips any benefit a $26 000 First Home Owner Grant can generate. Houses are far cheaper now than under the Labor government. For some reason they want to fuel that inflationary effect on housing in the Northern Territory. This is the mind-bendingly stupid economic policy of Labor and demonstrates how they managed to have a $5.5bn projected debt, a $1.1bn budget deficit and a 98% debt to revenue ratio.
This government, after three-and-a-half years, has cut Labor’s projected debt by more than half and has balanced the budget. We have, for the first time in more than 10 years, gone into surplus. This is the only jurisdiction in the country currently in the black as far as posting a budget surplus. We have also reduced the debt to revenue ratio to just 30%, and Labor wants to go back to the days of big spending and not giving a stuff about debt or deficit. It does not matter to them, just throw money at it and create more of a problem, which is what they did.
It is mind boggling that you can spend $1.6bn on remote housing and end up with fewer rooms than you started with. Only a Labor government could do that and consider it an achievement. Building $500 000, $600 000, $700 000, $800 000 or $1m houses in the bush is an achievement. You have to be joking. We still have problems in the bush, and every time we try to fix them Labor gets in the way and always plays to the lowest common denominator. Labor always gets into the gutter straight up. Rather than looking at an issue in its entirety, they will nitpick. This week, for the first time in three years, the Sensis Business Index says there has been a dip in business confidence. Labor seized on that, and in the media and everywhere else said the Territory was going to hell in a hand basket because Territory business confidence had slipped in the last quarter.
You ask, ‘Who is killing business confidence again? Who is talking the place down? Who can never see a bright spot, thinks the Territory is a hellhole, constantly talks the place down and says it is going to wrack and ruin?’ Labor. That is what they do. You think you have a solution for remote housing but you do not. You are a disgrace and have never had a solution. You spent $1.6bn and ended up with fewer rooms than you started with.
Mr Giles: It was $1.8bn.
Mr TOLLNER: It was $1.8bn. You came into government saying you supported the Northern Territory National Emergency Response then did everything in your power to not treat it as an emergency.
All you do is spend heaps of money. Does it go to Indigenous people? No, it goes to white people who operate multinational businesses, very few from the Territory. If you call that generating jobs and activity you are joking.
Last week you said you would kill another industry before it started. Wiping out onshore gas is economic vandalism. You know the headwinds coming our way. There are problems in Europe, the Chinese economy is shrinking and Australia has a debt and budget problem. We will receive less money from Canberra in the future, yet you persist in browbeating us and suggesting we need to spend more money.
Shame on you! You are a disgrace and do not deserve government. I am sure, come August, Territorians will see through the lot of you.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, what is worse is that they have a plan for 10 years’ worth of funding beyond forward estimates. I thought you would have learnt from Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard, particularly with regard to health and education, where we find ourselves in a perilous state. You should have learnt not to budget beyond forward estimates; you budget for four years. That should be the premise of any Territory budget because nobody is allowed to budget beyond four years. It is in every budget, whether it the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia or Canberra. That is how the budget works.
I am not sure who your shadow Treasurer is, but your housing policy has obviously not gone to them, or you are trying to sell a pup to people in the bush regarding Indigenous housing.
The Treasurer spoke about your failures in SIHIP. I was a shadow minister for four years and saw the pathetic roll-out of the SIHIP program. You did not employ local people. Right now our Indigenous affairs strategy is turning that around. Our intent with the Indigenous affairs strategy is not just related to employment, economic development and getting jobs out of government contracts, but is also about decentralisation.
When you took housing management off communities you took jobs from those people and centralised them into one location, being Darwin. You have taken away the voice of people in communities with regard to housing. Not only did you not fund them properly, manage them properly or provide the right structure for construction of the houses so we had the $1m houses the Treasurer spoke about, you took away people’s opportunity for greater level of control. That is a major issue in the Northern Territory across a wide range of policy parameters. We are seeking to reverse that in local government, particularly around development of local authorities in 73 of the larger communities, with 10 more to go.
We will do the same in housing. We will give control back to people so they can manage their destiny and their housing opportunities. We should be doing the same with health centres. Of the Territory’s health centres in remote communities, 40% are community controlled. We need to hand the other 60% over so communities can control their health system the way they do in urban areas of the Territory and other parts of Australia.
We should be doing the same with education. We are already seeing success with global school budgets, particularly in our independent public schools. Independent public schools are achieving outcomes like never before. The successes of independent public schools are to be heralded. That is the same model we want to roll out in Aboriginal communities so we can hand control back ...
Ms Walker: You want to whack them all into boarding school.
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy screams across the Chamber, interjecting in that bully-bully fashion ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I take offence to that. An interjection is not screaming. I find that misogynous.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. You are behaving like a bully.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw that.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. We need to have thick skin. It is okay for me to be abused and yelled at all night, but if I accuse anyone of bullying it is offensive. I will take that on the chin; I will wear another one. I have worn it for hours and hours today from you, member for Nhulunbuy. I will keep wearing it.
This is a debate about policy. It is a debate about ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on a second if you will, Chief Minister. Guys, let us keep the interjections to a minimum. You guys had your chance to talk and it is their chance now. Let us do this in a civil way, thank you.
Mr GILES: This is a debate about policy. From the outset Labor’s financial modelling has failed, because they have a 10-year financial plan which they know is a misrepresentation. I would not call it a lie, but it is not the way things can be done financially by any government. That is wrong. If you are telling people in the bush you have a 10-year funded plan that is a lie.
If you are telling people they will have control of housing that would be a lie as well, because you took that away from people. If you are telling people they will get jobs – look at your history – that would be a mistake as well because you have not done that in the past.
I am surprised the member for Wanguri has not spoken on this topic because she was an adviser to the former Housing minister, Dr Chris Burns, who administered this poorly before he gave it to Rob Knight, who mucked it up even more. The member for Wanguri knows that because she gave advice on how to take houses off Aboriginal people, not give Aboriginal people in the bush jobs, and ensured there were fewer bedrooms than before the $1.8bn housing program commenced.
This is a house of debate of ideas, policies and expenditure of money. We know Labor could not administer SIHIP properly. That is when they fell into minority government and did a deal with the member for Nelson. That is how devastating the program was.
There is no confidence for Territory Labor to manage an Indigenous housing program.
When it comes to housing in general, there are many cost-of-living issues in the Northern Territory. We see that in the price of airline tickets, groceries, power tariffs, which we brought down on 1 January, fuel, which is coming down, and the price of housing. The cost of living is an issue. Many inroads have been made. At United on Daly Street unleaded fuel was $1.17 this morning. We will continue to see changes in the future.
When it comes to housing, too often we would turn on the television and see on Today or Sunrise reports about the cost of housing nationally. Darwin was leading the way because there was a lack of land release – Labor was afraid to release land – and a lack of expenditure on headworks. That was partly because there was no money in the bank – the government was broke – and because they were putting all the money into a $1.8bn prison.
It is interesting that the two programs are of the same value – $1.8bn for the Indigenous housing program with fewer bedrooms than before they started – and a $1.8bn prison with more bedrooms. Instead of housing for Aboriginal people we are housing an extra 1000 prisoners. That is the outcome of Labor’s $3.6bn expenditure program.
When it comes to the cost of housing, not only was there a lack of land release but Labor was unable to approve developments, particularly in urban locations like Darwin city. There has been an escalation in the number of units in Darwin. Compare that with the Treasurer’s comments about the change to the First Home Owner Grant.
The First Home Owner Grant was politically popular. It is easy to hand out free money and be popular. I remember buying a house in 1999. I was in New South Wales and missed out on the First Home Owner Grant by about one month. It was $7000 at the time and I was disappointed I missed out on it.
Here we had a $25 000 grant for established homes. That has been removed because we know, from economic analysis in all jurisdictions, a grant for an established home puts inflationary pressure on the price of the established home and sees an increase in the cost.
The $25 000 grant for an established home may help someone get a deposit, and that is good and I understand it. It also helps people get into a home. However, the $25 000 deposit sees the seller raise the price and it extends capacity onto the loan. Hypothetically, $25 000 on top of a $500 000 loan repaid at an interest rate of 5% over 30 years can mean up to $300 000. I am using back-of-the-envelope calculations not specific figures. The $25 000 grant becomes a hindrance for people at the back end of their loan, whatever the term may be. Not only does it increasing the purchase price, it increases the overall repayments because of that extra principle component.
We have removed the $25 000, increased it slightly to $26 000 on new homes, and are seeing development of new estates at Muirhead, Zuccoli, Katherine East, Kilgariff in Alice Springs, or any urban redevelopment that is occurring.
That is encouraging downward pressure on the established home market. We are seeing a drop of roughly $100 000 for houses and units. Units have had an even bigger drop. I know landlords will not want to see prices come down, and I appreciate that. I am a landlord myself; I have four properties of my own all with a mortgage …
Ms Fyles: Any in the Territory?
Mr GILES: Yes, thank you very much, member for Nightcliff. Your interjection is a personal attack on me. That is highly offensive, but I will not take offence. Yes, I have one on Knuckey Street, member for Nightcliff.
For landlords prices are going down. We do not want to create negative equity, but we want to make it easy for people to get into housing. House and unit prices are coming down, and rents are coming down. That is partly because of the vacancy rate. We have increased the number of developments so there are more units and houses around. Also, the new developments provide jobs for chippies, sparkies, bricklayers, concreters, tilers, landscapers and people who build swimming pools. One reason we have done this is because we need new housing, not just handing out government money to turn over existing housing.
There is method in what we are doing and it has seen gains. While there may be a downturn in sales for established homes, transactions are going up in the new construction sector. The real estate industry, conveyancers and banking and finance people are quite right to say the established homes sector is slowing down. I feel for those people, and we are working on ways to help stimulate the turnover of established homes without government handing out money or seeing inflationary pressures back on those properties. That just makes it harder for people trying to get into a home. We are working on those things. To Quentin Kilian at the real estate institute, and those in the finance and conveyancing industry, things may come out soon where we can provide assistance.
I say to Labor, do not see a political opportunity in the First Home Owner Grant. That is what you did last time and you over-cooked the property market. There were big returns for interstate investors, but the ordinary Territorian could not afford it. A house for a young family should not cost $800 000. People were facing challenges.
Regarding Indigenous housing, Labor’s previous program was unsuccessful. I doubt if they will be successful in the delivery of any program.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Casuarina for bringing this motion before parliament which says:
- … this parliament notes the abject failure of the CLP to provide for the housing needs of remote Territorians and supports the Labor plan for increasing remote housing in the Territory.
Further, this House calls on the Territory government to act on implementing Labor’s plans as soon as possible.
The old line she has used over the last couple of years of, ‘Labor did nothing for 11 years’ is a worn out phrase and everybody has a chuckle when she says it because it is not true.
It was good to hear from the member for Fong Lim. Whilst he holds a different view of the world to me when it comes to remote housing, he recalls the SIHIP debate and what happened there.
I want to remind the member for Stuart that the member for Casuarina’s contribution, as with any member of this House – it does not matter how young or old you are, your ethnic diversity or otherwise. As the minister is also Minister for Women’s Policy, her continued chiding of the member for Casuarina – as other members on that side do – by remarking on her age and implying that due to her younger years there is a lack of maturity and experience is offensive. Anybody who knows the member for Casuarina, listens to and watches her knows that is not true. The Minister for Women’s Policy should do better than that.
I did not spend 11 years in the Labor government, but had four years as a backbencher and a bush member and am therefore reasonably well qualified to participate in this debate. I was part of a special parliamentary committee named the Council of Territory Cooperation, which was formed when Labor went into a minority government in August 2009. At that time the member for Nelson had agreed with Chief Minister Paul Henderson to support a Labor government. Part of that deal …
Mr Wood: A transparent agreement.
Ms WALKER: I was about to say that, member for Nelson, it was a transparent agreement. It was a written agreement signed by the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. It was on the Chief Minister’s webpage so was readily available to anybody who wanted to see the negotiated agreement. That is unlike the member for Arnhem, who is supporting the minority CLP government, but we have no idea what arrangement she has secured. The member for Arnhem, a former CLP member, moved to the crossbench with two other Indigenous CLP government members. They were unhappy with the government about many things.
Given her history with the CLP, followed by a history with the Palmer United Party and now an Independent member of this parliament, in some very secretive agreement she now has a deal with the minority government to prop them up with a vote on the floor of the House. It remains a mystery to us, and I thought she might contribute to the debate this evening given that she represents a remote electorate. Sadly, her constituents do not see enough of her.
The member for Port Darwin was on the Council of Territory Cooperation for a while, as was the member for Fannie Bay, but it changed membership after a few months …
Mr Wood: The member for Katherine.
Ms WALKER: There you go. For the last few years I was on it with the member for Nelson and Marion Scrymgour, the former member for Arafura.
The Council of Territory Cooperation did a lot of work. It investigated various aspects of government service delivery.
Mr Wood: Mataranka moo cows.
Ms WALKER: We did all sorts of things. I chaired that committee, member for Nelson, and remember it very well.
We investigated and closely monitored SIHIP, the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, the largest housing program in the nation. I am pretty good at storing documents but have struggled going back through the CTC documents. We had a lot of spreadsheets. We monitored the progress of delivery of packages across the Northern Territory. I have the sum figures here. This is from a spreadsheet dated April 2010: the target was 750 new houses and 2730 refurbishments and rebuilds across 73 remote communities and town camps. There was a $672m housing budget over five years, with 20% Indigenous employment across alliance packages.
