2016-03-16
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Sue Folley and Kiteni Holt. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Do you want to acknowledge your daughter?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Hi Gwennie. Lovely to see you up there.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep an eye on your father. We want a report card from you at the end of the day on his behaviour.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as you will be aware, the Legislative Assembly marks Commonwealth Day each year with a week of activities in the Main Hall where school students attend to learn about the Commonwealth. I am pleased to report that last week we had 492 Territory students through Parliament House undertaking such activities.
I can also report that yesterday Her Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and Patron of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, attended celebrations in London to mark Commonwealth Day 2016, and attended a multi-faith celebration service in Westminster Abbey, also attended by 1000 school children.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Each year an annual Appropriation Act is handed down, which provides the legal authority for the government’s funding decisions in each year’s budget.
There are a number of Appropriation Acts listed in the statute book dating back to 1978, which should be repealed as they have lapsed and serve no ongoing purpose and can confuse readers by their presence on the government legislation website. The purpose of this bill is to repeal redundant Appropriation Acts that are currently listed on the statute book.
As has been the case for the last few years, and going forward, it is the usual practice to include an expiry provision in Appropriation Bills, and indeed, in all amending bills, which avoids the need to repeal any future Appropriation Acts after they have served their purpose.
This bill is intended to repeal the acts from prior years, which hold no legal authority.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this House condemns Territory Labor and its leader for creating a crisis in confidence, caused by its anti-jobs stance, for short-term political expediency, that has resulted in companies laying off Territory workers and, in doing so, has sent a serious message internationally that the Northern Territory, under a potential Labor government, is too high a risk for investment.
This is a critical issue for Territory jobs now and into the future. The Opposition Leader continues to prove he is failing Territorians on key issues. Not far behind is his deputy, who today on radio tried to tell Territorians that the crisis in confidence created by the Opposition Leader’s proposed job-destroying plans are not worthy of debate.
This motion is about the future prosperity of Territorians and the pain the bumbling alternative leader of the Northern Territory is already inflicting. Make no mistake, the Opposition Leader, Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, and Labor’s destructive policies are the biggest threat to the Territory, Territory families and jobs of local workers. His first-term agenda and conflicting follow-up announcements prove his ineptitude as a leader and the danger he presents.
His media release issued on 3 February listed the top focus of the Opposition Leader’s first-term agenda as:
His policies announced the same day herald support for the North East Gas Interconnector pipeline, yet he is taking away the gas that would fill it. What a dill!
In the same media release issued on 3 February he claimed an elected Labor government would support 12 000 to 14 000 jobs. Well, the first thing he can do is immediately subtract 6300 future full-time positions that will no longer be generated by onshore gas. He can also take away the 114 current jobs with Pangaea Resources it has been forced to slash and at least 10 permanent positions with MS Contracting, as well as 50 future jobs. That just names a few.
In the same media release, the Opposition Leader said:
Territorians can certainly slash oil and gas companies from this private sector investment, and job creation.
Let us look at what that means for Territory families, jobs and the young people in the gallery looking on today. What is their future like?
The NT is said to contain one of the world’s largest supplies of onshore gas, enough to potentially meet Australia’s combined domestic and export needs over the next 200 years. According to a Deloitte analysis, gas in the Northern Territory could drive significant long-term economic growth, create more than 6000 new jobs, and generate up to $460m of additional government revenue each year.
Yet Labor’s proposed ban is cultivating uncertainty in the industry. It has created a crisis in confidence that is already costing Territorians jobs. I will quote Bill Sullivan from local company MS Contracting to explain that impact. I mentioned earlier that the company has been severely impacted following Pangaea Resources suspending its 2016 drilling program. It is a lengthy quote but it is important. It clearly shows that the Opposition Leader’s bumbling policies are having a devastating impact on Territorians.
On Wednesday 2 March this year Mr Sullivan told ABC radio:
Based on the current regulations and assurances, Imperial Oil and Gas has spent $7m identifying and securing oil and gas targets, and it has a $60m investment and several hundred jobs at risk.
Add to that the concerns of Tavistock consultant David Armstrong, who works with 56 pastoral stations across the Territory. On Territory FM on 15 February this year, he described the impact of Labor’s backflip policy. He said, ‘They issued those licences, enticed that investment and now they have turned around and said no. I mean, investors worldwide are going to look at the Territory and think, “Why would we put money in there, you know? It is a real sovereign risk”.’
This is a momentous backflip after the previous Labor government issued permits for over 90% of the Territory to explore for gas. Companies cannot turn the tap on and off and lose millions of dollars. No business could be expected to operate in that fashion unless you are, of course, a fiscally inept and irresponsible Labor government intent on plummeting the Territory back into record debt.
Territory Labor’s proposed ban threatens thousands of new jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payments to traditional owners and tens of millions of dollars of work for local businesses in the regions that will host industry activity. It is not only the Giles government that understands this. The Opposition Leader’s statements have also prompted former federal Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson, in a speech to the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook Conference on 8 March this year, to warn:
He also explained to ABC Darwin on the day following his speech, ‘The end result of the moratorium pulled out of a hat for short-term political expediency is that companies are already laying off Australian workers and in doing so sending a serious message internationally that a place like the Northern Territory, under a potential Labor government, is a risky place for investment’.
That is from former Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson. It is a very clear message to the Northern Territory Labor Party about its policy, which is totally different to the Labor states around us.
I remind the House of the Opposition Leader’s first-term agenda to ‘grow the economy by growing jobs in the Territory and leverage private sector investment, which will see further jobs created’. He has failed on both those promises. He is not even in his first term and he is already failing. He continues to fail Territorians on key issues. I have to wonder if the Opposition Leader has an agenda, or is he simply the worst Opposition Leader the Territory has ever seen, whose bumbling actions are destroying Territorians’ jobs and driving away investment.
The Labor states of Queensland and South Australia are welcoming the Opposition Leader’s stupidity because it means our jobs will be exported to those Labor states next to us. The Opposition Leader certainly is not standing in Anna Palaszczuk’s way. She said on radio the other day that she wanted to emphasise in the media that she would not let anyone stand in the way of creating jobs for Queenslanders. It is obvious that the Northern Territory Leader of the Opposition is not standing in her way.
The Opposition Leader would probably dismiss Martin Ferguson’s views with a flippant claim that he, as an APPEA chairman, is being paid to say these things. I ask the Opposition Leader what he thinks of the decision of former Labor Chief Minister Paul Henderson to issue exploration permits for more than 90% of the Territory.
As a former Chief Minister’s chief of staff, did the current Opposition Leader not understand what was happening in his office and government? The same question remains as was put to the Opposition Leader yesterday about a deal with the Maritime Union of Australia which saw it demand $1m in payments for subcontractors on the Blacktip project. How could a person in his position not know these things were going on? Was the Opposition Leader just an incompetent chief of staff? He is continuing to prove he is an inadequate leader, and the poll results published in the NT News yesterday show that the public is not being fooled.
I refer back to Martin Ferguson’s comments in his speech on 8 March this year, where he said of Labor’s onshore gas ban:
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that instead of planning to put Territory business on hold for an indeterminate period to conduct these reviews, that the Labor Party takes the opportunity during the six months leading up to the election to inform itself of what is happening in the community. I know this may be a novel idea for the opposition, but why wait until after the election? Why not make the effort to inform yourselves to the extent that you could implement good governance without placing the future of the Territory at risk? This is lazy policy from a lazy and inept leader of the party. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, do the work you need to do now and demonstrate a capacity for good governance.
Let us look at Labor’s planned reviews. First there is the economic review to find out what business wants. Should the shadow minister for Business not understand the business community already? Should he not be talking to it, or will he wait until after the election, put everything on hold, then have a review and discuss what business wants?
As the Chief Minister said yesterday, an opposition should be putting forward policy. It should know what it will do before an election, and so should Territorians. Instead, its overarching policy is, ‘If it is too hard, we will need to have a review later’.
The plan to review the Department of Business to restructure it – the shadow minister for Business has proposed to create a unit that already exists. It is called Business NT. He has also proposed to employ six small business champions, which means he needs to sack 18 of the Business Development Officers currently deployed across the Territory. What a dill! It astounds me – or maybe it does not – that the Opposition Leader and shadow Business minister does not know he is promising to create a unit that already exists. The shadow Business minister is displaying a complete lack of understanding of what is happening within his shadow portfolio.
He will review water licences. Labor’s water policy is a recipe for agribusiness disaster. It is another example of the Opposition Leader demonstrating an alarming lack of understanding of industry and business. They have one page of dot points which either reflect what they are already doing or are proposing an interfering approach which will gravely affect the agricultural and pastoral industries in the Northern Territory.
This could set agribusiness back substantially. It could impact on everything that has been built up, from barra farms, mango plantations and cottage industry farms through to major developments such as the $0.5bn sandalwood plantation project in Katherine. It flags to potential investors looking to set up in the Northern Territory that their projects are not welcome. There is also the issue of compensation for all those who have complied with the requirements for a licence and have built a business around a licence being in place.
The next review is of gaming machine licence numbers. With a previous Labor government’s cap in place, new licensed venues which did not have the option of offering gaming machines in their venues were in some cases competing at a disadvantage. Again the Opposition Leader is planning a review that will stifle jobs and business growth in the Territory.
A review on the Department of Health to identify cost-saving efficiencies – this translates to putting Territorians’ health at risk either through reduced services or job cuts.
The review into the Territory port lease – Territory Labor passionately opposed the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which opened up the Territory to previously unexplored trade opportunities. Territory Labor was the final jurisdiction to support the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
I faced the question while in China in October last year, ‘What does the Labor Party have against the Chinese?’ Opposition Leader, this question is still pertinent as you continue to do damage with anti-Chinese scaremongering in relation to the port lease. This is a continuation of Labor’s damaging xenophobic sentiments that are putting international investment at risk.
They will review the government corporate travel contract. I recently announced that the Country Liberal government had awarded a three-year, $3.6m contract for its corporate travel provider services to QBT Propriety Limited.
I would like to point out the Opposition Leader’s embarrassing and misleading media release issued on 7 February, entitled ‘Adam Giles rips $40m out of local economy causing local businesses to shut their doors’. This shows how ill-informed the Leader of the Opposition is. The Leader of the Opposition says it is $40m. It is a $3.6m, three-year contract with QBT. Those are the facts. I do not know what planet you are on when you claim $40m is being ripped out of the local economy. I hope the Opposition Leader has the basic economic skills to decipher that the accusations do not add up. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition undertakes a review of his information before misleading the public through his incompetence.
Territory Labor will put an indefinite ban on onshore gas so it can hold another review into the science behind hydraulic fracking. This is based on the premise that Labor needs to see the science. This is another embarrassing policy stance because the validated science is freely available.
The member for Nightcliff told Territory FM’s Daryl Manzie on Monday 15 February, ‘The Hawke report has not been peer reviewed by other scientists. We need to make sure that we have the science completely right.’
That does not suit Labor so it has chosen to ignore the science. They say they want to see the science. What they really want is for the science to say what they want it to.
In a Territory FM interview on 2 March the member for Johnston, Ken Vowles, said, ‘We want to make sure that all the science is right science, and you know we are talking about an industry that is always finding new things about their industry’.
The Opposition Leader pledged that a Labor government would support 12 000 to 14 000 jobs. That in itself is laughable. However, it is not a joke for Territorians who will wear the costs. The Opposition Leader appears unable to understand that governments do not create jobs; private industry creates jobs, and if you do not have industry you do not have jobs.
Based on the Territory’s past experience with Labor governments, it is clear they have no issue with developing a grossly-inflated and costly public service. We know this is not the path to sustainable job creation. The public sector services private industry. If Labor has its way and drives business out of the Territory, we will back to the good old days of Labor government where growth in the public service sector will outstrip the private sector. That is not sustainable and will only force the Territory back to the inflated level of debt we found when we came to government and have spent the last three-and-a-half years getting under control.
We inherited Labor’s record level of debt. The Territory was facing bankruptcy when the Country Liberals came to government. We have fixed the economy and put the budget back in the black. We have a plan that secures the future for the Northern Territory. We are delivering jobs, better services, lower crime rates and a great lifestyle.
I take this opportunity to reiterate the Country Liberal government’s achievements. We slashed Labor’s red tape, which was holding back businesses and costing them millions of dollars. We have reformed procurement to support local businesses and local workers’ jobs. We have re-established the live cattle and buffalo trade, which was destroyed by Labor. We embarked on the biggest land release in Territory history. We have made record investments in roads and infrastructure. We have provided $7.5m for 200 schools.
We have the most generous childcare funding subsidy scheme in Australia. We have the most generous back-to-school funding for families in Australia and the most generous sports voucher family funding scheme in Australia. We have the most generous pensioner concession scheme in Australia.
Work has started on the $150m Palmerston Regional Hospital. We are undertaking major upgrades at the Royal Darwin Hospital. We have increased funding for elective surgeries. We have invested in Indigenous development. We have invested $21m to grow the arts. We are continually listening to and continuing to respond to business. We have invested more dollars in tourism, sport, recreational fishing and our parks and coastal reserves.
The Northern Territory has announced a $100m construction package to boost small and medium-size business, because the government is aware that some sectors of our economy are experiencing slow times. The Chief Minister and members of his government have been listening to hundreds of business operators and peak bodies, and we understand that some sections of industry are hurting. We know from listening to business that building trades, especially, are experiencing a lull, despite our strong overall economic position. That is why we brought forward the Boosting our Economy package to specifically assist businesses experiencing slow times.
The $100m is additional money to the record $1.5bn infrastructure spend in this year’s budget. The Boosting our Economy package and the project it supports are designed to provide a short-term cash injection into our economy where it is most needed. The projects in the package are designed to be under way, either contractually or physically, by 30 June. This will help keep businesses running until the capital spending of next year’s budget starts to flow into the economy.
All the projects in the Boosting our Economy package are relatively small by design, meaning they can be accessed by small businesses and/or independent subcontractors. These are the areas that will benefit most from the boost.
School upgrades, repairs and maintenance are the focus of the package, ensuring the widest possible community benefit from this spend. Parents, children and teachers will benefit from new and improved facilities, and our local businesses will benefit from the work this creates.
We are injecting $59m through this program into upgrades, repairs and maintenance of government schools, and $10m into similar work in non-government schools. We are spending $11m on sport and recreation projects under this package, $5m on boosting construction for new tourism infrastructure and $10m on a major social service project.
The government is alert to the needs of the smaller operators in our economy and we will not let them wither from lack of work, and subsequently lose staff and capacity. While we have a number of major projects under way, such as the Palmerston Regional Hospital, special schools in Darwin and Palmerston, Tiger Brennan Drive and the like, we cannot lose sight of the small operators: the painters; the chippies; the sparkies. These contractors need work too and this government is ensuring these vital parts of our economy have a supply of work also.
With recent changes to the government’s procurement policy, the Buy Local Plan, new works under this package will deliver the greatest possible benefits for Territory businesses. The government is playing its role in ensuring work flows through these trades.
Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader and Labor’s destructive economic policies are the biggest threats to the Territory, Territory families and the jobs of local workers. More and more people are realising that the Opposition Leader is not up to the job of being the Territory’s next Chief Minister. He continually fails Territorians on key issues. This is the person who is putting himself up as the alternative Chief Minister and is sending a clear message that under his leadership investing in the Territory is too high a risk to gamble on.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor’s positive jobs plan of the Territory and how we will grow jobs in the Northern Territory.
We have just heard for half-an-hour from the eighth Deputy Chief Minister exactly why nobody should vote for the CLP at the next election. This is an old and tired government. This is a government that has lived the life cycle of seven governments in three-and-a-half years. This is a dog of a government! In dog years this government is 25 years old. This is an old and tired government ready to be retired by Territorians at the next Territory election. That speech was evidence of why Territorians will vote this mob out at the next election. There is no enthusiasm, energy or passion for the Territory and the great place it could be. We will bring that enthusiasm. We will create jobs in the Territory. We are a positive opposition and we will be a positive government. We are lacking that from this CLP government and its eighth Deputy Chief Minister. It is an absolute disgrace of a government. It is old and tired. It is a dog of a government.
Despite the absurdity of wasting time in parliament today and essentially trying to censure the opposition, I welcome the opportunity to talk about our jobs plan, our plan for the Territory and how we will grow jobs in the Territory. We have detailed plans and policies, and I have had great delight in talking to and briefing Territorians about them, releasing them to the public and talking to the media about them. We understand and respect the privilege of government and we want to earn it. We will earn it with a positive Labor agenda for the Territory. We will have a better Territory under a Labor government than what Territorians are getting now from this old, tired dog of a government.
Territorians expect a government to turn up to work every day. That is a basic community expectation. They do not get that from this government, but they will from a Labor government. I will lay out exactly what we will do and how we will do it to fix the mess of the Territory after four years of high-drama soap-opera politics. Labor will clean up the stain on government that is this CLP. You have stained the government in the Northern Territory and Labor will have to clean up your mess.
We have, as a Labor Party, a strong and proud tradition of growing and developing the Territory. Despite the rhetoric of the CLP, the Labor governments of Clare Martin and Paul Henderson are widely regarded in the Territory business community for the work they did in developing and growing the Territory. During the 11 years of those Labor governments, at no time did I hear those Chief Ministers show the disrespect for the previous CLP governments that this unelected and illegitimate Chief Minister shows every day.
My first commitment to Territorians is that I will stop the drama. Territorians want the drama to stop. Labor will not have 15 reshuffles. That is an incredible number. That has seen people have to work with a different Cabinet lineup every three months. People want to understand why the Territory is struggling. There is a reason: a different Cabinet lineup every three months. This government has run this Territory into the ground by only focusing on infighting and personal self-interest, and not the best interests of Territorians. It is a disgrace, and Territorians demand and expect better.
We will not have five Treasurers in one term, nor will we have eight Deputy Chief Ministers. We will not have midnight coups. There will be no accusations that the police are conspiring to overthrow the Chief Minister, which is an appalling accusation from this Chief Minister. There will be no gay slurs, no figurative slaps and no references to smut-mongering journalism.
This government has approached the public in an appalling manner with terrible behaviour. They have no decent conduct. Territorians will judge them at the next election and throw them out on the basis of their own behaviour. It is a terrible, tired dog of a government.
We will not corruptly give away the Territory’s water supplies to our mates. We will not explore personal interests and share deals in major investment companies …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Opposition Leader is asserting corruption, which has never been justified or established.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, could you withdraw that reference to corruption.
Mr GUNNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
I can confirm, Madam Speaker, that there will be no attempts to eject you from your job at 3 am like this government attempted. This will be a respectful government. We will consult with Territorians about the way forward for our community. We will be a government that is respectful of its public service, the private sector and the importance of all people no matter where they live.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is to be respectful to the public service…
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down!
Mr Elferink: … then do not …
Madam SPEAKER: Leave the Chamber.
Mr Elferink: … slander the Water Controller.
________________________
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I would like you to leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 49.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Mr GUNNER: A Labor government would be respectful of its public service, the private sector and the importance of all people no matter where they live. We will behave better than the member for Port Darwin just did. The government will be thoughtful in its policy making, and will not chase down every thought bubble as this government does. We will be consistent in our policy application. When a policy is properly consulted on and considered it also needs to be properly implemented and evaluated.
We will commit to this. My government will be open and transparent. We will share information, not hide it, and we will be agile in our service delivery, not constrained. Unlike the CLP, we will engage and embrace debate and criticism, not threaten and bluster at our opponents and those in the community who disagree with us.
In our first term Labor will be focused on growing Territory jobs and the economy, supporting the early years of childhood and restoring trust in government. In addition, we will protect and defend the Territory lifestyle. Let me detail each of those areas. I seek leave to table Labor’s jobs plan, which was released on 3 February this year, and the accompanying documents – the infrastructure plan and our innovation plan.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: The jobs plan we have developed is the economic framework of a Labor government, and it explains how a Labor government will operate. There are more chapters of this policy to be released. The infrastructure plan and innovation policy outline the enablers of economic growth and how Labor will use these enablers to create jobs. I will also outline Labor’s approach to trade and developing closer ties with Asia, another important enabler of economic growth.
Labor believes economic growth and development must be firmly seen through the prism of creating jobs. Ensuring Territorians have the opportunity to get work is an important commitment by a government to its people. Growing the number of jobs to attract people to live here is a significant part of guaranteeing a positive future for all Territorians.
The economic sectors that will be Labor’s focus in our first term will be agribusiness, gas and minerals, tourism, Defence-related industries and international education; however, unlike the CLP, Labor believes that if we want a sustainable, diverse economy, the government must support small industries and engage, merge, grow and create jobs. Those sectors include the following emerging employment and economic areas. Health, especially tropical health initiatives, and delivering health services through technology, and Indigenous pharmacopeia will also play an important role; Territory art culture, food and fashion; land management practices in the desert and tropics; and next-stage solar and alternative energy.
We will actively support the growth of these industries. That is why it is here in particular that we will focus our policies on supporting innovation. We have to overcome the CLP’s complete disregard for new technology and the growth and development of innovation in our economy. This has been a major disservice to the Territory and Territory businesses. We have seen this in the CLP’s attitude to renewables, Uber and driverless cars. We have a government that does not, will not and cannot understand the future and plan for it.
Labor understands you have to embrace new technology if you want to deliver it in the best interests of Territorians. We will support the growth of emerging industries by expanding the business innovation support grants. We will provide an additional $1m for the BISI grants program. Labor will ensure that Territorians in remote and regional Northern Territory will have the opportunity to attract grants. Labor believes there are many innovative Territorians living in the regions and remotely.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have incredible needs in our remote Territory. If we are smart about how we embrace new technologies like 3D printing, we have an opportunity to lead the world in creative applications. Innovators need support, mentorship and advice in taking good ideas from the drawing board to a commercial reality. We will introduce a formal mentor network component to new and existing grants. Labor will ensure that the business support grants programs of government include assistance with accessing this support.
Support from a Labor government grants program will not be limited to start-up projects, but will include support for the growth of existing business. We will encourage the development of local angel investor groups in the Territory. We will work with local innovators to promote ideas to investor groups nationally and internationally. Good ideas can come from government, but government is not home to all ideas. Government alone cannot and should not drive innovation in the Territory. That is why we will engage with local, national and international private sectors to open the Territory to a wave of innovation, ideas, entrepreneurship and exciting developments.
We have creative, skilled, thoughtful people in the Territory, and we will work closely with Charles Darwin University, the Menzies School of Health Research, research centres, Indigenous organisations such as the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the Territory business community and others to drive innovation across the Territory. Furthermore, a Territory Labor government will fund a scoping study to identify opportunities for innovation hubs, invite and encourage the creative skills available across Australia and internationally to contribute to the development and growth of innovation hubs, pilot an innovation hub model and invest in the expansion of innovation hubs across the NT with a localised focus.
I thank the member for Casuarina, who worked with us in great detail in bringing our innovation policy forward. A Labor government will implement an innovator in residence who will see investors, innovators, entrepreneurs and experts take part in residential terms within government, with a view to focus on particular complex challenges and grow their own networks and availability of resources to shape and scale up their ideas.
I do not believe we have heard a single word from this government on harnessing innovation in the Territory from outside to focus and grow our economy. Labor will support the expansion of ICT infrastructure across the Territory with investment that will expand the upload and download of capacity of people living in the bush. That will unlock business investment opportunities, eHealth and distance education. Labor will invest in infrastructure that modernises the Territory’s energy infrastructure and allows Territorians to supply their own energy needs and sell back to the system.
The infrastructure required to establish a network of electric and driverless cars will initially be trialled by government to undertake government work. This is important stuff we need to do to make sure we are delivering in the best interests of Territorians by embracing technology and working out how it can deliver for us.
The CLP’s same mindlessness about the future when it comes to innovation may also be the driving force behind the CLP’s shameful cuts to the resources of our schools. The CLP is not preparing the next generation for the jobs of the future. To help grow our economy into the future Labor will ensure all schools receive advice and training in newly-emerging industries. Many jobs we know and understand today will change significantly over the next five years, and unrecognisably over the next 10. It is critical for students that schools keep up with these changes.
Labor will invest in STEAM – science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics – education, from the early years of schooling. We will do so in partnership with the private sector. Corporations such as Telstra already deliver packages in digital literacy across the country. With leadership from government such programs can be expanded into our schools. Labor will train students from primary school onwards in coding. Coding is the language and text of the modern digital world. Teaching Territory kids to code gives them the best possible chance to take advantage of the opportunities of an increasingly digital world.
To ensure Territory schools are able to maintain their currency with changes in the growth in technology, Labor will work with schools to implement regular opportunities for teachers and trainers to be upskilled. We will host professional development days for teachers and educators as a part of our innovation events to make sure we always have the best teachers in the Territory giving our Territory kids their best chance in life.
We will be an open and transparent government. We will be a government that plans the way forward for the Territory and Territorians in cooperation with Territorians. If you want Territorians to trust you, you have to trust them. If you want to plan for the future of the Territory you must do it with Territorians. On coming to office, Labor will host an economic summit. Our jobs plan will be the backbone of that economic summit.
Prior to the summit we will bring together regional groups, industry sectors, Indigenous Territorians and the non-government sector in a way that will bring to our summit a set agenda of ideas that can strengthen our Territory jobs plan. We will be a government that works with Territorians and does not ignore them or ignore experts. We will make sure we work together. We will have long-term plans such as a 10-year infrastructure plan. We will guarantee that our plans for the future are the product of robust consultation, that we are all on the same page and that government investment unlocks private sector investment.
The best way to guarantee that is through the economic summit, and that is what we have heard from business, which this government does not engage with. People in business want to be consulted and to be part of setting the agenda with government. They have asked for this economic summit as a way to consult properly with government. We are listening and we will engage. That includes mechanisms for consistent and constant feedback. We will reintroduce the business round table as a means of engaging with local business to measure if our policies are working so we get constant and consistent feedback.
Unlike the CLP, we will welcome discussion, debate and criticism. You must have it to be better. The CLP has always ignored the advice of experts and people’s criticism. They refused to listen to the early warning signs when it came to the economy. They put their heads in the sand. You have to be constantly engaged and open to hearing the criticism so you can improve on what you do. That is how you get better at your job. The CLP refuses to do that.
We will rebuild Team NT to promote the Territory nationally and internationally. Unlike the CLP’s approach to overseas ministerial travel, Labor will conduct investment missions in cooperation with and with the support of industry, and not in secret. We will tell Territorians up front where we are going, why and how much it will cost.
Labor will grow jobs by improving the productivity of local businesses. For example, we will build an independent research and economic data unit which will share data with the business community. Make no mistake, this policy will save Territory businesses millions of dollars over time and help them make millions of dollars over time. You need good information to make good decisions. This unit will identify and provide research on key issues which will assist businesses in their start up and growth plans.
Labor will provide a focus on small business. The Territory runs on small business. Its contribution to Territory jobs and growth is extremely significant, but it does not receive the attention and support it deserves. Labor will establish a small business champions unit that will act as an adviser to small business and advocate for small business within government. Within the small business champions unit we will establish six additional mentors whose job will be to support small business through their early interactions with government agencies. Three positions will be based in Darwin and Palmerston, with positions in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one focused on remote business. This was a direct request from business to improve how it works with the existing government, and we are happy to honour it. We think it will improve how government engages with business.
If this government listened to business it would be aware of the need to improve its services.
We will provide start up assistance and seed funding for small business to assist in commercialising new and innovative ideas. We will assist and advise small businesses in their efforts to joint venture with larger companies. We will ensure the information and data needs of small business are highlighted in the work of Labor’s independent research and data unit. We will expand the number and type of small business training and professional development programs.
We will set up a small business-focused energy and water smart program to help reduce business costs. We will ensure infrastructure expenditure is broken into smaller contractor projects to allow small businesses to bid for them so they have the opportunity to contend. We will have small business-focused round tables in each regional centre, and twice a year in Darwin and Palmerston.
In addition to improving the productivity of business, we will grow jobs by improving the participation of Territorians in the economy. Labor will invest in training. We are deeply concerned that the number of apprenticeships and traineeships is collapsing, and that this will impact on the lives of young Territorians and our future economic growth. The CLP has been asleep at the wheel, with hundreds fewer Territorians in training than under the Labor government. Labor has a plan to support more training, and we will release it soon.
Labor’s training plans will make sure Territorians have a pathway beyond high school and that every eligible Territorian can access a government-subsidised Certificate III or higher as their first qualification on a pathway to a job. Territorians will get better advice on careers and training opportunities available in the Territory. Industry-defined skill sets will be recognised, which will transform opportunities in the Territory, especially the remote parts. We will not abolish the Training Advisory Councils or take away their independence as the voice of industry, which is what the CLP government intends to do.
The most important focus in improving participation is on increasing Indigenous participation in our workforce and economy. Labor proposes to:
work with Indigenous communities and their representative organisations to ensure that government and Indigenous people living in communities engage in economic development and growth in the manner and pace at which they wish to proceed. That is critical. Too often we put artificial time lines on things which prevent the participation of Indigenous people in the economy. We have to do it in the manner and pace which can be sustained in our remote areas.
bring together industry, the business community, Indigenous representative groups and Indigenous communities to plan for growth, jobs and development
ensure that Indigenous communities receive strong infrastructure spending programs focused on providing housing to ensure opportunities for work will be created in these communities
ensure that funding, particularly infrastructure funding, is devolved where possible to regional councils and authorities to promote local employment
work with communities and employers to recognise broader concepts of employment and more flexible working arrangements.
Labor will set Indigenous employment targets in key government fields and make a strong push to train Indigenous people in the delivery of key government services. This will be focused on remote and regional towns and communities where a churning workforce provides challenges to service delivery. We will aim to have 500 more Indigenous people filling roles as teachers, police officers or nurses by 2026, with 2016 as our base year. You have to set that target. There are jobs in remote communities which are often not being done by locals in those communities. We can find a way to get that strong, stable core to those communities, just as we have in Darwin. The core of the community can be the same as the core of a community anywhere else – Yuendumu or anywhere. You have to get it right around those strong, basic jobs. We can do that.
To advance skills development, Labor will work with Indigenous Territorians and industry to target training for trades, and reposition the existing Indigenous responsive training program and the Indigenous Workforce Participation Initiatives Program to better align the two for job outcomes in regions and to leverage Australian government initiatives. We will introduce a specific Indigenous pre-employment apprenticeship program to provide specific training for unskilled or semi-skilled Indigenous Territorians to gain essential industry skills that lead to jobs. This will be linked, where possible, to Australian government programs.
We will fund foundation skills for Indigenous workers who require increased literacy and numeracy in the workplace to advance in their careers and introduce a strong skills and careers-focused program into schools across the Territory. Through cooperation with the Desert Knowledge centre in Alice Springs, Labor will introduce a focused Indigenous innovation project. I will return to Indigenous issues later in my speech.
Labor intends to grow jobs by attracting more people to live and work here. We will actively seek to stem the outpouring of people to other parts of Australia. Labor will undertake research into what keeps people here and what places pressure on them to go elsewhere.