There is no doubt SIHIP had its problems. The program had significant funding time frames to be delivered, measurable around Indigenous employment – in the early days of the program some things were not working as they should have. Also, the alliance contracting packages were insisted on by the federal government, which was providing most of the money. The model we were working with was new to the Northern Territory.
It has delivered new, solid houses. When houses have a certain level of amenity they are healthier and you will have better outcomes for children and families. We knew at the time, even before SIHIP was completed, that it was not a sufficient number of houses. A legacy of housing in remote communities had not been addressed for decades, by either level of government, and an incredible catch up was needed. It is a bit rich for the members for Fong Lim and Braitling to throw stones at SIHIP and describe it in the way they have. It is unfounded.
SIHIP would never deliver what was necessary to address accommodation or build enough houses. So many houses were beyond economic repair that by the time the program was completed the net gain in regard to the number of rooms, if not the level of amenity delivered, was not where we wanted it to be. It was a lot better than where we had started, given that was with decades of deficit.
The member for Stuart needs to wake up to the fact she is the Minister for Housing. Several colleagues have held the portfolio prior to her in the last three years, but she needs to get out of the rut of saying, ‘Labor did nothing for 11 years’, because it starts to sound silly and she looks silly. A massive housing program was delivered, not without its problems, but there are 110 brand new houses at Maningrida and 90 brand new houses at Galiwinku. I cannot remember and could not find the spreadsheet of how many new houses were delivered across the Top End, in particular at Ramingining and Milingimbi.
With two cyclones coming through the Northern Territory a little under a year ago – 19 February is the anniversary of Cyclone Lam – there is no doubt the new houses built under SIHIP saved lives. Nobody would wish a cyclone upon any community, let alone two cyclones within the space of a month. By the grace of God, if anything good came out of the cyclones, apart from the fact that nobody was killed or seriously injured, which is remarkable, it can be attributed to the fact there were safe houses where people could gather. Many houses were damaged or destroyed because they were beyond economic repair.
This is under the CLP government’s watch in the last three years. Yes, lo and behold, there are still houses on remote Aboriginal communities that are beyond economic repair. We are dealing with decades of deficit and it will not be fixed in one term of government.
Those two cyclones have taken out houses, which is a terrible disruption to communities, to people’s lives and to kids going to school. People have had to deal with issues since those cyclones. However, it has bought new funding and new houses.
I was surprised when I visited Galiwinku after the so-called FAST NT housing program had started – not fast enough for many people. What style of houses are we building? Exactly the same as was built under SIHIP except smaller. When the member for Fong Lim said houses built under SIHIP were not entirely appropriate for the tropics and not designed well for people in remote communities, he was right. One of the key lessons we learnt from SIHIP was about design of the house. Even the colour we were painting houses was important to people. What are we doing with the rebuild on Galiwinku? We are building exactly the same style of house. Here was an opportunity to build something more appropriate for people’s lifestyles. People were asked what style of house they wanted. Basically, they have been given solid houses. They will be safe houses for sure, but they are not the style people wanted and that is the difference.
The Minister for Housing is very sceptical about Labor’s Tackling the Housing Deficit in Remote Communities policy. She described it as gung ho. It is gung ho, and certainly more gung ho than the minister is.
This is about not only tackling the housing deficit in communities, but recognising that we have a platform policy around addressing and improving the lives of children, with a focus on the zero to four year age group. We cannot get it right in that zero to four years group in one or two terms of government. However, in turning around the lives of children, improving their opportunities and their life chances and getting them to school, you have to deal with housing. You cannot expect children to go to school every day and adults to work every day when they are living in overcrowded conditions.
Labor’s policy, launched at Ngukurr before Christmas, was warmly welcomed by community members and the media who met us there. People really liked the idea that they would get a say in the type of houses built, and it will create job opportunities for people in communities. People really liked the Room To Breathe part of the program.
People in remote communities live on certain parts of the community associated with their clan group. They will not move into a house on the other side of the community at Beach Camp when their family lives at Top Camp.
The idea of building – for want of a better term – a granny flat within an existing home sits well with all our Indigenous families because family clan groups are so important to them. Having communal areas where families group around is how Indigenous Territorians like to live. I know that from the many visits I make in my electorate.
I have been through my fairly extensive photograph collection this afternoon. Like most members, I take my camera with me. These days you take your smartphone and snap along the way.
For the minister who thinks Labor did nothing for 11 years, this is one of the 750 new houses. In fact, that figure increased because federal Labor put more money into the program. Here is a house under construction at Galiwinku which is fairly typical of the package. It is one of the 90 houses built there, and these are the same style of houses, 110 of which were built at Maningrida.
If you look closely at that photograph you will see Indigenous people in hi-vis work gear. Some skills were built up and people earned certificates. Indigenous employment is important in the housing program so we can skill people up and they can move to housing maintenance and construction programs happening across the Top End where houses in remote communities have been damaged.
Dr Chris Burns was mentioned earlier in debate. There he is, Dr Burns, our Housing minister, visiting Galiwinku. That was the day we officially opened the new suburb of Bhutan, a couple of kilometres from the main community, an entire new suburb of houses.
What we learnt from that program – this has been factored into the Opposition Leader’s policy on tackling the housing deficit in remote communities – is when you have a budget for housing you need a separate budget for infrastructure because of the deficit of housing across our larger communities like Maningrida and Galiwinku.
A massive investment had to go into utilities for things like sewerage ponds, upgrading the power supply, water pipes etcetera. The budget for Elcho Island was around $50m, and that was almost doubled by the time we factored in the dollars needed to upgrade infrastructure.
Here is another house. This is a teacher house at Galiwinku. This was part of the $18m of federal government money to deliver teacher housing to remote communities across the Top End. Since that project further federal money has come through to build housing in remote communities for teachers as well as police and nurses.
Something we have announced in our policy which the current government has not addressed is that houses like this will be available to local recruits on communities who, until now – and it has been wrong – have not had access to government employee housing.
If you are a local recruit and work as a teacher, a nurse, possibly a policeman or woman or an Aboriginal health practitioner you do not have an entitlement to government employee housing. That is unfair. When we build new houses in communities people ask who they are for. They are told they are for new non-Indigenous teachers or non-Indigenous staff. They, understandably, see that as unfair when they may be sharing a house with 12, 15 or 20 other people.
Another important thing we have announced in our remote housing policy is we will provide housing to government employees who are local recruits. Yes, that means we will need to build additional housing, and that is why we have budgeted the way we have. We are serious about that. In the scheme of things, the budget for tackling the housing deficit in remote communities requires 8% of the Territory’s infrastructure budget. It is not unachievable and is certainly necessary.
If we look at last year’s annual report, the government had budgeted to upgrade 418 dwellings and did 63. They had budgeted for 95 new dwellings and delivered 35. That is not a proud record of achievement for the minister to crow about. We know there is a huge need for housing, and clearly targets have not been met by a long shot. The minister said, ‘We’re doing a lot’, but the reality is you are not doing enough.
As for her reference to $10m in renal support services and the accommodation to go with it, I remind the minister that is federal Labor money. It started at $13m and $3m went missing along the way. It has taken – shamefully – four years to see that delivered. I saw an item on the ABC news a short while ago about a patient living in Darwin for renal dialysis because she cannot access it in her home community of Numbulwar. It is sad when people who want to receive treatment on country decide not to receive that treatment if it means they have to leave their family and their country for it. It is high time the $10m, which was $13m, is delivered and a shame it has taken four years.
Sorry to harp back to SIHIP. I want to recognise the important work that the public service and our government agencies did in delivering this project. I remind members opposite that heading up SIHIP, as CEO of Housing at the time, was Mr Ken Davies, who I know is a well-respected senior public servant and currently CEO of Education. I know he will work very hard across the regions to make sure that our kids are going to school and that a boarding facility is delivered in Nhulunbuy.
The other person who worked extremely hard on SIHIP and meeting its targets was Mr Andrew Kirkman, who is currently heading up the Department of Transport. The government needs to think carefully when slapping left, right and centre about what went wrong with SIHIP and who did what. Some valued and hard-working Territory public servants invested a lot of blood, sweat and tears into seeing the program delivered. To say nothing over 11 years – there were 750 new houses, 2730 refurbishments and rebuilds and $672m plus a few million more. By the time we had left government this program had not been completed, so the new houses delivered at Yirrkala have been under this government not the previous one. They picked up and carried on with the program we had started.
I want to mention the poor attention to repairs and maintenance in housing. I saw an article in The Australian today about tenants at Santa Teresa who …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I understand your time has expired even though the clock does not reflect it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, including the minister, the members for Nelson, Nhulunbuy and Barkly, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister.
The suggestion that it is naive or laughable for someone to bring a motion to the House on major issues in remote housing delivery speaks volumes about this government. It is not naive. These are important issues that people want discussed with government. We are doing what we said we would, which was to raise concerns about remote housing delivery.
I thank the public servants who do an incredible job in housing. Every member of this Chamber would have dealt with housing on behalf of their constituents, I know I have. When you have a successful outcome it is an amazing feeling for everybody, and a real testament to the work that goes on in housing every day.
I want to address some of the points raised by the minister. Her contribution was interesting. The minister said repeatedly I had put forward a motion without any costings or details, when in fact I went into costings and details extensively. I mentioned a $1bn commitment over 10 years. I mentioned $500m over 10 years for the HomeBuild NT initiative. I mentioned $20m per year for repairs and maintenance throughout the 10-year plan. I mentioned $20m over five years for the Room To Breathe program, with an opportunity to recommence once that was evaluated and if it was successful. I mentioned $20m per year for the new improved government employment housing initiative, and an increase in the Homelands Extra Allowance to $6000.
The remote housing plan is public. The Leader of the Opposition launched the plan and it is available for the minister to read. The minister’s focus was interesting.
The member for Barkly talked about a national agreement, and it was unfortunate to not hear from the Minister for Housing or the Chief Minister about what might happen when the national agreement finishes in 2018. What is the government’s plan? Is the government thinking about how we might deal with that as 2018 is not too far away? It was not mentioned by the Minister for Housing or the Chief Minister, which is disappointing because the agreement is important to remote housing service delivery. There was little detail from any government member as to what the government intends to do going forward, what its policies and ideas are on remote housing. How will it deal with some of the issues raised tonight?
We want to know the government’s plans. I asked questions about rent collection which were not answered. One concern I raised was how social value is assessed in the contract process. This is something we and the government need to think about.
The minister talked about Tangentyere Council and the concerns they have raised in Darwin with the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers about a tenancy management service decision. The comments made about that decision do not address the concerns raised. The minister said they got another contract through another entity associated with them for something completely different, and therefore their concerns about the other contract were null and void. That makes no sense. It was confirmed tonight the assessment was made on the dollar value and who could deliver services cheaper.
Again, I would be happy to hear from the Minister for Housing on how social value is built into this process? How are you assessing that? Value for money is not just based on the cheaper option. There are many other considerations in how you get the best for the dollars invested. Perhaps if there was an explanation and some thought given to the question people might feel their concerns have been heard. The number one thing I hear in my talks with council and other stakeholders is they do not feel the other value they offer has been taken into account. The government might want to think about addressing that. We have been discussing this since the first week of January. The decision was made, I believe, and news delivered on New Year’s Eve. We have been talking about this for some time so it is not unreasonable the conversation should be had.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. It is great that he used the opportunity to highlight housing issues in his electorate, and also talk about the honest record of the Labor government. It was not that we did nothing for 11 years. That is disingenuous, repeated constantly in this House and is not true. The government knows it is not true, and does no credit to itself when it is unable to recognise the achievements of another government.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for his insights. He managed to talk about many other things than remote housing. I thank him for his insights all the same, and his reflections on business confidence. I am sure all the businesses that have been raising concerns over the last few weeks, both with members of parliament and on talkback radio, will be thrilled to hear what has been said in this House about business confidence, how we are travelling so well and their concerns are imagined.
Homelessness has not been mentioned. This morning I looked at an interesting interactive article on the ABC about homelessness in Australia. If you get the opportunity please look at it. The top five regions for homelessness are still in the Northern Territory. That interactive mentioned close to 30% of the population in East Arnhem Land are homeless, and NT services only accommodate 3.7% of homeless people. They received that data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
This issue requires leadership, a good plan and is mentioned in the draft housing strategy. Stakeholders have made comments around the need for a homelessness plan. I hope we see it because it is desperately needed. I have been contacted and lobbied about the need for a national homelessness plan. We need one here, and we need leadership on this policy issue.
It seems like a small thing, but when talking about leadership, it does not instil confidence when people go to the NT government Department of Housing website and the page on homelessness has not been updated since 2012. It is hard to find out how we are going with our benchmarks and the national agreement. It is not easily accessible. It has not been reported on with gusto so we can be accountable for homelessness targets. We need to keep an eye on this and put it at the forefront of what we are doing.
While mentioning things that have not been updated or touched on tonight, waitiing lists seem to be growing but accountability in letting people know what the current waiting lists are is decreasing. The website waiting lists do not seem to have been updated since March 2015. We all know waiting lists are a huge problem. I am sure many members would experience the same issues coming through their office as I do, which is people trying to access public housing under often difficult circumstances and are told they cannot for increasing lengths of time depending on where they are in the Northern Territory. It is disappointing not to be able to find the information as we could in the past.
I was disappointed nobody in the government wanted to address service delivery in housing. A budgeted 418 dwellings were due for upgrades in 2014-15 and only 63 were delivered. A budgeted 95 new dwellings were to be built and only 35 were delivered. These are the numbers from the annual report tabled on the last day of sittings last year not made up numbers.