We know from the broad data we already have that we are losing senior Territorians. We have to provide more aged-care housing options. We will work with the sector to have more retirement villages built in the rural areas of Darwin and Palmerston, the inner city and regional and remote centres. We have to get smarter and better at how we look after our senior Territorians. We cannot afford to keep losing our senior Territorians to down south. When you lose the grandparents you often lose the grandkids. We need to keep the whole family tree. We have to get it right for our senior Territorians. They provide significant corporate knowledge and a sense of community. Retired senior Territorians can be the backbone of our volunteer groups and sporting clubs. We have to keep them. It is significant to providing more stability to the Territory so we do not have that constant churn.
We are also losing young Territorians who leave to study. We will expand the educational opportunities available to Territorians. One of the best things Labor did last time we were in government was to make sure you could study to be a doctor in the Territory. The base level of work we can do to keep Territorians and attract people here is to expand our support for arts, culture, sports and lifestyle. This is an important area. We have a great lifestyle in the Territory but we can always find ways to make it better.
I seek leave to table Labor’s recreational fishing policy.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: This policy has been embraced and endorsed by the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT. Recreational fishing is an iconic part of the Top End lifestyle. It is an important reason for many Territorians to stay here and continue their investment in the Territory. Good recreational fishing is important for the tourism industry. It is a jobs generator, particularly in the remote areas. Assisting sound economic development of remote areas through partnership with Aboriginal Territorians is core Labor thinking.
In our first term Labor will commit $50m to the development of much needed and improved recreational fishing infrastructure. We will directly engage with the recreational fishing community to advise on the needs and priorities of anglers. Recreational fishers will be engaged in drawing up a list of key projects against the expenditure; however, Labor believes there is an immediate need for some projects to get under way. These include upgrading the Channel Island boat ramp, upgrading the Middle Arm boat ramp carpark, installing CCTV cameras and building new toilets at the Dinah Beach boat ramp, implementing a long-term program of building artificial reefs and installing fish attraction devices, increasing land-based fishing platforms nearer to residential areas and providing improved facilities for disabled anglers and children at appropriate locations. I am sure there are quite a few mature Territorians who would like to take advantage of fishing from land too.
A Territory Labor government will stock residential lakes with barramundi fingerlings – one good thing this government has done – provide grant funding for fishing clubs to run children’s fishing clinics, work with Indigenous representative organisations and Indigenous communities to develop …
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 3/4 class from St Paul’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Carol Carey. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER: We will work with Indigenous representative organisations and Indigenous communities to develop a fishing NT remote community prospectus of potential fishing and tourism investment. Getting that prospectus right is a particular passion of the member for Nhulunbuy, and there are some exciting opportunities.
We will establish a grants program aimed at backing the fishing NT remote community prospectus and continue to negotiate improved fishing arrangements with traditional owners.
One of the great job generators and enablers of economic growth in the Territory is infrastructure spending by government. Labor has provided a comprehensive plan for the way we will use infrastructure spending to grow the Territory. Labor believes the government must invest in infrastructure to support the construction industry, grow jobs and expand the economy. Labor has a history of building the Territory, and if elected to government we will invest in improving and expanding infrastructure over the course of our government. A Labor government infrastructure program will be focused on leveraging the natural resources and other advantages of the Territory to enable economic growth, underpinning the social development of the community, and Labor will ensure that the infrastructure program is spread across the Territory. Labor will ensure it is released in a way that supports local industry.
Infrastructure expenditure must leverage our natural resources and other advantages of the Territory to enable economic growth. Labor will use the funds available to it for infrastructure growth in three main areas. We will invest in growing and developing the transport supply chain to underpin our trade-focused economy. We will invest in major tourism infrastructure to add to the Territory’s tourism attraction, and invest in infrastructure that supports innovative technology and renewable energy.
Labor will invest in the Territory’s supply chain design to unlock the industry across the Territory and allow the Territory to produce goods and deliver them quickly to markets. We expect this will involve significant investment in roads, railway spur lines, port storage and handling needs.
To invest in the transport supply chain you need a transport supply chain infrastructure master plan. We do not have one in the Territory and that must be fixed. If we are elected we will use the opportunity created by the Northern Territory jobs plan and the work done by our economic summit to develop a transport supply chain infrastructure master plan.
There are projects that Labor believes will underpin expanded growth in the Territory. Based on the outcomes of extensive studies, Labor will support the creation of a railway spur line to Queensland. Labor will develop Katherine as a major inland port and transport hub. Labor will develop Tennant Creek as a major mining services centre. Labor will support the development of a shiplift facility at Darwin port, a project that has been on the books for a decade.
We will also invest in major tourism infrastructure. All Territorians understand the importance of the Northern Territory tourism industry, but we can provide further support.
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 4 class from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Leisa Beynon. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Mr GUNNER: We can grow the number of tourists who come here, through smart investment. The Northern Territory can be the nation’s leading centre for Indigenous art, and recognised as such. We have wonderful artists spread across the Territory. Let us take something we do well and elevate it nationally and internationally. Labor will create a world-class Indigenous arts trail across the Territory. Over the next 15 years Labor will develop a network of international-class Indigenous art galleries throughout the Territory. These projects will be linked and will form an Indigenous art trail across the Territory. Wings or smaller galleries will be developed regionally.
We want every tourist who comes to Australia to know they must travel to the Northern Territory to see the world’s best Indigenous art on display and experience one of the world’s oldest cultures. We will base the iconic national Indigenous art gallery in Alice Springs as part of our plan to develop Alice Springs as the nation’s inland capital and make Alice Springs a destination in its own right again, which is something that has been lost as access directly to Uluru has become easier. This project will be the first of the national Indigenous art gallery projects. This proposal will create an iconic building in Alice Springs and will house the definitive national collection of Indigenous art.
Labor will also support the development of an internationally significant Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs. This project will be owned by the Indigenous community of Alice Springs, in Central Australia, and it shall remain in control of the project. Labor’s role will be to provide financial advice and legal and secretarial support to the project, and to assist where required to get this important project under way.
The iconic national Indigenous art gallery and the cultural centre will complement each other. Together they will elevate Alice Springs and again provide a reason to visit Alice Springs in its own right, and support our plan to develop Alice Springs as the nation’s inland capital.
As part of the development of our Indigenous art trail, Labor will work with communities in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Arnhem Land to ensure that wings of the major national gallery in Alice Springs are developed to bring together the works of the saltwater people, the desert people and everyone in between.
We will also promote community galleries as part of the national Indigenous art trail. Labor will offer infrastructure grants, through its tourism infrastructure grants program, to improve the buildings housing the art. I have had the privilege of witnessing the extraordinary talent we have in our remote communities. Our art centres are assets and our trails will promote an experience too few have enjoyed.
In Darwin, following the design of a museums master plan, Labor will build a new Northern Territory museum in Darwin as part of the development of Darwin as the nation’s north Australian capital. The current Northern Territory Museum and Art Gallery is great, but it is small and needs to be expanded. It also serves multiple roles; it is a museum and an art gallery. These are usually separate buildings and important in and of themselves.
Labor believes it is time for a community discussion about the development and building of a new Territory museum, preferably in the Darwin CBD. A Territory-wide museum will be an iconic feature of the capital city, and placing it in the CBD complements the existing capital city architecture. Labor will continue to use the Bullocky Point centre as a museum. It is an incredible location for a museum and remains a wonderful community asset.
I turn to infrastructure expenditure that underpins community development. We will use our infrastructure budget to support the development of improved community outcomes. The major focus of this expenditure will be housing that will be a key component to urban growth, particularly in Darwin and Palmerston.
A Labor government will use its infrastructure budget to invest in housing in remote communities, which I will say a bit more about in a minute. We will also improve and expand housing for aged Territorians, improve and expand the community housing options, support the Darwin and Palmerston CBD master plans, and support urban growth in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas, including developing Weddell.
Labor will allocate infrastructure funds into a strategic local government fund aimed at investing in projects designed to lift liveability, health and community development outcomes in remote communities. These funds will be used to back projects such as resealing internal town and community roads, green streetscape projects, storm water management, barge landings, cemetery upgrades, accreditation of rubbish tips, communications infrastructure and other projects.
Labor will work with regional councils, local authorities and the Australian government to ensure programs and funds are coordinated and used most effectively. Labor will work with non-government organisations such as LGANT and Indigenous representative bodies to ensure their input is also provided. Labor will ensure that this funding leverages the development of local Indigenous enterprise and businesses, and will employ and train local Indigenous people.
We also need to invest in regional and remote sports and recreation infrastructure. Labor will invest in supporting identified regional sports, recreational arts and festival events. Labor sees this as important investment which is designed to lift important community outcomes.
Labor will invest over $1bn over 10 years into remote housing. I seek leave to table Labor’s remote housing strategy.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: In government, Labor will provide a 10-year, $1.1bn remote housing program to lift the amount of housing, living space and rooms available to Territorians living in remote communities. This funding will be allocated to five housing construction expansion programs. These are:
1. HomeBuild NT – our direct Territory government investment in building new housing, living space and rooms in remote communities. These funds will be additional to the Australian government’s commitment through the national partnership. Labor will provide $500m over 10 years from Territory infrastructure budgets to pay for this program. HomeBuild NT will be focused on bringing new homes on line for Territorians in remote communities. The program will be flexible enough to include remote specialist housing for aged Territorians and for those with a disability, mental condition or who are recovering from addictions and dependency on alcohol and other drugs.
2. The Territory government will invest in repairs and maintenance on houses beyond the funds currently provided by the Australian government. Labor will provide an additional $20m per year to repairs and maintenance programs, beginning in the 2017-18 budget and extending through the full 10 years.
5. An expanded Homelands Extra funding program. Labor will lift the program to $6000 per eligible family per year and reform the eligibility criteria. We will manage all this through devolution to local groups.
It is the intention of Labor to devolve key decision-making over housing back to Indigenous people living in remote communities. Labor is prepared to devolve to shires, regional authorities or housing groups the decision-making about what to build, where to build it, how to build it and who will build it. Labor is also prepared to work with new models of decision-making that engage communities and external groups such as resource centres. This devolution of powers will be a hallmark of the relationships we will develop with Indigenous Territorians.
In 40 minutes I have gone through some of Labor’s plans. We have many more. I have not touched on investment into early years and our plan to restore integrity and trust to government. I seek leave to table both those papers.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, this has been an excellent opportunity to talk about Labor’s plans to grow jobs in the Territory. We will be a positive alternative to an old and tired government that has, in three-and-a-half-years, lived the life cycle of seven governments. This is an old tired dog of a government, and we will provide a positive alternative to the CLP. We will create jobs in the Territory and build a better Territory with Territorians because we will work with and engage with them, unlike the CLP.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it takes a lot of guts to call us dogs. Shame on you. You come into this parliament and tell Territorians and the school children here, looking at an alternative government and Chief Minister – to show as little respect and dignity as you have and call us tired old dogs; shame on you.
It also takes a lot of guts to come in here with your empty policies and plans. It would be wonderful, as a government, to have a plan to make a plan, but that is not the reality, Opposition Leader. You need a lot more than a plan to make a plan, which was all you outlined in 40 minutes. I am very embarrassed for you that you stood here to outline that you would be an alternative government, particularly in front of those school children. It is hard to be a government, and you do not always have the answers, but you listen to Territorians, take the time, respond, and pre-empt the things you can. It is much more than a plan to make a plan.
It was interesting that you tabled a lot of documents, Opposition Leader. My colleague, the member for Blain, and I were perusing some of them. It is amazing, because I am holding our plan for economic development and I could swear it is exactly the same as the document you tabled. In our plan we have a plan for energy, minerals, tourism, agribusiness, international education and training, and Defence supply and service. You tabled Labor’s Northern Territory jobs plan and, what do you know, on page 7 you can see agribusiness, gas and minerals, tourism, Defence-related industries and international education. I could have sworn I read that before somewhere else. It is amazing. I cannot blame you because it is an excellent plan and it is delivering excellent results for Territorians. I applaud you for realising that we have a plan and we are taking Territorians in the right direction.
It is important to go back to where the Territory was three-and-a-half years ago and the enormous task we had as a government to turn the Territory around and get it back on track. We had to fix the mess of the budget. None of the policies announced by Labor today would have been costed. None of them had any detail or a figure attached to them. The member for Blain is a numbers man and he did not see a dollar figure in sight in any of the plans. That does not matter though, because under Labor you can put everything on the credit card. They do not have any costings because – ca-ching, ca-ching. I like using my American Express card as much as anyone else, much to my husband’s disgust, but you cannot do that when you are in government and forging a future for Territorians.
When we came into government there were major money problems which we had to fix. We had to diversify our economy. All the platforms we have talked about – energy, minerals, tourism, agribusiness, Defence supply and service and international education – are areas we have worked very hard on to develop so we can diversify our economy and there can be a variety of jobs for people so when one industry is going through a tough time, people can move into new industries, so there is always something there for everyone.
The CLP learnt a long time ago, when the ConocoPhillips project was being developed, that these huge projects create a spike and then there is a massive fall. Labor did not account for that with INPEX. It promised the world, and we have talked of this a number of times over the last three-and-a-half years. INPEX was the world’s solution to everything. Of course, it was not; we saw an economy that had nothing left for Territorians.
We worked hard to boost that. The Chief Minister and the member for Greatorex, when he was the Tourism minister, worked extremely hard to boost our tourist numbers, which has created jobs not just in Central Australia and the Top End, but in Aboriginal and remote communities. It has created an industry that was never there before. Central Australia has seen a fantastic increase in international tourism, which is brilliant. It deserves that; Central Australia is an amazing and beautiful place and has so much to showcase.
On the domestic scene, we have seen a 29% increase in tourism in the Northern Territory. That is an enormous increase. There are still many operators who would like to see more and need more people through the door, booking tours and engaging in the tourism sector. There is no question about it, you can always do more. But we were starting from a very low base and we have come a very long way.
When we came to government there was a ban on the live cattle trade. We have had to turn around an entire cattle industry. We now have the biggest live cattle port in the world, with 650 000 head of cattle going through our port. We have created a buffalo trade and developed new markets into Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. We have done an amazing job in that space. It is a far cry from where we started three-and-a-half years ago.
We have been issuing water licences to support agriculture. You cannot have agriculture without water; that is just the fact of the matter. The last government sat on water licences since 2004. It could not make a decision, work out its policy direction or do anything. It just sat there and suffocated Territorians who wanted to grow watermelons and mangoes, and engage in the agricultural sector and create jobs, which Labor could not do in 11 years.
Mining goes through tough times. We are fortunate enough now to see gold turning around and a massive expansion in gold in our economy. That is an important part of diversifying the economy and providing opportunities for Territorians. Without looking at how we can innovate and create new markets we will not be able to deliver jobs.
I loved what the Opposition Leader said; I wrote it down. There will be, if Labor forms government, a ‘wave of innovation’. A wave of innovation will come out of somewhere like a tsunami and take the Northern Territory by storm. I am not sure what will create the wave. We are hearing and reading a lot of words but there is no substance to it. There is nothing behind what you are saying. People do not want to hear a plan for a plan. They do not want talk. They do not want governments to just say words. They are meaningless unless they transpire into something on the ground. That is what our government has been able to establish over the last three-and-a-half years.
We have a long way to go. In our second term of government – we will have a second term of government – we will see the continued roll-out of opportunity for Territorians well into the future. We are not here for the now; we are here for tomorrow. We are here to see our children and their children’s children love the Northern Territory as much as we do. We need to put things in place now for the next 50 to 100 years. It is not opportunism, grabbing for votes, plans to make a plan and meaningless words. I am not sure what will cause the wave of innovation. I think is it highly unlikely that there will be a wave of innovation because it does not mean anything to anyone.
Recently, Defence White Papers were released which state there will be $20bn of Defence spending in the Northern Territory. I think the closest thing Labor did in 11 years – what is the Defence hub called near Robertson Barracks? I do not even know what it is called; that is how impressive it is. Defence spending of $20bn in the Northern Territory is fantastic. It will create jobs, new businesses and opportunities for Territorians. It secures our importance in the national Defence space, and we will see many new opportunities come into the Territory. That is real; I am not making that up. We did not come up with that as a plan we would like to have. That will happen.
International education is another one of our economic development focus points. It will be an exciting urban industry for the Top End. Many of the other industries we talk about are things that happen off shore or in regional areas, whereas education will be happening right here. Why is it that in Adelaide 12 000 high school students are from overseas? The Northern Territory is about to emerge as part of that market and opportunity. It has never happened before and we have come a long way to put things in place to get that to happen. These things take time. We are not there yet, but it is certainly something we set our sights on right from the start and have been working hard to deliver.
Pretty much everything is made out of oil and gas – plastics and all types of things. Everything comes from that industry so the more of it we have in the Territory the better it will be for Territorians. We want to see power prices come down and we want to make our own petrol and make it cheaper. We want to develop petrochemical industries so we can make plastics in the Northern Territory …
Mr Barrett: They want a moratorium.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Yes, and the opposition wants a moratorium.
Yesterday the Chief Minister outlined very articulately in Question Time all the reviews Labor would undertake if it were to form a government. I cannot even list them all. It was an entire A4 page of reviews. That is not doing anything. You need to do something. You cannot just have meeting after meeting that achieves nothing. You cannot just have a plan to make a plan. You need to set your goals then achieve them.
We have $1bn worth of exploration in the Northern Territory this year. That is research and development happening here. Over the next 20 years 6300 jobs will be created in that sector.
Going back to education – and the Opposition Leader mentioned investment in education which sounded very similar to some of our policies – all of the $1bn in royalties from onshore gas will go into education. That is massive. If you talk about innovation, that might be something you want to think about in your wave.
This is our plan to create jobs. This is part of what we are doing to create jobs. We saw, for 11 years, that Labor did not support agriculture, gas, cattle or any of the things the Opposition Leader so fondly spoke about when he said, ‘If we were to return to government we’d do X’. You had 11 years to do it and you did nothing. I do not think the light bulb has just clicked on this year and things will change.
It was fantastic that you spoke about the Territory lifestyle. No one defends our Territory lifestyle more than me in this parliament. It was interesting that you mentioned a recreational fishing program that sounds a lot like a program we are already doing. Actually, I think the Neighbourhood Fishing Program was my idea, where we are already breeding barramundi and stocking lakes. I believe minister Higgins recently went to Manton Dam with barramundi fingerlings. My fingerlings are fattening up at Fisheries, ready to go into Durack Lakes as part of the Neighbourhood Fishing Program.
Minister Price has opened up our parks. Under Labor everything was too hard and was closed down. We have been getting people back outdoors. We want Territorians to enjoy the Northern Territory. We want families out and about. Recently there was a press release about upgrades to Howard Springs. We are committed to Territorians and providing opportunities for them. We want Territorians to be enjoying our beautiful Territory.
How many studies can you do before you have to come up with your own plan? How many reviews can you undertake? The message from the opposition today is that you cannot risk Labor because there is nothing to go to. There is no alternative government. There is nothing but empty promises, and, quite frankly, Territorians deserve much better. Territorians do not want a government that has a plan to make a plan, and I cannot stand in this House to represent Territorians and let the next generation suffer as a result of a Labor government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I probably will not talk for long, but I am sure I can fairly well sum up what the Leader of the Opposition said in his 40 or 45 minute speech in much less time.
It was really disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the debate of this motion. He started out quite passionately; I will give him that. It was long on passion and rhetoric but very short on detail. It did not give me any confidence that he, as the aspiring next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, can deliver a government that will do anything to better the economy of the Northern Territory.
In past weeks, and again today, we have heard a lot from the Leader of the Opposition about slowing the Territory down. If you distil everything out of what the Opposition Leader says, you can see that he wants to slow things down, rather than get on and get the job done, speed things up and make them happen. He talks about plans he and his aspiring government would have for the Northern Territory. It is a shame that plagiarism is not listed in the standing orders of this place, because we could well and truly use that standing order, if it existed, to totally disregard everything the Leader of the Opposition placed on record today, including the papers he tabled, which in many cases are a direct lift from the policies of the Giles CLP government, but also from all of the things we, as a government, have been doing for the past three-and-a-half years.
In talking about growing the economy, there is very little the Opposition Leader has come up with that is new, innovative or inspiring. It tells me that we simply cannot risk having a Labor government in the Northern Territory.
Let us look at a few things the Opposition Leader has announced in recent times. As this motion describes, one can be best described as a moratorium on jobs. Let us talk about his gas moratorium. If you look at the map of the Northern Territory that was put together by the Department of Mines and Energy a couple of years ago, it showed that some 90% or 95% of the Northern Territory’s entire land mass was either granted or under application for petroleum permits, and petroleum, naturally, includes gas. That is a legacy of the former Labor government. Those things were in place three-and-a-half years ago, before the CLP came to power.
Now, from some epiphany, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to do everything he can to destroy confidence in the Northern Territory by those companies which would or could come here and explore for oil and gas. We all know that the oil and gas industry is potentially enormous for the Territory. Deloitte put out a report saying up to 6000 jobs could be created if gas and petroleum industry in the Northern Territory flourished. It would create hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, all of which have been earmarked by the Chief Minister, in a sensible call, to go towards educating young people in the Northern Territory. Labor’s moratorium would deny Territorians access to all that – no more jobs and no more massive amounts of money that could be pumped into the education of young Territorians. I find that disgraceful.
The gas industry has the potential to drive the economy of the Territory for the next 50 or 100 years. It has been mooted by some people that the Territory’s gas industry will drive, to some degree, the economy of the entire country. The Leader of the Opposition would kill that.
His announcement of a moratorium is already damaging confidence, let alone what would happen in the future. Look at Pangaea’s announcement about jobs. How can you trust a potential government to do the right thing by Territorians when the announcements it has made are destroying the economy. That is what it is trying to achieve, and I know what it is; Territory Labor is putting the future of the Northern Territory economy at risk just because it wants to play popular politics. That is an absolute disgrace.
It is easy to sit in opposition – most of us on this side of the House were there for four years, from 2008 to 2012 – and throw stones at the government. Once you get to government you realise that it is hard to make decisions. It is easy to do nothing but hard to make decisions because every decision you make will annoy somebody. But if you stand here with the true interest of Territorians at heart and make those hard decisions you are doing, as a politician or minister, what the people of the Northern Territory elected you to do.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 3/4 classes from St Paul’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Tessa Browett and Lauren Penny. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, look into the gallery and see all those young faces. They are our young Territorians; they are our future. You are in school and will continue to grow up in the Territory, I hope, then you will move into jobs created by a government that is supporting the private sector to do what it does best, which is grow the economy. Under Labor’s plans the future for those young people looks bleak because of its job-destroying policies.
Water is always a controversial topic. The opposition has now said it will put a moratorium on jobs in the agriculture sector by – the code words are ‘reviewing water licences’. When we came to government in 2012 we discovered that, in Labor’s best and truest form, it did nothing. We discovered there were 75 water licence applications sitting on a shelf gathering dust because the former Labor government could not make tough decisions. It did not want to upset anybody. It did not want to upset its Green mates. I do not know who else it did not want to upset, but it did nothing. It preferred to see the agricultural industries of the Territory flounder, because they could not have access to the most important natural resource that agriculture needs: water.
When we came to government we issued water licences. I was the Minister for Land Resource Management from December 2012 until quite recently. I am very proud of the work done by me, my office, both Water Controllers at the time and the department in furthering our government’s agenda to grow the agriculture sector by issuing water licences. In recent times the statistics have shown that since we came to government we have issued 167 new licences, increases to allocations or renewals of water licences. It might even be a few more than that by now.
That is what a government does to support the agricultural community of the Northern Territory, amongst many other things. If the Labor Party is given power in August 2016, we will see the agricultural industries start to slow down, flounder and stop because of the uncertainty associated with Labor’s appalling water policy. You could well see a clawback of water allocations by Labor. How will that improve the economy of the Northern Territory?
Mr Barrett: It does not.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Blain. It does not at all. All it does is slow things down. There could not be an individual working in the primary sector of the NT who would support a slow-down of their industry. That is why you cannot risk a Labor government in August 2016. That is one reason, and it is a compelling one. We will see a return to the bad old days of the Labor government, where it was too frightened to make decisions. ‘It is all too hard; we will do nothing about it. We will play popular politics and pretend we are doing something.’ It is a disgrace.
I also heard earlier something we have, sadly, become accustomed to in this House, which is the Labor Party slurring our public servants. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that the Water Controller issues water licences. The Leader of the Opposition said this government corruptly issued water licences to mates. That is a direct slur on the good public servants in the Northern Territory, particularly the Water Controller at the time. Once again, the Labor Party members should be ashamed of themselves. Every public servant who heard that, who has it replayed to them or sent out to them in a transcript should be quivering in their boots knowing that if a Labor government is returned in August this year, there will probably be some sort of witch-hunt. I suggest that those public servants who supported the policies of the CLP will be in the direct firing line of a Labor government.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Leader of the Opposition’s response to this motion was long on rhetoric but short on detail. When a response such as that is given, one must turn one’s mind to whether there is a prior history of the way in which a party tends to govern. Let us look at some of the priors of Labor over the past few years. It is very quick to turn to moratoria. Let us look at land clearing in the Daly. It was too hard and it did not understand it. ‘Oh, let us put a moratorium on land clearing.’
In more recent times, the gas industry – too hard, do not understand it, want to play popular politics, ‘Let us put a moratorium on it’. Water policy – ‘Let us put a moratorium on it’.
Let’s not even talk about what the Labor Party did to the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Why would anybody want to inflict a government on the Northern Territory that was complicit in the banning of live cattle exports in 2011? Think about the prior history of the Labor Party and what it has done.
I was the shadow minister for Tourism for a period between 2008 and 2012. I remember questioning the then minister, Malarndirri McCarthy, in estimates about the falling tourist numbers. It was easy to discern that because of a savage underspend by the government on promoting the Northern Territory as a tourist destination, our tourism numbers were diving. I asked what the priorities were. The response staggered me. Without going into specific detail, the Labor government was more interested in pursuing social agendas than it was about economy-growing ideas and actions; that was clear.
What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition was another example of that. There was a lot of talk about social agendas. It was hidden amongst the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition. There was nothing the Leader of the Opposition said that instilled any confidence in me that they will be able to grow the economy of the Northern Territory. We will end up with another mass Labor spend-a-thon. It will keep racking it up on the credit card and reverse all the good hard work this government has done to bring spending under control, bring our budget back into the black and reduce our projected debt by around half.
We will end up with a bunch of spending on social agendas at the expense of the economy of the Northern Territory. That is why you cannot risk installing a Labor government in August this year. The Labor Party does not get business or economy. It does not understand it. You cannot blame them for that. It is built into their DNA. Social agendas do not build the economy. It is as simple as that.
I think the member for Nhulunbuy might be keen to speak on this motion. I hope the member for Nhulunbuy can say something that will inspire me, or instil confidence in me or anybody else that they have an agenda.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, as the member for Nhulunbuy I will not be lectured by members opposite or the Chief Minister about jobs, or lectured to by this woeful government. I will not be lectured to by the member for Katherine about plagiarism. I will not be lectured to by this dog of a government.
The Chief Minister and this government singlehandedly destroyed the …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 31. I let it ride a couple of times, but use of the word ‘dog’, particularly from the left, but in any circumstances, is highly offensive. It should be expunged from this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I disagree. It is not highly offensive but I take your point. It will not be expunged, but, member for Nhulunbuy, please couch your words a little differently.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, this Chief Minister and this government singlehandedly destroyed the refinery at Nhulunbuy, costing thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. They did so because the Chief Minister ripped up an agreement which was reached with his predecessor in a fit of pique.
In a complete betrayal of the people of Nhulunbuy – we only have to look to the newspaper front page in 2013 which said, ‘Gas to come to Gove’. A deal had been reached with the former Chief Minister and his Cabinet …
Mr Chandler: Provided enough gas.
Ms WALKER: … then the following week – I hear the interjection from the member for Brennan – there he is on the front page of our local newspaper, and there is the member for Katherine, alongside the former Chief Minister, who was knifed in the back, receiving congratulations for delivering gas to Gove. Do not tell me, member for Brennan, that it is nonsense. You were part of that Cabinet that approved gas to Gove, and you were part of the same government that axed it. What an utter betrayal of a community of 4000 people, which is now home to about 2000 thanks to the CLP government.
As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will not be lectured to by this Chief Minister about messages to our neighbours, and I will not be yelled at by the member for Port Darwin. After all, it was three years ago this week when this Chief Minister, ably supported by his now Deputy Chief Minister, waited for his leader to go to Japan on an international business trip before knifing him in the back.
That ranks amongst low acts at about the same level as Trevor Chappell’s underarm bowl to New Zealand.
Mr Chandler: Too soon.
Ms WALKER: Adam Giles is the Territory’s Trevor Chappell, and if he thinks his treachery was not noted in Japan, then he should think again.
I am surprised by you, member for Brennan; you have been on the receiving end of his treachery. I notice you are no longer the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
I will not be lectured to by this Chief Minister and government when they condone their former Deputy Chief Minister, the disgraced member for Katherine, for conducting his private business with an overseas investment company while in control of the resources that can benefit that company in the Territory. I will not be lectured to by people like that.
I will not be lectured to about sovereign risk by a government that has had two-and-a-half Chief Ministers, eight Deputy Chief Ministers and five Treasurers in three-and-a-half years, which equates to a reshuffle approximately every three months. The biggest risk to the Territory economy is four more years of this dreadful CLP government.
I will not be lectured on economics and jobs by a Chief Minister and government that have their policies so terribly wrong that business confidence has dropped 22 points in 12 months to be the second-lowest in Australia, and there is a 21% vacancy rate in CBD commercial premises. This government has it so wrong that we have seen a 33% drop in first home buyers loans, despite low interest rates. It has it so wrong that it has allowed businesses in Nightcliff, Palmerston, Casuarina, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine to be constantly harassed, threatened and abused by rampant, out-of-control antisocial behaviour. It is not funny, Deputy Chief Minister. It is very serious for the residents of these places, who have suffered under your terrible policies. It is nothing to be laughed at, Deputy Chief Minister.
I will not be lectured by a government that was elected with a majority of 16 members in the House and is now relying on secret deals to pass legislation. I will not be lectured by a government and Chief Minister that behave like that.
When the CLP was elected in August 2012, it immediately set the tone for the government it has had since. As you know only too well, Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder, you were dumped as deputy leader upon coming to government. Public service chief executives were axed and thrown out because they were not liked, not because they could not do their jobs. Departments were split and reshuffled backwards and forwards. Ask the staff in Asian relations and trade which government agency they are in this week.
Power prices were jacked up 30%, and water and sewerage prices were jacked up by 40%. Still today Indigenous people in remote communities do not know why it is lucky if $20 on their power card, which might have lasted five days in an average household, now lasts two days. At Milingimbi the week before last, people were telling me they still did not know that power prices had gone up, but they know their power cards do not last as long. Shame on the CLP government for hurting Territorians, and our most disadvantaged Territorians – Indigenous Territorians – in remote communities. When these power cards run out, they do not have the cash to buy another one. They sit in the dark. The fans and washing machine do not work and the fridge does not stay cold.
Under the CLP, schools and education programs have been cut, in some cases by a 30% reduction in grants and programs. More than 330 staff in schools have been removed and 550 in total in the agency. That is appalling.
Welfare organisations have had their budgets slashed. Support to youth programs has been slashed. There is a direct correlation in youths being incarcerated because we have seen diversion programs slashed and a reduction in resources to the Department of Children and Families. So many of those young people who interface with the justice and corrections systems are in care and protection. It is all a direct result of the CLP government.
Let us not forget the cutting of the Banned Drinker Register, the BDR, simply because it was a Labor policy, not based on any data, research or evidence. They knew it was working and axed it simply on the basis that it was a Labor policy.
The CLP set itself up as a mean and vindictive government that assumed it knew better than anyone else in the Territory. Very soon we saw policies dumped on the public service with little input from anyone and impossible time lines in which to deliver them. We saw taxes imposed on the mining industry with no discussion or consultation, and it was the same for the casino. We saw ministers engage in public witch-hunts of key groups and the Treasurer’s attack on the racing industry. We have seen endless deals for mates.
The government, through the now disgraced former Deputy Chief Minister, corruptly allocated water to the CLP candidate, Tina MacFarlane.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy knows she has to move a substantive motion to allege corruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you need to review the word ‘corruption’.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I would like to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am aware of the request from the member for Araluen. In accordance with convention, we will hear the personal explanation in silence.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yesterday the Chief Minister made some statements about me in this Chamber that were factually incorrect. I feel the Chief Minister has misrepresented me, and for this reason I am making this personal explanation.
The Chief Minister said yesterday in parliament that I delayed the building of Palmerston Regional Hospital. This is not true. The progress of building Palmerston hospital was well on track when the Chief Minister did his major reshuffle in December 2014, removing me from the Health portfolio.
In 2014 the then federal Minister for Health, Peter Dutton, the major funding partner of the hospital, required that we pursue a full public-private partnership model of procurement. That is exactly what I was doing.
My pursuit of a full PPP was met with enormous resistance from a few colleagues who could not comprehend such a bold and innovative approach to building a modern hospital and delivering hospital services. It also caused great consternation and nervousness in the bureaucracy, despite the fact it had the full backing of the federal minister, and the model was being replicated throughout the country.
Finally the Chief Minister dumped me from Health so a traditional build and operate procurement model for the Palmerston Regional Hospital could be adopted. Was the Palmerston Regional Hospital behind schedule in December 2014? No, it was right on schedule. Any delay was due to a dramatic change in the procurement model after my departure.
The Chief Minister also claimed yesterday that I knifed the member for Goyder in the back to become the Deputy Chief Minister in August 2012. Again, this was not the case. I was nominated to become the Deputy Chief Minister by my colleagues and it came as a complete surprise to me that I had the majority support of my colleagues. I did not campaign for the position, and I did not covet the position. I was not even confident I was the best person for the job at the time, because of my lack of experience. Did I plot or knife anyone to get this position? No, an open and transparent process was followed.
Yes, I did instigate $5m of health and hospital funding to be transferred from the Gove District Hospital Emergency Department to fund a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs. Gove was looking at a population drop of anything up to 50% in 2014, with the sad closure of the bauxite refinery. As Health minister, I made the difficult decision to keep $8m of a total of $13m in Gove to upgrade the emergency department, and $5m was allocated to build a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister also said yesterday that I reneged on a palliative care hospice for Alice Springs. This was my initiative as Health minister. I have remained fully supportive of a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs, despite what the Chief Minister may say. I came to Alice Springs many years ago and worked in the hospital there. I know firsthand the need for a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs, which is why I initiated the funding transfer, planning and development of a palliative care hospice.
Yes, I did initiate the car parking charges for the Royal Darwin Hospital. It was a monumental mistake, and, in hindsight, we should never have done it. However, it was done with the best intentions to use the money to upgrade the parking, lighting and security throughout the Royal Darwin Hospital campus. We achieved this, but the pain was not worth it. The Chief Minister was part of those deliberations in Cabinet to make that decision to charge for parking at RDH.
Yes, in Question Time yesterday I asked a question about the Chief Minister’s remote contracting and Aboriginal employment policy. The Chief Minister accused me of being racially divisive. It was not racially divisive; it was a question about a government policy pertaining to Aboriginal employment. Have we reached the point in this Chamber that asking any sensitive questions about race-based policy is racist? I hope not. Saying my question was racially divisive was inflammatory and simply untrue.
The Chief Minister also stated yesterday that I sacked a disabled person from my ministerial office. During my time as a minister, I employed two disabled people, one on a four-month contract, which he completed, and the other was employed in my Darwin ministerial office shortly before I was removed from Cabinet by the Chief Minister in February 2015. As a result of the Chief Minister sacking me, this disabled woman was subsequently sacked from her position by the Chief Minister. To say I sacked any disabled employee is disrespectful to them and entirely false. On the contrary, the Chief Minister sacked my disabled administrative worker several days after he sacked me.
Madam Speaker, I stand in this parliament speaking the truth. I have nothing to hide. I am more than happy to take ownership of my mistakes, but I will not be misrepresented or maligned by anyone in this Chamber. I will continue to defend myself, as I recommend that all members defend their honour and integrity. I will also, without hesitation, defend my community and the people of Alice Springs against bad policy and nasty politics.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Araluen for her personal explanation. It is clear that she also will not be lectured to by an incredibly dishonest government, led by the Chief Minister, who she has just put in his place.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you should withdraw it. Thank you, member for Sanderson.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, they are thin skinned on that side, and they fail to recognise that they are terribly offensive. The Chief Minister is clearly quite an offensive individual and the member for Araluen will not be lectured to by him. She has corrected on the record, as she should and is entitled to, the comments made in an attack yesterday.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. I believe this is number two on the Notice Paper. It is about the motion as opposed to …
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, member for Sanderson.
Ms WALKER: We resume debate on this important but surprising motion, as the government has nothing better to bring forward. They do not want to talk about their policies. They would rather deliver the equivalent of a censure motion on the opposition.
I was at the point in my speech of describing the crumbling of the CLP over the last three-and-a-half years, the deals with their mates and how the government, through the now disgraced former Deputy Chief Minister, corruptly allocated water to the CLP’s candidate, Tina MacFarlane.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Forgive me. I withdraw the word ‘corrupt’, although clearly there were some very dodgy dealings with the former Deputy Chief Minister. That is why he is sitting on the back bench. He breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take offence to the comments being made by the member for Nhulunbuy. I ask that they be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, if you could rephrase your wording. If the member feels offended he is offended.
Ms WALKER: I apologise that the former Deputy Chief Minister feels offended by the fact that he has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has been asked to withdraw. She keeps qualifying and giving apologies. Is it withdrawn?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. She has withdrawn it.
Ms WALKER: Sensitive.
We started to see splits emerging within the ranks of the CLP, and the disunity that remains with this team. It started with the dumping of the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Araluen. There was a front-page headline about the CLP being in crisis again in March 2013. There were day-long meetings of the CLP wing. They are not governing because they were too busy sorting out their internal functions. We then had the knifing of the Chief Minister, the former member for Blain, whilst he was on overseas business in Japan.
Since that happened and the member for Braitling was put in charge, we have seen the emergence of divisions and splits, the bullying of leaders and one scandal after another.
First there was the split with the Indigenous members. The members for Arafura, Arnhem and Namatjira walked out on the CLP government and held press conferences about the CLP, which they described as racist. For three Indigenous members to walk out on the CLP was a clean sign that things were not right within the ranks.
There was also the ongoing case of the mouth from Fong Lim, with the member for Fong Lim demeaning a gay staff member, which was another front-page news story, another shocker with his homophobic slurs.
Then the scandals around travel started to mount. First the member for Port Darwin …
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification on the use of props?
Madam SPEAKER: All members have used props, but they are put up then down. The member for Sanderson has used a chart on a regular basis. They are relevant to the member’s speech and that is okay.
Ms WALKER: The member for Port Darwin was on the front page of the NT News with, ‘Elf’s space odyssey’. Taxpayer dollars were spent on a trip to Lord knows where. We do not know what he came back with but we know he visited NASA along the way. Then the member for Brennan went on a trip to China paid for by the Education department and not the normal channels of the Chief Minister’s department, which usually pays for ministerial travel. It was money that should have been spent on students in schools. That was a great front-page story. ‘School holidays’ was the title.
How could we forget the member for Stuart and her $50 000 junket on Women’s Policy to New York. There is the front page of the NT News saying, ‘The Price is not right’.
The member for Greatorex then discovered the joys of a bar in Tokyo, the Red Rose. That was a front-page story with the headline, ‘Tales of Tokyo’. In that bar he racked up a bill of some $5000 and then insisted, in the early hours of the morning, that his CE get out of his hotel bed and pay the bill. That is shameful.
We move on to the McRoberts affair, where the Police Commissioner stood down from his position. We still have not had a resolution as to what happened there. We know the Chief Minister is embroiled in that case.
The government is continuing down the path of ignoring the wishes of Territorians, in spite of a massive backlash from them. TIO was sold. It was announced in the NT News on 24 November 2014, which was a very difficult time for the member for Katherine, who turned against his constituents in Katherine. They did not want him to support the sale of TIO, but he did.
Buckling under the pressure of internal division and disastrous public polling, CLP members decided to act at the midnight coup. ‘The night of the long knives’; we all remember that one. Could anyone truly say they have ever seen a more bizarre political period in Australia? Seriously – a media conference at 1 am with the member for Katherine, and the member for Port Darwin alongside, declaring themselves as the new Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister apparent. The Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, refused to budge and, in the same debacle, accused the police of organising a coup against him.
He remains the Chief Minister, even though nine of his colleagues wanted to vote him out and only five supported him.
We saw a massive internal brawl after the midnight coup. Here is another great front-page headline showing the retiring Chief Minister who would not retire, and the new Chief Minister who lasted about five minutes before having to stand down.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. I know we are given latitude during debate, but I am not sure what this has to do with Labor’s moratorium on jobs.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. The motion is questioning the opposition’s ability to govern. The opposition is responding accordingly about the government’s ability to govern.
Ms WALKER: We had this massive brawl, where we saw the CLP go into lockdown. Bizarrely, the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, emerged victorious with his challenger as his new deputy, shoving aside the member for Brennan, who was the Deputy Chief Minister, and the member for Araluen was thrown under a bus.
That was followed by the vindictive hunting down of internal enemies, the removal of the member for Greatorex and the sacking of the member for Araluen because, in the words of the unelected Chief Minister, ‘I will not work with that woman’. But there is more. The Minister for Housing’s senior adviser, and a former CLP candidate, was charged with corruption, the first such incident of its kind in the Territory’s history. The member for Araluen then departed the CLP. She later described it as ‘a dark, amoral cabal’.
There was another front page story when she went on to say, as she did on the floor of this House:
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Then the member for Goyder made an exit. That is four women in total who have walked out on the boy’s club that is the CLP government.
In July last, when the member for Goyder walked out, the government went into minority. The government then dug a hole at the Palmerston hospital – another front page for the NT News called ‘Cover up’ – and covered it up again to demonstrate progress on building. At the same time, the hapless member for Solomon, embarrassed to be standing alongside the Health minister, put in a ‘please explain’ to the Chief Minister.
Then they decided to take away part of a school’s oval to build a football stadium without telling that school. Just when you think it could not get any worse, the Deputy Chief Minister decided he could have a private share deal with a major overseas company with whom he was directly dealing in matters of government business, which is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. So we saw the seventh Deputy Chief Minister – or was it the eighth – make an exit, and now we have the member for Sanderson. I am reminded of that saying, as I say his name, about the scraping of barrels.
That is why I and our side will not be lectured to by this government and Chief Minister about sovereign risk. Let us be serious and honest. The greatest threat to the Northern Territory’s economic interest is four more years of this terrible government – four more years of drama, soap-opera politics, scandal, bad behaviour, internal division and disarray, and a revolving door in Cabinet, which is a deplorable state of affairs.
For one moment let us forget the scandal, drama and self-indulgent political high jinks that is the CLP government. Does this government deserve re-election on the back of its economic performance? This government ripped the heart and soul out of Nhulunbuy and its actions cost the Territory hundreds of residents and thousands of jobs. It is unforgiveable! It has failed my constituents completely.
Business confidence is the lowest in the nation at 24% and the respect for Northern Territory government policies sits at -4%. This is a 22 point drop in business confidence in 12 months. It is the direct result of the CLP government’s policies. The number of first home buyers who are taking up housing finance has dropped by 33%. That is a direct result of you chopping the First Home Owner Grant on existing buildings.
What does this mean for the Northern Territory economy? It means people are not buying houses. That means people are not able to move out of their houses into the next level because they cannot sell their existing house. It means fewer white goods are sold, fewer renovations are done and there are fewer jobs.
There is a 21% commercial vacancy rate in the CBD in Darwin. There is a 34% vacancy rate in C-grade property, which is usually retail. Why? Because businesses are closing. In 2014, 3329 more people left the Territory than arrived. That is the worst year in many decades. Those 3329 people who have left the Territory are adults, spenders, and many of them are skilled workers. They will now be spending their money in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and elsewhere. That is fewer people to go shopping in our retail centres and go to the movies, pubs and sports fields, or go fishing. It is 3329 fewer people boosting our economy.
Retail trade is now very slow. Motor vehicle sales are going backward by -4.8%. We have hundreds fewer apprentices and trainees than when Labor was in power. We have a hospital being built by interstate interest. We have a procurement policy that is all talk and no action. Business people are going on radio to sheet home to this government the problems it is causing. A caller to the ABC morning show on Wednesday 3 February said, ‘There is no work mate. You know, I have got mates in the building industry and the earth moving industry up here and this is probably the quietest wet season they have ever experienced.’
This is what the people are saying about the government’s economic performance and jobs creation, but the government does not need to listen to radio to hear it. It used taxpayers’ money to ask focus groups this very question and these are some of the things that were said:
That focus group also said:
Another quote from that focus group:
That is from their own taxpayer-funded focus group, which was part their $0.5m for the On Track campaign. That is absolutely shameful. Clearly they are way off track.
There is a very simple question to ask the government. If the economy is doing so well under its policies, why has it had to put in an urgent last-minute stimulus package? Because now, after being told by business, industry, small-business and us for 12 months that they have a problem, they have finally realised they do have a problem.
Now, desperate, they are doing what they should have done a while ago and pushing spending out the door. That is the real story of today. This is a desperate government, flailing around trying to sell a message that it is in control despite overwhelming evidence of the opposite.
Madam Speaker, I can say quite safely that Territorians are not fooled by this government.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, there is a verse and proverb that comes to mind: something always sounds right until you hear the other the side of the story. That was an unbelievable stream of vitriol that came from the other side, at times quite insulting and crude.
We will have four more years of developing economic enabling infrastructure like the new gas pipeline, and possibly a new rail link; and four more years of passing legislation allowing Aboriginal people and pastoralists more choices as to how they use their land.
We have reinvigorated the live cattle and buffalo export trade, with Darwin now the number one port in the world for live exports, and may God bless us with four more years of that.
We have invested $60m in remote communities, and four more years of that would be nice. We are spending record funds on roads in the bush and helping to develop new bush industries like horticulture, aquaculture and wood chipping, which would be seriously hampered by our opposition, which wants a moratorium on agribusiness. The member for Nhulunbuy was talking about how terrible four more years would be, but we would have four more years of building remote infrastructure such as health centres, police stations, classrooms, airstrips and barge landings. We are seeking to develop a responsible onshore gas industry in the bush, which the opposition is looking to put a moratorium on, threatening jobs.
We would have four more years of mandatory local involvement in all requests for quotes up to $100 000 in addition to existing local content requirements for all tenders above $100 000. The minimum weighting of local content and benefits has increased from 20% to 25% under this government’s Buy Local Plan, and may there be another four years of that.
Ensuring local content commitments included in tender responses are carried through into the contract terms and monitored throughout – this gets us out of the loophole of people putting tenders in and saying they will use certain contractors, and when they get the tender they fail to use the contractors they used to win the tender process.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the minister has run out of time.
Madam SPEAKER: No. Can we check the clocks please.
Ms Fyles: We don’t want to listen to him for any longer than we have to
Mr BARRETT: We have to listen even when it is not your turn, member for Nightcliff.
An independent local benefit advisory panel of Territorians has been established to review and advise on the Buy Local aspects of the tender responses and contracts, estimated as being worth more than $5m. Cost of living was a big issue during my by-election, and the Territory’s biggest ever land release has driven down the cost of renting and buying homes. Our fuel summit and subsequent work have recently made fuel prices very much the centre of attention. The fuel price disclosure legislation has dramatically cut the price of petrol and diesel. May there be four more years of good fuel prices in the NT, because there was not under Labor.
We have focused heavily on helping families, with increases to childcare subsidies, sport vouchers and back-to-school payments.
I struggle to find what is happening with Labor’s policies on the economy, which either sound incoherent or like a direct copy of what we are doing. There are not many numbers on the economic policies being released. They make as much sense as a Harry Nilsson song. ‘There seems to be a problem in the economy and we will do the most basic thing we can think of.’ What are we going to do? Put lime in a coconut to fix a tummy ache. You have to understand the problem before you talk about economically rational solutions to it.
I have not heard anything from the other side of the Chamber that shows that anybody on that side understands the economic problems at all. They are very good at standing here with 35 pieces of paper from the NT News and slagging every person on this side of the Chamber and calling them dogs, but I did not hear is any rational economic argument that is not a direct copy of what we are doing.
We have diversified the economy, and expanded the tourism industry and the gas industry. May there be four more years of that. The Northern Territory is now Australia’s best-performing jurisdiction. Yes, there are problems and headwinds. The opposition will happily point out those headwinds coming towards us, but may we also bring this into the global and Southeast Asian context and what is happening in other states than the Northern Territory. We have a very good unemployment rate, a low inflation rate and great participation rates. We are making inroads into Indigenous unemployment issues. All we are hearing from that side of the Chamber is, ‘You guys, the business confidence has gone down’. Business confidence has gone done in many places in the world right due to several factors outside the control of this government.
I am not hearing anything from the other side of the Chamber that will materially change it. Where are the costs associated with the things you are saying? There are none; there is no rigour behind anything you are saying. Saying you will have a summit to think about what you will do – planning to have a plan is not a plan, members opposite.
Strong economic management has also allowed us to cut power bills after we tried to get the reforms through in the Power and Water sector to make them more cost reflective. The Power and Water issues I looked at, and the process that is unravelling in the structural separation of these entities, showed there are very deeply-seated issues within Power and Water, which we have had to wade through as a direct result of poor economic management.
In education, we invested $7.5m to supply computers to 200 schools. We have increased Back to School payments and sports vouchers. The government is making an immediate investment of $68.5m to upgrade and repair schools across the Northern Territory under our March 2016 boosting the economy package.
The members opposite would have us believe this is some kind of cash splash. At the same time they would accuse us of not responding to people in the Northern Territory. You guys had to get on a bus to work out what was going on in the economy. We are aware of what is happening in the economy. We are also aware of how this problem is coming about, what sector this problem is arising in and what we need to solve it. We have a stimulus package on the table that is directly solving these economic problems with an economic solution. We are not saying, ‘Let us have a summit about it in six months’.
We are not sitting back and trying to come up with a plan for a plan. We are putting money on the table and saying if we are going to pump prime this economy, stabilise the sectors of our economy that are struggling and help those people who the member for Nhulunbuy said it is really tough for here – I hear and understand that. This is what this stimulus package is about. They cannot on one hand deride us for putting a stimulus package together and on the other deride us for not listening. This is what this is. It is listening and acting, not listening and hiding behind a review or moratorium. Make a decision, is what I say to the opposition.
We made a massive commitment with the decision to invest all proceeds of future onshore gas royalties into education and training for Territorians. We see in the economic framework the opposition has put on our desks today that its second focus in its first term will be gas and minerals. We have a moratorium on it. We do not know how long the moratorium is for. We do not know what it is for and we do not know what you will be doing in the time space of the moratorium. You have not said how long it is for. All you are doing is undermining confidence in the sector which your own economic framework says you are supposed to be supporting.
Let us stop talking about NT News things. Let us stop talking about, ‘Remember that time when this happened’. Let us look at economic policy for a minute. Let us think about the list you have put in front of us and the things you have done in your track record in relation to them. They are not fantastic.
The Country Liberals government is investing heavily in environmentally-friendly initiatives, including $55m on solar technology. It is also funding water and soil research, improving our national parks and rebuilding at-risk fish stocks. Flood mitigation works have been undertaken in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. We will continue to manage our natural assets in a responsible and sustainable way. We will not make broad statements about reviewing this and putting a moratorium on that, which undermines confidence.
If we statistically analysed the factors influencing the decline in business confidence and you took X out – the fact the INPEX project is moving to another stage – and if you took out things that are affecting it from an international and national perspective, if you think about the way the Labor Party has been talking the economy down and has done every day I have been here – we wonder why it is coming down. I wonder how much of that they are responsible for. They are very quick to say it is the Giles government‘s fault, but I think it might be a bit of the opposition’s fault because they cannot talk anything up. All they are doing is putting moratoriums on things and asking for reviews on things that people are relying on for consistency and so they can move forward in the economy.
I staggered when the Leader of the Opposition talked about fishing and mentioned several programs which have existed for a few years. He was talking about programs for young kids. I go to the young kids’ programs. I know how they operate, and he says this is a great idea. I would love it if people from the opposition turned up to these things so they do not make policy statements on things that already exist. It is embarrassing.
The government’s recreational fishing development plan is a roadmap for the sustainable growth of recreational fishing across the Northern Territory. The government’s Million Dollar Fish initiative is a huge success, attracting 43 000 registrations in its inaugural year, many of them, in tourism’s lowest season, were from interstate. That means people are coming to the Northern Territory and spending bed nights and time here, and are pumping money into our economy. That creates the jobs to sustain our economy.
As the Minister for Young Territorians, I am waiting for questions in Question Time, trying to catch me out on things, and asking what are we doing for young Territorians. We are diversifying our economy. We are making sure that industries in the Northern Territory can provide meaningful jobs for young Territorians. We are reducing the cost of living for things that matter to them. Fuel matters to young Territorians. House prices matter to young Territorians trying to get into a house. I remember the former member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, speaking passionately about how sad it was his son could not afford to buy a house. I was staggered. I had only been in the Chamber a couple of weeks. I thought, ‘You have been here 11 years; we have been here five minutes. Whose fault is this?’ We are bringing the cost of housing down and achieving the goal, saying to Territorians that we have some solid things to say in this space. We brought down the cost of living. We are listening to Territorians. We are doing the things young Territorians need and addressing the issues they care about.
A $55m upgrade of Royal Darwin Hospital is under way. Construction of the $150m, 116-bed Palmerston Regional Hospital is progressing well and the project is on schedule. Hallelujah! There are five local businesses with workers on site carrying out contracts for early works. Despite all the negativity from the other side of the Chamber and despite holding up things from the NT News saying, ‘Look, they dug a hole, put concrete in it and covered it up’ – go out there now. There are a lot of other holes with concrete in them now and there are big poles sticking up out of them, and all the services are going into it. It is coming together.
I will take you there and we can look at what has happened, where the concrete is and what is springing up out of it. We can see the Palmerston Regional Hospital coming up, and I am proud of that. The people of Palmerston need it, and the Giles government is delivering it rather than giving empty promises, like the other side of the Chamber saying, ‘We shoulda, woulda, coulda done this, and will will review this and that’. This Giles government gets on with it.
When I played football we had a saying: it is a run not a war. We do things with purpose and passion. We bring people on the journey and consult; we do not sit on our hands. We do not do nothing. It is easier to do nothing and cop nothing from anyone who is upset. It is a lot harder to forge a path forward and be visionary. This government is visionary. It has a vision and a plan for the Northern Territory, which is lacking from the other side of the Chamber. This is why this motion is in this Chamber now.
We have opened a day-stay unit at Katherine hospital. Seven new remote community health centres are operational or being built. We have launched the Territory’s first ever mental health strategic plan. That is very important to young Territorians. I went to the young Territorians’ round table, and one of the biggest things they spoke about was mental health. We are doing things in this area. Minister Elferink is working in this mental health space and doing a fantastic job, showing vision, direction and leadership, and making decisions.
We have delivered record land releases and our planning system is recognised as the best in Australia by the Property Council because people are not waiting for years and years to get something through Lands and Planning. Rent and house prices have stabilised or fallen across the Territory as a result of government policies.
In 2015 we invested $100m to rebuild homes in devastated regions. We are upgrading neighbourhoods across the Territory. We are also building more housing in remote communities. In 2016 the Giles government will continue land release and planning reforms, with an even greater focus on community consultation.
Indigenous empowerment has been completely lacking on the other side. I have never heard them talk about Indigenous empowerment. The Chief Minister, Adam Giles, made history by becoming the first-ever Indigenous Australian to lead a government. We have set ambitious targets to double Indigenous employment in the public service by 2020, including at senior management levels. We are also building more health centres and housing in remote communities, including the homelands allowance.
Our expansion of the tourism, gas and mining industries in the bush is bringing jobs to Indigenous Australians where they need them. I am passionate about this because it is something the Northern Territory governments, forever, have done badly. We need to create finite economic bounds around communities and get a circular flow of income running around those economies. That is why the Chief Minister says contracts that go to very remote places must have people from those places working there so the money is not going in one side of the community and – bang! – out the other side. We are capturing money within that finite economic space, and that money starts spinning. That creates wealth and is the basis of an economy. That is the basis of where we go – the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker.
It is not hard to understand economic policy. It is hard to do in real life because we have to get our policy settings right to capture money in these very remote locations. This is what we are about. We are trying to get Indigenous empowerment up and running. We are trying to get Indigenous people working and spending money with each other, winning contracts, improving their own economy and community, and being proud of that. As pride comes into that scenario, that is where we start seeing changes. This is where we start to see parents sending kids to school, and all the other metrics start improving.
The opposition members can throw mud over this side of the fence all they want and hold up things from the NT News – ‘Look, the NT News said that Bess is a bad lady. Look, the NT News said that the member for Brennan is a bad guy.’ I am sure in my lifetime the NT News will publish an article telling everyone what a horrible person I am. I am not looking forward to that day, but it is coming.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: Madam Speaker, we are passionate about Indigenous issues. We are passionate about seeing change where it needs to happen.
We have been here for not quite four years, and we have put a dent in it. We are making inroads.
The member for Nhulunbuy said, ‘God forbid that we should have four more years’. I would say God bless us with four more years where we are trying to sort out Indigenous issues.
The Giles government’s tough law and order strategy is working. Total crime rates are 11% lower than three years ago. The assault rate has reduced by 7%. House break-ins have reduced by 23%. Commercial break-ins have reduced by 20%. Property damage has reduced by 19%.
They can trot out some tiny figures and say this and that went up. They can say, ‘Bob from Palmerston said this’. I am the one who organised the meeting with Bob from Palmerston, and had the police there. I was there, standing next to him. I was in Bob from Palmerston’s lounge room after he told me about his car being stolen when someone broke into his house. I am aware of the issues. I am aware of the statistics. I am aware of what the police are doing, and I am proud of them.
I am proud of what this government is doing in working towards reforms in various acts around the youth justice system and the like. That will bring change in this area so we can best help these young people who are crying out for help, and they need help.
A community that does not feel protected – when they see these things on Facebook and think something is rampant. The members opposite will play that up. This government is not about playing it up. This government is about coming up with some solid policy, which we are not seeing here.
The Country Liberals government invested heavily in our police force, and backed it with strong new laws against one-punch assaults and other violent crimes, alcohol-fuelled crimes and drugs like ice. Paperless arrests, expanded CCTV and our Sentenced to a Job Program are also making the Northern Territory safer. We will meet our election promise of 120 extra police officers compared to 2012, and continue to be tough on crime, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour.
Major projects include an $800m gas pipeline to the east coast, the $1.45bn Project Sea Dragon prawn farm, international education, a high-end hotel in Darwin, the Darwin LNG backfill and the marine industrial park. These are not things where we have had a meeting and talked about doing them. These things are costed and done. The Land Development Corporation is involved and we are talking to proponents about what they want. We are talking to Defence about what sort of ship lift it wants. We have committed dollars and put them out.
We are not hearing a policy argument asking, ‘Why does it cost that much? Why did you use those dimensions?’ We are hearing, ‘A year ago the NT News said you were really bad’.
They can spew vitriol from that side all day. I will rise above it and be positive because these projects will become a reality and we need to expand the Port of Darwin. The marine industry park, the LNG – this is why the Giles government entered into partnership agreements to unlock the port’s potential. The amount of misinformation I have heard about the port come from the other side – the Labor Party peddled that we were getting $5m a year over 100 years because it was a $500m deal. My gosh, anybody with a brain who understands finance asks, ‘Are they mad?’ The sum of $5m over 100 years is not the same as $500m up front. It is called the time value of money.
If I asked you if you wanted $5m a year for 100 years or $500m now, you would be nuts to take the $5m a year, and we did not. We have taken the right deal for the Northern Territory. I was on the committee that put the recommendations together and the Leader of the Opposition signed them.
Onshore gas – look at the safety and environmental protection. We have asked Dr Hawke to undertake a review of current environmental regulations and recommend changes so the Northern Territory can have the world’s best-practice environmental regulations, particularly protection of our water supply and assets. As a result, the government developed its Oil and Gas Industry Development Strategy. The safeguards around water are paramount. For the rest of 2016 and as long as it takes to get it right the government will continue consulting with the community and developing world’s best practice, which will be independently monitored.
How does the Territory benefit from this? Unlike offshore gas, where the royalties all go to the Australian government, royalties for onshore gas go to the people of the Northern Territory. An independent report from Deloitte Access Economics found that onshore gas could deliver the Northern Territory more than 6000 full-time permanent jobs in the bush, nearly $1bn in royalties and a major boost to our economy. If we go ahead with onshore gas, the government is committed to investing the royalties into education and training for Territorians.
Increased gas supply will also put downward pressure on electricity prices and help develop a manufacturing industry in the Northern Territory. We have an economic framework that says this is important, but Labor has said, ‘We will have a moratorium on this’. The two do not make any sense. It is completely incoherent. It is almost as insane as thinking, ‘I am on a life support system; I will unplug it to charge my iPhone.’
The Northern Territory has this great opportunity in front of it, and we are able to go ahead with something that will diversify the economy, create jobs and drive education and the Territory forward, and the opposition wants to put a moratorium on it. We have an opportunity for Territorians. We want them to move forward, and I think they do as well. They are just stuck in this political mess where they are unable to make a decision and move forward. This government will move forward because it has a plan for Territorians.
We are investing record funding into sporting infrastructure, which I am very proud of as Minister for Sport and Recreation. This includes a 50% increase to peak bodies, and we are bringing great national and international sporting events to the Northern Territory. We have revitalised pride in Territory Day and the Territory flag.
New CLP government initiatives like the Million Dollar Fish campaign, improved access for shooters and the Mitchell Street Mile are examples of our action. This is about action. We made an announcement recently about tennis, which is an example of more action. Shovels will hit dirt this Dry Season, injecting another $8m into the Territory economy. The member for Nhulunbuy said I am an earth mover and I do not have much work on; this will provide work. We are solving the problem.