You had an opportunity tonight to talk about that and chose not to. We have repeatedly raised the issue of the targets you set and reaching them. I am disappointed that no one spoke about what the government is doing to reach its targets.
The member for Fong Lim was particularly interested in the member for Wanguri and her time as a government adviser. During that time about 3500 new or refurbished homes were delivered. If I was the member for Wanguri, I would be proud to be involved in that. It is a good achievement for any government, and you should be giving credit and being truthful about what has been delivered.
The Australian National Audit Office audit found the 2009 SIHIP targets had been met or exceeded, and various other reports talk about our achievements in delivering new houses, refurbishments and rebuilds. Frankly, the re-writing of history does not measure up against the facts, and at the end of the day this is about the facts.
The reduction in Indigenous housing funding and infrastructure delivery is appalling. This parliament deserves more, and Territorians in remote areas deserve more than tonight’s contributions. There was a real opportunity for the government to lay out its plan.
The Minister for Housing mentioned a draft housing plan to be released this year. I hope it is released this month because that is what the media release said.
We are six months out from an election, but also three-and-a-half years into a Country Liberals government. After three-and-a-half years the minister says the housing strategy will come out later in the year. We are talking about giving people confidence that we are listening to them and we understand their needs.
We released a plan we believe reflects the needs in remote housing. We have been talking to people, as the member for Nhulunbuy said. She has been getting really good feedback about this. She has had discussions about what we are putting forward, and that is an ongoing conversation because we believe in listening to people, getting feedback and refining our ideas. We are not afraid to pitch new ideas based on our conversations with Territorians. That is what we are expected to do.
I hope to see something solid from the government, and I hope they consider taking on board what has been put forward today. It is easy to say you do not like our plan, but we are not seeing or hearing anything about the government’s housing strategy.
The Housing Strategy Consultation Draft document does not reveal much about what the government is doing. There are some strategic directions but no specific actions. We talk about hypocrisy. I believe that the Minister for Housing and the Chief Minister are hypocritical when criticising the Territory Labor team, which is working exceptionally hard to bring together the thoughts of and the feedback from Territorians and put that into something we believe will make a difference for the Territory. We are prepared to do that but are not hearing the same from the government.
The impact that proper housing planning will have on the Territory comes from the Housing Strategy Consultation Draft. It mentions a concern raised about a lack of whole community service delivery process and the fact it is leading to avoidable inefficiencies and poor services.
On page 27 of the document it says:
- Service delivery in remote communities can be disconnected. For example, we heard about qualified tradespeople coming into community on behalf of the Department of Housing, but not being able or willing to perform works for services such as the Departments of Health or Education, due to a rigid contracting processes. You also said that the success stories of whole-of-community service operation were often down to individuals with the right skills, attitude and connections, rather than good systems and processes. While this was not solely a housing responsibility, you said housing needed to be part of a solution.
We need to make a difference in the Northern Territory, and to do that we need a long-term vision. We need commitment, new ideas, and we need to demonstrate that we are listening to Territorians. The government has not demonstrated any of those things, and members have used their contributions tonight to prove otherwise.
Labor will listen to and involve Territorians in the housing process. We are committed to it, and are doing it through the plan we have put forward today. Territorians are an active part of providing us with feedback. We will continue to do that and make no apologies for it.
We cannot keep waiting for the government’s plan because we have been waiting for three-and-a-half years. That is a long time and people are over waiting. ‘We are at three-and-a-half years so will release our frameworks; hope you like them.’ It is time to look at what you are delivering, which according to the annual report is pretty appalling, and show us your plan to improve on that.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 7 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr McCarthy Mr Conlan
Ms Manison Mr Elferink
Ms Moss Mrs Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 155)
(Serial 155)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It was intended to introduce this bill into parliament last year, but on advice it was delayed to allow the High Court to make its determination about a challenge to a similar law operating in New South Wales called the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act.
The High Court ruled in favour of the New South Wales legislation, saying that the ban on political donations from property developers is not an impediment to political communications, and that the law simply targets funds from a group that has a great deal to gain from influencing political decisions.
The bill before you is based on the same New South Wales law but does not include a section on the capping of donations. I have been considering alternatives to the capping of donations, the capping on expenditure by each candidate, but that may be for another day.
The New South Wales High Court determination upheld a state-wide ban on political donations from property developers. The court said these bans support and enhance equality of access to government and, more broadly, the whole system of representative government. For too long we have had a system of political donations which allow governments to be easily influenced by groups which, by donating to a political party or to a person within that party, are able to influence decision-making for personal gain. The areas where this is likely to happen are in land and property development, and within the alcohol, gambling and, to a lesser extent, the tobacco industry where, in the NT, the government controls planning and licensing.
Anyone going through our electoral records would easily recognise the source of donations to both sides of politics. At the last election considerable sums of money were donated from the AHA (NT), the representative of the alcohol industry in the Northern Territory. Since then there have been more liquor licences granted in the Palmerston area, and there are probably more to come. The government changed the rules to raise the number of pokies allowed in venues and passed the legislation at a time to try to avoid both parliamentary and public scrutiny.
There have been changes approved to planning schemes, rezoning approvals and other matters which potentially benefited property developers. Look at the election returns and you will see the number of property developers donating to political parties. Some developers will hedge their bets and donate to both parties while others stick with just one, which is usually the CLP.
This proposed legislation adds a new section to the Electoral Act specifying prohibited donors and the penalties for breaches of sections of the act. Obviously there will be concern by political parties that they may lose revenue they need to fight in an election. There will be concern from those classified as prohibited donors who believe they have the right to donate to the party of their choice, and if they cannot they believe they will not have the ear of government when lobbying for their projects. Remember what the Treasurer once said, ‘Donations would open my door if you ever need to talk to me about something’. That is from the ABC webpage.
Under these amendments, developers will appreciate that when their applications are approved they are approved on merit not donation. The Electoral Commissioner has expressed some concerns about his ability to have the resources to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial work, but if extra staff are needed that is something the government could consider.
This legislation should go out for public comment, as happens in Queensland with a unicameral system. The norm would be for a parliamentary committee to consider the legislation, invite public comment and report back to parliament with amendments if required, then final debate and a vote would be taken.
I will go into this later, but I propose that the committee be made up of four members, two from government, one opposition member, and me as the Independent, with the government member holding the chair. The committee would be required to report back to parliament by 20 April.
Madam Speaker, I also include the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Nelson, I remind honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 43, the member for Nelson has 10 minutes. The next member speaking has 10 minutes, and each subsequent member has five minutes to debate why standing orders should or should not be suspended. In the substantive debate on the motion if standing orders are suspended to allow that, then the normal time frames apply.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow me to move a motion after my second reading speech on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (Serial 155) to:
(a) refer the bill to a particular committee and, if necessary, establish that committee, to consider whether the bill should be passed or amended for report to the Assembly by a particular date
(c) allow me to speak again to the second reading for up to 20 minutes when the debate on the second reading resumes.
The reason for the suspension of standing orders is to allow the bill to go to a committee before it is debated in parliament. We could debate the bill now then ask if it could go to a committee at the end of the debate, but if it goes to the committee first it can come back to parliament with changes if needed, and the bill, with amendments, can then be debated. This saves a wasted debate at the beginning, which may be of little relevance to the amended bill after public consultation. This is similar to the way bills are dealt with in Queensland, which is also a unicameral system.
A bill dealing with election donations will, I am sure, interest a number of people – donors, recipients such as political parties, the Electoral Commissioner, corporate lawyers and the public. So this bill has an opportunity to be scrutinised by these groups before it is debated in parliament, the committee can call for submissions, and if need be have public meetings. This will enable the committee to present to parliament what has come from the meetings. The suspension of standing orders will allow this process to go ahead.
It is unusual for this to happen. If we get to the next stage I will explain why I believe putting this through at this stage is a good thing. That is all I have to say for the moment.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I had a discussion with the member for Nelson immediately prior to this debate commencing. The member for Nelson is asking for an unusual pathway for a bill to pass through this House. I understand he has a passion for a committee process, and I note that in paragraph (a) he seeks to refer the bill to a particular committee – I assume he means a select committee – in relation to having this bill discussed in the public domain.
I have not seen or read the bill and therefore I have no knowledge of its content. The only knowledge currently extended to me is the second reading speech, not all of which I heard because there was a division immediately prior to it and the first minute or so was lost in some of the noise happening around me.
That is normally not a problem because we then take the bill away. The member for Nelson is arguing that we take the bill away and look at it. Under normal circumstances it would lay on the table and such negotiation and conversation in the public domain would occur, and then it would be returned to this House.
Nothing in the member for Nelson’s comments suggested sufficient urgency to encourage the suspension of standing orders. Nevertheless, I have heard the member for Nelson on a number of occasions and this is his bill not the government’s or the Labor opposition’s.
He wants to pursue the bill in a way which includes his cherished approach to a committee looking into it. He refers to the unicameral Queensland model, which has been unicameral since 1923, and their system of referring matters to committees.
That is not the system we use here. However, in deference to the member for Nelson’s desire to see his bill follow a certain path, government will be accommodating to a point. I go to the amendments I discussed with the member for Nelson immediately prior to this debate.
On the basis that this is not the normal process – the member for Nelson could have done a lot more in the 24 hours since giving notice to convince government this was extraordinary by negotiating, as we often do, behind the scenes – he has chosen not to go down that path but to negotiate it on the table. The conversation that should have probably taken place yesterday occurred about 15 minutes ago.
Nevertheless, it is the government’s intention to allow paragraph (a) of the motion to stand. The particular date I am not sure about, but I suspect a subsequent motion to establish a committee is about to come before the House. Am I correct in understanding that?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. The government will support paragraph (a). However, the government is not satisfied that this bill will carry precedence. There is nothing unusual in this bill to set it apart from any other bill. I have spoken to the member for Nelson and he has indicated his acceptance of the removal of paragraph (b).
I will propose amendments to the motion in the following terms: paragraph (a) be allowed to stand, paragraph (b) be omitted and paragraph (c) be amended so the number ‘20’ is omitted and replaced with the number ‘10’. The effect of that is paragraph (c) of the motion will now read: allow me to speak again to the second reading for up to 10 minutes when the debate on the second reading resumes.
That was the conversation I had with the member for Nelson. I do not have a written form of those amendments, but this was done with the acquiescence of the member for Nelson. I am sure we can sort out the paperwork shortly unless, Madam Speaker, you want me to write it now.
Government can indicate that if the member for Nelson – he still gets to wrap the debate under the new standing orders, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: I presume he will indicate his acceptance of the government’s position or, alternatively, press on with his motion. I will listen to the debate to make sure this motion passes through the proper processes.
I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I try to maintain levels of communication behind the scenes. I sometimes err, I sometimes stumble and sometimes politics get in the way, but if we want things to work in this House often the process of massaging and negotiating things needs to be pursued.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, your amendment to the Medical Services Amendment Bill – I have been fulsome and forthright in communicating my concerns long before we get into the House because it is a courtesy we, as far as we can and as politics would allow, should extend to each other.
The matters to be debated by the member for Nelson are not insubstantial. Amendments to the Electoral Act have had far-reaching consequences in New South Wales. These things saw the former Premier of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell, step away from his premiership over receipt of something as meagre as an expensive bottle of wine.
Therefore, these matters need to be considered. We understand the member for Nelson’s approach to this and that he wants to go through a committee process. I have spoken briefly to the Chief Minister, as well as other members, and hopefully we will get sufficient government members to meet the terms of the motion the member is about to move.
This is an unusual process. Under normal circumstances I would resist it but this is not John Elferink’s bill, not the government’s bill, not a Labor bill, but a process the member for Nelson wishes to pursue. I will wait for other members’ comments, and hope I have sufficiently explained the proposed amendments to members so they understand the government’s position.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Leader for Government Business say he hopes he gets sufficient numbers from his side. It does not sound like much of a team.
Unlike the government, we are more than happy for this to go to a committee. The proposed changes are significant and deserve the time and extra scrutiny that a committee would provide, unlike the government, which continually rush things through.
The member explained quite clearly this evening his thoughts on this bill and why he needs to take it to a committee. The opposition is more than happy to provide support for that to occur.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Nightcliff said the government continually rushes things through ...
Mr Chandler: Far more consultation than the previous Labor government.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection that there is far more consultation than the previous Labor government. That is a valid point.
For the member for Nightcliff’s information, we are discussing standing orders. Almost everything in this House is done in accordance with the standing orders. You say the government continually rushes things through. It would be nice if you could back that up with some evidence rather than making broad statements. ‘Yes, the government puts it all through.’
The member for Nelson wants to suspend standing orders; he wants to change the process. We do not rush everything through. Sure, we rush things through from time to time, but a broad statement saying we continually rush things through is not fair. For people watching and listening, I ask you to think about what the member for Nightcliff said and decide if it is true or not.
The member for Port Darwin explained this is not what we normally do in this House. I have looked at the amendments.
I have spoken to people about the Electoral Act and some of the things contained in it, and I have had various comments from my constituents. When you doorknock you can throw a few things around. It is not a bad way to poll what is happening …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Because we are dealing with the suspension of standing orders should we be discussing the contents of the bill?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, this is about the suspension of standing orders. Please keep to point.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, that is my point. Why suspend standing orders? I want to debate it.
I was trying to discuss this with the Leader of Government Business. Where is the negotiation? We now have to scramble around and ask, ‘What do you want to do?’ The Leader of Government Business has not been able to communicate some of the things you discussed with him about 25 minutes ago. I have heard some comments from the Leader of Government Business about changes to the Notice Paper.