We look at what we are doing and the action we have taken, and we listen to the vitriol coming from the other side of the fence, and we say yes. It is easy to put one side of the coin across, but for everything here there are two sides. If the people of the Northern Territory judge us, they will say this government has acted and gotten some tough decisions over the line. The Port of Darwin is a great example, as is power. We had to increase electricity prices; do you think that was easy? The people opposite would have Territorians believe we did it with a sneer on our face to try to rip them off. The reality is Territorians were already paying it; it was going on the credit card. It was not cost-reflective. At some point someone has to pay the piper.
In rolls the Giles government and we had to fix this mess. They sit there with a cricket bat belting us over the head saying, ‘You put power prices up’. If you on the other side had increased power prices slowly over a long period of time and managed it when you were in government, we would not be in this situation. Again, they could not make a hard decision.
Small businesses – our Buy Local Plan is giving Territory businesses the best opportunities ever to access a share in the $3bn a year the government spends on procurement. The Country Liberals $100m Boosting our Economy package is specifically designed to support small and medium-sized construction businesses as we transition to a diversified economy. We will not have little groups having a chat about what we should to for small business. We have listened to small business and put together a stimulus package. This is what it is about, action on the ground – people getting work on the ground.
This motion is about condemning the Leader of the Opposition, who I recently found out is the shadow Treasurer. I did not know who the alternate Treasurer was. We have nothing costed, funded or that makes any sense. We have a bunch of things on a list, most of which you have put a moratorium against or that went backwards last time they were in, and they will say that somehow they have some economic credentials?
Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing reading through this bunch of motherhood statements. This government is not about motherhood statements. It is about action and moving the Territory forward.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Minister for Business’ motion on Labor’s job moratorium.
Territorians cannot trust the Labor government to deliver jobs. The Country Liberals care about jobs and economic development. Labor’s own federal Resource minister in the former Labor government, and former trade union boss, warned that if Labor wins the Territory election in August and sticks with this bad policy, it will inflict real economic harm for no environmental gain. Even Labor does not trust Labor to manage the economy. Even Labor says it will inflict real economic harm.
Harm means jobs gone. Over 6000 jobs that onshore gas will create will be gone. Across the Territory we cannot risk jobs with a Labor government. Territory Labor’s proposed ban threatens thousands of new jobs. It threatens millions of dollars of work for local businesses in the regions that will host industry activity. This places local development and Indigenous jobs at risk in all sorts of industries. Furthermore, it places tens of millions of dollars in payments to traditional owners at risk. We have seen the benefits properly managed royalty payments can bring to the Territory. Labor is putting all that at risk. It is putting Indigenous employment and economic development at risk. In the bush only the Country Liberals value jobs and working. In housing, the Country Liberals government has delivered strong Indigenous employment. We have moved to create more local jobs for local people.
Under the remote repairs and maintenance contracts, local people have been employed into real jobs. The current Indigenous employment target for repairs and maintenance is 40% as a part of the national partnership agreement. The current Indigenous employment rate is 59%. This is 19% higher than the target.
The Country Liberals are beating targets and getting local people in local jobs. The tenancy management contractors across the Northern Territory also provide for local employment opportunities. The national partnership agreement for remote tenancy sets a target of 40%. Current Indigenous employment is at 70%. This is 32% higher than the target. Once again, the Country Liberals are beating targets and getting local people into local jobs in the local community.
In Nyirripi the Country Liberal government is upgrading every house in the community. Work was contracted to the Central Desert Regional Council to upgrade 43 houses in Nyirripi. This work has achieved significant local employment, with 41% Indigenous participation across the project. This has exceeded targets by 11%.
I have heard the Labor candidate for Stuart, Scott McConnell, say there is no local Indigenous employment in Nyirripi. There is significant Indigenous employment in Nyirripi, and I am proud to say that. I have been to Nyirripi. There is a 41% Indigenous participation rate across the project. I am proud to a part of that, to help achieve employment opportunities for my people who wanted jobs on the ground. The Central Desert Regional Council has upskilled local Indigenous people through refurbishments, including some locals achieving completion of qualifications for Certificate II in Civil Construction, delivered onsite by the Centre for Appropriate Technology.
The council and the head contractor are working with the community to provide further training to local women who have expressed an interest in forming an all-women work crew. As a result, advertisements were placed for a female team leader with painting experience to assist in providing training to local women. One applicant, of British background, applied and has been engaged to provide this training and leadership to a local all-women work group. We have the Labor candidate for Stuart spreading slurs that there is no local employment. But, unlike Labor, I applaud and congratulate the local council and the local women for taking up this opportunity and initiative. The community said it wanted a female to provide this training and leadership to the council, and the council has responded. This is a good news story for Nyirripi and shows we are helping to create real jobs for locals in their community.
The community has upgraded 27 of the 43 houses. It is clear that only the Country Liberals support local jobs, whereas Labor has proven, yet again, it does not care about local jobs for local people.
On 9 September 2015 I committed to finding a solution to housing dilemmas in the town camps. These were forgotten by Labor while they were in government. I have made $3m available for housing refurbishments to extend living areas within Elliott town camps and the Marlinja homeland in the Barkly region, making inroads into addressing overcrowding. It shows that we listen and act. Further, we honoured our commitment.
We also honoured our commitment that local contractors would be given opportunities. There will be a large focus on Aboriginal employment and training while delivering the housing works. Labor did not want this. Do you know what Labor said when we said we wanted to use a local business and not government? The member for Barkly said, ‘You know how unrealistic that is’. Despite Labor, the Country Liberals are empowering Aboriginal people in remote communities through economic development, which means real jobs will come to remote communities. We cannot trust a Labor government; Labor neglected Elliott.
Consultation between Triple P Contracting and residents about the first tranche of houses has commenced. Materials for these houses have been ordered, transitional accommodation arrangements are being negotiated and the workforce is being mobilised. Gordon Jackson and Susie Kidd are a local Elliott couple who established Triple P Contracting in 2013.
Both Gordon and Susie have extensive experience in delivering repairs and maintenance services. I am pleased to provide this economic development opportunity to Triple P Contracting, an opportunity for a locally-based Aboriginal business to be involved in addressing housing issues and making a difference in the lives of those within their community.
This is real economic development and jobs for local people, but Labor did not want the work to go to Triple P, a local business formed by local people. Instead, they wanted the work to go to a council. Labor has no issue with creating a bloated public service. They want to patronise people with government but do not want economic development.
The Country Liberal government has made a record investment into infrastructure in our parks and reserves. There is over $23m for the new Parks capital works, which is the largest-ever Parks spend. We are investing over $10m in the Litchfield National Park, another $10m for Casuarina Coastal Reserve, and $2.5m for the Alice Springs parks project. With our biggest-ever investment in parks we continue to deliver an incredible Territory lifestyle and are delivering opportunities for local businesses and creating jobs for Territorians. It is embarrassing that the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition have no credible plans for jobs or the Territory economy.
Current works contracts at Litchfield National Park for local companies are supporting the employment of over 100 jobs for Territorians, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous apprentices. With that example of 100 jobs, it is no wonder the community trusts the Country Liberal government to deliver for the economy. Under the Country Liberals the NT has the lowest unemployment rate and a 75% workforce participation rate. That is what we are doing as a government for the people. We are listening to the voices in the communities.
At Litchfield National Park, upgrades to the termite mounds were awarded to Scott Hammet Building & Carpentry for over $700 000. Upgrades to the Florence Falls were awarded to Alan Birch Transport for $650 000. Upgrades to Sandy Beach Falls campground and to Buley Rockhole were awarded to Intract Australia for over $1m. Intract is a local majority Indigenous-owned, managed and controlled company providing long-term, meaningful employment for Indigenous people across the civil construction and mining industries.
The Country Liberal government continues to deliver more Indigenous jobs. At Casuarina Coastal Reserve a contract for works at Dripstone Park, Free Beach and Lee Point has been let to local Indigenous-owned contractors, the Rusca Bros Services for over $1m, and will support the employment of 36 people.
The Country Liberals continue to deliver more Indigenous jobs, with more work coming soon at Casuarina Coastal Reserve, such as contracts for works at Rapid Creek and Dripstone cliffs, works at Buffalo Creek and contracts for paths and mountain bike tracks. So watch this space.
At George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens the Country Liberals recently awarded over $500 000 of works to local companies such as Wolpers Grahl, KCOM Constructions and Alan Birch Transport, which is creating local jobs for local Territorians. Unlike Labor, we do not just govern for Darwin; we govern for the whole of the Territory.
Some of the jobs we are creating in Central Australia include jobs in Alice Springs for local company MPH Carpentry & Construction for over $1m for construction of the shared path to Alice Springs Desert Park. In the West Macs we are investing in a camp site facility upgrade which was awarded to M & C Fior Constructions for over $300 000. These are just a few examples of projects in parks that the Country Liberal government is delivering and why we have the lowest unemployment rate and such a high workforce participation rate.
Under the Country Liberals the local employment outcomes are positive, and we are delivering infrastructure for the Territory lifestyle and the tourism industry. Only the Country Liberals has a plan to deliver a prosperous economy.
The Country Liberals have delivered jobs in remote communities in the Northern Territory. We are delivering jobs, better services, lower crime rates and a great lifestyle. We have built over 450 new houses in remote communities across the Territory and completed over 450 rebuilds and refurbishments, and over 800 houses have been upgraded across the Territory by the Country Liberals. The biggest parks budget ever was by the Country Liberals. Homelands Extra Allowance was delivered for the first time by the Country Liberals. The first homelands policy in years was by the Country Liberals. There has been record investment in Indigenous development by the Country Liberals.
We are delivering, for Territorians, real jobs in remote communities and across the Territory. The Territory cannot risk Labor. Labor has proven repeatedly it does not like real jobs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. We have clearly seen the effects that Labor’s narrow-minded policies are having on business in the Territory, and national and international investors.
Time and again we see the opposition, led by the member for Fannie Bay, trashing the Northern Territory, the economy and confidence. I can recall, in opposition, the then Chief Minister Paul Henderson begging us not to trash the Northern Territory because it sends an unusual and damaging message to business, particularly investors in the Northern Territory.
If an economy is going well, you should get on the back of that. Come up with other ideas. Minister Barrett eloquently detailed how it would be far better to come into this Chamber and debate policies rather than throwing mud at each other.
I was at Darwin High School the other day and I had some 900 students stand on the oval with me, talking about anti-bullying. It was a marvellous message where photos were taken from a cherry picker, from hundreds of feet above. All these children talk about anti-bullying – I think a couple of other members mentioned this as well – and when they come into this place and see the quality of the debate, they must be horrified.
There is vindictiveness, a bitterness that comes across the Chamber. It would be dramatic for a young child to witness. They are told to go back to school and do the right thing, yet they see people in this place not acting like mature adults.
There is a bitterness that comes across the Chamber from time to time when we should be spending the time debating what is good and bad about policies. Let us face it, there are some things that government does very well and there are some things that government is challenged with, and it has to come up with bigger and better policies, just as the former Henderson government did.
I used to come into this Chamber quite often and say government does not get everything wrong. I was referring to the Labor government of the time. But wherever I saw there was an issue that needed to be debated, that is the area I went after.
This is not about personal attacks on anybody, yet we do not get the same approach taken by today’s Labor opposition. They know no other way than to throw mud, criticise people and make it personal. I would rather be debating the policies of the Northern Territory. Let us talk about some of the things this government has done over the last three-and-a-half years.
Minister Barrett mentioned many of the things in this booklet. I criticised the former government for always putting out flyers and all the political advertising it did, which we are getting into trouble for today because they are hypocrites.
It is impressive to realise we have a booklet of achievements after only three-and-a-half years in government. If you think about what we have achieved as a first-term government – to pick up the economy we did from the previous Labor government, the unheralded debt. We were in debt up to the eyeballs. It was not a good position to be in. I remember some of the early Cabinet meetings where we discussed the finances of the Northern Territory and what the hell we could do to get the Territory back on track. Mr Deputy Speaker, you were part of it, and we got the Territory back on track. We took some hard decisions to do that. I do not think the opposition has anywhere near the courage to make some of the decisions we had to when we inherited the debt from the Labor government.
The Labor government did not do everything wrong; it had some good policies and initiatives in place. We were never ones to criticise those initiatives; however, we will criticise the areas we think we can do better in, particularly over the last three-and-a-half years. I remind people listening to this that this is a first-term government. Will we get everything right? No. We have had many reviews and have inherited areas of the economy and business that were challenging, and to some degree still are.
We are a government that is taking action, and the latest stimulus package is just that. We recognised there was an issue. Before Christmas I was with then minister Westra van Holthe, a number of CEs and minister Barrett. We drove to businesses with the Chamber of Commerce and spoke directly with them. We learnt about some of their challenges and, together with the Minister for Business and the Chief Minister, we had many meetings. I know Pete will attest to this. We had many meetings discussing the fact the economy was going really well but we had identified an area that could do with some stimulus. We worked hard to see how we could get that money and make a difference. Again, that is a demonstration of government taking action. Of that $100m stimulus, $68.5m is going into education. I was pretty chuffed. I was really excited that I had the support of my Cabinet colleagues, the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister to put $68.5m into education infrastructure.
The Labor leader announced a jobs plan for the Territory, then he stifled an industry with a moratorium on gas; thousands of jobs are jeopardised. I cannot believe it. His words from this morning in this House were ‘leveraging natural resources’ as part of his idea of creating jobs in the Northern Territory. I do not know what the member for Fannie Bay thinks natural resources are. I think they might be things like water, things that stimulate the economy around the cattle industry, or even an onshore oil and gas industry. They are natural resources that we have.
How in the world does he think he will create jobs by leveraging natural resources when he puts a moratorium on the onshore oil and gas industry? This has been said here before, but that was after they were in government and opened up about 95% of the Territory to exploration. That in itself sends a message. They opened up the place, as if they put out a welcome mat for people saying, ‘Do business in the Northern Territory’. Those businesses that do are now being told, ‘Sorry, we are having a moratorium’.
How long is this moratorium? Is it 12 months, three years or five years? Is it 10 years? And for what real reason? It is pure politics; they ain’t using science. They know the science is in. They know fracking has been undertaken in the NT; even in the eleven-and-a-half years they were in government fracking was happening. What has changed? The regulations today, under a Country Liberal government, are tougher than what they were under the Labor government and for decades before that. We have had nearly 50 years of fracking. Anyone who is drawing a conclusion that coal seam gas has anything to do with fracking in the NT and shale gas is being completely misleading. The Labor opposition is playing into the hands of easy political, populist decisions. They do not have the courage to make hard decisions that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for Territorians.
On top of that, it puts at risk hundreds of millions of dollars that could and would be, under a Country Liberal government, pumped into education. The government in waiting says it is behind education, but it wants to strip hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system. It is a very shallow argument when you see some of the policies – or should I say lack of policies – that have been introduced in the last few weeks and days.
Labor’s promised ban threatens thousands of jobs, millions of dollars in works for local businesses and millions of dollars in payments for traditional owners. What about those traditional owners? The Labor Party says it backs those people and it is the real supporter of Indigenous people in the Territory. Bunkum! Again, it is shallow. Labor uses Indigenous people for the vote, but does nothing for them.
Already we have seen a major oil and gas company letting go 140 workers and reducing its spending until there is no certainty around the Northern Territory government’s fracking policy. Those 10 permanent positions for contractors and another 50 future jobs – the Opposition Leader’s reckless policy has even prompted the former Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson, in a speech to the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook conference on 8 March 2016, to say:
You have to think about that for a moment. For someone like Martin Ferguson, a former Labor federal minister, who has been around long enough to know what does and does not work, particularly when it comes to stimulating and creating an economy, to say that Labor’s policy is wrong, clearly demonstrates that the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, and his team are so shallow and devoid of policy ideas on the real way to stimulate the economy – it am frightened for the Territory should they take government in August 2016.
Let us talk about their policies, or lack of policies. For one moment focus on their number of planned reviews. Let us remind Territorians that many in the opposition were advisers to the former government. Many were ministers and members in the previous government. What they do not know is beyond me.
After eleven-and-a-half years of a Labor government with the number of reviews and go-slow processes the former government used, surely they know just about everything that needs to be known about how to make an economy work. Then again, if you look at their track record you can understand that they do not. That is the reason they want to have so many reviews and they have policies that are no different to what we are working on now.
The Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, was talking about their lack of policy, and some of the policies they do have mirror what we are doing. It has uncovered is the fact they have no idea, and have done no research to find out, what this government is doing. What the minister for Business is doing in the Department of Business – there is a stark difference between what we have on that side of the Chamber and on this side.
What worries me is that history tells you that governments often lose elections; oppositions do not win elections, governments lost them. There is so much more here. Territorians deserve to know what the alternate government would look like in the Northern Territory. From what we are hearing with the process and ideas they are coming forward with – oh my God. That is OMG for the young people.
I am serious. I am extremely worried about my children, their job prospects and the future of education when this potential government on the other side wants to strip hundreds of millions of dollars from education and thousands of jobs from Territorians. It is very harmful and serious.
The opposition’s reckless policy has been promoted by others as a way not to do things. Martin Ferguson has demonstrated that quite clearly, someone I hope they will listen to. Business wants confidence in government in implementing policies that will promote, and not stifle, growth in the economy. Their reviews will stifle the economy. Business will come to a standstill. That is not what business wants; business wants to continue. We are doing the hard work behind the scenes. We do not want the economy to stall. We do not want to see the fear that is in the community today. It is not because of the hard work the Country Liberals is doing and stimulating the economy the way we are, injecting another $68.5m. They are fearful of a having Territory Labor after August 2016.
Everything will come to a standstill because they will enter a phase of reviews that stifles the economy. That is not something the Territory can afford. Our economic development strategy details that government’s priority is to drive economic growth opportunities for the Territory in areas including a shared vision of developing the north with the federal government and a Defence strategy, that we have heard about today, which the federal government’s 2016 Defence White Paper highlights.
There are significant business opportunities for the Northern Territory with $20bn to be spent on new and improved infrastructure over the next two decades. That is like a billion dollars a year. That underpins the economy going forward for the next 20 years, which is the kind of confidence that business should have in the Territory. But it is on shaky ground if the Labor government gets its hands on the wheel.
We are focusing on international education and there will be some great announcements soon around that area. Tourism, the ship lift facility, agriculture – although that is at risk if Territory Labor takes power after August – luxury hotels; international investment, an interconnected gas pipeline – severely put at risk if Territory Labor takes over in August 2016. Do not get me started on land release because that is the one thing that was pushing up the cost of living, particularly in the Darwin area.
Because of the failure of the previous government to release land we have had to spend record amounts releasing land across the Territory to bring down the price of land. When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning that was one of my responsibilities. Looking at the way Dave has taken over, we have continued down that way to ensure land is available and the cost is brought down. We have delivered that.
When I took over as Lands and Planning minister, early in our time of government, the cheapest block of land in Palmerston was $300 000 because of the policies of the former Labor government. Today people are able to buy blocks for $130 000, albeit smaller blocks of land and we have had to change the Planning Scheme to do that, but it gets people in the door, which is what we wanted. We wanted to give younger people the opportunity to buy a home, many for the first time. They were finding it so hard when the cheapest block in Palmerston was $300 000 in Bellamack.
The Labor government at the time did not understand. I have heard them admit to taking the foot off the pedal in that regard. That is the reason the price of land went through the roof.
The Country Liberal government’s investment fund is the first of its kind in Australia. Using the $200m from the sale of TIO as a financial cornerstone, the fund will seek a further $800m of capital from Australian and overseas investors to create a $1bn investment pool which should generate at least $3bn in infrastructure investment.
I asked Treasurer the other day if that $800m is capped.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: The Treasurer said no, so we could end up with a lot more money coming into this investment fund. The Treasurer said it is the first of its type in Australia.
The CLP will not sit on its hands waiting for the next INPEX project to come along. We have a plan to build a prosperous economy and we are implementing it. This financial year we are investing more than $1.5bn in infrastructure across the Territory. All these projects support the development of northern Australia. They create real jobs and opportunities for local contractors and small businesses, meaning Territorians receive far better services.
Labor has made it clear it has no ideas of its own on how to drive the Territory forward. Other than doing what we are already doing, they want to take it backwards, have reviews, hold moratoriums on things and stifle agriculture and the cattle industry. These things are Territory born and bred, and we should be promoting them to the hilt.
I do not know about you, but I want to get away from the reliance on the federal government. The only way we can do that is to use our own natural resources.
We are investing in schools, police stations, roads, health facilities and boat ramps – the list goes on; this is all in three-and-a-half years. We continue to invest in education infrastructure. We are giving our children more daycare facilities, better opportunities for distance learning and new and improved special education options. This government is constructing a new $4m preschool at the Braitling Primary School and a new $5.5m child and family centre on the Larapinta school site. The Larapinta child and family centre will become the sixth of its kind in the Northern Territory, along with those in Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ngukurr, Palmerston and Yuendumu.
Connecting the Territory through education will be enhanced through the operation of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre, an amazing building I got the chance to visit again last week. It will be the first time in the Territory that have an open education centre with infrastructure built fit for purpose.
This government recognises the needs of special education students. To help address this we are building new schools, with $33m allocated to the design and construction of a new school to accommodate the increased number of special needs children attending the existing Henbury School. It is coming along fabulously, built under this government.
In addition to this, there is the construction of a new $21.4m Palmerston special school in Bellamack – again, more special education infrastructure. Neil Sunners and Sunbuild are doing a fabulous job. I drive past and I am impressed with how quickly it is going ahead.
In response to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments this morning regarding Territory schools, I make it very clear that this government is equipping young Territorians with the skills and knowledge to engage in a rapidly-changing world where technology is driving new ways of doing business and relationships are no longer bound by borders. Rather than being critical of the work going on in Territory schools, I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to go to schools and see the work our students are engaging in with information communication technology, preparing them to engage in the future.
The member for Wanguri, Nicole Manison, does a great job getting to schools and seeing them firsthand. I wish she would speak to her leader and tell him how wonderful our schools are. I heard the member for Fannie Bay say that one of their policies would be to get the best teachers. Is he saying we do not have good teachers today? We have some damn good teachers, and I am proud of them and what they do. The results we are getting in schools are amazing, and they are going from strength to strength.
It was only last year that this government invested $7.5m into improving the technology in our government schools, allowing schools to take advantage of the latest technologies. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to go to those schools. Spend time at Nemarluk working with students to create, listen to and read iBooks that recount their personal experiences, or head to Bakewell Primary School and see over 100 students in Year 4 engage in a one-to-one iPad program which is enhancing student and parent engagement, and outcomes in literacy and numeracy.
It is very easy to point the finger, facilitate reviews and moratoriums, and discuss ‘maybe’ strategies. How about spending some time talking about results and achievements? It is easy for the member for Nhulunbuy to throw mud; that is all she is good at. Look at some of the policies and things this government has been working on over the last three years and you might be a little surprised. Look a little deeper, member for Nhulunbuy.
In 2016 Northern Territory schools are in the best place they have ever been. That is thanks to the strategic vision and the commit of this government to the strategies and initiatives that improve student outcomes and evidenced-based teaching and learning practices, and enhance school autonomy and local decision-making. The Labor members do not like that. They do not like the fact that schools have the autonomy to make decisions and have global budgeting they can make decisions on. They do not like that we have independent public schools and that we have reviewed middle years and remote education.
The fact that we are driving in change is a testament to this government, not the former Labor government, which had eleven-and-a-half years and did not do much other than throw cash at no particular focus or target, hoping the problem will go away. It does not go away. You have to focus on and understand what the problem is and start to find ways to do things differently. If you do not, you will continue to do the same thing. Minister Styles often talks about the madness of doing the same thing over and over again; it is a truism.
The Country Liberals government has introduced its Boosting our Economy package, aimed at providing immediate job opportunities for local small to medium businesses. Schools across the Territory will be refurbished and upgraded as a part of the $110m initiative. The Boosting our Economy package is designed to provide a short-term cash injection into the Northern Territory economy where it is needed most. That is a government responding, taking action and recognising that there is an issue and dealing with it. Imagine if we did not take action. You would have the opposition demanding we take action and saying we have failed because we have not taken action. What are they doing now? They are still attacking us for taking action.
In government we are in a position where we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. If we take action the opposition will throw mud at us. If we do not take action the opposition will throw mud at us. It is a little disheartening, particularly when I know the effort I went to when I was in opposition to research and investigate issues you were dealing and try to make structured contributions to debate on your policies, and not just throw mud and call people dogs and the other names that came up today. That was in front of students. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
What this government has been working on is about the Territory economy. It is about creating jobs and business opportunities for Territorians right now. I go back to the $68.5m for education projects, because it is important. Labor’s only plan is to stifle jobs, and they are very short-sighted with many of their policies and ideas, or lack of ideas.
I recall a limited mention of transport. The Country Liberal government recognises that roads, bridges and other transport assets are economic enablers. We have a record program in 2015-16 of $670.8m for roads and other transport assets. I do not recall hearing a road or bridge being mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about stimulating the economy. Is that because they do not like the export cattle trade? Do they not like that we have Territorians, including Indigenous people, working remotely on these cattle stations?
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about working with councils to fund roads; again, the Country Liberals government is doing this already. We have implemented grant programs: the Improving Strategic Local Roads Infrastructure Program and the Regional Economic Infrastructure Fund. These grant programs are designed to advance the development of economic infrastructure. Local governments, Indigenous organisations and enterprises, and community organisations can apply.
The grant process provides a consistent approach that is transparent and accountable. With our record transport program this year of $670m we have committed over $370m to projects. The remaining works are either in the project development or design stage and will be released for tender.
A number of significant projects have been awarded this financial year, all creating jobs for Territorians, including $25m for sealing the Mereenie Loop; $40m for the Roper and Wilton bridges; $4.5m for Larapinta Drive; and $57m allocated for Palmerston road upgrades, which is a strong piece of evidence that the community is strong and there is business confidence in Palmerston. When you see hoteliers building new hotels and new shopping centres being built, you wonder why we have to bring forward $57m.
This government, in three-and-a-half years, has probably done more than the Labor government did in eleven-and-a-half years.
Territorians should take the time to sweep back the surface, look at what we have delivered and look at what the alternative is, because it is pretty damn shallow.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion and I wish to air the voices of my constituents in condemning the opposition and its leader for their anti-jobs stance.
I wish I could say I was surprised at the Labor Party’s stance on jobs, particularly remote jobs, but I am not, especially after watching the previous Labor government actively discourage jobs-creating investment in remote communities.
As an example, one of the Opposition Leader’s old bosses, Mr Kon Vatskalis, travelled to Singapore to discourage a company from investing in the Tiwi Islands, in particular Port Melville. Maybe that was at the request of the Labor puppet master of the MUA. The impact of Labor’s action directly put at risk not only jobs during the construction of Port Melville, but also the jobs in the Tiwi forestry plantation.
The first boat to use Port Melville was a vessel loaded with Tiwi woodchips that set sail for Japan in November last year. The event was so significant we had a crowd of local people at the port to witness the woodchips being loaded. The Chief Minister was there, and he said:
People in remote Aboriginal communities know that the best way to better their lives is by gaining meaningful employment. They know, as I do, that the worst thing for Aboriginal people in remote communities is passive welfare, sit down money. They also know the only way they will be able to create jobs is through economic development. Unlike the Labor Party, they know the best way to develop economies in remote communities is to invite and encourage private investment.
The Tiwi Islands and the Tiwi Land Council have led the country in this thinking. People in the other remote communities are saying, ‘We want the same thing and we want to do what the Tiwi are doing’.
What is happening on the Tiwi Islands could not happen without private investment. The opposition backflipping and its moratorium on jobs has those looking at the Territory to invest now looking elsewhere. Investors simply cannot trust the Labor Party. The people who will miss out the most are not the Opposition Leader’s union mates in the cities and towns, but those most desperate for work – people in remote communities who no longer want to rely on government and want to get off the desperate cycle of welfare and into real jobs.
Those remote jobs and future jobs are at risk because of the opposition’s urban populist policy. What the Opposition Leader fails to understand is that governments do not create jobs; private industry and private investment create them.
Since coming to government, the Country Liberals have worked hard to improve the lives of people in the bush, mainly through the development of remote economies. The government continues to invest in remote infrastructure to help facilitate and encourage private investment in remote communities. We have seen the government increase local Indigenous employment in remote communities through its remote contracting policy.
Another positive policy has been the Department of Infrastructure’s provisional sum initiative. Through the initiative, 576 Indigenous people have been employed since October 2014. Prior to this there were only 40. This government policy is having a positive impact on employment opportunities for Indigenous people living in remote communities.
As well as government playing its part, so have traditional owners, by looking at ways to develop their land to create business opportunities, either through their own investment or by partnering with private enterprise.
While I encourage the development of Aboriginal land to create jobs, it must always be done in consultation and agreement with the traditional owners and the land holders. The government understands this.
Earlier today we heard the Opposition Leader making a pitch for government. Unfortunately we heard unfunded and empty promises of some type of utopia. It was disappointing but it was what the bush has come to expect from the social Labor Party: promises of utopia that only ever result in Aboriginal people being trapped on welfare and solely reliant on the government.
It is no surprise that the Opposition Leader wants a moratorium on jobs. It is no surprise they want to prevent jobs in the bush. The sovereign risk they have created by their backflipping and poorly thought out policies is damaging the future of Territorians in the bush. They should be ashamed.
I continue to support the Chief Minister and the work of his government in the bush. I support this motion and I call on the Opposition Leader to drop his jobs-killing moratorium.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be short and sweet. When these motions come up you know there is an election coming. When I supported this coming on yesterday I thought it would be something really important. I suppose it is important to one side of the parliament; it is probably not as important to the other side.
It is a free kick to the other side because the Leader of the Opposition gave out his entire …
Mr Chandler: It is a House of debate.
Mr WOOD: It is. I have been around long enough to know when an election is coming. The tone of the debate starts to change to, ‘Look at me; I am better than you. Look how terrible you are.’
The government cannot not be too cocky about this – I said that word once in the parliament before and I got in trouble.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is fine. It is just an expression.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have spoken in this parliament a number of times about major problems the government has had, especially with medium and small business in the Territory. People have said to me, ‘We had a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, 40 of us; we are suppliers. We told them we are struggling because we cannot get work.’
A Humpty Doo housing company that provides repairs and maintenance in Arnhem Land was losing work. They had to say goodbye to many people working for them because of the lack of work. They were concerned. I am confused because I have been saying that for some time but it was only late last year that the government started to realise there is a problem. Now we have the Buy Local program happening, which is fine, but why has it taken so long? If they had been in touch with local businesses they would have heard that many small and medium businesses are hurting.
Some people have done well out of INPEX but there are others – look at the businesses in East Arm and Winnellie and the For Sale and For Lease signs.
An issue I think is interesting, and the Minister for Infrastructure may also be interested – has anyone asked what the private industry is doing to help itself. My understanding is that Gateway has bought all its steel for the roof from China, and so has Jape. What is that doing to help local businesses?
Yes, the government has introduced something about buying local, but it also needs to focus on encouraging business, the private industry, to help local businesses by getting their steel and scaffolding, etcetera, from local suppliers. I think the scaffolding for Gateway came from Queensland.
There is fair bit of, ‘Look at me; I am better than you.’ But I say to the government that is has not been doing as well as it makes out in this area. An area that it can focus on is trying to encourage companies that are building to use local suppliers. That will do a lot for the local economy.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have spent hours on the floor of this House on a purely politically-driven motion from the CLP government when we could have been debating this important legislation. We have 35 minutes before General Business comes on. I cannot believe we have spent the last few hours on a ridiculous time-wasting exercise, but here we are. Let us see if we can get through these two bills in 35 minutes, not that it is my agenda to get these bills through, although I support them. I am flabbergasted at the way the government conducts business in this House.
I thank the minister for bringing the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148) to the House. I speak on behalf of the Labor opposition.
The opposition gives its support to this bill and recognises that it sees the continuation of the implementation of some very significant reforms which the government enacted following the passage of the Local Court Bill on 28 April 2015. That bill came about as a result of some months of consultation with stakeholders and the publication of an issues paper and a final report from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice on those consultations and reforms, which the Attorney-General summarised in his second reading speech on 26 March last year. There is obviously no need for me to repeat that.
I responded at length in that debate of the bill and raised stakeholder concerns which had been noted in the consultation phase. I was grateful to have access to a number of the submissions. Following my contribution in that debate, the member for Nelson rose to speak and said I deserved an honorary law degree, which was very generous of him and perhaps a little tongue in cheek. With a number of second reading debates before the House in the last sittings, I would have been happy to be credited with a pass in Year 10 Legal Studies, such is the volume of material the shadow Attorney-General has to endeavour to get through, especially with such significant reforms afoot, including these Local Court reforms and the NTCAT.
The debate around policy and court reform was had last year when the Local Court Bill was passed and we moved on. It was flagged at the time that there would be up to 154 acts, rules, regulations and bylaws to be amended. It is no surprise then that when you get a bill titled Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill you come across a swag of amendments. There are, in this bill, a total of 22. In this fairly weighty document I have, which is 121 pages, half of it contains 14 schedules of amendment across 14 acts, omissions and insertions to various sections of acts, and language and terms contemporised for clarity and application of consistency.
In the briefing I had on the bill I was advised that there is a bewildering array of inconsistencies which need to be address and we will see further amendments in these sittings and perhaps beyond.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if we can, as per Schedule 1, amend the section 22 (1)(c) of the Justices Act and get rid of language like:
to something much plainer and less wordy, as in, mentioned in the summons, then I am all for it.
I may not have a law degree or a school certificate in Legal Studies, but as a former high school English teacher, I am all for plain and concise English.
I acknowledge the parliamentary draftsmen and women who have the painstaking task of making sure the language and terms are accurate, semantically and syntactically correct and that every reference to ‘judge’ with a lower case ‘j’ has been corrected with capitalisation of the ‘J’.
The bill also repeals section 3 of the Criminal Code so that offences are classified as either summary or indictable, with the key factor, as the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, being whether the maximum penalty is greater than two years’ imprisonment.
The bill amends the Criminal Code and other acts so offences are no longer described as crimes, and Schedule 4 of the bill further amends the Criminal Code.
The bill omits, among other terms, the word ‘crime’ and replaces it with ‘offence’ or, where appropriate, ‘indictable offence’.
To the punter in the street it must seem odd that there is no definition of crime in our legislation. I refer to Gray and Blokland in the second edition of Criminal Laws Northern Territory, which makes reference to this on page 74 under the heading, ‘Classification of offences’. This is a very handy textbook.
I will read from page 74:
The text then goes on to talk about the second type of offence being a simple offence. All that I have just quoted concurs with the outline in the second reading speech, and the amendment provided in this bill to replace the word ‘crime’ with ‘offence’ provides clarity.
I raise two amendments in this bill, even though consideration in detail stage amendments have come forward. They are the original amendments to sections 120 and 131A of the Justices Act. These were raised with me during recent contact I had with legal stakeholders, whose views I sought on this bill.
During my briefing with the officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, before the February 2016 sittings, these two amendments were acknowledged as having generated feedback and challenges from stakeholders. A consideration in detail stage amendment is being introduced in response to legal stakeholders. Now we know why this bill was delayed from its second reading debate in February.
I quote the Attorney-General’s second reading speech:
The issue raised by a number of legal stakeholders is that there is no reason to amend section 120 because it has worked so well to date. The proposed changes would erode the right to trial by jury if a defendant on stealing charges wishes to opt for that as opposed to having the case heard summarily in the lower court. The argument not to amend section 120 is clearly set out in a submission from the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory to the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. ‘Section 120 ‘Minor Offences’ currently provides that there is no right to elect a trial by jury to a defendant on a charge of stealing up to $5000. The bill would increase that threshold to $50 000 or any greater amount prescribed by regulation. The effect of this would be to deprive defendants facing potentially ruinous charges of the right to be tried by jury. Stealing is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of seven years, or 14 years if the amount is $100 000 or greater. Theoretically, if this amendment proceeds a person charged with multiple offences, each involving less than $50 000 but totalling, say, $1m, would be prevented from electing to be judged by his or her peers in a jury trial.
‘The current law is arguable subject to a similar problem in that a person could be charged with multiple offences, each of less than $5000, adding up to a large amount. However, I have never encountered a case like that in which a magistrate has insisted on hearing the case over the objections of the defendant. In practice, where large amounts of money are involved the prosecution usually frames the charges in such a manner as to ensure they can be dealt with upstairs in the Supreme Court to reflect the seriousness of the matter. That would be more difficult to achieve if this amendment is passed.
‘In addition, any greater amount prescribed by regulation is too open ended. In our view, the jurisdictional limit is a matter which should be fixed by parliament, not a minister.’
In his second reading speech the minister was clear that the amendment to section 131A, while supported by the Chief Minister and the Chief Magistrate, was opposed by legal service providers. I thank the Attorney-General’s senior adviser for providing me with a copy of the report on section 131A of the Justices Act which was published in September last year.
Section 131A of the Justices Act, headed ‘Certain assault and harm offences may be dealt with summarily’ has been repealed and replaced. The amendment provides for, according to the explanatory statement:
The report on section 131A shows that there have been different interpretations of the intent of this section and a comparative look at other jurisdictions reveals that, ‘There is no general consensus between Australian jurisdictions as to whether or not the defendant should have a right to a trial by jury for certain violent offences’.
You cannot help but think that section 131A has been poorly drafted to allow for wide interpretation as to whether or not a defendant provides consent as to which court he or she may choose to have their case heard.
I thank the minister for providing me with a briefing on this bill and the consideration in detail stage amendments the day before yesterday. I was offered a further briefing. I said, ‘Thank you very much’, but I did not see the need for an additional briefing’. I had been given the heads up last week when I was in the minister’s office being briefed on another bill, so I knew these amendments were coming.
Mr Deputy Speaker, by and large, the opposition supports these amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her comments. I pick up on almost everything she said. Yes, it is a complex matter. I maintain my mystified fascination of legislative draftspeople, in a most wonderful way. They are an extraordinary people who do a remarkable job. This is the product of many years of work and is the tidy-up after the major amendments being made to the Local Court legislation.
On 1 May the Local Courts will be launched in their new form. Magistrates and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction are gone. We will have a Local Court, which intrudes into the space of the district court in other jurisdiction, hence the substantial changes to the thresholds. We no longer have magistrates; from now on we will have judges. These are the changes we have made so that the rats and mice stuff sits with NTCAT, the Local Court can intrude into areas which were normally the preserve of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can get on with its business.
This is common sense and good legislation and I am proud to have been given the opportunity, as the minister, to be the person who guides this through the House. As it is non-controversial, I have little more to add to what has been said.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.1. I move that clause 14 be amended by omitting the proposed section 120 and replacing it with new section 120 in the amendment schedule. Section 120 of the Justices Act provides for the circumstances in which specified indictable offences dealing with the theft of property and related matters can be dealt with by the lower court in a summary manner rather than by way of indictment in the Supreme Court.
Clause 14 provides that the basic monetary limit be raised from $5000, as set in 1997, and referred to earlier by the shadow Attorney-General, to $50 000. The proposed section also provides that this monetary figure can be changed by way of regulation.
The new section 120(1), like the current section 120, permits charges to be heard together with no limit on how many charges. Thus, under the current law and the proposed section 120 there is potential for the value of the property involved to far exceed $5000 under the current law or $50 000 under the proposed new section.
Various legal service providers, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions, have raised concerns about the potential problem. This amendment seeks to limit the total amount to $50 000 when the court is dealing with more than one offence. The amendment also removes the capacity for the monetary figure to be raised by way of regulation. The government had previously taken a policy position, in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court, that the jurisdictional limits should not be changed by legislation. This change reflects that policy position.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.2. I move that clause 15 dealing with the amendment of section 124 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to section 120 and 121A, and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
Section 124 identifies the section under the indictable offences that can be tried summarily. Both the current section 124 and new section do not include a reference to section 131A. As section 131A deals with indictable offences by trial or summarily it would be cross-referenced in section 124.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.3. I move that clause 16 dealing with the amendment of section 125 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to section 120 and 121A and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
As with section 124, section 125 identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. This section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 163, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendments 43.4, 43.5, 43.6, 43.7, 43.8, 43.9 and 43.10 to Schedule 1.
In relation to 43.3, I move that clause 16 dealing with the amendment of section 125 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting sections to 120 and 121A, and replacing them with reference to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
As with section 124, section 125 identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to section 124, this section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
In relation to amendment 43.4, I move that the words ‘in form of Schedule 3’ as used in the heading for section 57A be included in the list of words to be omitted from the Justices Act, and that those words be replaced with the word ‘issued’.
I also move that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so that sections 60AC(1)(b) and (2) are amended by removing ‘201A’ and replacing it with ‘49 of the Local Court Act’ so that section 105D(1)(c) is amended by removing ‘201A’ and replacing it with ‘48 of the Local Court Act’.
Section 201A, dealing with the rules of the court and practice directions, is being repealed by clause 21 of the bill. The new provisions will provide for practice directions as referred to in section 60AC. The rules of the court as referred to in section 105D are sections 48 and 49 of the Local Court Act.
The purpose of the amendment to section 57A is to amend the heading. This is occurring because of the amendment to section 57A to be made in the next consideration stage of the amendment. Consequently, amendment 43.5 is that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so that the words ‘issued under section 57(2)’ are inserted in place of the words currently proposed to be removed.
Section 57A deals with what happens when a summons is received. It is being amended so it is clear that the summons referred to is the one issued under section 57(2).
That brings me to the amendment to 43.6 that section 106A of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to sections 120 and 121A and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A. As with sections 124 and 125, section 106A identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to sections 124 and 125, this section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
That brings me to amendment 43.7, the intent of which is that the schedule dealing with amendment to section 116(2) of Justices Act be amended by omitting the current proposed amendment and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. The purpose of this amendment is limited to replacing the words ‘proper office’ with ‘proper officer’. This was a typographical error.
That brings me to amendment 43.8, being that the schedule dealing with the amendment of section 122A of the Justices Act be amended by omitting the current proposed amendment and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. As with sections 124, 125 and 106A, this section identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to those sections, section 122A should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
Amendment 43.9 is that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so the proposed amendments to section 139 dealing with the transmission of documents to the Supreme Court are omitted and replaced with a new set of amendments, as set out in the amendment schedule. The effect of the amendment is to remove the words ‘as the case’; otherwise the new amendment is the same as the amendment in the bill.
Amendment 43.10 – Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 is to be amended so the proposed amendments to section 141, dealing with the withdrawal of ‘plea’ and substitution of ‘pleas of not guilty’, are omitted and replaced with a new set of amendments as set out in the amendment schedule. The main effect of the amendment is to correct an error that would have arisen if the word ‘he’ had been replaced throughout section 141 by ‘the defendant’, as proposed in the bill. One of these references should have been to a court.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Proposed New Standing Order – Language other than English in the Assembly
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the standing orders of the Assembly be amended to allow the use of languages other than English in this Chamber, provided that, for the purposes of Hansard, a translation of the words spoken by the member must be provided directly following the speaking of language or provided by way to tabling a copy of the member’s remarks immediately upon the conclusion of the contribution.
This motion introduces a new standing order, 23A, that states, ‘A member may rise to speak in any language other than English so long as an oral translation is provided in the English language by the same member immediately subsequent to the words spoken in the language other than English, or a written translation is tabled (without the need to seek leave) immediately at the conclusion of the contribution by the member in the language other than English’.
In the last sittings for 2015 I spoke ad lib in my first language, Warlpiri. Madam Speaker reacted with a statement regarding the use of language other than English in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker stated:
It was further stated that:
I have taken some time to consider this statement. I spent the Christmas period renovating our home with my husband. While my hands were busy at work my mind was reflecting on the past year, my achievements, my portfolios, the challenges and frustrations I face and the year ahead. In the new year I began discussions with my department on the planning of International Women’s Day. The theme for 2016 was Pledge for Parity. As we were discussing what that means, I continued to reflect on the topic of parity in gender equality, economic security and political representation.
In the Northern Territory our journey as women is twofold. Some were civilising and pioneering; others were just surviving, or not surviving. There are amazing stories of resilience and persistence about the formation of the foundation of our Territory, but the story of Aboriginal women is still part of the hidden story. I reflected on the day’s theme and navigated through all the hype and marketing material on the web, and later that night I asked myself, ‘What is my pledge to the Aboriginal women of the Territory? How can I stand in front of all the Aboriginal women who have elected me, along with their daughters, nieces and granddaughters, without a pledge for their parity with the women and girls of other ethnic groups?’
One of the elements in the theme of International Women’s Day was institutions. In Aboriginal society we have our own traditional governance structure. It governs who we are, what we do and how we think. This structure has been broken up over the years. It has had to evolve and adapt to survive. It is not the same, but it is similar to the governance structure, called the Westminster system, that we work with in the Chamber.
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory must understand both these systems. We are often left bemused by what is really going on within the system imposed on us because the communication used in it is not always clear or understandable.
That is why, through my portfolio of Local Government and Community Services, we have developed a remote engagement strategy for public servants. It is a well-developed, thorough strategy for the whole NTG to guide how we engage and communicate information clearly to those of our citizens who have extra problems understanding our message because of differences in language and culture. Perhaps more importantly, it is about how we listen to and consult with them. We do not take an interpreter with us just so they can understand us; we also take an interpreter so we understand them. As a government we cannot govern unless we understand the needs and aspirations of those we govern.
As I reflected on International Women’s Day I thought about this political institution, our parliament, and how we as Aboriginal people participate, understand and communicate within that institution, and how this institution communicates with the Aboriginal people who elected us to the positions we hold in it. I was thinking about how we could achieve institutional parity. I used one sentence in my own language in this place. That one sentence was challenged and immediately assumed to be offensive by those on the other side of the Chamber. It was not offensive; it was a simple observation, but it caused real worry on the other side.
The memory of this moment was still burning in my mind and heart. It was only a few weeks later that I heard the Prime Minister of Australia develop part of a speech in the Commonwealth parliament in the Aboriginal language of the people of the country in which he spoke. Then I realised that I needed to speak up.
Out of the hundreds of languages Aboriginal Australians spoke in 1788 only about 15 or so are still spoken as first languages. Most of those are spoken in the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister used a language that nobody now speaks as a first language, and he was praised for it. I spoke a language that still lives and is spoken as a first language by thousands of citizens of the Northern Territory, and it was assumed I was offensive; I was misunderstood.
The population of my electorate is 75% Aboriginal. Most speak an Aboriginal language as their first. All members of this House represent Aboriginal Territorians who speak a traditional language first. Every one of you would have some in your electorates. Some others, like me, represent an electorate with a clear majority who do.
If Aboriginal Territorians are not allowed to express ourselves in our first language – the one we think in which gives us our sense of identity and pride in who we are – then we are not achieving the parity we are looking for, not just for women and girls but for all of us.
For the speakers of our languages to be truly equal at the table and participate in robust debate and feel welcome, then our language must be respected and allowed to be used in a way that can be appreciated and understood by those who speak only English.
It fascinates me to think that a few seconds of frustration that caused me to use one sentence in the language I have spoken all my life brought so much outrage and fear to some of the non-Aboriginal women in this Chamber. It is ironic that one of those who objected the loudest also represents an electorate with a very large majority of speakers of traditional language. Along with mine, Yolngu Matha is one of the healthiest and strongest in the nation.
In the time it took to utter one sentence, the tables were turned. How did it feel not to understand? You had a tiny taste of what it is often like for us. Did it occur to you that this happens to my people most of the time? We are belittled, ignored, harassed and patronised in English all our lives.
I wrote to Madam Speaker and expressed my concern and frustration, and sought clarification of the standing order. I should not need to state that this was not a personal attack on Madam Speaker, who I hold in high esteem. As an elected member, I merely sought clarification on the relevant ruling and the standing order so I could then determine how to go about challenging or addressing this disparity.
We have people from every culture in the world in our country who now call themselves Australian. Most came here voluntarily to make a better life for themselves. We are one of the most open, liberal, tolerant and free societies on Earth. That makes me proud.
We should emphasise our commonality that makes us Australian, but everyone should be able to participate fully. If all people are to be properly represented and, more importantly, if we are to properly represent ourselves in parliaments of our country, then our languages must be recognised in some way.
We need to be able to use our own voices. I believe that if a policy on legislation is not written by us, that it is not written for us.
We have Aboriginal doctors, lawyers, architects, professors, politicians and more. But the playing field is still not level. Our institutional foundations need to represent our diversity.
The fact that we live in such a culturally diverse society harmoniously is unique to Australia, and it is only right that our institutional structures are reflective of our society.
I understand that this is an uncomfortable conversation for many, including English-speaking Aboriginal people who will have different opinions, strongly held. But as a Walpiri-speaking woman and a minister of the Crown, with English not being my first language, I wanted to raise this issue.
We need to make sure we encourage people to enter politics and for them to feel that they can be proud and have a seat at the table if they truly want to influence the future for the next generations.
My letter to Madam Speaker was about me and all those women and girls like me who are citizens of the Northern Territory. I have been told that English is Australia’s official language, and yet nowhere can I find any documentation that states English is the official language of Australia. I challenge anyone to find it.
Other English-speaking societies like ours do have official languages. Canada has given French equal status to English. New Zealand has passed a law that has given that country three official languages: English; te reo Maori; and New Zealand sign language. Interpreting and translation occurs every day in their parliaments. Switzerland has four official languages. There are 11 official languages in South Africa.
I am not asking for my language to be made an official language. I understand that in New Zealand there is one Maori language. There are around 15 Aboriginal languages still spoken here. In South Africa, millions of people speak the official languages. Here only thousands, and in most cases far fewer, speak surviving Aboriginal languages.
But as a first language speaking Walpiri woman, I am asking for the right to freedom of speech to express myself in my first language spontaneously at times. I also ask for this right for every member of the Legislative Assembly.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one’s opinions without fear of retaliation or censorship. The use of my first language allows me freedom of speech.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 13, declares that states shall take effective measures to ensure that Indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
I accept that all members and citizens have the right to understand what is being said in this place, and I respect that right. Aboriginal members should have the right to express themselves spontaneously in their own language, and provide a translation, when they feel the need, without the assumption they are being offensive and disorderly.
I have great support from my colleagues who have welcomed me into the Cabinet, embraced my input and valued my contribution to the development of policies and legislation that governs us all. We do not believe in the continuation of the victim mentality that has driven Indigenous policy in the past and suffocated Aboriginal advancement. Instead, we believe in liberalism.
We believe in preserving the dignity of people and enabling them to be free to make their own choices. We Aboriginal people can only survive in the 21st century if we embrace a liberal mindset. I look forward to hearing the contributions to this motion. I commend the motion to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing forward this motion. It is clearly a matter of importance to her; however, I am concerned that the member has determined that the Assembly must act today, with no further delay, to bring into effect a new standing order.
I am at a loss as to why the member is so keen today to move to action. I am also at a loss as to why the member has not raised this issue before with anyone in this parliament, within wing meetings or within the party when I was a member.
I have no concern about the proposal to allow languages other than English to be spoken in an orderly manner; that is what occurs already, by leave. I recall the member for Namatjira speaking eloquently in language when we were in opposition. The member for Port Darwin also spoke in language. The past member for Casuarina spoke in his language, Greek. I have welcomed people in symbolic ways to this parliament in different languages. Formalising the procedure is not and never will be a problem.
I will recap why we are debating this matter. During sittings on 2 December 2015 there was a heated debate. The member for Nhulunbuy was on her feet, speaking to an emotional debate on education or health, and there were many interjections from the floor.
After every sittings I issue a procedural bulletin which discusses where standing orders have not be adhered to, have been abused, or other things that have gone on in the Chamber. That is done very deliberately to assist members and staff who work with members to get a better understanding of, and learn about, the procedures, policies and standing orders of this Chamber.
It was in that procedural bulletin that I included reference to an interjection by the member for Stuart across the floor in response to something the member for Nhulunbuy said. Following the interjection, which was in a language other than English, I was approached as the Speaker by someone who, given the intensity and manner in which the interjection was delivered, perceived – which is their right; their perception is their reality – that some of the interjection may have been less than parliamentary. Based on that incident in this Chamber I made comments in the procedural bulletin, which goes to all members and chiefs of staff.
On 12 February, nearly three months later, I received a letter from the member for Stuart in regard to what I had put in the procedural bulletin, which was appropriate. If any member of this parliament has a concern about something that has happened in the Chamber – if they feel wronged, offended, upset or distressed about anything – it is their right, and they should write to the Speaker, not only in regard to their own standing but the standing of their constituents.
Just after 12 February I received the letter, which was dated 12 February, from the member for Stuart, putting her concerns down. Some of them had nothing to do with me as the Speaker. She expressed her distress about language and spoke about how things had happened in the federal parliament, which was nothing to do with the Speaker’s office here. I was working on a reply because I took it as a serious matter. Clearly, judging from the content of the letter, the member was concerned about what had transpired, and not just about interjecting in language but the nature of the debate on that subject. But before I could get my letter to the member for Stuart, I received a phone call from a woman in the ABC in Sydney, not anyone in the Territory, saying she had a copy of the member for Stuart’s letter and asking if I had any comments. I said, ‘I have only just received the letter. I am working on the reply and how to address the member’s concerns and comment on things that were under my control and management.’ I was a little taken aback that the letter had been sent to the national media before I had the opportunity to reply to the member.
I told the journalist I was happy to talk on radio about it because I did not have any issues with what had transpired; they were procedural issues related to standing orders. I drafted the letter, which went to the member with a copy of the audio, which focuses on the member for Nhulunbuy. You can hear the interjections of many members in the background, including the member for Stuart.
I gave an interview on ABC radio Sydney, and as a consequence of that it shot around the countryside that the member for Stuart was not allowed to talk in language in the parliament and that the Speaker had not allowed her to do so. The member subsequently gave interviews, and I gave a couple of interviews in Darwin.
Clearly that was not the case and I was very concerned that information released to the national media was not correct about what had transpired in the Northern Territory.
I seek leave to table a copy of the member’s letter.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: I also seek leave to table a copy of my letter in reply to the member for Stuart.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: The letter to me as Speaker was copied to Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, so I thought it only appropriate that I send my letter to the Prime Minister of Australia.
In my letter to the member for Stuart I addressed areas I could comment on as the Speaker, the presiding officer of this parliament. I am not in a position, as the Speaker or as a member, to comment on whether members of this parliament had adversely or inappropriately commented on her. That is nothing to do with me in my job.
I am and was concerned that the matter was never about speaking in another language. As members well know, we have had many people in this Chamber speaking language for many reasons. It was never about improving this parliament and its procedures and processes, and it was never about representing members. I believe it was mischievous and malcontent behaviour, and that does not bode well for our parliament and its future.
I compliment the member – or any member, for that matter – who speaks a language other than English. The member for Namatjira speaks five languages, and she is exceptionally fortunate. My younger sister, Thisbe, speaks three Aboriginal languages, so this is not about me or anyone to do with my family having an issue with languages. She speaks Yolgnu Matha, the Ngaanyatjarra language and the Pitjantjatjara language. She speaks them fluently, and she can write in them. My family is very familiar with Aboriginal languages, without a doubt.
This started with a robust debate, members interjecting, and then a member interjected in a language other than English. Somehow it has morphed into this national issue that has focused on the Northern Territory parliament, saying, implying and writing that we do not let people in this parliament speak in another language, and that is not correct.
It is not correct historically, and it is not correct currently. The parliament in the Northern Territory has had an Aboriginal person in it for every session. In this session we have six or seven members of an Aboriginal background. We are probably the leaders when it comes to having representation in parliament of people from other cultures and races, as we do in our local government.
I remember a time when we had three mayors in Darwin who were Chinese. Nowhere else could you ever have had something like that. One of the first mayors of Darwin was Harry Chan, whose bust is in the foyer of this parliament. This is a place that embraces the diverse mix of cultures and races historically, currently and will, I am sure, into the future.
Interjections in any language are disorderly. If you are interjecting, you are asked to stop interjecting.
Instead of the Assembly taking the unprecedented approach to its standing orders and immediately adopting a new suggestion, it would be best if the motion being considered by the Assembly today referred the matter for detailed consideration by the Standing Orders Committee.
The Standing Orders Committee exists to examine proposals to do with the rules of debate and the order or this Assembly. That committee, which has a majority of government members on it, will be able to take the time – a short time if that is preferred – to examine the procedures and precedents, and to conduct research and analysis, and report to the Assembly with the recommendations on the best way to achieve the outcomes sought by the member for Stuart.
To rush this motion through would circumvent the normal procedures this Assembly has applied when it comes to changing standing orders, and I stress the word ‘circumvent.’ This parliament should not circumvent our standing orders and proper processes and procedures. From time to time, as members should know, the Assembly adopts sessional orders to test procedural innovations and refine them before they become standing orders.
Standing orders are never changed on the spot, as is being proposed today. This is setting a precedent that we should not embark on or accept. A lengthy review process over the past two years resulted in the Assembly adopting new standing orders on 1 December 2015. For two years we reviewed the standing orders. The member for Port Darwin was the chair and the member for Daly was a committee member, as were the member for Nelson and I. I think the member for Nightcliff was also on the committee.
For two years the Clerk and the committee worked to review the standing orders. Documents went to the Labor Caucus and the wing. We kept saying ‘Do you agree with this? This is how we are changing it’. There was considerable consultation on changing standing orders in this parliament. Where was the member for Stuart’s concern over the last two years in regard to changing standing orders?
I have no issue with what the member wants to achieve in changing standing orders, but why was this not brought to the attention of her wing colleagues, even when I was in the party. The member for Araluen was in the party. It was never raised. Why has it not been raised before in an adjournment or any other way? Why has it not been brought forward previously? I am at a loss.
The Standing Orders Committee has not had the opportunity to consider this proposal and provide proper advice to the Assembly. That is what the Standing Orders Committee is about: providing sound, decent advice as to what could, should and might be the way forward. It is up to the Assembly if it accepts the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.
As I mentioned, government has a majority and the chair of that committee. That is where it should be considered in the first instance.
To proceed today is to establish an unfortunate precedent where the proper committee is cut out of consideration and its role of analysis and providing advice to us all. Why have a Standing Orders Committee if every time you want to change a standing order you bring a motion to the parliament? It does not have to take long to have it reviewed by the Standing Orders Committee. It can be given a reasonably short time frame.
On that basis I move the following amendment to the motion: delete all the words after ‘that’ and insert the words ‘the Standing Orders Committee is requested to inquire into and report to the Assembly with recommendations about the best procedure to allow members to speak during debate in any language other than English, and that the Standing Orders Committee reports to the Assembly no later than the sitting week commencing Tuesday 24 May 2016’.
A copy of my amendment is being distributed.
I commend this amendment to the motion to the House, and I ask members to support it because it is the appropriate way to go.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I know this time on Wednesday is traditionally set aside for the business of members in opposition or Independents, so I will keep my comments short.
I support the motion moved by the minister and member for Stuart. The Stuart electorate is similar to mine. It has a large majority of Indigenous constituents, many of whom do not speak English as a first language. Not only do the majority not speak English as a first language, but they also learn the customs and culture of their people, many of which are thousands of years old, long before they are taught in understanding the customs, culture and law of the mainstream in the Northern Territory.
In the past this misunderstanding between the different cultures has led to violence, anger, sadness and confusion. I am proud to say that this is happening less and less, but it is often at the expense of Indigenous culture.
Quite often we hear of Indigenous people having to walk in two cultures; the first is their own and the second is mainstream culture. While these days we have numerous people who do this well, managing to become successful doctors, school teachers, police officers, scientists, lawyers and even politicians, at times there can be confusion, particularly when it comes to speaking and conducting business in a foreign language.
I was disappointed to see the response from those opposite when the member for Stuart made a comment in her mother’s language. Straightaway they went on an attack on our culture as being offensive. It is disappointing that those opposite were faced with their own ignorant act in fear and aggression towards the member for Stuart.
Quite often we have seen those opposite attack the minister for reading an answer from a note, implying that she is too stupid to be a minister because she must read from notes. Of course, she reads from notes, but the one time she made a comment off the cuff those very same people reacted in fear and aggression in attacking her.
It is sad that they only highlight when the member for Stuart reads a prepared speech. I take this opportunity to point out that every member of this Assembly speaks from prepared notes. The ministers and every member opposite does, and so do I. I wonder why they only attack the member for Stuart when she does it.
I understand and I believe that for the ease of all people of the Northern Territory the business of this House should be conducted in English; however, I acknowledge that at times there will be moments when members need to express themselves in their mother’s language. I hope when those times come, even if they are off the cuff and unplanned, that we can embrace diversity, providing a translation is given immediately to show the words were not offensive and they should not be ruled out of order.
I promised I would keep my remarks short, so I finish by saying I support the member for Stuart, and commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment the member for Goyder has brought forward. I wrote my speech last night, and by the way, member for Arafura, I do not always write speeches; I sometimes make them up standing here, off the top of my head. I do not have a large staff, so I generally write my own speeches.
I welcome this debate. As mentioned by the member for Goyder, we have a Standing Orders Committee and we spent the last two years looking at the standing orders and putting new ones together. During that time people had the opportunity to add things to those standing orders if they wanted to.
As you know, last year I went to Canada and visited two provinces: Nunavut and Northwest Territories. When I returned I spoke about how great it was that I could sit in a parliament and listen to different languages.
In Nunavut there are three languages: English, French and Inuktitut. There is a dialect of Inuktitut spoken as well.
The Nunavut members of parliament speaking their own language made a tremendous difference to the way that parliament ran. I felt it was a parliament which welcomed people speaking in their own language.
As the member for Stuart said, it may be the case that Australia does not have an official language. In Nunavut there are three. Nunavut also has a language commissioner and so does Northwest Territories. The language commissioners have a mandate to protect the language rights of the native people and those who speak French and English. There is even the Official Languages Act.
I am not necessarily arguing that we go down that path. Obviously we have many more Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory than they have in Northwest Territories and Nunavut. But if you use different languages in a parliament then you need procedures. Otherwise people will speak in other languages and people who do not know that language will have no idea what they are saying.
Some of this discussion is about one particular case, and I have been in this parliament when various Aboriginal people have spoken in language. It is rare and is done with approval from the Speaker, and you receive a translation afterwards. But what is to stop someone speaking in their language all the time? Why should they not? I am not saying they should not. I do not have a problem with it. In Nunavut and Northwest Territories there is a series of soundproof rooms right next to the Chamber where translators are operating all the time. There us a little box in front of you and you press a button for Inuktitut, French or English, and you can listen to it. You get a live and independent translation of what is being spoken.