We heard some reasons from the Leader of Government Business about suspending standing orders but I do not necessarily agree with them. The Leader of Government Business said he has to make sure everyone on this side is comfortable with that. Some members have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the Leader of Government Business. He is correct when he says we could have done this 24 hours ago.
Why do we need to suspend standing orders to form a committee? I would like to hear what other members have to say and if we suspend standing orders and send this to a committee we are outside the norm. Being able to convey the views of people I have been talking to is different. We go through a process then we want to change it. Those comments will not be made.
Why can this not be done in the usual manner? Why not debate it here? Is the member for Nelson concerned about debating the bill in the Chamber? What will a committee bring? There is a motion to send it to a committee, but people would have members’ comments from the debate in Hansard and could refer to that for information. They could also call for other things.
I have not seen any information on the committee, nor has the Leader of Government Business been able to give me much. This should be taken into consideration, as well as the Leader of Government Business being able to inform his colleagues of the arrangement with the member for Nelson.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we are making this up as we go along at the moment. I have just spoken to the Deputy Clerk, who advised me that my understanding of the effect of paragraph (b), which I read as giving precedence to the matter returning to the House, is not correct. The paragraph is merely a mechanism for the motion to return to the House. Am I reading that correctly, Mr Clerk?
In that case the amendment to paragraph (b) is unnecessary and we should restore it. Therefore, the only amendment I seek to make to the motion would be in paragraph (c) to omit ‘20’ where appearing an insert ‘10’. It restores your position a little further, Gerry, if that suits. The only amendment …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a motion?
Mr ELFERINK: No. The only amendment we seek is rather than 20 minutes reply to have 10 minutes when the matter comes back from committee.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support that amendment and have had a discussion with the Leader of Government Business. Sometimes in my mad rush to do things – it was not intentional to exclude the Leader of Government Business. Part of what is happening is experimental and not in a bad way. I will probably say that in the next section if we have time. We might have to suspend standing orders to finish this.
Leader of Government Business, because this comes from an Independent who does not have the wherewithal of the fifth floor, it enables the House the see if my bill makes sense because it will be scrutinised by a committee. Obviously, the committee can ask for legal advice to make sure the wording is correct. It is also ensures that when people like me present a bill any flaws – because I do not have legal backing – can be sorted out during the scrutiny period.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that in paragraph (c) ‘20’ is omitted and ‘10’ is inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that:
(a) a select committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 comprising two government members and one opposition member to be nominated in writing to the Speaker by the relevant Whip and Mr Wood be appointed
The reason for a committee is by having a select committee look at this legislation the parliament can assess the view of donors, recipients, the Electoral Commission, corporate experts and the public. The committee will have the power to call for public submissions and/or arrange public meetings to hear what people have to say.
The proposed legislation will form the basis of these discussions. The committee may even examine the recent High Court rulings about similar laws in New South Wales after they were challenged by a donor. The committee will be required to report back to parliament …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We need a copy of the motion. I am wondering if it is ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure a copy is coming. Maybe the Table Office can get a copy of the motion to photocopy.
Mr WOOD: There will be some of my handwritten notes on the back.
Madam SPEAKER: They will not copy them.
Mr WOOD: It does not matter because I will include them, if that is okay. I did not prepare a second copy of this motion, but I can get it for you.
The committee will be required to report back to parliament to allow the debate to continue and a vote taken on the bill, whether amended or not.
For bills like this it is an appropriate way to make sure that proposed changes are given some airing in public. We should do this more often, and a number of bills currently before parliament should be required to go through the same process.
The return date for debate is 20 April, which should give ample time for scrutiny and for members of parliament to do their own research. The committee may also look at the findings of the McGuiness report, which was about similar issues.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I am surprised with the process tonight. I understand the intent of referral to a committee, of which I am a fan. Scrutiny is a useful practice when looking at changes to the democratic processes. I made my views clear about changes to the Electoral Act and the failure to consult in an earlier debate.
I lack information at the moment because I do not have the motion itself so do not know what will be scrutinised by the committee. I would prefer to debate referral to a committee when I have access to the details. For consistency’s sake I place on the record concerns I have, as an Independent member of parliament, about not being provided information to assist me to have considered input into whether referral is something I wholeheartedly support. I support the principle but do not have the motion.
I also want to flag that the committee consists of two government members, a Labor opposition member and Mr Wood. Given the makeup of this parliament, a significant number of Independent members sit on the crossbench. It may have been valuable for more members to be on the committee to provide a greater degree of scrutiny, knowledge and understanding.
What are the rules around political donations that affect someone in a remote constituency versus someone in a rural/regional constituency versus an urban constituency? I do not know if the experience in New South Wales drilled down to that or not.
There is an enormous disparity between major political parties and their funding ability versus Independents. To counterbalance that, Independents do not require as much funding for a campaign because they do not run large, expensive political advertising campaigns, which the major parties do.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is now 9 pm. We have to go back to government business.
Mr WOOD: A point or order, Madam Speaker! I ask for a suspension of standing orders. This debate could finish fairly shortly. We have gone this far and it would be appropriate to finish it.
If the government supports it they should support a suspension of standing orders to finish this debate. If not, this debate will go back to the bottom of the list and there needs to be some flexibility, especially when we are close to a vote on this.
Madam SPEAKER: The problem is, member for Nelson, there is already a question before the Chair that the motion be agreed to or not. We need to conclude that, which we cannot because it is now 9 pm.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, it is now 9 pm and I still do not have a copy of the motion. There are potentially 24 other people to …
Madam SPEAKER: There is a motion. Business has been interrupted. Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is 9 pm. Will this debate continue?
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson has the call. There was nothing before the Chair between just before 9 pm and just after 9 pm.
Mr ELFERINK: I need your guidance, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have given it to you.
Mr ELFERINK: When does he finish and how does this debate go?
Madam SPEAKER: I have given him the call. He has the call for whatever he wants because it is 9 pm and he jumped. I am asking him what he wants.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I presume I have to suspend standing orders to continue?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you do.
Debate suspended.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Complete Debate to Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Complete Debate to Refer Electoral Amendment Bill (Serial 155) to a Committee
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended so that, notwithstanding the Routine of Business, the debate on referral of the Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 (Serial 155) to a committee could be concluded prior to the resumption of Government Business.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr McCarthy Mr Conlan
Ms Manison Mr Elferink
Ms Moss Mrs Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mr Wood Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 149)
(Serial 149)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will pick up where we left off some hours ago. I said that optional preferential voting is already operating in the Northern Territory. I also said that based on the debate today we will be seeking an amendment to clause 17 of the proposed bill to amend the prohibition on canvassing near a polling booth from 500 m to 100 m, but I will come back to that.
I will restate why we brought this bill to the Assembly. We introduced this bill in December 2015 to fix a significant problem with democracy in the Northern Territory. In Australia voting is not just a right; it is a responsibility and an obligation. In the Northern Territory we have a problem with enrolment and voter turnout.
In regard to enrolment, the Australian Electoral Commission estimates that 93.5% of Australians are enrolled to vote, but for the Northern Territory that figure is only 74.9%. In regard to voter turnout, since compulsory voting in federal elections was introduced in 1924, the Australia-wide turnout has always been above the 93% mark. At the last Northern Territory election, turnout was just 76.9%. If you combine the enrolment and turnout figures, only 61% of Territorians who could have voted in 2012 did so. That means 39% of Territorians are disenfranchised when it comes to voting. Digging deeper we find that Darwin is similar to the national average, but rural parts of the Territory are much worse. This is particularly the case in Indigenous communities and remote electorates.
Elector participation in Wanguri, for example, was 89%. However, voter participation in the six most rural electorates only averaged 60%. For example, Arafura 58.1%; Arnhem 51.9%; Barkly 64.9%; Namatjira 59.8%; Nhulunbuy 62.7%; and Stuart 62.9%.
The Australian Electoral Commission webpage states:
- Research suggests that Indigenous Australians are half as likely to enrol to vote. Those that are enrolled are less likely to vote and less likely to fill in their ballot papers correctly.
That is why this bill also contains amendments to reduce voter informality.
This week the government launched its Aboriginal Affairs Strategy, designed to increase economic empowerment for Indigenous Territorians. This bill effectively increases political empowerment for Indigenous Territorians, which makes it hard to understand why Labor is so opposed to assisting Indigenous Territorians to vote with their feet.
To fix the problems of low enrolment and low turnout, the government is seeking to make voting simpler and more convenient. In regard to community feedback, I listened to the serious content of the debate and disregarded the less serious. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition claimed in his shouting contribution, in the three months since bringing the bill to parliament the government has actively sought community feedback on the proposed changes.
The member for Nelson specifically asked for details on that community consultation and the public response, and I am happy to oblige. This process started at estimates in 2013 when then Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard, raised concerns and I agreed to seek changes. The member for Barkly was on the panel that day, and we all agreed to try to fix it.
In regard to the consultation, there were a range of different areas. The consultation included Facebook advertising, which achieved 19 comments, 22 shares, 47 likes and 1618 clicks. A total of 13 newspaper advertisements appeared across the Northern Territory. Letters were sent to key stakeholders, including Aboriginal legal aid, the NT Bar Association, the Country Liberal Party, the Council on the Ageing, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner, the Legal Aid Commissioner, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Northern Territory Greens, the Northern Territory Labor Party, the Law Society of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. We also provide a briefing for MLAs. I am aware some briefings were accepted and some MLAs did not turn up.
Information on a dedicated feedback website attracted 947 visits, 102 downloads of fact sheets with 71 feedback submissions. I thank those members of the community who took the time to share their views with government.
I will now go through the provisions of the bill and highlight some of the feedback we received in each section.
The provision to reinforce the statutory requirement that enrolment is compulsory: the amendment aims to increase enrolment by inserting a reference to the requirement that for eligible people enrolment and changing address details are compulsory. Enrolment is currently compulsory, but to reach that conclusion you have to refer to the provisions in section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This act is applicable because the Northern Territory uses the Commonwealth electoral roll.
It is appropriate to have an express reference to the requirement to enrol in Northern Territory legislation even though the provision does not change existing statutory requirements. The change is supported by the Electoral Commissioner. Of the little other feedback received on this amendment, the majority supported the change.
To increase voter participation a number of amendments seek to make voting more convenient. One is to remove the restrictions for applying for a postal vote or voting by the way of pre-poll voting. Currently, to be eligible to apply for a postal vote, a person’s situation must fall within one of the specified circumstances described in the act. The proposed amendment will remove the need to fall within any of the listed criteria and simply provide that any person entitled to vote may apply for a postal vote. We should be looking at every possible way to make voting easier, not putting limitations in the way or restricting availability. This change is also in harmony with local government elections in the Northern Territory.
The proposed amendments will also remove the requirement that a postal vote application is to be made within three months before the election is to be held. The new provision will provide that an application can be made at any time in the calendar year in which the polling day occurs. Removal of the three-month restriction would expand the availability of voting choices for the public, a positive move in the eyes of voters seeking convenience voting.
The proposed amendment to section 71 of the act is similar to the removal of the criteria for applying for a postal vote. The act currently provides that only those who expect to be unable to attend a polling place on polling day are able to vote at a pre-election voting centre set up by the Electoral Commission. The proposed amendment will remove this requirement and may provide that any person entitled to vote may vote at a pre-election voting centre. This means that those who make plans on election day are not restricted to remain in their electorate to cast a vote. Instead, if you know you are heading out on the water for a fish, to take your child to a sporting event or visiting relatives interstate you can head to a pre-election polling centre and cast a vote.
The majority of the feedback received through the consultation period showed there was a high level of support for the changes which create a more flexible voting opportunity for Territorians. The Electoral Commissioner stated that more Territorians are embracing convenience voting and that proposed changes for more flexible voting are in line with this. Convenience voting continues to grow in popularity as Territorians go about their increasingly busy lives.
The next area was about facilitation of assistance for the electronic lodgement of postal vote papers once security and secrecy issues are addressed. Under the current act the only way that postal votes can be returned is through the postal service. An amendment is proposed to the act that will allow for development of a system for the electronic lodgement of scanned postal vote certificates and ballot papers. This would be through the existing mechanism of section 85A that contains safeguards in regard to secrecy, security and the availability of technology. This government wants to increase voter participation, particularly for those living in areas where mail services are irregular, such as pastoral properties or remote parts of the Northern Territory. The change is also consistent with the other proposed amendments to extend the availability of voting services and choice.
Feedback received from members of the community was supportive of a change to electronic voting. In fact, many people are asking why not in regard to voting by way of application or an online version for the broader electorate. The bill has been constructed in such a way that until and unless the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that privacy and security issues have been addressed, the option may not be introduced to voters. However, we are working to enforce regulation to ensure this becomes available as soon as possible. Only once these issues have been worked through may the system be changed for electronic lodgement.
In regard to allowing an extra week for eligible postal votes to be received and included in the count of votes, currently under the act, for a postal vote to be included in the count it must be received by the Electoral Commission no later than 6 pm on the Friday following polling day.
Given remoteness, vast distances and connectivity, particularly around postal services, this is an extremely tight time frame considering that irregularity in some parts of the Territory. The proposed amendment will allow for receipt of postal votes up until 12 noon on the second Friday following polling day.
During consultation the Electoral Commissioner noted that the proposed changes to remove eligibility criteria for postal votes and introduce electronic lodgement of postal votes may negate the need for a one-week extension to accept postal votes. However, the government believes that any change which results in the counting of more legitimate and formal votes should be considered a positive move not a negative one.