One of the dangers of having somebody give you a translation is that you do not have anyone to test its accuracy. Whether it is a paper given to you before the speech is made or after, you have to accept that is the translation and it will go into Hansard. In Northwest Territories and Nunavut someone translates immediately. Hansard picks up that translation at the same time. Their Hansard is written in the three languages. It is actually four languages, if I can call them that, because they have a syllabic version of Inuktitut. I cannot show it to you here, but it uses the symbols that were used by missionaries in the 1800s. It is a peculiar-looking language but you know where you are when you see it. You know you are in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, or some of the other states.
They also write Inuktitut in the Roman alphabet, and there is French and English. In the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit, the stop signs are in Inuktitut, English and French. Also part of what this language issue is about is that not only do they allow the languages to be spoken in parliament, but the official languages are required if someone wants a document in one of those languages.
On the website for the Nunavut Legislative Assembly, if you click on Hansard, across the top of the webpage you will see the four languages. Just press the button and you the Hansard in the language you want to read.
That is a much advanced version of what we are talking about today where a decision was made by that territory to have three official languages. I think Northwest Territories has eight official languages. It does not use all of them all the time. It is recognised that there are issues in relation to translating.
I have just seen this today, which I have been given permission to use. The Legislative Assembly has put together a background and options paper on Aboriginal languages and the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. It deals with some of the reasons we have raised this discussion today, but it also a very detailed document. The Standing Orders Committee will need to look at it if this amendment goes through. It looks at 10 options for using language in this Assembly. For instance, the first option is to use English only. Another option is that the Legislative Assembly transacts all business in English with members able to speak in any language other than English upon request, by leave, and the member provides a spoken interpretation of what was said. It goes on with various versions of that.
There are approximately 75 communities in the Northern Territory which are non-Indigenous, which is a reflection of the multiculturalism of the Northern Territory. We have people from all over the world. If we had a Cambodian in this Assembly, I would expect them – if we are keeping all things equal – to be allowed to speak in Cambodian.
The question really will be how would that work in practice? Is this an impractical outcome? Should we just use it for special occasions? The advantage of taking this to the Standing Orders Committee is we can look at what is a good idea and see how it would work in practice.
As has been said, a number of people, such as the member for Namatjira, have used language in this parliament, but usually for a specific purpose on special occasions. I do not think there has been an issue. If we are to introduce it in the form of the motion by the member for Stuart, then we are going down the path of something more official and formal in the way we approach it.
As I said, member for Stuart, it is great that Aboriginal languages can be spoken in this parliament; but obviously there are some practical implications that need to be looked at.
I first saw this paper at lunchtime. It lists all the languages that are well spoken, if I can put it that way. I am not saying it covers all languages; my wife’s language is not listed. There are many languages that are not used by many people. Batjamalh is a language that, unfortunately, will probably die out with my family. There might be one speaker of Emmi left. There are languages that will never be used, but there are common languages that are still used.
We have in the Territory the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. That organisation could be a way of enabling languages to be used in this parliament with someone translating it at the same time. Even if that was to happen, there would be a fairly major cost. You would have to have a soundproof room, electronic equipment and ear pieces. None of that would be cheap.
I am not saying that is the path we go down, but there may be one-off occasions where languages are used, or we might allow it on occasions where there is a debate and it is appropriate, for example, if there are people from that person’s electorate who want to hear the debate in their own language. Or it may be that we make rules that say the languages can be used all the time, as long as there is someone here who can interpret.
I have moved away from my written notes, because they were written last night for the original. An amendment to the motion has been moved, and it is a good change. I do not think anyone is knocking what the member for Stuart wants, but if we are to go down this path, we should make a sensible decision. We are not the same as New Zealand or Nunavut. We have many more languages, and if you include non-Indigenous languages, of which there would be 75, we need to ask whether they can be spoken as well.
The former member for Casuarina spoke in Greek sometimes. Dr Lim probably would have spoken in Malaysian Chinese occasionally. Jackie Ah-Kit sang Slim Dusty songs at his farewell, but I do not know whether we need to give approval for that.
It is an important debate. I thank the member for Goyder for bringing the amendment forward. I think the member for Port Darwin is going to move an amendment to the amendment, to try to change the date and bring this along faster.
We have a fairly substantial background paper, put together by the staff, and that will help us come to a conclusion about how we work this.
It is good that we are discussing this. What continues to make the Territory unique is that we have Aboriginal people in this House, and if they can speak their language, that is something we should be proud of.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank and congratulate minister Bess Price for bringing this before us. It is important that we address a couple of issues.
In a former life I taught at Kormilda College. One thing that struck me as amazing about the many Indigenous students I taught was that they are really smart. They turn up to school and may be terrible at written and spoken English, but they speak about five other languages.
People who have dealt with traditional Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory will know that. They are conversant in languages in their own sphere. They might speak two or three languages within their own community, or a language they speak to people older than them in which may be completely different to a language in which they speak to their peers or people younger than them. It always struck me that when I got to the heart of understanding what they were talking about, the intelligence of what they were saying was profound.
The minister is not as fantastic with written and spoken English as someone who may have been well-educated through an English-speaking system, so she writes notes and reads from the page. Then we have the members opposite interjecting and carrying on like pork chops saying, ‘Why don’t you just table what you have there?’ That is really disrespectful considering that the minister is speaking in a second language. She is trying to convey meaning. She is doing it in a format she is not comfortable with. She writes it down so she accurately conveys what she wants to present.
Then the members opposite make fun of her for doing that. I listened carefully to what Madam Speaker said in her speech. To my mind it is not about what happened with Madam Speaker; it comes back to the disrespect shown in this House and how people have targeted this minister in a way that will make her feel inferior or that she has a less important role in this House because she is not as conversant in the English language.
That is where the heart of this comes from. It resonates with me that she has brought this forward. I wanted to speak on this and support her in this motion because I am disgusted with the people opposite who talk about how they respect people and cultures, yet, multiple times – and they know who they are – they have denigrated this minister because of the way she converses. If the answer to the problem in the House is that anybody who speaks an Indigenous language can confidently convey meaning – suddenly those on the other side are saying, ‘You cannot do that. You can’t speak in that language because we don’t know what you are talking about’, and taking offence.
What the member for Nelson said is right. There needs to be an understanding of what is being said. It is hard to have a debate when you do not understand what the other people are saying. The other side of that is that if people on the other side of the House showed more respect for the minister, we would not have this motion before the House. Those members opposite – and they know who they are – who have belittled the member for Stuart and tried to make her feel inferior because of the way she speaks, and because she needs to read some of the things she says to convey meaning, should be ashamed of themselves.
Whatever happens with this motion, she has my support. I will stand beside her and anybody in this parliament who is ridiculed on the basis of a language they feel comfortable conversing in, particularly when it is an Australian Indigenous language.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Stuart for bringing this forward for debate in this House. I commend the member for Goyder for bringing an amendment to it because it needs to go through the proper channels so the committee can see what we can do.
As a language speaker, in 2005 I gave my maiden speech in an Aboriginal language with the permission of the Speaker, Jane Aagaard. I just said to her, ‘Madam Speaker, I want to make my first speech in the Chamber in my language to acknowledge that I am an Aboriginal person and politician, and acknowledge my culture and language’. She had no objections about it. She said, ‘No problems, member for Macdonnell’ – it was the seat of Macdonnell then. I wrote my translation and had it in both my language and English ready to go – identical.
We get into a problem – when we talk about language do we talk about changing standing orders to make sure we go through the consideration in detail stage in English and we can use language just for adjournments or ministerial statements? What is it?
It is very good that the member for Goyder has referred this to the Standing Orders Committee. I found the member for Blain patronising in the way he spoke about the opposition continuously heckling the member for Stuart. I am a former minister as well. That is part of politics. As ministers of the Crown we have to ensure we set a standard. Are we setting a standard in this parliament where we are black politicians, or are we politicians? I spoke from that side of the Chamber at one stage a couple of years ago and said to this side that we did not want them to refer to us as Indigenous politicians. We wanted them to refer to us as politicians.
I took a stand a very long time ago when I started talking about teacher assistants, Aboriginal police officers and Aboriginal health workers. Why is it we always tag positions with the word ‘Aboriginal’? Will we now be known as Aboriginal politicians? Are we not politicians? Are we not duly elected to represent an equal group of people? We live in a very diverse community of the Northern Territory. We have Greeks, Italians, Sudanese, Indonesians, Chinese – all these people.
You, member for Blain, were very patronising in saying the member for Stuart cannot express herself. Of course she can express herself! She has spoken English for a very long time. Of course she is nervous. Every minister is nervous. When you take the government side of the Chamber for the first time you are nervous. We all are. We have butterflies. You do not know what to expect. You are thinking, ‘Will the next question be to me?’ Every one of us has had the jitters on that side when we were government ministers.
To say that the member for Stuart cannot understand English is wrong, because she is a minister of the Crown. If she is not able to understand and interpret English, does she know what she is signing?
Those are the kind of things we have to be careful of. It is appropriate that the member for Goyder has moved an amendment to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee so we can look at what we do in this Chamber and how we use language.
Language has always been used in this Chamber, but you have to seek permission from the Speaker. It is appropriate that we give her the courtesy, as the person who runs this parliament, of asking permission to speak in our language.
No one has ever stopped. The member for Goyder put it into perspective when she said there was an interaction between the members for Nhulunbuy and Stuart. That is all we are talking about here.
If you are saying this parliament has stopped people from speaking language, that is not true. We have been speaking language in this parliament since 2005.
Looking at, in its entirety, the suffering of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, with poor housing, education, health and roads, and children with foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, is this our priority? We need to get the priorities right. We talk about parity, but we have to use the word in context.
Ms Price: I am using it.
Ms ANDERSON: I am not saying anything to you, member for Stuart; I am talking about the word ‘parity’. There are all sorts of priorities we have to put first for Aboriginal people before we start talking about using language in parliament.
I would like to see housing conditions improved. There have been refurbishments done in communities, but there is no air conditioning. I just came from Areyonga where I went to my sister’s funeral. I stayed in a house with 25 people. The water pressure was terrible. You could not do ‘number two’. In any house where you have water pressure problems and there are 30 people living there, of course that house will break down.
A report was handed to this parliament yesterday on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That will be a major issue for the Northern Territory in years to come, not just with those children but with child protection, health and education. Who will look after these children? They are the real issues we have to be talking about.
As I said at the beginning, member for Stuart, I applaud you for bringing this discussion to this parliament. It is wonderful to see that we can talk about these things, but we have a real crisis in the Northern Territory with Aboriginal people. We need to make sure we get our priorities in order. Speaking language in the parliament is a priority, but it is at is at the top? Is it number one, two or 10? We have to make sure we talk about these issues in their full form.
When we have discussions here, I go and interpret into Luritja in Mount Liebig, Kintore, Papunya and Haasts Bluff. I go to Areyonga and tell them what this parliament talks about in Pitjantjatjara. I go to Hermannsburg and talk to people in Arrernte and tell them what this parliament has been talking about. It is up to individual members of this parliament to tell our people in our language.
If I said to Madam Speaker, ‘I would really like the statistics on how many people stream this parliament live every time we have sittings and how many of them are Indigenous people from remote Aboriginal communities’ – are they interested in what we say in this House? I do not think so. They have bigger priorities. I went to Papunya the other day and the people said, ‘The pies and the bread inside that shop, Alison, are $7’. I said, ‘I believe you. I will go to the shop in the morning.’ I call it the famous pie. It was $7 at the Papunya shop. How can these people afford to live with such expenses in their shop?
Those are the priorities I like to see us talking more about, but, as I said, member for Stuart, I commend you for bringing this motion to the House, and I commend the member for Goyder for moving an amendment to send it to a committee to look at it for us properly so we can do it properly. If we are going to speak language in this Chamber then it needs to be done properly. Will we do it in the consideration in detail or adjournment? Will you and I be talking just between ourselves, or Francis and Larisa? Taking it to a committee gives us a way of getting more for this parliament in regard to Aboriginal languages. There is no harm in the discussions and debates we are having; they need to happen. As I said at the beginning, this discussion needs to happen in this Chamber and it is fantastic that you introduced it.
I commend the member for Goyder for looking at this in a very different way, because she is doing it properly by sending it to a committee. The committee will look at it properly. Going back to what the member for Blain said, if this was so important to the government members they would not have taken up GBD time; it is taking up our time. They would have brought it forward as Government Business. It is not important to your side, member for Stuart, because you would have introduced it as Government Business instead of General Business.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as opposition Whip I will speak on behalf of the opposition today.
We strongly support a parliament that reflects the diversity of the people of the Northern Territory. We strongly support the recommendation of the Speaker, who presides over the sittings of parliament, to refer this motion to the Standing Orders Committee for its fulsome consideration.
We believe this is an important motion. We believe in the importance of language across our schools and the whole of the Northern Territory. By referring this motion to a committee we will be able to look at it in its entirety and can work out the best way to take things forward.
The minister raised some very interesting points in her speech and we need to look into those. We need to value language and culture, and respect them. People here tonight have spoken about the diversity of this parliament. Currently we have people who speak Indigenous languages and one who can speak Dutch. Previously we have had people who could speak Greek and Italian. We need to make sure we represent all Territorians and acknowledge the importance of language. We welcome the intent of the minister in bringing this motion to the House.
The minister raised the fact some people in her electorate do not understand the parliament, and we appreciate efforts to make parliament more accessible to Territorians. As elected members in this parliament we operate in English. We pass legislation that becomes the law of the Territory, so we need to ensure any changes to our standing orders are fully understood and we have thought of all the implications. We would not like to inadvertently make changes in haste that seem good in intent yet cause problems down the line.
By referring this to the Standing Orders Committee we can best progress the minister’s request with the full understanding of the decisions we are making. There are a number of questions we have about procedure and the practicalities. I welcome the intent of the minister and the government to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee, as suggested in this Chamber tonight. We can take this very serious matter about the procedure of our parliament and associated changes that could have a huge impact or there could be costs involved, and we can fully understand what we are taking on board.
We welcome the intent, minister, that by sending it to the Standing Orders Committee we can best look into this matter. We would like to see a way that acknowledges the languages and traditions of the Territory, but makes it workable within those standing orders.
Madam Speaker took a great deal of time to explain to the House tonight the importance of standing orders and that her intention is to ensure we have a document that guides us, has the detail we need and we are not making changes that could inadvertently cause problems without an intent to do so.
This is about acknowledging the different cultures, and languages spoken, across the Northern Territory. It is about incorporating that into the standing orders and the process of the Northern Territory parliament. I was going to ask the minister to consider accepting the amendment, but the government has indicated it will be open to it. We are grateful for that. It would have been unprecedented, as a number of speakers have mentioned, to accept the motion straight off the floor.
As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this and look into the details and practicalities of it. The Speaker spoke with great passion tonight about her role. Obviously, minister, you have passion, and people do not deny that. Referring this to the Standing Orders Committee seems like a practical way to go forward. I will keep my words short in the interest of time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports the amendment to take this to the Standing Orders Committee and allow it to be debated there.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): (The member spoke in German.)
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has not passed yet, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I am in breach of the standing orders, but that was my best broken German to explain that my German is no good.
The first point I make is that the lingua franca of the parliament has to be English by virtue of the fact that if you want to convince people of your argument and your world view, it follows that you should express it in a language they can understand. There is no point trying to run an argument in a different language when most of the people will not understand you, because they will not be convinced.
The lingua franca of this parliament is English, and that is the language in which we do so much of our business.
(The member spoke in Dutch.)
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General …
Mr ELFERINK: In my broken Dutch, I ran the same argument that I just ran in English. I appreciate you pulling me up for the breach of the standing orders; that is correct.
We have to look at the Commonwealth as an indicator of what languages we speak. If we do that, the first thing we have to understand is that the Commonwealth is the remnant of the British Empire, which pushed into all sorts of places, including China. The lingua franca of the Chinese governing authority is still English, I understand, from time to time.
It also pushed into places like New Zealand, South Africa, North America and Canada. There were Indigenous cultures in many of those places. In South Africa the Indigenous cultures included Xhosa, Zulu and Venda, and any other number of languages are spoken, including Afrikaans.
(The member spoke in Afrikaans.)
I do my best in broken Afrikaans as well, and that would be well understood by many people who speak Afrikaans in the parliament in South Africa.
In New Zealand you can speak Maori and it is translated for you. The reason is that a large slice of the New Zealand population speaks Maori. They speak it to their own people in parliament, and it is translated as they speak.
The South African parliament is Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa and Zulu, which makes for some interesting debates in the parliament.
In the Northern Territory, 30% of the population speaks languages other than English; I am only talking about Indigenous people.
From time to time, a member of parliament will be speaking to their electorate rather than the House. The member for Barkly appreciates this; the former member for Macdonnell certainly appreciates it, as does the member for Stuart. The argument was eloquently put by the member for Arafura. There are times when you would like recorded in the Hansard record, in your own language, the things you say to your own electorate.
It is not an inconceivable or inconsiderate thing to do when talking to your electorate. When I speak to my electorate of Port Darwin I do not address them in German or Dutch; I address them in English. That is why I speak English in this place exclusively, except for the rare occasion when I have spoken languages like Dutch, such as when I wanted to send a message to the people of Enskede after a very great tragedy befell that city. I did not want to send that message in English. I wanted to send it in Dutch, because the people of Enskede speak Dutch. There is cause to do it from time to time.
The reality is that if you want to convince people of your position, you must do it in a language they understand. It is pointless trying to convince someone of an argument if they cannot understand. We stand in a ‘parliament’, which is a French word. I comes from a root meaning ‘the spoken word’. We have French roots in the building in which we stand.
Lingua francas are important, and as a consequence I am supportive of what the member for Stuart is trying to do. She will want to speak her language from time to time. If someone is offended by what she says, that is fine. If they understand it, it is easy to be offended. They can say ‘Madam Speaker, I am offended by what the member has just said in Warlpiri. I understand it; she called me such and such.’ The Speaker can rule on that point after investigating it in a superficial fashion.
Perhaps I said something rude about the member for Barkly when I spoke in Dutch. The member for Barkly would not be offended because he does not know that he has been abused. If someone in the gallery said to the member for Barkly 10 minutes later, ‘Mate, you want to hear what the member for Port Darwin called you’, then the member for Barkly could have it translated. If it turns out that I said something rude about him he could take it to the Speaker, and the Speaker could direct that I withdraw it. That could happen next week, in 10 minutes’ time or six months’ time.
We can get around the navigable issues this motion represents. There have been negotiations between the member for Stuart and the Speaker, I am grateful to hear.
An amendment has been put on the table by Madam Speaker which members on this side will accept; however, I move that the words ‘24 May’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘21 April’, which is the Thursday of the April sittings.
I understand this has been negotiated between the various parties around the room and no one seems to have raised any form of objection to the proposed amendment. I understand the member for Stuart is happy with it, which means the matter will be referred to a committee to report back on Thursday 21 April and make any such determinations as necessary in accordance with the wishes of the member for Stuart’s committee.
Having said all that, hopefully having encompassed it in about six minutes rather than 20 – I am keen to get on to further debates today, particularly the RU486 debate – I think it is time we push this through.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to clarify the member for Namatjira’s comments. She was not here that night. She came to me after Madam Speaker had made the ruling, the next morning, and she was surprised. I stood in the corner, where I explained to the member for Namatjira exactly what happened.
She replied by saying, ‘That is a serious issue and we should bring it back next year to talk about how we can have input into how we use languages in this House’. I want to make it clear to this House that I look after my constituents. I also spend time in her electorate, looking after her constituents, who do not see her there.
I thank the members of this Chamber for their contributions to this motion – the members for Goyder, Arafura, Nelson, Nightcliff, Blain and Namatjira. I note the member for Goyder’s comments in relation to why I chose to raise this matter. I believe that was covered in my initial statement. Whilst moving a motion to change a standing order was one of the recommendations to pursue this matter, I note the member for Goyder’s concerns and will accept the amendment to the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by member for Port Darwin to the amendment moved by the member for Goyder be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the member for Stuart’s motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Continued from 17 November 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this motion.
My goodness, what a stir this serious motion caused. I take members of the Assembly back to where we saw this motion brought forward some time ago. The member for Goyder introduced it. Debate around it was shut down immediately, and then we heard a lot of chatter during the night that there were moves happening to remove the member for Goyder as the Speaker. Later that evening we saw what everyone is now referring to as the midnight coup mark two, where the government tried to remove the Speaker from her position.
We went through hours and hours of debate in this place. If I remember correctly we were here until 3 am. When it came down to the secret ballot on whether the member for Goyder or the member for Greatorex would be the Speaker, the member for Goyder won and it was clear that someone from the government had dissented amongst the ranks.
It was an extraordinary night and another chapter of the chaos and dysfunction we have seen from within this government. It was a clear defiance from within the ranks of the Chief Minister and another farcical night of life in parliament under the CLP.
It was another attempt to hide their actions, as we saw in the first midnight coup where the member for Katherine tried to remove the member for Braitling as the Chief Minister. That happened in the middle of the night, including the press conference. The recent swearing in of the latest Cabinet was done at night too, away from the media and the public view. We will call that the midnight coup mark three.
One thing I quickly learnt as a member of this parliament, and from my observations of this government, is that often the measure of their reaction speaks volumes. The harder the Chief Minister and his ministers swing back at you, the clearer the sign that you have hit the nail on the head and they know something is up. That is their survival instinct, and what we have seen in this debate with the attempt to remove the member for Goyder as the Speaker, and their ongoing attempts in other parliamentary General Business days to filibuster to avoid this motion, says a lot about the seriousness of this motion and their concerns about a disgraceful advertisement run by this government.
Speaking to this motion goes to the core of the standards and conduct that Territorians expect from their members of parliament. They expect to see members of the Legislative Assembly perform their jobs properly, and with integrity and trust. After the publication of the now infamous ice advert, it was clear that Territorians believed this government had taken another step too far in an unacceptable direction. They again saw that this government will stop at nothing to cling to power, including abusing the workings of this parliament.
That is why I support this motion. This motion, introduced by the member for Goyder, goes to the heart of the freedom of all members of this Assembly to perform their duties unconstrained by improper influence.
This is one of the foundation stones of Westminster parliamentary democracy. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 states:
This freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for representative democracy. So important is this principle that section 6 of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly (Power and Privileges) Act makes direct reference to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Significantly, section 5 of the act states:
Mr Tollner: Is there anything untruthful in that ad?
Ms MANISON: There certainly is, member for Fong Lim, and the Auditor-General agrees.
The Chief Minister is responsible, under the Administrative Orders for the Northern Territory Flag and Emblem Act. With a clear reference to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 introduced by the Attorney-General on 15 September, the advertisement states:
In his answer to Written Question 364 about the advertisement, the Chief Minister said:
Documents released under freedom of information also expose the involvement of senior ministerial advisers in the Chief Minister’s office in the design, production and authorisation of this untrue and misleading political advertisement, funded by the Territory taxpayer.
I seek leave to table the documents obtained under freedom of information.
Leave granted.
Ms MANISON: If one goes through the documents they will see, in folio 115, clear evidence that a senior adviser in the Chief Minister’s office directed public servants in the Chief Minister’s department to place these taxpayer-funded political advertisements in local press.
Folios 5 and 7 prove these political advertisements cost taxpayers in excess of $8000 each. These documents directly point to several senior staff within the Chief Minister’s office producing and placing this advert. It would be difficult to believe the Chief Minister was not directly involved in the political strategy behind the decision to run this advert. It would also be very difficult to believe he had no knowledge this advert would run, given it was produced in his office, it was a full-page advert to run in the NT News and the deep political message in it.
It is clear there was enough time for the Chief Minister to know about these advertisements. On Wednesday evening, when the first draft of the advert was produced in his office, the advert was sent at 10 pm with the subject line, ‘New project for the morning’, followed by a smiley face. The next morning, on Thursday 17 September at 8.26 am, senior staff in the Office of the Chief Minister ordered the public service to get this advert placed in the NT News.
One would think that at some time between the Wednesday evening and when the advert was produced and the Thursday when the arrangements took place through most of the day, as the folio of FOI documents will show – the to and fro, and back and forth between the Office and the Department of the Chief Minister – the Chief Minister would have given approval and direction for this to proceed. Surely within that time there were conversations within that office about the advertisement. Surely no rogue staffer went it alone in producing an advertisement of that magnitude. It would be a very brave rogue staffer indeed to place a full-page advertisement in the Northern Territory News with this highly-political content that was misleading and simply not true.
Surely between Wednesday 10 pm through to the end of the day on Thursday when the all clear was given for this advertisement to run and the redrafting would have taken place, in that time through the many discussions with senior staff in that office in meetings about strategy and what is coming up in the media, the Chief Minister would have been aware of the content of this advertisement and given his approval for it to run.
It is very hard to believe that senior staffers within the Office of the Chief Minister would go it alone and run this deeply political, expensive full-page advertisement in the Northern Territory News. It simply would not happen that way. The question now is will the Chief Minister outline his role in the placement of this advertisement and take responsibility for it?
Honourable members, if you look at the content of the advertisement, on the left-hand side you will see a list of the members who apparently voted in favour of the bill, together with their CLP affiliation. That is all the members of government listed clearly in this full-page advertisement with their party affiliation to the CLP. If you look at the other column of the advertisement, you will see in a very big box with the headline ‘blocked by’ the names of the members of the Labor opposition and of the crossbenchers. The members of the Labor Party are very clearly marked as members of the Labor Party. You will note that for the Independent members that space is left blank.
This reinforces again the misleading and untrue statements inherent in this advertisement and designates it is political.
We did not block the bill. Independent and Labor members did not block the bill. We know that. Listing the members who purportedly blocked the bill, with their electorate names and party affiliation, brings us back to section 5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. Why? Because these untrue advertisements are designed to punish those who purportedly opposed the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.
As set out in section 5, they are:
Since that time, and since this motion came before the parliament, the Auditor-General has made her findings about this disgraceful advert, which were tabled in this parliament in February.
The findings of the Auditor-General were listed in the February 2016 report. I will quote from the report, the conclusion of the findings:
In summary, the Chief Minister is ultimately responsible for this taxpayer-funded political advertisement which breaches the Public Information Act and, on face value, breaches the provisions of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
The breaches of this act are also captured by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, section 12 of the Self-Government Act and section 4 of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Privileges Act 1997.
The appropriate way to resolve these prima facie breaches of the act is by referral of the named member to the committee of privileges. These are extremely grave measures that go to the essence of all members’ freedom to perform effectively within this parliament on behalf of our constituents and in the public interest.
I can understand why these matters have been of such serious concern for the member for Goyder that she raised this very serious motion. Everyone in this parliament who supports the role of members to perform their function in this House freely will support this motion. Now is the time to stand up for parliamentary democracy and demand an accountable government for our constituents. How we respond to this motion will not go unnoticed.
The advertisement which landed us in this debate outraged the public. Territorians well and truly understand what is appropriate public information and advertising for government, and what is not.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: Territorians were outraged by the content; they knew it was misleading, untrue and politically driven. Territorians understand this advert was designed to be deceptive and misleading. They again saw that this government will stop at nothing to cling to power, to the point that they are now recklessly abusing the functioning of this parliament.
Let us not forget how the government reacted to this motion last year when it was raised. As I said in opening, their actions often speak louder than their words. It was a huge reaction; they could not have kicked back any harder than to wait. We all heard the whispers in the hallways that day that they would pull something on the Speaker and try to throw the member for Goyder out of her role as Speaker of this parliament. We all heard the rumours, then, what do you know? It all started rolling on at about 11 pm that night. We debated that until about 3 am, only to have a member of the government go against the wishes of the Chief Minister and ensure the member for Goyder appropriately maintained the role of Speaker of this parliament.
Members of the opposition support this motion. The ice advert was an outrageous abuse of power and taxpayers’ money. Territorians expect far better from members of this parliament. We support this motion brought forward by the member for Goyder, and I urge all other members to carefully consider this motion if they truly believe in the values of democracy and the importance this parliament plays within them.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that we are not talking about RU486 because we are talking about ourselves; that is all well and good.
The public was not outraged. Doorknock down the mall tomorrow and ask them about the ad from last year and you will find that one in a hundred will remember it, so that is wrong. We want to talk about ourselves because it is about political point-scoring. I saw a raft of women sitting in the bleachers before, and I do not think they were here to listen to this debate; I think they were here to listen to the RU486 debate. Members opposite did not negotiate in the appropriate time to bring that debate on. It is a very important debate. Those women have left disappointed, but all right, we are here.
Point two, there is no bill of rights from 1688. There is a bill of rights from 1689. The year 1688 was the year of the Glorious Revolution when King James VII was removed in preference to William III of Orange.
Ms Fyles: Let us go to the issue.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the issue. You raised the issue and now we have to respond to it. If you want to start running this in here, start doing it properly.
In 1688, the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange took the throne, with Mary II, if memory serves me correctly. Then in 1689 the parliament moved to protect itself because it had not had an opportunity to meet since Charles II came back after the Restoration.
James VII tried to exert Charles II’s authority and the people of England were well shot of it by that stage, so the Glorious Revolution happened. William III took the throne jointly with Mary II, I think. The net result was parliament then moved a legislative instrument to protect itself from the excesses of the Crown, which William III was prepared to accept.
That is the contextual environment for which this argument for a bill of rights runs. I do not believe there is any attempt to behead any member of this parliament. I do not believe that at any stage Queen Elizabeth II has tried to exert her divine right to rule over the people of the Northern Territory.
Why are you quoting the Bill of Rights in that context? It does not make sense. It means someone has cleverly scratched out a few words, probably from a Wikipedia entry, saying, ‘This is what we will bang on about and make it sound like it has some gravity’, when in fact you are talking about a political environment which was so fundamentally different as to render your argument utterly nonsensical. It was excruciating to listen to.
Having dealt with that component of the argument, let us talk about the relativities between the positions placed by the member for Wanguri and the Speaker of the House. Let us talk about the levels of offending. Let us accept for a second the assertions from the Auditor-General in relation to the lawfulness or otherwise of the act. The Auditor-General has given her advice. I ask members opposite and the Speaker, what have you done about it? You brought a motion to this House. Have you made a complaint to any authority? Is there a criminal offence that flows from this? Probably not, so it is one of those legislative instruments that sets a benchmark, but ultimately the judges of it are the public.
If you do something unlawful you are convicted of that crime. Nobody stands convicted at this stage. Under the Self Government Act you have to be convicted of a crime and sentenced to a period of at least one year imprisonment before your seat is vacated. Mr Clerk, is that correct? Yes, thank you Mr Clerk. I do not know the section number off the top of my head. No such conviction stands in this place – no action, no court action, nothing.
In terms of the offence to which the member refers – what offence? What breach of the Self Government Act is she referring to? It is not there.
Let us turn to the argument of privilege and contempt. For that I draw the honourable members’ attention to page 707 of the 5th Edition of House of Representatives Practice. It is an interesting read because it talks about standards.