In regard to reducing voter informality, an area of interest for many who screamed across the Chamber earlier, the Electoral Commission’s data show that of the 95 215 votes in the 2012 general election, 3.2% were informal.
Informal votes rate highest in remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory. In Darwin electorates it is generally between 2% and 3%, but in remote electorates it is generally around 4.4%. I will give a few examples: in the seat of Arafura it is 4.7%; Arnhem 3%; Barkly 3.7%; Namatjira 4.7%; Nhulunbuy 4.6%; and Stuart 5.9%.
It is, and will remain, perfectly legal to cast an informal vote if you choose to do so. You can deposit your paper unmarked in the ballot box, or in any other form. The concern is about unintentional informal votes where the voter clearly wanted to vote for a candidate but made a mistake which has made his or her vote informal. This is much more of a problem in the bush than the city.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commission found that 47% of informal votes could be classed as unintentional, mainly due to numbering defects. I believe the 47% referred to was around 600 votes in the Northern Territory which the Leader of the Opposition declared not worthy of pursing.
The rate was 35.2% in urban divisions, but 65% in rural or remote districts with high Indigenous populations. That is, 65% of informal votes occurred in remote areas with high Indigenous populations and were unintentional informal votes.
In remote districts, 21.5% of ballot papers were informal through being marked with a single one, and another 17.2% were informal due to sequence errors. Clearly some people were trying to cast a formal vote but made a mistake when numbering the ballot papers.
Given that the government is trying to empower Indigenous people with a range of administrative functions in their communities and return what Labor took away, the opportunity for empowerment around democratic voting should be supported. I am surprised that the Labor Party does not support remote, rural and Indigenous democratic voting.
To decrease informal voting this bill proposes a change to the system of voting. It is proposed that the Northern Territory move from a full preferential system of voting to an optional preferential system, or OPV, similar to that in Queensland and New South Wales.
An important point to note is that OPV, or optional preferential voting, already partially exists in the Northern Territory. Labor changes prior to the last election allowed voters to vote one in electorates where only two candidates were standing. Thus, the members for Arnhem, Brennan, Casuarina and Wanguri were all elected under optional preferential voting. I reject the claims from the opposition and some Independents that we are introducing optional preferential voting for a political benefit. We are trying to increase the number of formal votes. There is no evidence to support that slur. In fact, Labor introduced optional preferential voting to the Northern Territory.
In the election blog of 11 January, ABC analyst Antony Green says:
- … it seems that Labor would have more to gain from OPV than the Country Liberals … For that I find it odd that the Country Liberals would propose to introduce OPV.
We now know the reason Labor introduced OPV. For those who want to throw political mud across the Chamber, even while quoting Antony Green – his comment refutes what Labor and the Independents are saying.
Under the proposed scheme a person may place a one in the candidate’s square to indicate their first preference, and then place consecutively increasing whole numbers in the square for some or all of the other candidates. For example, hypothetically speaking, in the seat of Arnhem someone may choose to vote one for the Independent member for Arnhem, two for the Country Liberals and not number any other boxes. Hence, a person could vote in exactly the same way they have in the past by giving a preference to each candidate, or only mark some preferences after their first preference, or give a first preference only.
Those amendments should give voters greater freedom of choice to indicate their preferences and would likely result in a decline in informal votes. That is what this is all about. The change will also mean those who do not want to cast a vote in support of an individual do not have to. This gives Territorians freedom. As a result of the change to optional preferential, some modifications are required to the way votes are counted if one candidate does not get more than 50% of votes on first preferences.
The proposal to change the voting system from full preferential to optional preferential attracted a high level of interest and received the second-largest amount of feedback. The feedback was fairly balanced, and no overwhelming support either against or for the proposed change was evident. Of those who supported the change, the idea of not having to vote for a candidate they did not support was a drawcard.
Issues raised about creating confusion by developing a third voting system in the Northern Territory are offset by the number of votes which would be considered formal by an optional preferential system which would not be counted under a full preferential system. Anyway, optional preferential voting occurred in the 2012 election.
This amendment should be passed through the House. I expect the Electoral Commissioner will run a public information campaign informing people about the changes. This should be tailored to the audience to ensure that people in remote communities also get the message about what the new system means for them.
I want to reduce the fear of running the gauntlet. The member for Araluen said how unfair it is that she will not be able to pester people as they come through the polling booths and that this change is unfair. We want to make it fairer on the voter. I am sick of running the gauntlet, voters are sick of running the gauntlet, we have listened to what people say, which is why this bill has been introduced.
Prohibiting canvassing within 500 m of a polling booth, including the distribution of how-to-vote cards and other political literature, is what this is about. The current act restricts canvassing-type activities within 10 m of the entrance of a polling place, and there is a similar restriction on the use of loud speakers and the like for such purposes that are audible within 10 m. The current bill proposes a 500 m exclusion zone. When that is put into place Territorians will no longer be faced with the uncomfortable, often confronting, prospect of running the gauntlet of party officials, spruikers and union thugs thrusting how-to-vote material into their hands, or abusing them.
The objective is to have elections conducted in an orderly, proper fashion, free from undue pressure by any party or Independent affiliate, particularly those nasty union thugs. I want to change this. Consultation has revealed that voters see running the gauntlet as a major problem and want something done immediately to address it. Many who provided feedback on this believed that the move to extend the prohibited zone for canvassing at polling booths is a positive idea and would eliminate the need to run the gauntlet on polling day, making voting a more pleasant experience.
While supportive of the change, many considered 500 m an excessive distance considering the area this would extend to, including schools, shops and houses. Additionally, it was considered that in remote areas this distance may encompass much of the town. There were many suggestions to reduce the distance to 200 m, 100 m or 50 m. The government has listened to these concerns and, particularly through this debate and conversation with the members for Arnhem and Nelson, will amend clause 17 of the bill to reduce the distance to 100 m.
Decentralising the draw for positions on the ballet paper: the proposed amendment will allow the Electoral Commissioner discretion on where to hold the public draw. For example, the commissioner might determine that the draw for Central Australian seats should more appropriately be held in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek. The Electoral Commissioner is supportive of this amendment. Anything which improves public access to the democratic process is a worthwhile objective and, while it was not a major issue in the consultation process, it was generally supported.
In conclusion, this has been a good debate about a good bill for those who actively and professionally contributed. This is about strengthening democracy. Do not believe what Labor and some of the Independents want to peddle. This is not about politics. The politics were when Labor changed the optional preferential voting before the last election. This is about trying to increase formal votes, give Territorians ease of access to vote, and looking at new technologies such as electronic voting by e-mail.
I hope that in the future this bill provides opportunities for more advanced technologies for electronic voting. Nobody likes going to vote, let alone running the gauntlet. This bill will clean up voting day so people are not bombarded at schools. Labor saying they want voters to continue running the gauntlet is not listening to Territorians.
The main impact of this bill, outside the gauntlet component, will occur in rural parts of the Territory. It will enfranchise many of the 39% of eligible Territorians who did not vote in 2012. It is about political empowerment of the disadvantaged in our community, especially from a geographical perspective.
I urge the Legislative Assembly to support these important reforms and commend the bill to the House. I recommend that we go to consideration in detail to make amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
MOTION
Refer Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 149) to a Select Committee
Refer Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 149) to a Select Committee
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
(a) in accordance with Standing Order 148(2), the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 149) be referred to a select committee for a report to the Assembly by 20 April
(b) the members of the select committee shall be two government members and one opposition member, to be nominated in writing to the Speaker by the relevant Whip, and an Independent
(c) the chair of the committee must be a government member.
The reason I ask for that is because there has been no review of the government’s feedback from the Tell Us What You Think program. There has been no discussion about some of the serious matters we are dealing with.
The Chief Minister has clouded the issue of people attending a polling booth with informal votes. They are not the same thing. Informal votes are from someone who has not filled out the form correctly. Not turning up is to do with encouraging people to vote, and that is a different thing altogether. We need to look at this legislation thoroughly. This type of legislation should not be put forward by one side of the parliament.
The Leader of Government Business will complain bitterly about going to a committee. He also said that in the United Kingdom they took it to a referendum, and that it was not a government decision. The government said, ‘Let’s find out what the people think’, and took it to a referendum. When I asked why not do the same thing he said, ‘Governments need to make tough decisions’. Whoo! It is one or the other, not both. This has not been thought through.
The other aspect of this that needs to be carefully looked at, especially this year …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Are we aiming to suspend standing orders?
Mr WOOD: No, I am moving a motion. Excuse me, if you had been listening, member for Port Darwin. We are good with standing orders, thank you, minister …
Mr Elferink: There was no notice of it.
Mr WOOD: The notice is being distributed right now in accordance with Standing Order 148(2). I hope the member for Sanderson understands that I have stuck to the process.
We have issues with the federal election this year. I gave you the evidence from the Queensland Attorney-General saying if you have one form of voting close to another you get a high informal result. That needs to be looked at carefully. There will be a federal election this year. The Queensland Attorney-General said that will increase the number of informal votes. This debate is about decreasing the number of informal votes. That is a consequence of not thinking this through properly.
A committee could look at those issues and the appropriateness of electronic voting. The committee could look at any technical issues. When the Chief Minister responded to the 100 m zone free of electoral paraphernalia, he said the details would be in regulations. He told me that before the vote. Why was that not done? Again, if it went to a committee the micromanagement of polling areas could be looked at.
Whilst I understand the government wants this to happen and has put forward its case, the public has not had a real chance, nor have the people you would expect to, to have input.
We have the chance to look at what the government has done, to test it and change it if necessary, and to report back to parliament. We can, under the standing orders, send it to a committee.
The principle behind changing the way we vote should not be just because one side of parliament has the numbers. It is different if you want to change the law on registration of motor vehicles or the liquor licensing laws. Governments have policies and carry them out through legislation.
This is different. This is about how we are governed. These changes should not be at the whim of one party having 13 and the other having 12. There needs to be proper scrutiny.
It is also at an inappropriate time, being six months out from an election. The Chief Minister said it was not political. If it is not political allow it to come back in the next term of government. That way you can take the heat out of it. Politics in involved in what you are saying, Chief Minister.
The term ‘disenfranchising Aboriginal people’ is political because if there are informal votes in communities education is necessary. If people are not turning up at the polling booth – they do not turn up in my area – it is because our system does not encourage people to vote and does not teach them the value of voting in a democracy.
You are clouding things to avoid some of the fundamental issues that need to be looked at. This is not about improving voter turnout or reducing informal votes because there are already ways to do that. This, as we know from the reports of the Queensland Attorney-General, will increase informal votes in another election. You say it will decrease ours but I do not believe that.
The other furphy is that the previous government introduced optional preferential voting. No, it did not; it just used common sense. A second preference when there are only two people standing does not make sense.
Mr Giles: Optional preferential.
Mr WOOD: Please do not sell me a second-hand car. I know what you are talking about, and you can call it optional preferential, but it was a normal vote with a commonsense approach. A second preference when there are only two candidates does not make sense. Who do you give you second preference to?
It is obvious that if you put ‘one’ and there are only two spaces that is the person you vote for. It is different when you have three, but when you have two it does not make any difference. If you want to get fancy, when you have two people standing you have a proportional vote, that is, 50% plus one.
That has also not been debated properly. When you bring in optional preferential – look at the figures. Our Electoral Commissioner showed you what happens. If a third candidate is taken out his votes without a preference are removed from the count, and you get 50% plus one of the remaining votes. You do not get 50% of the whole vote, which is undemocratic. That is not the way we do things in Australia. It might be in Queensland, but who cares, Queensland is a different kettle of fish in the sense that was done for political reasons. The funny thing is the person who introduced it lost the election.
The principle of our electoral system is that you have to get one vote above the halfway mark. You have to be the most popular person. This is not a racehorse. A racehorse can win an election, but everyone put their bets on the other nine. That does not make him the most popular, just first past the post.
Our system means you need 50% plus one. I explained the way it is done in other places, but they do it over a period of weeks. We do it on the one day. That is the beauty of preferential voting.
I am concerned that if government has a view against preferential voting, or can see an advantage in optional preferential, they will not explain the benefits to people. Where are the benefits explained in these sheets of paper? That is what I am concerned about. This should show for and against and explain preferential voting. This was biased. It is like going to a referendum without the no vote; we will only have the yes vote. That is why we need to discuss this fully in a committee which can take an unbiased approach to the issues you raise.
I am not against what you are suggesting, Chief Minister. It is good to look at changes if they are necessary. I am concerned that coming from the government, which has some political reasons for doing it six months out from an election, the reasons do not stand up. I would like it to go out to the public, and a bipartisan committee discuss the issues. They may have to bring the Electoral Commissioner along with them, or an expert in the area, to work through the issues you raised. The issues are worthy of debate, but just because the government has the numbers it should not pass this tonight. This should go to a committee.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports this motion to refer this to a committee for important scrutiny and an informed decision. As the member for Nelson said, changing our electoral system and the way we vote is something we should not rush through. I appreciate the Chief Minister gave some detail around an online consultation, but even that – with less than a thousand visits to a website – when you think about the whole Territory, is not significant.
A committee would allow scrutiny to take place so we can make sure our electoral system is reflective of what the community wants and needs. It should not be pushed through by a government which wants to pass it without proper consultation or listening to the community.
The opposition would be happy for a committee to look at this to make sure we make the right decision.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff, and I thank the member for Nelson for moving his amendment. We will not be supporting it.
In this debate I have learnt a little more about politics because this legislation – the reason it was introduced last year is because in 2013 I promised I would do something about it. In 2014 we conducted a review, and in 2015 we drafted the legislation. As part of preparing that, and following the McGuiness report, there was some, ‘Do the low-hanging fruit now and the hard controversial stuff after the election’. Knowing you had introduced a motion to make some changes, and – member for Nelson, I will not attack you personally, but I will politically. I will tell you why if you give me a moment.
I listen to a lot of what you say and have a high degree of professional respect for you, but you move motions in parliament on a GBD, try to get support, and sometimes they sound good and we can support them. There are things in this legislation you could have supported.
Last year I said I wanted a long consultation process. We went through a process. In the media last week there was uproar from the Independents and Labor saying we are trying to rush this through. Let me give you some honest feedback, and this is following a conversation as well: there were no plans for this legislation to come back before the election. Zero. That is 100% truth. There were no plans for it to come back this week.
I had heard a lot of feedback about this, because unlike some people on that side of the Chamber, I worked through Christmas. I did not have holidays. I do not see December and January as a time to stop work. For me, work kept going and consultation kept occurring. Last week in the media people were saying, ‘Getting rid of the gauntlet, how good is that? Not forcing me to vote for the Greens, Labor or whoever, how good is that?’ I spoke to people in the street and had conversations I was not expecting to. I told my colleagues that we were not planning to bring this back but maybe we should because there is a lot of debate and everybody supports it. Clearly we are listening.
I am learning that when it is time for a decision on some matters it is, ‘Hang on, let’s put it to a committee’. This is backing what you wanted to do and what Bill Shepheard inferred at the 2013 estimates. This is trying to empower people who accidentally cast an informal vote. It is moving towards new technology, being electronic voting. It makes sense.
There are harder things we can look at which can be dealt with by the next government, whether that is the Country Liberals or not. This is the low-hanging fruit. To say that optional preferential is not really called that because it is one and two – that was introduced in 2012. Read the debates and communication. It was optional preferential, introduced by Labor, and was used in four electorates at the last election.
We will not support a committee. I am upset that you bring things to the Chamber, want them supported and we act in good faith. We had no intention of debating it this week – not until Monday. We bring in low-hanging fruit to help voters and get it thrown back in our face. I am offended by that. We will not support this.
Motion not agreed to.
ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 149)
(Serial 149)
Continued from earlier this day.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that clause 7 be defeated. I do not believe changing the voting system will help anybody, except some people who think this will lower informal voting. I do not accept that because commonsense changes were made which have reduced informal voting. Ticking one box when there are two is counted, which makes good sense, and we need to concentrate on educating people.
The minister gave a series of figures, and 1.6% was the total number of unintentional informal votes. In some areas it is high and in some it is low. I showed you the Electoral Commissioner’s draft plan for a video. He is just bringing that out. Fill in all the boxes. Now we will change it, and when the next federal election takes place people will just put one number.
I know what will happen with the parties, especially the party pushing it. There will be a big ‘put one only’. They will not promote the idea of filling in all the boxes. I have seen it before in other places and that is what will happen.
Regardless of whether you think this will help more people vote there will be a federal election, and our local government system says fill in all the boxes. If we want a discussion about optional preferential we should talk to local government and the federal government. I am not the only one saying this. It is mentioned in the Queensland Attorney-General’s report, and also by our Electoral Commissioner. He said the same thing in his response to your changes.
I pick up on something you said previously. Wanting to send this to a committee does not mean I do not support some of this. I moved a motion previously but this is new. I have not agreed to any of this apart from distance from the polling booth. I do not agree with clause 7.
This fundamental issue will disenfranchise people who do not put preferences because their vote will disappear. Again, see the back page of the Electoral Commissioner’s report. See what happens when votes do not go to preferences. They are lower than the rest and removed from the count altogether, something we do not do in Australia. This change will mean we do not have 50% plus one of the total votes, and you might think that is okay. As the Queensland Attorney-General said, you then introduce a de facto first-past-the-post system …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You might think it is not an important change, member for Fong Lim. You might have been brought up with this system. I was brought up with full preferential. It is a powerful tool because it does not disenfranchise people. It enfranchises them because they have the power to vote for someone else. It might be the best of the worst.
Someone mentioned not wanting to vote for the Greens, the socialists or the communists. However, if your number one vote goes to the bottom of the pile you have no say in who else you might want elected. You might get the worst person. There might be four people and three of them you do not want. ‘I voted for this one. This one didn’t get enough votes so to the bottom of the pile.’ You have no say in which of the worst you would prefer because you will get them regardless. That is the power of full preferential.
Chief Minister, this is a backward step for people in the Northern Territory. If you are serious about informal voting fix the education program. This is not about choice. If you want choice have non-compulsory voting because that is part of choice. We have a set of rules for voting and it is not hard to fill in one, two, three, four and five. It might be different in New South Wales, where you may have 45 people, but in the Northern Territory it is not hard. There is a 1.6% informal vote and we can fix that with education and retain the system we have.
This will cause confusion. People in the know realise what will happen, and the statistics show it. Introducing it in the same year as a federal election could affect your own party because there could be many informal votes.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Chief Minister ...
Mr WOOD: It is not Question Time.
Mr TOLLNER: I will make a statement then, and I would like to respond to the member for Nelson. In the member for Nelson’s world you have to choose someone.
What about the person who wants to not choose someone? They want to make sure that person never gets their vote. If there is a five-horse race and three are duds, three are people or parties, or whatever, that you do not want …
Mr WOOD: It is not a race; it is a popularity poll.
Mr TOLLNER: You might consider it popularity contest, member for Nelson, but most people are elected to govern. It is not about popularity, it is about the best person for the job.
Mr WOOD: How did you get here?
Mr TOLLNER: That is a damn good question, member for Nelson. That is interesting because my popularity has always been poor. There is confusion that politics is a popularity contest. I know you are popular, but does that make you effective? That is hardly likely because you did not get a swimming pool for the rural area, and goodness knows how many turns you had. Being popular is great, but in my view being effective is better.
If there are three candidates and you cannot tolerate the thought of them getting a go from your vote, how do you register your protest that you do not want them?
Mr WOOD: If your vote is wiped out you have no choice.
Mr TOLLNER: In this case it is optional, member for Nelson. You do not seem to understand that. People can number every box if they want to. It is like people who complain about advertising on the TV. Walk over and turn it off. You do not have to watch it. You do not have to vote for every person, but if you want to you can.
Someone who bangs on about choice and the right of democracy is now shunning the fundamental right not to vote for someone.
Mr WOOD: No.
Mr TOLLNER: You say, ‘If you don’t want to vote for something just vote informal or rip your ticket up’. That does not give you the option of voting for the person you want to.
This is optional and that is the key word, member for Nelson. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose that.
I am opposed to putting a number next to the names of people I cannot tolerate. I cannot tolerate their political views or the thought of what they would do if they got a seat in government, but for some reason I have to put a number against their name. When there are two or three, or in some cases more, it makes a debacle of the system. If I am in Nelson and think, ‘There is no way known I want that anti-developer Gerry Wood to get my vote, and there is no way known I will vote Labor’, all I can do now is rip up my ballot paper.
Member for Nelson, we are giving people a choice. It is optional to allocate preferences and how you allocate them. There is nothing undemocratic about that.
Member for Nelson, you have never won on the primary vote.
Mr WOOD: What?
Mr TOLLNER: I may be wrong. When have you won the primary vote?
Mr WOOD: Three times.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, I am wrong. Some Independents have never won a primary vote. There are probably occasions when I did not win the primary vote.
Mr WOOD: The famous Nelson vote.
Mr TOLLNER: I think I won the primary vote in Nelson but lost on Labor preferences. They preferenced the Country Liberals, thank goodness, otherwise I could be sitting in that chair never having achieved anything in my political life.
We are trying to give people choice, and that is fundamentally what this is about. I am thrilled that the Chief Minister has brought this to the parliament. You have mentioned one tiny aspect of these reforms. They are worthwhile changes. You want to delay this, get in the way and send it off to a committee with no regard for the punter. These changes will happen. The Electoral Commission needs time to educate people on the changes. You would like to defer this for 10 years if you could.
Chief Minister, I encourage you to push on with this. Get this over and done with tonight so that everybody can have certainty about how the system will work at the next Territory election.
Clause not defeated.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr WOOD: I had an amendment to clause 13 but I will not move it. Clause 7 has been defeated so there is no point listening to the member for Fong Lim again. I withdraw that.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an amendment to clause 17 as circulated to omit ‘500 m’ and insert ‘100 m’.
This comes about for several reasons, namely because two jurisdictions run a 100 m rule, for ease of understanding, following the principles interstate and feedback from the consultation process.
Three different things came from the consultation process. Almost everybody supported getting rid of the gauntlet. Some said make it 200 m, some 500 m, some 100 m and some 50 m. We consider 100 m as the middle figure, and I have also had conversations with the member for Arnhem, who suggested 100 m. I have had conversations with the member for Nelson – this amendment was done on the floor tonight. I intended to speak to it before the shenanigans from the member for Karama.
I am aware of logistics and geographical differences in the Northern Territory and individual voting booths in communities, and there are challenges. I believe 500 m would be hard to police. There will be challenges with 100 m, but it needs to be enforced. The current rule of 10 m, and the flexibility for individual booth operators nominated by the Electoral Commissioner or otherwise needs to now be changed to 100 m and must be enforced at 100 m. The purpose of this legislation is for enforcement of 100 m not an interpretation of 100 m. For those who read Hansard at a later date, this legislation is about the 100 m rule. This will give voters certainty that they can vote without fear of pressure or intimidation, and they will have a free choice.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned choice. This is about the freedoms within our democracy. People might think that is a big statement for 1.6% of the vote, whether looking at informal or the small size of the electorate, but people should be able to express their vote whichever way they want. This is not a political party point of view.
I invite comment.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister. The vote is also a mechanism and not something to play with.
I agree with clause 17 because it was the motion I put in parliament. It is a mechanism to make sure you elect people on a fair basis, which is another thing. There is some science about why certain things happen, but we will not go further down that path.
I support the change. The Chief Minister spoke to me earlier. One of my concerns is the micro, and you said there would be regulations. There is the issue of whether, for instance, how-to-vote cards can be displayed inside booths, as has been recommended at times, or whether they could be placed in a rack on the wall.
People laugh when I say this should go to a committee. It is not to delay it for 10 years, because that is rubbish. It is because some of the micro issues have not been covered. It is a pity this debate will be over tonight. It will help me by not having certain CLP members of this House try to stop people at Knuckey Lagoon or Kormilda College vote for me. Three CLP people took my how-to-vote cards out of people’s hands. I have witnesses – my sister and my wife – and both were disgusted. My sister was upset that people could say, ‘If you vote for Gerry Wood you vote Labor’. That stunk, and is part of the reason I moved my motion. I hate what happens at elections.
When I was at the mobile polling booth at Robertson Barracks a cardboard sign was put up – soldiers do not know much about local government – which said, ‘Independent Gerry Wood, if you vote for him you vote for Labor’. That was a straight lie. I had no way of stopping it. It also happens at mobile polling booths. I have lived in the bush and know the manipulation that sometimes happens, but I copped it from the party. This will give people a chance to walk into the polling booth without that rubbish happening.
My wife is not a political person, and my sister comes to help me. She is not a political person either. They come because they are family. When my sister became so upset with what she saw – I did not get to Kormilda College. The system stinks. If this change can stop that it is fantastic.
It applies to both sides. I have worked at both Daly River and Bathurst Island and know what happens. That is why I support this. People should be able to vote without all that. That is why education has to be better. People will not be able to help others vote. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people should be able to walk into a polling booth understanding the system and knowing who they want to vote for. You can get around it by giving people how-to-vote cards some other time, or advertise in the paper.
I did some work on this last year before I introduced my motion. New Zealand does not have the same problem, nor does the United States. The ACT and Tasmania got rid of it as well. We have some peculiarities because of mobile polling booths in remote areas, and I heard some of that discussion today. However, on the last day when all the advertising and hullabaloo are finished, people should be able to walk into the polling booth to cast a free vote without being harassed or have people telling lies about other candidates.
We need education about why it is important in a democracy to vote, and why and how we vote to reduce informal voting. Unfortunately, you are introducing another level of confusion, but that is for another day.
Chief Minister, it is good. Somehow you were inferring I supported all of this. The only thing I brought forward was the motion, which I wanted support for. I did not know the rest would happen. I support the change to 100 m because it makes sense. People at the Howard Springs supermarket will be able to continue cooking their chickens in the rotisserie without it being said they are representing a certain member of parliament. They will be happy.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have never taken a how-to-vote card out of anybody’s hand in my entire life. Have I discouraged people from voting for Gerry Wood in a Nelson election? Absolutely. In almost every election I have been involved in I have discouraged people from voting for the member for Nelson, and tried my level best to achieve that. However, as far as assaulting someone or stealing a how-to-vote card from their hand, that is not the case.
The member for Nelson said he did not like that someone put up a sign saying, ‘A vote for Gerry Wood is a vote for Labor’. Last term the member for Nelson had the choice of going to an election, supporting a Labor government or supporting a Country Liberal government. He chose to support a Labor government.
I am sorry, member for Nelson, it might be a simplistic way of looking at things, but if you lie with dogs you get fleas, and if you fly with crows you are shot at. That is the nature of the business.
As far as telling lies, I remember during the last election campaign our comrades opposite ran a smear on the County Liberals saying, ‘Vote for the Country Liberals and you will lose your job’. There were to be thousands of redundancies in the public service. It was a great fear campaign on plastic rollout things at every polling booth across the Territory. People were in the mall. It was a lie. It did not matter how many times we said we would not sacking anyone, they told everyone.