Bear in mind that this motion talks about contempt. Contempt may well be a contempt of parliament but may not be a breach of privilege. That has not been established and I do not believe the member for Goyder has in any way introduced any element that tells me there is a breach of privilege, but where does the member for Goyder want this motion to go? To the Privileges Committee. Why?
Let us remember what the protections around the parliament are. Let us talk about the distinction between the breach of privilege and contempt.
I quote from page 707 of House of Representatives Practice:
Or in this case our parliament:
What imposition has been placed on any member? Was the ad naughty? The Auditor-General says so, but who has been prevented from doing their job as a member of parliament as a result of this? Who has been impeded? Who has been physically stopped or restrained coming into this room? Which person in this room was not able to talk about their anger at this ad at any stage, either publically or in this House? None.
The thresholds of contempt have not yet been met as described by May and quoted on page 707 of House of Representatives Practice. There is no such imposition or restraint on any member. This is the hurly burly of average political life. Okay, members are angry; they were criticised. I am criticised every day. ‘I was criticised unfairly.’ Well that happens too. Take a walk through Facebook or Twitter and look at the heaps of criticism mounted upon us all. Are we impeded? Are these people in contempt of this House? Of course not; it is a ridiculous argument.
What exactly is the issue being driven here? People are angry because they were identified for having blocked a bill. Define ‘blocked’. Did the bill pass? No it did not. It stopped because members of this House voted in a particular way. They did not want it to go forward for whatever reason, for better or worse. I will not enter into the merits of the argument, but the bill was essentially blocked by this House. Yes, it passed later, but the fact of the matter remains that the ad says the bill was blocked. For the average punter with their nose pressed to the glass, when a bill moving through this House suddenly stops because members have stopped it, they will say it was blocked. Where is the contempt in that? ‘It might be naughty’, says the Auditor-General, but is it contempt? No.
It goes on to say:
The offences are down here. The hierarchy is criminal, minor and civil offences, which this is; contempt of parliament is higher, then privilege is higher again. Even if you accept that we make out the civil breach of the legislation governing this – I do not necessarily accept it, but if you did – you do not get anywhere near contempt and you are certainly not in the area of privileges; in fact, you are a million miles away from it. That is the hierarchy that is contained.
If a member was impeded and stopped from doing their duty, tackled to the ground and a gag was put on their mouth by a police officer acting on the orders of the Chief Minister, then that would be a breach of privilege. That would be a breach of the Bill of Rights, as described earlier. That has not happened in this case. It is overcooking the goose way too much. It is like using a tokamak reactor to boil an egg.
It goes on to say:
It says it is broad, because we want to keep open the options in relation to what a breach of contempt or privilege is. We accept the argument; it is broad. May’s quote on page 707 mentioned that it is broad. But it must reach the threshold and benchmark of impeding. Not one skerrick of evidence that I have heard today comes anywhere near reaching that benchmark. I listened carefully to the member for Goyder when she made her submission in relation to this argument. I listened to the member for Wanguri running out her argument. But I have not heard any suggestion of any member being impeded in their duties in this House.
They were criticised. The Auditor-General would go so far as to say it was a breach of the legislation. That is okay. Be that as it may; let the consequences of that flow through whatever the appropriate mechanism is, but to run the argument that you are in a contempt environment, let alone an environment where you would then take that contempt to the Privileges Committee – you are not even close. That is the challenge we are being presented with in this argument.
Let us talk about the original advertisement. It was about a bill that was clogged up in the House. The government wanted certain search and seizure powers in relation to being able to stop the scourge of ice in our community. We moved an urgency motion which was rejected, which had the effect of blocking the legislation in this House. We were angry about that because we wanted to protect Northern Territorians.
Was there a single amendment offered by any member after that debate was over? No, there was not. Yet they said they wanted to look at it. It was not difficult legislation. You did not need a doctoral thesis on law to understand what the legislation would do. There was an urgency to deal with it because during that hiatus ice continued to be seized in our communities in substantial quantities. There was a house in Alawa, if memory serves me correctly, where ice turned up. We do not manufacture that much of the stuff locally, so how is it getting here? It is getting here by the very vehicles that this legislation attempted to do something about.
The only thing in that advertisement which was truly affronting to members mentioned in the advertisement was simply that they were criticised and identified critically. ‘Naughty’, said the Auditor-General, but the fact of the matter remains that this government was acting with a sense of urgency. This government and Chief Minister, I imagine, was frustrated, as was I, with the tardiness of this House’s response.
The timidness of this House sometimes frustrates me. I understand why these Houses are necessary, but be brave, be bold. To the alternative government, be brave and make a decision. We do not have to have a moratorium on everything or send everything to a committee simply to pursue a matter.
The Labor Party members did not like this advertisement simply because they were criticised in it. The felt like they were being criticised and it was awful. They were not being impeded. There is no exercise in this ad which amounts to a contempt of this House. It does not amount to anything the Privileges Committee would have to deal with. It just does not; it is not close.
Dressing it up as an argument under the Bill of Rights from 1689 is nonsensical; you are just filling up space.
From our perspective, of course we will not be supporting this. We understand why those members were cross; they did not want to be identified in the way they were. I get that. That is the nature of politics; they were criticised. I have a pretty thick skin after nearly 20 years in this place.
This does not come close to meeting the benchmarks required by a Privileges Committee motion. As far as I am concerned, it cannot be supported through straightforward legal assessment of the arguments being put by the members for Goyder and Wanguri.
This is an unnecessary exercise. It is not for this House to judge a contempt issue. It is a matter for the public to judge at the next Territory election, in six months’ time.
If, as the member for Wanguri says, the public was so outraged at this ad that they continue to beat down her door, then they will express their opinions through the ballot box, and the glorious democracy in which we live will continue to roll on. But we do not need to get the sledgehammer of the Privileges Committee to deal with this fly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not accept that this bill has been debated to hold up RU486. We had a discussion about it at the last minute. There were some technical issues in relation to where this bill should go.
The government needs to look at itself. It introduced a bill into our General Business day, which took up over an hour or so. This motion could have been handled quickly – it has been less than an hour – and we could have got into the debate on RU486. It is the government that has slowed its passage down by using General Business day to debate its own business. That is a fact.
The other issue is that if this bill had been deferred, it would have gone to the bottom of the Notice Paper, and we probably would not be able to debate it again in these sittings. It came into parliament on 17 November, so it has been waiting a length of time to be debated.
I thank the member for Wanguri for her detailed discussion on this issue. I am sorry you were one year out with one of your quotes, but that is the way things go –1688 – 1689.
I am not saying the member for Port Darwin is wrong. He is a more astute and learned person on some of these legal issues, but part two of the motion says:
It does not say they are in contempt of the Legislative Assembly; it just raises the question.
If it goes to the Committee of Privileges and it says the member for Port Darwin is spot on then that is good. That would say there has not been a contempt of the Legislative Assembly.
It is important to discuss this. It is not about whether we have a thick skin or not. It is about saying to government that if you criticise people do it in a truthful way. This was not truthful.
You can argue the toss about the average Joe Blow, but the average Joe Blow is not a legal person. You can argue from a legal point of view that this does not mean what it says, and that the government is getting tough on crime and these people who stopped it from happening are these people. We have put a red circle around their names and typed above it ‘blocked by’ and emphasised that they are the people who stopped the drug laws from coming into place.
You would think a fair-minded government would say they stopped an urgency motion. A fair government will say the reason they stopped the urgency motion was because they had concerns about this important legislation. They may have mentioned that some of us spoke to the Commissioner of Police, and after that we still thought this needed more time. We did not get the impression from talking to the Police Commissioner that this delay would make any difference from a practical perspective.
I received a practical analysis in relation to how the police were handling this matter. I was not told by the police that this was a problem. It was a political stunt to make the government look like –that lovely clich that I have heard for 20 years from both sides – it is tough on crime. That does not mean you are silly on legislation. This was a case of down-in-the-gutter political advertising.
I saw this on a Friday morning and could not believe it. I had a busy day and late in the afternoon I checked the Public Information Act, and it said this was not right. The government might say you have to be a bit tougher in this business and show thick skin, but why did the government not show some thick skin and put its name on this ad?
I was also the target of advertising by the CLP members at the last election where they were not even be brave enough to put their name on it, except right down the bottom it said it was authorised by one of their members. If you are talking about having tough skin, why did you not put your name on the ad? This does not say where it came from; it just sticks the two kangaroos, or antilopine, on the front. It does not say which department or minister. It does not even have a phone number. It says, ‘Have your say by contacting your local member’. I thought it might say, ‘If you want more information, ring the Chief Minister’s department’. Give us a break.
That is the reason many of us are cranky. It is no big deal if the government goes crook at me and says, ‘Gerry Wood did not support that’. Fair enough. If I did not support it then I did not support it. But I did support this legislation. Was there an ad to follow this up saying, ‘Gerry Wood supports legislation’? You could have put ‘finally’ if you wanted to. I did not see any follow up. This was a deliberate ad.
Mr Elferink: That is a good idea; I think we should put that ad out, with those who supported it at the front then those who finally came around.
Mr WOOD: I cannot afford the $4800 you blokes spent on it.
We could go on forever and a day, and we do have to discuss other bills, but the issue that needs to be looked at and brought into parliament is the honesty of the advertisement. It was not honest. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; we have to be thick-skinned and things will be said about us in the media, not on Facebook because I do not have an account. We have to put up with that, but when it comes from the government, you would hope it would be honest about what it is saying. Government should put its name to the ad and show the people it has the courage of its convictions.
It did not have the courage of its convictions; it was playing dirty politics. It was putting people down on one side of parliament as if they supported druggies. There was no way we supported the druggies. People might forget that we had an ice committee at the time, and this was not even referred to the ice committee, which the government set up. Why would I attempt to block ice legislation? I was a member of the ice committee so it would not make any sense.
Mr Tollner: You might have been on it to support ice.
Mr WOOD: I only support those transparent cubes – that kind of ice.
We had a committee and you had some legislation. This would have been great legislation to take to the ice committee and ask if it could look at it and bring it back to parliament, but that did not happen.
I will not go on forever and a day. I support the motion. It would be nice if the Northern Territory Chief Minister made an apology, but he will not because he said:
Still waiting for that:
It was a dishonest ad. All you need is the Chief Minister to say, ‘Sorry about that, we went a bit over the top’ – end of story, let us move on. That will not happen, obviously.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will support the motion that is before us tonight.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a refreshing sight it is to see you in that chair. Normally I have to sit here and look across the Chamber at you. This way, you are right there.
I will not be supporting this motion, fundamentally because it is ridiculous. The most ridiculous thing about it is item four:
That is tomorrow. Whoever put this motion might want to consider that the motion is redundant before it has even finished being debated, which is a ridiculous situation. I am not even aware that a Privileges Committee has been formed to look at this matter. One would think that an opposition and Independents focused on bringing the government down would at least have its act together enough to make sure motions they bring in to their General Business time of the parliament would at least be relevant to what we are debating. But, no, typically, they cannot get their act together and put nonsense in front of the parliament.
That is fundamentally what brought this referral on in the first place. The opposition was playing games and lost sight of the big picture. The big picture was to try to stop ice traffickers bringing ice across our borders. The opposition was too interested in playing silly political games and trying to disrupt government and demonstrate it had the numbers on the floor of the Chamber. They decided, ‘Let us oppose this and put a roadblock in the way of the government’.
Now it is sour grapes because they have been called out. They had their names published. These people opposite think no one takes any notice of what is said in this place and they can get away with any sort of high jinks they like. Sorry, you have been caught out.
Do I see the member for Greatorex replacing the member for Karama in the Speaker’s chair? I was getting used to the member for Karama being in that chair. It is great to see the member for Greatorex anyway.
It is a ridiculous motion. Fundamentally, the opposition and the Independents do not like the fact that Territorians got to find out the way they carry on in this place.
I am not suggesting they support ice dealers, but in opposing this legislation they delayed for three months the ability of the police to crack down on ice traffickers. Fundamentally you supported ice traffickers. Irrespective of whether you say you would never support ice traffickers, you came in here to play games with the government. You were caught out and it went into the newspaper.
That is the offensive thing the other side does not like: that this government had the audacity to name and shame them.
They say, ‘I heard the members for Goyder and Nelson on the radio saying we did not block this legislation’. You did; you stopped it dead in its tracks for three months.
They said, ‘We want to take it to the ice committee. We want an inquiry. We want to deal with police.’ Then it went straight through without a murmur. Not a question was asked of government three months down the track, which proves my point that you were only doing it to frustrate government.
There was no concern about the legislation. It had nothing to do with the legislation. Your only opposition was to government, trying to demonstrate that you could throw this place into mayhem as an opposition and a bunch of Independents. ‘Look, we now have the numbers. We can dictate to you what will happen in this place.’ Unfortunately your dictating to the government rebounded on you. Now we are in a silly situation where you are arguing that we should be taken to privileges for having the audacity to have the truth printed in the newspaper.
Goodness me. Now you are trying to hide behind privileges to suggest the government did something wrong. Shame on you, member for Wanguri, for supporting this ridiculous motion. Shame on all those who try to divert attention, once again, from the fact you blocked, delayed – whatever you want to call it – legislation that gives police more ability to crack down on people trafficking ice across our borders.
I know you do not like it; you do not like being called out on these things, but grow up. This is the parliament. It is not that the public does not have any visibility of this. It does. I support the Chief Minister absolutely and when I was asked if I would support the government notifying the public that the opposition and Independents voted to delay, or block, the ice legislation I said, ‘Absolutely’. The public has a right to know the shenanigans these people carry on with in this place. You are not the meek and mild, precious honest people you say you are. You try to disrupt the government’s business and you have not regard for what that business is. At least pick your target. Pick a target which does not matter to people.
People on our side of the Chamber were outraged at the way you carried on, not because of the way you carried on in parliament but because of how we see things in the community and the way ice affects people. I have colleagues who have friends and family who are suffering ice addiction. Most of us know somebody who has suffered ice addiction. I have a brother-in-law who is the only government psychiatrist on the central coast of New South Wales. He will not go into a house where someone is on ice without being accompanied by a minimum of two police officers. He said to me, ‘Dave, it is not worth the risk. I am not prepared to go near these people. You do not seem to understand the damage it does to people.’
That is the concern we have on this side of the House, and that why we wanted to push it through on urgency. Fundamentally it was because we have a caring heart about what goes on in the community, only to find the opposition does not seem to register any of that, but blocked the bill and stopped it dead in its tracks.
For another three months the police operated without these laws. Three months later you came back here and unanimously support it. Not one question or issue was raised and no reason was given for blocking it apart from, ‘This is the process, you know. We do not just rush through things on urgency.’ In some cases you do. That is why there are provisions in the standing orders to allow things to go through on urgency. The people who put these things together understand that from time to time there is a reason for parliament to act on urgency. When you hear the anecdotes of the devastation ice is causing in our community, the trouble parents are having with children, the break and enters, and all the crime associated with the devastation of lives, you see all that and understand it.
You know an ice committee was set up and this is a real issue, but you blocked it anyhow just to frustrate the government. Then you had the audacity to complain that it appeared in the paper. Shame on the lot of you. I am proud as hell that I am part of a government that had the audacity to name you people for blocking that legislation. You should be named publicly. We should have done television and radio ads as well, telling the public that these are the people sitting in the parliament.
Mr Giles: Hypocrites.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely.
Aside from all that, we have an opposition and a bunch of Independents in chaos. If they cannot manage General Business how would they ever manage government?
Here we are, debating a bill for a referral to privileges that says the Privileges Committee must report to this place by tomorrow. Goodness me!
This motion is flawed, and you want to argue for it. I encourage one of you to stand up if you believe in this and move an amendment to another date because there ain’t no way known we will have the Privileges Committee called and reporting back to this place by tomorrow. It is just not possible. Maybe that is a little tip for you.
I am opposed to it whatever you decide to do. I reckon if the shoe fits, you should wear it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for identifying the Chief Minister’s fingerprints all over this ad, because that was one of the essential elements of the government’s denial. It was good that the member for Port Darwin was able to hear that, because the member for Port Darwin, wearing his legal wig and gown tonight, gave a very interesting legal presentation as a defence lawyer.
It is interesting to watch the member for Port Darwin shift his MO from defence lawyer to prosecution. I prefer his prosecution to his defence. Tonight was a good example of a very poor defence.
In terms of evidence presented in this place, the member for Fong Lim clearly identified the Chief Minister in soliciting support to lodge this ad, which has been called out by the Auditor-General.
I thank the opposition member for Wanguri and the staff for putting together a very concise and clear case of why this matter is important and why the Chief Minister, as the leading minister in the Northern Territory, should be referred to the Privileges Committee and held to account. This essentially relates to power and privilege, and the use of taxpayers’ funds. For that we must be held to account. We have heard quite a bit from the government this week around those values and ethics.
It was running community events. It was running junior rugby league sporting activities. I said to the rodeo committees, the Barkly muster committee, the junior league committee and those kids, ‘It is all good, but once you touch money you raise the bar to an incredibly new level of accountability and transparency. The selling of raffle tickets brings you to that level of accountability and transparency.’
That is essentially why I am calling out the Chief Minister, our senior minister in the Northern Territory, for inappropriate use of taxpayer funds on this ad, which has been documented by the Auditor-General. It was wrong. The ad was misleading, considerable taxpayer dollars funded it, and the government needs to be accountable.
The mechanism presented by the member for Goyder, who I am sure will amend the date, is a referral to the Privileges Committee. That should bring the Chief Minister up to speed on his accountability, transparency and responsibility to the Northern Territory, particularly in the parliament and within the constituency.
I thank the member for Goyder for this referral. It is exactly what we need in terms of democracy.
As for the argument about blocking and irresponsible politics, let us get a quick reality check. Is this government highly functioning? Does it have enormous auras of integrity around it? Has this just happened recently?
It has been one chaotic episode after another. This government is flat out running a parliamentary program. This government is called out time and again on its dysfunction and lack of integrity and consultation.
Why would the opposition not step up and hold this government to account and try to ensure no more calamity occurs in our legislative instruments? I commend the opposition and the Independent members for holding this government to account, which screamed urgency and had the audacity of a spoilt child to spend considerable taxpayer dollars, consult the big hitters on that side to get their approval and run this public attempt to smear the characters and reputations of those on this side of the House.
It is disingenuous and dishonest, and needs to be called out and held to account. That is what we are doing tonight.
The member for Port Darwin, with his wig and gown on, ran a defence and talked about contempt. It was a select use of semantics once again – he quoted from an important document – then an argument after a lecture on English history.
I call on the member for Port Darwin – and it may come at some time in your future legal career – to take up the issue for me and clarify or provide comment on my impediment through character assassination. Did this exercise run by the Chief Minister, who was clearly identified by his colleague the member for Fong Lim – it has his fingerprints all over it – using taxpayer’s money impede my ability as a local member through character assassination? I would love to hear your comment on that, member for Port Darwin.
This is not the first time this has happened to me, from this Chief Minister. Something I have learnt very clearly is that the member for Fong Lim’s media strategy is that any media is good media. When the Chief Minister chose to put my name on the top of the list, which suggests other issues I do not have time to discuss tonight, it outed me in the public. People in the electorate I am privileged to represent called it out and asked, ‘What’s going on? What is this about?’ Any media is good media – I became a media celebrity with people asking me what it was about, giving me the opportunity to explain to them.
I was able to get the truth out from amongst the fog, mist and disingenuous politics that underpinned this exercise. I was able to explain clearly to constituents what this represents and what happened in the parliament. ‘This is about the passage of legislation. This is a completely disingenuous attempt to smear my character, and your funds were used to do it.’
This is not the first time this has happened. I remember when the Chief Minister booked a fleet of charter aircrafts and flew to Tennant Creek for the Tennant Creek Show. He booked a fleet of hire cars and transported his entourage – ministers, department officials and media – around Tennant Creek and to the Tennant Creek Show. There is nothing wrong with that. He has the power and privilege to do that.
But, coincidentally, while that was happening a commercially produced pamphlet attempting to smear my character and name was distributed throughout the car parks of the Tennant Creek Show and placed under windscreen wipers. This commercially produced product was highly colourful and literate, and had a sophisticated level of graphic arts to smear my character and impede my ability to conduct myself as a local member of parliament, through character assassination.
Once again, the member for Fong Lim’s media strategy rang true, because when that document mysteriously appeared along with the Chief Minister’s entourage of charter aircraft and hire vehicles, friends, associates and colleagues, a number of constituents brought it to my attention. They did not necessarily support me as a Labor member, but they brought it to my attention and were quite disturbed this was being conducted at our annual district show. I looked at and read it, and I was amazed. I immediately thought of the member for Fong Lim. I thought, ‘Any media is good media; my name is out there everywhere.’
My colleagues were not so impressed. There was an element of great concern that taxpayer funds could have been used to impede my ability to conduct myself as a local member at the show, through character assassination. They were outraged that this was being conducted at our regional show. I told them not to worry, that it was okay.
Another couple of constituents came in with a collection of these commercially produced leaflets smearing and assassinating my character. They said, ‘We have taken these off people’s cars because it is offensive and not what we expect at our show’. I thanked them, but I asked them not to worry. I had formed an opinion on what was going on by that time. I had read the leaflet and understood this was a cheap political smear campaign to impede my ability to act as a local member. I dismissed it.
There was a group of close associates that then started to move within the car parks and collect the leaflets. For a couple of days following, in the electorate office, people came in to have discussions, some with examples of this leaflet. They were quite confused about this exercise and were asking questions.
Chief Minister, one of the most serious issues created in this attempt to impede my ability to operate as a local member at our district show by assassinating my character was the allegation that whoever did this interfered with their private property, their motor vehicles, in a public space. They had no right to put this smear campaign under the windscreen wipers. That was the most alarming part of the whole episode I endured. I had to agree with constituents that this was and is wrong – the member for Port Darwin could help me here – and it is possibly illegal to interfere with somebody’s motor vehicle in a public place.
Mr Elferink: It is an offence. Did you make a report to police?
Mr McCARTHY: It is an offence, I am told by the interjection. Did I make a report to the police? No, but I encouraged the constituents who had concerns to report it to the police …
Mr Elferink: So you did nothing?
Mr McCARTHY: I let it roll, member for Port Darwin, as I did with the taxpayer-funded advertisements in the Northern Territory News which were called out by the Auditor-General. That seems to be the best way to deal with it, in my opinion, although I have been challenged by others as to whether I should have let it roll. I tend to deal with these things in the rough and tumble. I suppose 36 years of blood, sweat and tears in some of the remotest parts of the country might assist with that attitude. I believe it does. I stand in this House and represent the people I have shared that time with, and we all have that special level of resilience that comes with our time out back in the Northern Territory.
That episode, whilst I cannot put the finger on the Chief Minister with it, was very coincidental. It brought back memories of when I discovered my name published in the Northern Territory News, as we have established here. That was wrong, misleading and an improper use of taxpayer funds without their permission.
These things have been established in this debate and it is very important that we are here discussing this matter in this House, and that we are all accountable.
The essence of this motion is that the Chief Minister should face the music. He should front the Privileges Committee, participate in that process as a parliamentarian and show a bipartisan example for the rest of us.
He is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the most senior representative of the Northern Territory, who travels nationally and across the world representing us. He should front the Privileges Committee and show us there is a level of integrity, honesty and transparency. It is not just for this parliament; it is for the Northern Territory. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say.
I thank the member for Goyder, not only for her integrity but for having the courage to bring this matter to the House to make sure it is dealt with in an open and transparent way. This ad in the newspaper was not.
The member for Wanguri pointed out the specific elements of deceit and a disingenuous political agenda that underpinned this exercise. It needs to be dealt with by a Privileges Committee and an appropriate mechanism of parliament.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support this motion and I encourage all members of this House to support it. I am sure the member for Goyder understands the amendment that is necessary to this motion, which could be moved in the summary. It is not a fault of this motion, it is a debateable matter as to why we are debating this now, when it was first put forward in late 2015. One has to ask whether the government is disingenuous about this as a motion, but that is not part of the debate. We will live with that protocol in parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be wrong if I did not speak. Given that the member for Goyder is seeking to send me to the Privileges Committee, it is only fair that I say something.
Interestingly, three days after these very relevant ice advertisements were published in the newspapers highlighting that the opposition and the Independents sought to stop the urgent passage of legislation to give police more powers to stop and search vehicles on our three major highways — the Barkly, Stuart and Victoria Highways – there was an article in the NT News, on Sunday 21 September 2015, on page three, with the title ‘Grand theft auto on ice’. It talked about joyriders high on ice being linked to fatal crashes, which is a perfect example of one of the issues in our community that we sought to change.
I recall many people talking about ice over the last 12 months – the level of ice and the supply, manufacture and prevalence of ice in the Northern Territory. Many people were trying to say it is rampant across remote parts of the Northern Territory, not just in urban areas. People were calling out for ice rooms in hospitals, not that I am against that. People were raising the issue of the negative effects of ice in our community and on families and individuals.
We heard that message and sought to urgently bring this in, as a matter of public importance, to give police more powers and tools to stop and search vehicles to try to reduce the amount of ice on our streets. It was at that point in time when shenanigans and silly-buggers were being played in this Chamber, again, when the legislation was put forward urgently, and it was voted down by the opposition and the Independents.
It would be too cute by half for me to go through that three-month time frame from when it was blocked by Labor and the Independents to when the legislation was put forward and, quite rightly, passed without any amendments. It would be too cute for me to start tabling the amount of additional ice that came into the Northern Territory in that time. It would be too painful for families, communities and individuals for me to start highlighting the number of people who are using ice that, based on analysis, would not be using ice if it had been taken off the street. It would not be fair to those people who are victims, whether they are individual users, their families or the communities, to highlight that.
This newspaper article explains the level of the impacts of ice quite well. I have heard the debate today. I will not take up 30 minutes; I am not trying to stop the RU486 debate; I am happy for that to go ahead. Given that I am in the firing line of the member for Goyder, who is trying to shoot me, it is only fair that I respond.
The member for Fong Lim raised some important points in this debate. I thank him for his support. We are not ashamed of putting the ads in the paper. Did the Auditor-General find some inaccuracies? Technically, yes. We should have said it was ice drug laws being passed on urgency that were blocked. That would have been right. And, yes, there was a technical element where we were told we should not have identified the individual parties people were in. We take that on the chin, but we do not take back putting the ads in the paper. We wanted ice off the streets, and for members of parliament to provide police more power to get these drugs off the street.
Instead of that, Labor and the Independents wanted to play games in parliament, and they allowed more ice and drugs onto our streets. I am not ashamed of the ads; I am proud of them. They were paid for by my office, not by the department. They were paid for honourably, in good faith, and in anger. For stupid political reasons, Labor and the Independents did not support us to give more powers to the police. After their silly games passed, over Christmas, they passed the legislation without making one amendment or showing any concern or contempt. The biggest issue is that I spent $4800 out of my office demanding the Independents support the bill.
What has happened since that bill passed? The police have run a range of operations, and not only on the three major highways where this legislation gave the most power. They have also been running operations at the airports and in shipping and so forth.
Albeit that ice has not disappeared from our community – there is too much ice; every bit is too much, and there are too many communities, families and individuals suffering – the levels of ice have decreased. There have been apprehensions of individuals, manufacturers and suppliers – people trying to traffic drugs into the Northern Territory. It is not just ice we have found; there is also a lot of marijuana coming into the Northern Territory.
While there is still a level of concern in the community, it is not as high as it was. Police tell me that the amount of ice used in the Northern Territory has decreased, particularly since this legislation was introduced – not just because of the legislation, but there has been a driving change.
I am quite proud. The member for Fong Lim said we should have put ads on TV and the radio. Maybe we should have gone further and done a blanket campaign. We could have done more on the social media, whether it was Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. We could have marketed a whole lot more that we needed support in this Chamber.
We are elected to be legislators to provide good governance for the Northern Territory to help drive change and protect people, to make sure we have jobs for the future, but particularly to work on social elements such as keeping drugs off our streets and helping to keep people safe. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about. It is not about playing games, which was the concern here.
I note some comments made by the member for Barkly, who was referring to a leaflet that was dropped around, trying to make himself popular at Tennant Creek. I am not sure how much it cost you, Gerry, to make that brochure and try to promote yourself at the show. I have not seen the brochure but I am very keen to see how popular you became from it. I also take from your conversation that you would be very happy to see me sent to a Privileges Committee for advertising the fact that you did not try to stop ice coming into the Northern Territory; you did not see that as important enough to pass urgent legislation. I ask this rhetorical question, what should happen to you in relation to Stella Maris? There has been an inquiry and a report. I read out some of it yesterday. There are special references to you handing over a government asset to your union mates when you were the minister.
I quote from page 11 of the inquiry report:
Those words, ‘Minister G McCarthy did not act with accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration’, are damning. If we are talking about referring anybody to the Privileges Committee, perhaps it should be you.
It was a $3m gift of a government asset to your mates in the unions, and you want to crucify me for spending $4800 of my office money to try to protect the community.
I was open and transparent. I was telling people. We put a full-page ad in the NT News saying, ‘Help us keep ice out of the Northern Territory. Tell your local member.’ You want me to be crucified for that, yet you gave a $3m asset to your union mates and told nobody, and you think that is fine. You sit on the front bench, quite smug, quite glum, looking to an election, hoping to become a minister of the Crown again one day.
When you have an independent report saying you did not act with accountability, responsibility, or with proper consideration – those words speak for themselves, member for Barkly. It is you who should be going to the Privileges Committee, answering questions about the level of professionalism, ethics and integrity you hold for your electorate and the people of the Northern Territory. Serious questions should be asked about whether or not you hold them in contempt.
Anybody who supports Territorians would say, ‘Let’s act urgently and get ice off our streets’, unlike the member for Araluen, who thought that acting urgently on ice was not important. Her most important agenda item was to use the numbers of parliament to change the structure of the PAC so she could be the chair and give herself a $25 000 pay rise. You are seeking to put the knife into the Chief Minister for spending $4800 of his office money trying to convince parliamentarians to take ice off the street, yet the member for Araluen was playing games to give herself a $25 000 pay rise.
She does not talk about that; she comes in high and mighty – the member for Araluen, the great saviour. You played games, stopped the ice legislation and gave yourself a $25 000 pay rise. Maybe you should go to the Privileges Committee because you actually received a privilege: pay. It is an entitlement if you are the chair of a committee; I accept that.
I understand the investigation that is going on through the court process. I am not getting in the middle of that, but there are a couple of fair questions, and I see you nodding, member for Barkly. I do not think that it is unreasonable.
It was my office budget. Yes, it is taxpayers’ money; I understand that, but my office budget paid for these ads because I support taking ice off our streets. I have seen too many people on drugs and I think ice should be taken off the streets. You may have a different opinion.
I would love to chat to you outside of this Chamber one day to see what you think about not being sent to the Privileges Committee for the asset of government you gave away to your union buddies. That may be a conversation for another day, member for Barkly, when you are not in parliament playing union and Labor games.