Member for Nelson, I appreciate the fact you do not like people saying you are a Labor man …
Mr WOOD: No, I am Gerry Wood.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, you are Gerry Wood, but people say things in election campaigns. Labor thought it could justify what it did. I can justify a sign saying, ‘A vote for Gerry Wood is a vote for Labor’. In my mind, you are part and parcel of the same crew ...
Mr WOOD: Rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: You say rubbish, but in my mind your track record is that you supported Labor.
Mr WOOD: When?
Mr TOLLNER: Last term. You signed the deal. Is that supporting Labor or is it supporting the Country Liberals? Member for Nelson, you seem to be so offended by your own actions and when people take exception you get on your high horse and say, ‘I’m not a Labor man’. You were! You supported Labor. You kept them in government. That is supporting Labor. That is a vote for Labor ...
Mr WOOD: Are you in charge of propaganda? You are doing a mighty good job.
Mr TOLLNER: You recently ran the line that the government was telling fibs when you tried to block the ice legislation. You did. You blocked the ice legislation. You stopped it being debated and passed. That is blocking the ice legislation. Then you say, ‘No, we didn’t block it’. You did. Stand up for what you believe in, mate. You either support Labor or you do not. You either block ice legislation or you do not, but be honest and say, ‘We’re blocking the ice legislation for this reason’. You blocked the ice legislation and you support Labor. You cannot have it both ways.
You went to an election supporting open speed limits then voted to get rid of them. You went to an election saying you did not want the prison moved then you moved the prison into your electorate. You went to an election saying you did not want a worker’s camp in your electorate and then got one. You brought all those things on yourself! You seem to dither, you are all over the shop, but in your world you are consistent. You are not consistent at all! You are all over the place all the time.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
- Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mrs Lambley
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Mrs Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Ms Manison
Mr Higgins Ms Moss
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Purick
Ms Lee Mr Vowles
Mrs Price Ms Walker
Mr Styles Mr Wood
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Publish Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Publish Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 242, I move that the Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report for Member for Blain
Travel Report for Member for Blain
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2013 I table travel reports from the member for Blain.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – The Preventable Disability
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – The Preventable Disability
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 9 February 2016.
Consideration adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on a topic that is quite sad. I acknowledge and remember the life and legacy of Paul Pholeros AM, who sadly passed away on 1 February this year. He is survived by his partner Sandra and his mother Betty.
Paul was born in Sydney in 1953 and he first visited the Northern Territory as a student in the early 1970s where he spent time with Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people who were camped at Daguragu during the Wave Hill walk-off.
He went on to study at the University of Sydney, completing a Batchelor of Science in Architecture in 1974 and a Batchelor of Architecture in 1976.
He was invited to work in Alice Springs in 1985 by Yami Lester, the Director of the Nganampa Health Council. Cindi Cole from Alice Springs stated that Paul’s:
- … contribution to the Anangu and on the APY lands throughout his work with the Nganampa Health and his work with the Aboriginal people throughout Australia will live on in the memories of all those who knew him or worked with him, as well as those whose lives were improved by the work he did throughout the world.
He accepted the position working with medic Dr Paul Torzillo and local anthropologist Stephen Rainow. Dr Torzillo acknowledged Paul’s contribution stating:
- Paul had an incredible mind and dynamic that he used consistently over 30 years to improve to living standards of people in poverty. Through the sheer force of his personality he was able to inspire a generation of people to work to improve the living environment of disadvantaged communities. He was able to generate real momentum in the international community, focusing on water supply and sanitation in poor communities.
Pholeros, Torzilla and Rainow worked together to discover why disease treatment was improving when Indigenous health was not. Together they produced the UPK report, a plan to prevent people from becoming sick, which became nationally regarded as a yardstick for environmental intervention in Indigenous communities. In 1994 the three went on to form Healthabitat, a not-for-profit company which developed the Housing for Health program based on safety and health principles, known as Healthy Living Practices. He stated on the ArchitectureAU website, architectau.com:
- People live in grinding poverty, unimaginable to most Australians. More frustrating is the fact that they are regularly promised large sums of money that never reach the real target or improve the living conditions and health of the people who need it most.
Between 1998 and 2011, Healthabitat partnered with the federal, state and Territory governments, the Fred Hollows Foundation and individual Indigenous communities to survey, test and fix health hardware in more than 8000 houses around Australia, 1800 of which were within the Northern Territory. His work positively impacted the lives of an estimated 55 000 people.
Brian Doolan of the Fred Hollows Foundation described the impact of Paul’s work on communities:
- At the entry to the office of the Fred Hollows Foundation we have a series of drawings Paul did around 1985 of a house on the APY Lands showing how incremental change was both possible and essential. Most recently Paul had been skilfully guiding us through options to assist people in Ethiopia get access to enough water to wash their faces as part of a program to eliminate trachoma. Paul is one of those people whose life really did touch millions, most of whom did not know he existed. And that was exactly how he wanted it.
A review of Healthabitat projects in New South Wales by the New South Wales state health department found a 40% reduction in hospital admissions for illnesses that could be attributed to poor environment. In a TEDx talk Paul presented, he talked about the project and its success stating:
- People are not the problem. We’ve never found that. The problem [is] poor living environment, poor housing and the bugs that do people harm. None of those are limited by geography, by skin colour or by religion. None of them. The common link between all the work we’ve done is one thing, and that’s poverty.
In the last five years, Paul partnered with Common Ground to run housing for health projects in New York and with the Community Health Development Society in Nepal to undertake sanitation projects. He was also actively engaged in projects in India, Africa, Bangladesh and Nepal following the devastating 2015 earthquakes. During this time he was also working with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency to prepare a submission to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal in relation to township leases.
Throughout his career, Paul’s work was recognised through numerous awards, including: the World Habitat Award from the UN Habitat and Building and Social Housing Foundation in 2011; the Architects Institute of Australia’s Leadership in Sustainability Prize in 2011; the Special Jury Prize from the 2008 National Architecture Awards Jury for architectural contribution to Indigenous housing over 25 years; the Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ President’s Award in 1994 for publication of Housing for Health: Towards an improved living environment for Aboriginal Australians; and in 2012 Healthabitat was one of six participants in Australia’s exhibition, Formations, at the Venice Architect Biennale.
In 2007 Paul was appointed as a member for the Order of Australia for his ‘service to the community by improving the living conditions and, consequently, the health of Indigenous communities through design, development and improvement of housing and the surrounding living environment, and working with and creating employment for local Indigenous people’.
He was also a Life Fellow of the Australian Institute of Architects.
Paul’s passing is a huge loss for the Northern Territory, Australia and the world. I thank his friends and colleagues who approached me and asked me if I would take the opportunity to read this into the Northern Territory Parliamentary Record. Our thoughts are with his partner and mother. Paul will be remembered at a funeral in Sydney and a memorial service held to coincide at Speaker’s Corner in Parliament House in Darwin.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a fantastic event that is getting better and better each year. Last Saturday I had the fortunate experience to attend the Welcome to the Top End Family Day and Expo held at the Darwin Convention Centre.
The aim of this welcome family day event is to principally provide newly-posted Defence personnel and families with an opportunity to meet other individuals in the Defence community, as well as to provide access to information with all the stalls and exhibits on display to assist them in adapting to a new lifestyle in the Northern Territory. What a fantastic lifestyle that is under the leadership of a Giles government.
A member interjecting.
Mr STYLES: This welcome event – some things amuse people …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STYLES: The welcome event also enables newly-arrived non-Defence personnel and their families to learn much about what their new city and its surroundings and environment have to offer. Even those residents who have been living in Darwin for a while would have learnt something by attending this welcome to Darwin event.
The event was open to Defence personnel on Saturday morning then, for the first time, to the general public between 12 and 2 pm. Having spent quite some hours there talking to Defence personnel and non-Defence people I can attest it was a fantastic success.
My congratulations go to the Department of Defence Community Organisation and their community development personnel for coordinating the organisation of this annual welcome event, which in 2016 is also being held in 21 other places around Australia. Some of these Defence welcome events that have or are being held around Australia are low key in some instances, with just a meet-and-greet session over a cup of tea or coffee. However, other Defence welcome events similar to what I saw in Darwin last weekend involve extensive preparation and organisation, with about 185 exhibitors and 540 people involved in the event in the NT’s capital city.
In Darwin, the Defence Community Organisation partnered with the Northern Territory Department of Chief Minster’s Strategic Defence Support Group and Tourism NT, and also with the Darwin Convention Centre. By providing some in-kind support, all assisted to present a wonderful event for the Top End’s new and not-so-new residents.
On entering the convention centre, I saw a buzz of activity that engendered a friendly and happy atmosphere. Exhibitors on display in this welcome to the Top End event ranged from not-for-profit organisations, service organisations, government agencies, tourism operators, sporting associations and businesses.
The foyer of the convention centre had various sporting groups displaying activities that encouraged especially younger visitors to have a go at a sporting activity.
In walking around the display of exhibits around the hall of the convention centre, there were many things for new residents to learn about lifestyle choices in the Top End. Visitors to this event were able to speak to representatives of schools, education services, healthcare services, businesses, non-government organisations and sport and recreation groups.
The Northern Territory government was once again proud to provide support for this fantastic event. The government support for this event was very prominent, with a large number of representatives attending from various agencies or departments, including the Chief Minister’s Department, the Departments of Business, Children and Families, Attorney-General and Justice, Transport, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Education and Sport and Recreation, as well as Consumer Affairs, Parks and Wildlife, the Electoral Commission and Jacana Energy. With some of these government displays, visitors were able to meet with officials to organise their personal matters.
At some non-government and government exhibits, there were opportunities for either the partners of Defence personnel or non-Defence people visiting the event to apply for employment.
There was also a variety of activities on display that were principally aimed at enthusing and encouraging children and youth during the time their family spent at this event. Besides the sporting groups seeking new members, there were also jumping castles, obstacle courses, face painting, crafts and games, snakes and crocodiles, and different types of military equipment displayed to excite the younger visitors of the Top End. It was great that the young people could hold the shoulder-launch surface-to-surface missile launcher and look at some of the Bushmaster vehicles on display.
Visitors to this event were also treated to a number of performance displays on the main stage including swing dancing, whip cracking, Irish dancing and Muay Thai kick boxing.
For the Territory, this annual welcome to the Top End event is a true local event aimed principally at providing information and support for the many Defence and non-Defence families who have relocated to this wonderful north end of Australia.
I again congratulate the organisers of this, in particular the different services involved. The police and St John were there, along with all types of organisations and, of course, the Army, Navy and Air Force. I also congratulate the cadets from those organisations who gave up their time. The military personnel who were there gave their time freely; no one was paid for attending the event.
It was great to see how the Defence force community pulled together, along with local businesses, to provide a fantastic event where people can find out what is available for them in this part of the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations and well done to all those people who organised it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, last night the member for Nhulunbuy spoke about Australia Day in the town of Nhulunbuy and it sounded like a wonderful day. She said it was hot but the Litchfield Australia Day was hotter than the hubs of Hades. Ours was incredibly hot, but it was a lot of fun.
The Australia Day celebrations were held at Freds Pass Reserve, coordinated by the Litchfield Council. The new mayor, Maree Bredhauer, officiated over proceedings, which was wonderful. All the councillors attended and had a role to play in the ceremony. I congratulate them, not only for the wonderful day they organised, but also on their election to Litchfield Council. Letchimi Wright for the North Ward, Christine Osborn for Central Ward, Doug Barden for South Ward and Kirsty Hunt for the North Ward, plus all the Litchfield Council staff, organised a wonderful day. I met the new CEO, Kayleen Conrick, who also attended. I will have a lot more to do with her as time passes. It was a great fun run and day. It was one of the better ones I have been to, and I have attended a lot at Freds Pass Reserve and elsewhere.
It was not so much hot as humid. It was a great turnout. The hall was full. It was preceded by a fun run. I do not know why people do this at 6.30 am or 7 am. I completely understand the member for Nhulunbuy saying that she does not do it either ...
Mr Chandler: Silly!
Ms PURICK: To pick up on an interjection, the member for Brennan says they are silly people too. They are very silly. I did all my running in my youth; I do not need to do any more running.
But there were many people who participated in the fun run at 7 am. Some ran and some walked. There was a large turnout of dogs, which I thought which was nice, but I felt sorry for the poor little doggies because it was a humid morning in the rural area on Australia Day.
Hundreds of people attended. There was the fun run, the flag raising, the citizenship ceremony and the award presentations. There was a whip cracking demonstration and a competition to see who could crack the whip the strongest – which meant the loudest. Mick Denigan from Mick’s Whips had a machine that could measure the volume. There were swag roll and painting balloon competitions. Of course, there was food. It was a wonderful day with the student citizenship awards.
I congratulate the Litchfield Council and all those who put in the effort to make it such a successful morning. It went from about 6 am through to about midday. There was breakfast and morning tea, and a good time was had by all.
I pass on my congratulations to the new Australian citizens who were presented and swore their oath to this country of ours: Mrs Sau Thi Lawson, who has an address in Humpty Doo; Mr Paul Teutenberg, who came from New Zealand – I had a lovely chat with him; and Ms Katherine Chaffey. They were not necessarily living in the rural area; some people choose to come to the rural area for their citizenship ceremony because they have heard about the wonderful ceremony we conduct. Every person who becomes a citizen at the Australia Day ceremony of the Litchfield Council receives a native tree which they take home and plant. The Litchfield Council has done this for many years and it is quite special. Those three people were very pleased and happy not only to become citizens of our country but also to receive that special gift. So congratulations to those three new Australian citizens.
The recipients of the awards included those for junior citizen, senior citizen, and the Event of the Year. Congratulations to Young Citizen of the Year, Rease Casey, for her wonderful work in regard to her rugby league achievements. She will go on to bigger and better things. She really enjoys the sport.
Margaret Moore was the senior Citizen of the Year. Margaret is a special, lovely person. She was shocked and quite tearful when she received the award. She is such an unassuming person, yet she gives so much to her community, not only in her singing, dancing and helping in many ways, but generally wanting to be a good community person. She is lovely and it was a well-deserved award.
The Litchfield Rugby League Club won the Community Event of the Year for their Pink Jumper Day. Congratulations to them, because they did well. They are to be complimented on how they are trying to not only raise funds for, but awareness of, breast cancer and all things associated with women’s health. Congratulations to the Litchfield Rugby League Club on achieving the Community Event of the Year.
Last, but not by no means least – I am not sure if we have this at every ceremony – there were the student citizenship awards and that is always lovely. The students who won the awards this year were: Cheyanne Leach, who is from the Berry Springs Primary School; Jason MacDonald from the Good Shepherd Lutheran’s College; Oanh Ngo from Middle Point Primary School; Billy Ingham from St Francis of Assisi Primary School; and Holly Harvey from Bees Creek Primary School. Congratulations to those students on their citizenship awards. I know some of them. They do a good job and love going to their schools, helping people and being good citizens.
It was a great morning. Thanks to everyone who contributed, not least the councillors and the mayor, but also the many volunteer organisations that make these Australia Day ceremonies and special days so lovely for all of us who participate.
The volunteer organisations involved in the day at the Freds Pass Reserve were the Litchfield Lions Club, the Rotary Club of Litchfield and the Humpty Doo Rovers, who always do a good job with the raising the Australian flag at the ceremony.
The NT Polocrosse Association put on a display of how you play polocrosse, or perhaps how you stay on a horse and not fall off whilst you are trying to pick a ball off the ground.
Also attending were the Bees Creek Virginia Volunteer Bushfire Brigade and the Darwin Rural Hash House Harriers. Thank you to Noddy for again organising the fun run around Fred Pass Reserve. He has done it for many years. He is a lovely fellow who loves his running. Crazy at 7 am, but that is how it is with some people.
St John Ambulance attended. Thank you to John Connelly, David Anderson and Lyn Gerdes for helping. Thank you to Reverend Ian McDonald from the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd, who undertook the special blessing of the gathering. Also thanks to Mick Denigan who not only was the emcee for the day but also conducted the Mick’s Whips whip cracking demonstration and ran the whip cracking competition.
I also thank Kim Koole, who sang the Australian National Anthem. She also sang other songs. Kim is a great singer who went to Tamworth recently. She has written her own songs and plays around the rural area in the local pubs and other places. If you ever get the chance to hear her sing, she is quite special.
The special Australia Day Ambassador was Paula Duncan. When Paula Duncan arrived, everyone was in a doo-dah, including me, because she is such a wonderful Australian actress. There were lots of people lining up to have a picture taken with her. She was quite special and made a wonderful speech and made us feel very relaxed and very thoughtful, and caused us to reflect on what being an Australian means to us, all our fellow friends, citizens and families.
Congratulations to everyone involved with it. It was a hot, fun day, but the refreshments at midday were so much more enjoyable. Thank you to the Litchfield Council and congratulations to the new councillors and mayor. I wish you the very best because I know you have the best interests of the rural community at heart and you will be a very open and hard-working council. I look forward to future engagement with you and everything that you do trying to make the rural area a good place to live, which it is.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory Chief Fire Officer, Steve Rothwell, retires from his position today. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Rothwell on behalf of the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory.
Positions held by those within the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services are positions of service and are more than just a job or a career choice. They require a dedicated service to the individuals who make up the communities of the Northern Territory. This service to others requires selflessness, integrity, trust and respect. Mr Rothwell, you have embodied this service during your tenure, and the Northern Territory and I thank you for your efforts.
I inform the House of Mr Rothwell’s achievements. Chief Fire Officer Steve Rothwell commenced his fire service career on 1 September 1977 with the Australian Capital Territory. He served in operations, community safety, training and various support roles before taking a position with Queensland Fire and Rescue Services in November 1993, first stationed in Mackay. Chief Officer Rothwell’s career within the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services saw him promoted into a senior management role in Brisbane South Region in 1997 and to Assistant Commissioner South Western Region in 2002. Prior to leaving the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service to accept the position of Chief Fire Officer, Director of Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, he led the Queensland’s Rural Fire Service and all of its 34 000 volunteers.
In 2005, Chief Fire Officer Rothwell was awarded the Australian Fire Services Medal for his leadership in advancing the portfolios of Training, Community Safety and Officer Development. He also received the Queensland Fire and Rescue Services Commissioner’s Distinguished Service Medal for his leadership as State Fire Controller during the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell commenced with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service on 5 September 2011. His previous service and leadership within other jurisdictions in the areas of operations, community safety, training and volunteerism has been evident in his leadership of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services. Operationally, Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has overseen the expansion of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service career stations with the opening of the Berrimah Fire Station, which also houses the members of the Capability Development Command, Operations Darwin and Operations Northern.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services has deployed members interstate to assist with emergencies in other jurisdictions, internationally as members of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, and locally most recently assisting with the emergency accommodation on Bathurst and Elcho Islands following Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Nathan.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell sought the Northern Territory government’s agreement in the support of a twinning partnership arrangement with the Bombaros of Timor-Leste under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Emergency Management Alliance. The memorandum of understanding sees the support and development of the Bombaros through training, resource development and community education initiatives provided by the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services. In September 2015, the Northern Territory endorsed the signing of the memorandum of understanding that established the twinning partnership arrangement with the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has recently returned from Timor-Leste following the signing of those documents.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell’s vision has seen the development and implementation of a volunteer brigade training officer concept, the re-introduction of the Volunteer Training Consultative Committee and the Volunteer Community Education Program. Chief Fire Officer Rothwell supported new and innovative initiatives of the successful Building Fire Safety Inspection Program for operational crews and the development and implementation of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services’ management system.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell oversaw the Australian Road Rescue Competition held in Alice Springs in 2015, bringing the competition to the Northern Territory for the first time since the inaugural event in 1996. I had the pleasure – in fact, the privilege – of visiting Alice Springs for that event. Seeing what those people do firsthand is quite remarkable.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell had been the President of the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation, the peak body in Australasia for the development and exchange of information, knowledge and skills in road rescue which has delivered the annual Australasian Road Rescue Competition since 2009. Stepping down in July 2015, he remains an active committee member, first joining the Australasian Road Rescue Organisation in 2002.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, a Graduate of the Institute of Fire Engineers and holds a postgraduate qualification in Applied Management and Leadership, along with diplomas in Business and Frontline Management.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell has represented the Northern Territory on the Commissioner’s and Chief Officer’s Strategic Subcommittee of the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Council, as well as membership on other Australian Fire and Emergency Services committees.
Chief Fire Officer Rothwell will be retiring to Queensland’s Whitsunday region to enjoy sailing and other aquatic exploits with his partner Jenny. Steve leaves the Territory in a much stronger position, and the Northern Territory Fire and Emergency Services will continue the hard work he commenced.
To Steve, I hope you will always carry with you fond memories of your time in the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services as you enter retirement. Earlier this week at his morning tea, I was very impressed with how much respect he had in the team and how much work they had gone to to dress up the office in a very nautical theme in preparation for his retirement. I wish him and Jenny all the very best. Please do not send photos of selfies of you with fish on the back of your new 48 foot catamaran. Thanks, Steve, job well done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the last and grand finale for the Tennant Creek school holiday activity program was the Tennant Creek colour fun run funded by a Youth Vibe grant for holiday activities. It was a sensational event that engaged the whole community. The kids had a ball and participated in what was a very dynamic and energetic activity circuit around the town’s Australian Rules football oval. They were dressed in white, supplied with sunglasses, and essentially ended up splashed with every colour of the rainbow.
Parents, toddlers and volunteers were involved, and nobody was spared. The senior sergeant of police ended up displaying the brand new police uniform in the Northern Territory, which was all colours of the rainbow. The St John Ambulance volunteers ended up also colour splashed. It was a fantastic way to end what was a very good and coordinated holiday activity program.
Special mention to Emma Newman, John Fitz and Derek Clarke from Red Cross; Sean Spencer and Courtney Barber at the Barkly Regional Council; Irena Edwards-Kelly, what a great young woman and emerging young leader she is; Stewart Willey, who has a great passion for youth work and is a hard worker; Tanya Jones, who represented the language centre; Sidhant Vashisht and many of those volunteers from CatholicCare; Michelle and Sally and many people from Lifestyle Solutions.
It was good to see the Tennant Creek community come together to celebrate and have a bit of fun and essentially conclude what is a very challenging holiday period for many youth in a regional town. Things can go wrong. We had a few rough edges, but essentially the project that was an ad hoc Tennant Creek Youth Centre worked very well.
Chief Minister, your government provided $40 000 to buy some equipment for Youth Links to do some minor renovations. You challenged Tennant Creek. You provided $919 000 to Alice Springs, $515 000 to Katherine and Tennant Creek received $40 000. As I continued to challenge you last year, there is $485 000 still in the bank for Tennant Creek. You put on the public record that the government was looking at Tennant Creek to see if there was a possibility of the development of a youth centre.
I can assure you, Chief Minister, you would be very proud of the Tennant Creek youth workers and great crew of volunteers who put on a program over five nights every week with some special activities that concluded in the big Tennant Creek colour fun run. The program was conducted at the Tennant Creek Youth Links building, so there is a good base. The activities were run at the building, with a lot of activities at the swimming pool and of course at the Anyinginyi Congress sport and recreation facility next door. It has a great future.
I encourage the Chief Minister to look at releasing some more of that funding, because the Tennant Creek youth leadership group had a lot of experience in watching, learning and participating with a very solid group of youth workers. Stewart Willey needs a special shout out, as do Irena Edwards-Kelly, Shaun Spencer and Emma Newman. They were instrumental in attracting many volunteers. Having stayed at home in town over Christmas and New Year I took an interest and made a number of visits. I had a great night when my wife Dawn cooked tea one night for 60 kids. It was a great time as well.
Yes, Chief Minister, the concept will work. We need further support. The Barkly Regional Council has shown it is a great auspicing organisation. They can use that support to employ more young people to enhance this Tennant Creek youth leadership group. Make it happen and real. Let us build on the positives.
There are some other great youth stories coming out of Tennant Creek, with four young men who have made a big name in Australian Rules football and international rules football. Liam Holtz-Fitz, Matthew Green, Mattaniah Bain and Kyrell Barton were selected through national trials and joined Wanderers Australia to tour Ireland, England and France over the Christmas and New Year period.
You can imagine these young men coming out of Tennant Creek and the Barkly and representing Australia playing football at the height of winter in Ireland, England and France. All these young men are members of the Tennant Creek Clontarf Academy. The incredible news that was filtering back through town was that they celebrated wins against four separate Irish teams. So great work, Australian Wanderers. On a national perspective, to have Tennant Creek and the Barkly get four representatives in a national squad was big news back home and those guys need the acknowledgement.
When they returned to Darwin I was very surprised to hear that after the acclimatisation of a matter of hours, Matty Green and Mattaniah Bain played in the NTFL Under 18s competition. Liam Holtz-Fitz, who is making quite a name for himself in Australian football, played with Nightcliff. These reps were getting straight off a plane, pulling on a jumper for Darwin teams and running out onto the paddock – a sensational outcome.
It was a great report in the NT News on Friday 29 January 2016 about a South African adventure. I quote from the article:
- Darwin’s Michael Mummery and Tennant Creek’s Liam Holt-Fitz are set for promising careers as Australian Rules footballers after touring South Africa with the Australian U15 schoolboys team.
So one young guy from Darwin and Liam Holt-Fitz from Tennant Creek were on the Gold Coast in training camps, where they were prepared. They also celebrated a week with the AFL Club Melbourne in December. They were put through leadership programs. Liam Holt-Fitz from Tennant Creek emerged with an award from that leadership program. Then they went on to tour South Africa with an Under 15 schoolboys team.
You can imagine the stories that a young Liam Holt-Fitz has recommencing school at Tennant Creek High School. The role modelling he now has at his fingertips amazes me. He is a top young man from a great local family. All of those guys – Liam, Mathew, Mattaniah and Kyrell – are excellent emerging leaders. Wow, what a story.
They are all great stars of the Clontarf program. A quick shout out to Clontarf in Tennant Creek for not only the work it does with football and sports but what it has done in training to employment. These guys all have part-time jobs. The Clontarf program has some significant school industry partnerships. I was honoured to attend the Emmerson Resources’ AGM last year and see – on-site on a drill rig – the operations of a drill rig working for an exploration company where all these guys and others work.
The Stronger Sisters program has bought into that concept. There are children with after-school jobs working in mineral exploration companies and around town. Clontarf has been able to broker these partnerships, follow these children through, mentor them and they are well on their way to training.
Emmerson Resources provided them with a valuable sponsorship before the trip to Europe. Those guys spoke in front of the board of directors and the shareholders of a national minerals exploration company and did a fantastic job. There are some great new stories.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Chief Minister listened to that. We really need his ongoing support.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016