I take the point of the Auditor-General. We should not have said, ‘Ice drug laws blocked by Labor and the Independents’. We should have said, ‘Ice drug laws blocked, that were sought to be moved urgently, by people who are not the government and not CLP’. Maybe we would have gotten away with that. We may have gotten in trouble for naming ourselves. I am not sure, but I think it would make it clear. The next ad could have been, ‘Chief Minister says, “We tried to rush laws into parliament to give police more powers to take drugs off our street to help protect our kids, but one side of the Chamber did not support it’. That might have been the go.
I should not have spent $4800; I probably should have spent $48 000 and we could have recalled parliament and passed it earlier.
I do not support this motion. I support Territorians. I support getting drugs off the street. I support giving police more powers – more powers to Operation Trident and Strike Force Vega, to all the operations they are running to bring assaults, grog assaults, property crime, homicide and crime levels down in our community. We have been successful in getting crime down. It has not all gone, just as drugs have not all gone, and houses are still getting broken into, but there are fewer houses being broken into now than there were four years ago. There are fewer people being beaten up, and fewer women being beaten as victims of domestic violence. That is a good thing.
Until we get to zero, we will not have been successful. Little wins along the way might feel good, but every woman in the NT deserves to be protected and free of violence, just like every child. Too many suffer the pain of violence at the hands of drugs. That is why we hold ourselves high on a pedestal saying we will fight drugs, because we know they cause pain.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, what an extraordinary speech from the Chief Minister. He just attacked the member for Araluen again, saying she gave herself a $25 000 pay rise by being chair of a standing committee of this Legislative Assembly. I recall that either today or yesterday the NT government recommended that the member for Katherine be the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which also comes with a $25 000 pay rise. It is amazing that he can digress so much and never miss an opportunity for a nasty attack on someone on the cross bench who chooses to hold government to account. That is what the crossbenchers’ job is.
I find it extraordinary that we are talking about a very serious issue, and once again he digresses into a dirty area. I would not be surprised if someone listening to this broadcast would want to know exactly what chairs and members of committees do get in addition to their base salary. I am sure people will be interested, after the passing of the AMSOR Act yesterday, in exactly what the severance pay is for the members for Port Darwin, Fong Lim and Greatorex. However, I digress.
This is a serious motion. When I introduced the motion I did not do it easily or on a whim; I did it very carefully.
Those ads were misleading and contained big fat lies. I know it, the government knows it, the crossbenchers know and people in the community know it. The Auditor-General knows it; she said so, but not using those words.
I thank members for talking to this motion. Some I thank more than others. The member for Fong Lim showed once again that he is pretty vacuous in what he brings to this parliament. He is too cute by half, but that is his style and it is probably not a bad thing that he was not preselected and will not be here in the next term. I do not know who will be, but he will not be and this parliament will be a better place.
The motion was never about the legislation. I know that, the government knows that, the crossbenchers know that and the community knows that. Ads were placed in the paper because the government got cranky. I would like to use other words but they would be unparliamentary. It was never about the legislation, which, as we know, passed.
The Chief Minister said that since the legislation has passed we have had many apprehensions of people with drugs. Good! I commend the police and everyone else involved. Let us not forget Border Force. The Customs and Immigration people are also working hard in this area, in conjunction with the Northern Territory Police and Federal Police. It is a combined effort to combat this drug problem we have in our community.
The Chief Minister said the ice supply decreased following the introduction of this legislation. Good, but prove to me that this legislation was responsible for the reduction. Just because B follows A it does not mean that A caused B.
I say that the reduction in the ice supply and the apprehensions of the villains and the criminals is due to the hard work our law enforcement officers across the board – Federal Police, Northern Territory Police and Border Force – put in to apprehending people and stopping the supply of this drug into our communities.
I listened to all members’ comments, such as those from the members for Barkly and Nelson. Thank you, because it has taken a while to get to this stage where we can put this motion to a vote.
The Chief Minister said, ‘It was never about shooting the Chief Minister’. This is not about shooting the Chief Minister. The ad had a Northern Territory government crest on it. The person who is responsible under the Emblems Act is the Northern Territory Chief Minister. It was not about him personally being sent to privileges. Someone has to be responsible for that piece of legislation. That is the Chief Minister.
If you think you are personally being sent to privileges, you are wrong. You are responsible for that crest. You used it. You said you used $4000 out of the Chief Minister’s office. It is not your money, Chief Minister; it is taxpayers’ money, which you used to put out misleading information and lies in an advertisement.
No one in this parliament wants drugs in our community. For the government, the Chief Minister and members opposite to suggest otherwise is arrant rubbish.
Member for Fong Lim, the word is ‘arrant’, not ‘errant’. It is arrant rubbish, and they know it. To peddle that kind of misinformation is morally wrong. The bill has passed, police have got on with it and this parliament has moved on.
The government did not like what I did so they moved to do what they did and they did not succeed, because there are still people in this parliament who are decent, honourable people who have ethics and morals. That is why I am still in the job of Speaker, apart from being the member for Goyder.
The Chief Minister says he should have gone further; he should have spent a lot of money on TV ads saying how bad the crossbenchers were for holding government to account for trying to push it through on urgency without proper consultation. Even if you had spent more money on TV advertisements, had put more ads in papers and put leaflets on people’s cars in Barkly or Tennant Creek – God knows why they did that at the Tennant Creek Show; it would have been a waste of time. The breeze down there would have blown them off anyway – no one would have believed you, because you there is such a deficit of trust in you. The amount of money you spent would have exacerbated the problem and your trust deficit. It is very disappointing.
The misuse of public funds and the dishonesty in those newspaper advertisements in portraying what happened in this parliament – which did not happen – is the reason I did what I did. The rest is history.
I thank members for what they are doing. I commend the motion to the parliament and ask that they agree to it.
The Assembly divided.
Continued from 2 December 2015.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing this very important piece of legislation before the parliament, and I provide my support for it.
I indicate now, so the government is under no illusion, that I do not support the amendments being led by the member for Port Darwin. It is incredibly disappointing that, yet again, members of government are trying to limit the very reasonable access women in the Territory are seeking to have to medical termination of pregnancy. It beggars belief, with the opportunities this government has had over the last three-and-a-half years to proceed with the fair and reasonable access women have sought to the medical termination of pregnancy with the drug known as RU486, which women in every other jurisdiction in Australia have access to. It beggars belief that this government, at every turn, has ensured that women are denied access.
This is not a debate about termination. That debate has been had and won. This is a debate about safe access to medical termination. We have had, of course, only access to surgical termination in the Territory until this debate of legislative powers for access to RU486 has come forward.
That has been incredibly stressful for many women. Because of the requirements for surgical termination it has meant that women are relying on an ever-decreasing number of surgeons available to perform terminations. The reality is it has only been available in the Royal Darwin Hospital and the Alice Springs Hospital. For the women who live in the regional and remote areas, with the exception of Alice Springs, it requires travel.
I have yet to find a woman going down the path of termination who considered it lightly. In my experience, being surrounded by people you know who love and support you is important. Having to travel from a remote community to access termination is cruel, quite frankly. When we have safe medical termination available and appropriately qualified nurses and doctors in our effective and awesome remote health clinics, why are we still forcing our women to travel away from their communities and the people who would love and support them in what most women would understand is a pretty tough time and, for many, traumatic?
Here we are in an Assembly with a male Minister for Health who wants to restrict access through the amendments. He wants to arbitrarily have powers to determine which clinics can and cannot. That is not appropriate. The research that has been done – and I acknowledge the women in the gallery who have done the hard yards and heavy lifting. All stakeholders, whether it is the Family Planning Association, the women’s legal rights groups or the female doctors – it is women who have led this debate.
It is women who said to government ministers first, then to members of the opposition, then to the member for Goyder – finding a sponsor for this legislation – that they have the evidence that shows it is safe. They have the evidence that shows how it occurs in a clinical practice. They have the evidence that shows there should no longer be any barriers to accessing RU486 in the Territory – the evidence from the practice of using RU486 since the 1990s in England, and the evidence of other large jurisdictions in Australia which introduced access to RU486 once it was recognised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme after debate in the federal parliament.
Can we stop putting barriers in front of women who just want to make fair and reasonable choices about what is occurring in their life? Can we stop putting barriers in front of an alternative to the pretty tough surgical procedure they go through now?
Because there are so few who are doing those surgical procedures – they are confined to only two locations in the Territory – the practical reality is it means some women are having to wait, and therefore terminate later in their pregnancy than they want to. RU486 provides an opportunity for women to terminate earlier in their pregnancy.
I do not know whether a man will ever fully understand this debate. I hope we can expect their support. I know we get it from some of you, and I thank you sincerely for that.
Being a woman who has been through three pregnancies, a woman who has been confronted with people urging her to have an abortion, I understand the need to consider carefully how well placed you are to proceed with a pregnancy.
Once you have gone through those difficult considerations, to then have the practical impediments that currently exist in the system of getting access to surgical procedures and getting on the waiting list, and overcoming the distance to the facility if you happen to live outside Darwin or Alice Springs, is a horrendous thing to put women through. We are finally debating legislation and now the Health is minister leading amendments that will continue to place unreasonable restrictions on access.
Why do we have fewer rights than other women in Australia? What is this notion that women who live in regional or remote areas are not capable of making the choices, with medically trained staff, about whether or not they have a medical procedure to terminate. Is it a bizarre racist or patronising stance?
We have highly-trained professional nurses and doctors in our remote clinics who have to make a series of medical considerations on life-threatening things all the time. We trust them to do that. Yet with the amendments being led by the Health minister, we appear not to trust them to make a decision on whether that person is medically safe to go through the procedure.
It is not without risk. The risks have been identified. The risk of haemorrhage has been spoken about. Every medical practitioner will need to be trained, with the requirements the member for Goyder has of two doctors being involved, who are fully aware of the risks and will be aware of each patient’s clinical status and will make informed decisions. That is what trained medical professionals do every day for other medical interventions, yet on this one we want to put extra barriers in place. What is that? It is abominable.
Without the support of key members of government for the legislation as led by the member for Goyder, this may not pass. How in all conscience could you accept putting those barriers in place, Minister for Health? Women deserve access to RU486. The legislation as it was brought to the parliament by the member for Goyder is a conservative model – two doctors. Minister for Health, you want to put further barriers in place in what is already a conservative model.
The seriousness in which this has been considered for a great deal of time also poses the question, why have the proposed amendments by the Minister for Health come forward relatively late in the piece? I do not think anyone in this Chamber would be unaware that it has been about two years’ worth of work for the women who have pursued the rights of Northern Territory women to have access to RU486. They have made themselves available to me and other members of parliament to provide detailed factual information about what they propose is adopted in the Territory in regard to medical termination. I cannot recall during that debate, over the last two years, the Minister for Health raising the matters he now brings forward as amendments.
Mr Elferink: I certainly did.
Ms LAWRIE: I wonder why they have come late in the piece as a last-minute barrier. Women have needed access to medical termination for some time. Surgical termination is far more brutal for women to endure, and limiting their access to medical termination, which you are proposing to do in the amendments, is bordering on cruel. Can we avoid putting further barriers in place for women? Termination by RU486 is safe; it is not without its risks, as with any medical procedure.
Mr Styles: It is safe but not without its risks.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection, ‘It is safe but not without its risks’. That is right; it is a safe procedure. It has some risks. One of the risks is haemorrhage. Medical interventions carry risks. Where they are known, identified and there are procedures and practices around them to deal with them in the event they occur, that is appropriate. The bill provided by the member for Goyder, which I describe as a conservative model of two doctors, provides for a minimisation of risk.
It is fair and reasonable. I am an advocate of ensuring that while this legislation goes through, we also accept that life moves on and we can adopt some best practices from other jurisdictions. I am, for example, also an advocate of ensuring what I refer to as exclusions zones around locations where medical and surgical terminations occur. I do not think it is okay in this day and age to continue to allow innocent people to be hit with a barrage of abuse by protestors. I am a big fan of the exclusion zones. I hope that is a part of the legislation that is ultimately passed.
We all have views about whether or not the bar of two doctors is too tough because it will exclude some more remote clinics. That is the reality, but in all fairness it is a reasonable approach for a jurisdiction that currently seems so far backwards, so let us take the good legislation we can get now.
I urge the Minister for Health and Attorney-General – and I will not hold my breath – to remove the barriers he is proposing to put in place with his amendments. I urge you to genuinely recognise that much work and research has gone into this by people who are experts in the field and this is a sound bill that puts in the right amount of checks and balances to ensure there are safety precautions and procedures around medical terminations. It has landed in a genuinely safe place. Do not proceed with divisive amendments that would restrict access where it is unnecessary to restrict it any further than the legislation as proposed by the member for Goyder.
Can men stop telling women what to do with our bodies? Women elsewhere in Australia have every right to choose a medical termination over a surgical one. The surgical ones are so much more traumatic, with the greater waiting time, and in the surgical procedure itself.
Some members opposite have expressed their support, and some members on the cross benches will have a very different view to me. I am hopeful of bipartisan support on a conscience vote so we get this legislation through. I am concerned the amendments proposed by the member for Port Darwin, the Health minister and Attorney-General, might make that more difficult.
I urge the members who have expressed bipartisan support to the lobby groups to stick with that and support the member for Goyder’s legislation, and not to support the Health minister’s amendments.
I commend the member for Goyder for bringing this legislation to us and I look forward to its passage.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this bill. I thank the member for Goyder for introducing it to this House.
This bill is long overdue. It is a shame that the government had not seen fit to bring forward amendments to the Medical Services Act during its current term, especially when there has been such a strong and concerted campaign to lobby members of parliament over the last three-and-a-half years to reform abortion laws in the Northern Territory. I also acknowledge that it is a shame the former Labor government, of which I was a backbencher in its last term, did not bring forward amendments to the Medical Services Act.
It would be an even greater shame if this bill and the amendments brought forward by the member for Goyder do not get support today from at least 13 members of this House.
If this bill is supported today, if it has passage, Territory women will have access to a medical termination, access to RU486, and, importantly, will be able to exercise choice about the best course of treatment they want in the event they find themselves with an unintended pregnancy.
The Territory is years behind the rest of the country and it is simply unfair that Territory women cannot access a medical termination of pregnancy when other Australian women can, and women right around the world. One in three women of reproductive age will have an abortion at some time in their lives, and approximately 25% of all pregnancies in Australia end in abortion.
When this private member’s bill was introduced in December I thought it fell short of what was needed but it was a really good start, and perhaps in putting forward such moderate amendments the member for Goyder’s thinking was that it would be more likely to gain support from a majority of members.
Like all members of this House, I am sure, I have attended many meetings, read and absorbed many papers and much research, and weighed up whether I think Territory women should have access to medical terminations. It is a difficult decision for some members, which is why my colleagues have the right on this occasion to exercise a conscience vote and why, as I understand it, the Chief Minister is allowing his colleagues a conscience vote.
While the bill tabled in December does not address all the recommendations of experts in women’s reproductive and sexual health in amending the Medical Services Act, as I said, it is a really good start. While the bill did not manage to come forward for debate in February because of time constraints in this GBD time slots, it has meant that the member for Goyder has had the time to listen to experts – doctors, nurses, lawyers and women from around the Territory – and consider further amendments. I have had discussions myself with the member for Goyder.
I have also met with and listened to those who do not support abortion or abortion law reform, including, most recently, a representative from the Australian Christian Lobby.
I will be exercising my conscience vote in support of the amendments the member for Goyder’s bill brings forwards. They are sensible in supporting access to medical termination of pregnancy. I would, however, have preferred to have seen the legislation amended to say that a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a woman to a doctor who does not and will support that woman to have her pregnancy terminated.
I would have preferred that the legislation included an exclusion zone around hospitals or clinics where abortions are performed to protect those who work there or the women who attend. I could think of nothing worse or more intimidating for a woman who has arrived at a, no doubt, difficult decision to have her mental health and wellbeing further threatened by the intimidating presence of conscientious objectors casting judgment on those women, along with the health professionals who choose to provide this important service.
I would have preferred amendments that might see young women under the age of 16 only needing the approval of one parent or guardian instead of two, which would lessen the barrier for a young woman. Lessening the barrier is helpful, but I am inclined to agree with the views of What RU4 NT in its recommendations regarding minors, where it states that all references to consent should be removed, and section 11, clause 5 should be removed altogether.
I will quote from the recommendation:
I agree that one doctor, not two, is surely sufficient in determining if a woman should be able to proceed with a medical termination of pregnancy before 14 weeks gestation. My preferences have been informed by research and an evidence base.
Access is a significant hurdle in the NT if you are living remotely. As a member who lives remotely and represents women who live remotely, I am concerned that the minister’s amendments circulated last night restrict that access significantly and, as such, I will not support his amendment to the bill.
I place on the record an opinion on the issue of access from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I quote from college statement C-Gyn17:
Effectively, the amendment from the Health minister would give the minister the power to decide how many abortion clinics there are, where they are and what facilities they need. It would mean a risk that only private clinics that charge high gap fees would be approved, and only in Alice Springs and Darwin. This would only improve access for women who can afford to pay these fees who have private health cover and could, therefore, already afford to pay for a private procedure or to fly interstate to access RU486. It almost entirely defeats the purpose of the bill, especially if the Health minister of the day decides not to approve any clinics at all.
The more I speak with experts and the more I read, the more I am inclined to think the issue of where the drug should be prescribed or dispensed is an issue for medical guidelines and not legislation. There is no reason this needs to be in the legislation. We do not legislate that you cannot do an appendectomy in a remote community, yet it is not done because it is not appropriate. Medical guidelines are used to determine appropriate and safe professional practice. These have been developed for RU486 by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I quote from the RANZCOG Guidelines C-Gyn21 on the use of mifepristone for medical termination of pregnancy. They state:
Many of our remote clinics are equipped to deal with any emergency that comes their way, and we have an excellent service in CareFlight, which can conduct medical evacuations around the Northern Territory in the very slim and rare chance that they are required in these circumstances.
To be honest, I do not know if this bill will be successful this evening. In fact, it will not get through this evening, again due to time constraints. But should there be a change of government following the August election, it would be a priority for a Labor government to address, once and for all, the Medical Services Act and the amendments needed. We will examine the very things raised by the Family Planning Welfare Association Northern Territory, the Public Health Association and the Top End Women’s Legal Service – which were outlined in a letter to the former Health minister, the member for Araluen, in October 2013, of which I was provided a copy – and ensure that Territory women are on a par with other women in the country with regard to their sexual and reproductive health choices and access to abortion.
There might have been some will within certain sectors of the current government to address the inequities Territory women face in their choices when terminating a pregnancy. Having three Health ministers in the first two years may not have helped the situation. A lack of women within the ranks of the party wing and Cabinet also clearly has not helped.
The report of Professor Caroline de Costa, who was commissioned to provide a brief to the Department of Health on possible changes to the Medical Services Act and abortions in the Northern Territory was a step in the right direction by the former Health minister to progress reform. The call for legislative reform is quite clear in Professor de Costa’s report.
I was somewhat alarmed about her reference to abortion tourism, which refers to women who want to access RU486 who have the means flying interstate to do so. What an appalling state of affairs. Clearly there needs to be change. There needs to be significant reform to abortion laws in the Northern Territory, and it needs to be decriminalised.
I like the approach to abortion law reform taken in Victoria. It removed the process from politicians and placed it expert hands – independent and at arm’s length from government – through the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which produced a thorough report based on investigation, evidence and best practice. That report was then presented to the parliament, with recommendations to be adopted. Those recommendations were adopted, and Victoria has very good legislation.
Territory women cannot be expected to wait any longer for RU486 to access medical termination of pregnancy. They cannot expect to be abortion tourists in order to access a medical abortion. For those who live in the Territory’s regional and remote areas, they cannot accept that they have to put up with a system which does not support their rights in the same way women in urban areas are supported.
I wish place on the record my thanks to the member for Goyder for progressing this bill, and to the many people who have lobbied hard, sensibly and from an evidence-based non-political approach to drive reforms.
The first person to contact me was Dr Suzanne Belton, who is sitting in the gallery this evening. Of all places, we met at the Merrepen Arts Festival. As the Chair of Family Planning and a researcher and lecturer at Menzies School of Health, I have always appreciated Dr Belton’s no nonsense, cut-to-the-chase approach. Members may or may not be aware that Dr Belton was nominated for a human rights award, the Fitzgerald Social Change Award, in late 2015.
I also place on the record my thanks to the Top End Women’s Legal Service and all those women who supported and drove the What RU4 NT campaign and the On Her Terms campaign and the Family Planning Association and Robyn Wardle, who I have met with on a couple of occasions. I am sure there are other women in that space that I have overlooked, and I apologise.
I thank the member for bringing her bill before this House. I do not support the amendments of the Health minister.
Debate suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Dr Belton and those who have been here today to observe the debate of this bill. It will continue at the next General Business day, in April.
Public Accounts Committee – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct May 2013 Report – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I speak on an issue raised by the member for Araluen earlier today in an explanation to the House. The member for Araluen recently circulated a flyer in Alice Springs saying she was disappointed in the Health minister for not supporting a palliative care facility with the $5m taken from the Nhulunbuy hospital expenditure, as had been arranged with minister Dutton.
The member put into her flyer that on 19 February 2016 I informed her by e-mail that I had made this change of policy in relation to the palliative care facility. It rang untrue to me because I had concerns about the timing of that decision. When I checked the e-mail which was sent by my ministerial staffer to her office, there was reference in that e-mail she was relying upon that the determination to move from a palliative care facility to a multifunction facility was made in June 2014. That should have been a warning bell for the member for Araluen because she should have realised that was when she was Health minister.
Nevertheless, I asked my department to ferret back through the paperwork in relation to this. It was abundantly clear that the member for Araluen had written to the then federal Health minister, Peter Dutton, to say the purpose of the expenditure was to change from a palliative care facility to a multipurpose facility. In the letter she signed on 9 June 2014, she said she intended to use it for purposes other than palliative care, including aged-care facilities for people near the end of their life, which of course is not palliative care.
Not only that, but attached to the letter was a document of some 64 pages, the title of which was ‘Multipurpose Facility’. It is disingenuous in the least for the member for Araluen to continue to maintain in this House that she has always argued for a palliative care facility. She has not. She told the federal Health minister she was prepared to sign up to a multipurpose facility.
When this issue was raised with me, the first question I received from Stewart Brash on ABC radio in Alice Springs was, ‘Why the change in plan?’ The answer was, ‘I do not know’. The reason I had to give that answer was I did not make the decision. I have merely been enforcing and pursuing the decision that was made by the former Health minister, Robyn Lambley.
I understand she was interviewed shortly after by Stewart Brash who put this to her, and she said she would have told the federal Health minister that she would have built the Taj Mahal if it got the money for her palliative care facility.
The former minister wonders why she lost her ministry. She said to Stewart Brash, ‘I am prepared to mislead and lie to the federal Health minister to extract money out of him to pursue my own goals’. It is not only disingenuous; it is downright dishonest. What is worse is she continues to say to the palliative care groups in the Northern Territory that she was always pursuing a palliative care facility. How can she be trusted if she has already articulated on radio, just the other day, that she was prepared to lie to the federal Health minister to extract money? If she is prepared to tell lies to the federal Health minister, who else is she prepared to mislead and deceive?
I get very cross when I am painted as a villain for her decisions and the letters she signed convincing the federal minister to part with the money. In truth, the multipurpose facility with a palliative care service incorporated is not a bad idea. That is why the policy will continue to be rolled out in that fashion.
To seek to deceive people and mislead them in the same way she sought to mislead the federal minister, by her own admission - saying she would have built the Taj Mahal if that is what it took - is representative of the way she conducts her business.
Raise that issue with her and you are branded a bully. That is not the case; I am not a bully. I am somebody who is highly critical of people in ministerial positions who do not tell the truth, particularly to federal ministers when trying to extract money from them.
Alternatively, that is your intention; go into your electorate and misrepresent what you have been doing. That inconsistency is not acceptable, certainly not at the ministerial level or in this joint to peddle it by way of a personal explanation. It is not fair to deliberately mislead.
To hear the member for Araluen say on radio she is prepared to deliberately mislead for her own outcomes demonstrates a disingenuous disposition. ‘I am prepared to lie for the welfare of the people of Alice Springs.’ I get the argument, but the point is the opening part of that line is, ‘I am prepared to lie’. Once you have taken up that position you have signalled to all and sundry you are prepared to lie.
So what is the truth? The fact is we do not know. However, the letter that was signed on 9 June 2014 has the signature of Robyn Lambley at the bottom of the page. She clearly intended, in that letter, to use the unit for which she was asking Peter Dutton for money for purposes other than exclusive palliative care.
The attachment to that letter refers to a multipurpose facility, precisely what we will build.
For the member for Araluen to peddle this is wrong, dishonest and does her reputation no good. It is one thing to say I am going to go through my political career saying I left the CLP because they are a pack of bullies, etcetera – I get the argument. But the fact is if you are prepared to not tell the truth to the federal Health minister, and to misrepresent the truth to the people of Alice Springs, maybe you are also prepared to misrepresent the real reasons you left the CLP.
We do not know anymore. The member for Araluen’s credibility is seriously compromised in this process. I lay my criticisms on the table. I could also speak further in relation to some of the misrepresentations she has made about her position on the Palmerston Regional Hospital.
I do know that based on the material she circulated on earlier occasions, the work on the Palmerston Regional Hospital would not have started until October this year if everything had gone according to her plan. The first clearance would not have occurred.
Yet this is the minister who authorised the clearing of a block – to do what? To demonstrate what? That she was building a hospital? The block that was cleared, I understand, was not far from Wallaby Holtz Road, and the member for Goyder ...
Ms Purick: I spy on the site all the time on my pushbike, to see what I can.
Mr ELFERINK: Good, so do I. How many columns are there now, about 200 columns?
Ms Purick: I am looking more at the things that might be relocated to other blocks.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you can be reassured, where we want the columns is where they are. The fact is, had we following her processes, the building would not be anywhere near where it is now.
Member for Araluen, please be honest with the people of Alice Springs and those who represent the interests of the palliative care organisations across the Northern Territory. It is not doing them a service when you say one thing to the federal minister and a completely different thing to them.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I speak about something unrelated to anything we have spoken about today. I will talk about some of the exploits of talented and clever people in my electorate, from young people to not-so-young people.
I start with young Kida Langham who attends Girraween Primary School. She was in Year 6 and she wrote to me recently because she was looking for sponsorship to go on a trip down south, as she had been selected to sing in a choir. She auditioned and was selected for the Gondwana National Choirs late last year. She went to Sydney in January this year to attend a camp.
For those of you not familiar with the Gondwana Indigenous Children’s Choir, it gives talented Indigenous children the opportunity to share their voices with the nation and the world. They have been operating since 2008 and were founded by artistic director Lyn Williams.
They recruit children from all around the countryside and the major cities, and are hoping to create pathways for young people from across Australia to come together and take part in not only the musical but the social and cultural education of performance opportunities.
When you participate in these programs, you get a bit of pride under your belt and confidence, and you might start a career in music or directing music. You clearly will build many friendships with people you meet along the way.
I say congratulations to young Kida, not only for being able to sing, which is wonderful, but for being selected to travel there. I would love to hear how she went. I am sure she has met some good friends and has some lasting memories. Well done to Kida and her parents for supporting her and encouraging her to go down this path.
The next young person I will talk about from my electorate is a young fellow called Jayden. He has been involved in one of those sports that has been around forever for young boys and girls – BMX. He has been involved since he was eight years old and is now 15. He wants to race at an elite level of the competition, which means to continue to race into adulthood, which he should because he is very talented.
He has attended many interstate races over the years, some of which have included the Australian titles in Shepparton, Cairns, Mount Gambier and Brisbane. He has represented the Territory as part of the NT team and qualified as a dynamite representative, which sounds interesting. He has raced in the NT titles at Satellite City, Jingili, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, with fantastic results in receiving an NT plate at all events. He is currently number one in the cruiser class, and eighth in the NT in the 20-inch class, after a crash in the final. I am not sure if that meant the 20-inch class is higher or lower, or that he just had a crash.
He has recently been accepted into the BMX Development Academy at a senior level, which is pretty exciting. He and his family returned from spending two weeks in Victoria earlier in the year where he competed in the track attack series, where Jayden finished third overall in six rounds, even after missing one round due to his handlebars snapping.
I have seen these fellows and young girls at the races, on Facebook and YouTube, and they are daredevils. I am not surprised that bikes break, given the stress they put them under.
In November he competed in the Victorian state titles in Shepparton and placed second in both races.
With the great benefit of a roof over the track at Jingili BMX Club, he has been able to train and prepare for the upcoming Australian titles at Bathurst. He spent 10 days at Bathurst to ensure he could get as much track time in as possible. A bit like any sport where you want to get a feel for the ground, the pool or whatever you do your sport in so you can get some edge against your competitors.
His parents are great supporters, and I have supported this young fellow before. I never had an opportunity for BMX; I had a plain old pushbike. This young fellow will go big places. He will continue to go further and higher in his sport, not only in the Northern Territory but in Australia. I am pretty sure he will go international.
To Rachel Walker and Darrin Fletcher, his parents, good on you. You have a real star. To young Jayden, all the best. I am happy to keep supporting you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Sue Folley and Kiteni Holt. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Do you want to acknowledge your daughter?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Hi Gwennie. Lovely to see you up there.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep an eye on your father. We want a report card from you at the end of the day on his behaviour.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Commonwealth Day
Commonwealth Day
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as you will be aware, the Legislative Assembly marks Commonwealth Day each year with a week of activities in the Main Hall where school students attend to learn about the Commonwealth. I am pleased to report that last week we had 492 Territory students through Parliament House undertaking such activities.
I can also report that yesterday Her Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and Patron of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, attended celebrations in London to mark Commonwealth Day 2016, and attended a multi-faith celebration service in Westminster Abbey, also attended by 1000 school children.
APPROPRIATION ACTS REPEAL BILL
(Serial 158)
(Serial 158)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Each year an annual Appropriation Act is handed down, which provides the legal authority for the government’s funding decisions in each year’s budget.
There are a number of Appropriation Acts listed in the statute book dating back to 1978, which should be repealed as they have lapsed and serve no ongoing purpose and can confuse readers by their presence on the government legislation website. The purpose of this bill is to repeal redundant Appropriation Acts that are currently listed on the statute book.
As has been the case for the last few years, and going forward, it is the usual practice to include an expiry provision in Appropriation Bills, and indeed, in all amending bills, which avoids the need to repeal any future Appropriation Acts after they have served their purpose.
This bill is intended to repeal the acts from prior years, which hold no legal authority.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Condemn Territory Labor and its Leader for Creating a Crisis in Confidence
Condemn Territory Labor and its Leader for Creating a Crisis in Confidence
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this House condemns Territory Labor and its leader for creating a crisis in confidence, caused by its anti-jobs stance, for short-term political expediency, that has resulted in companies laying off Territory workers and, in doing so, has sent a serious message internationally that the Northern Territory, under a potential Labor government, is too high a risk for investment.
This is a critical issue for Territory jobs now and into the future. The Opposition Leader continues to prove he is failing Territorians on key issues. Not far behind is his deputy, who today on radio tried to tell Territorians that the crisis in confidence created by the Opposition Leader’s proposed job-destroying plans are not worthy of debate.
This motion is about the future prosperity of Territorians and the pain the bumbling alternative leader of the Northern Territory is already inflicting. Make no mistake, the Opposition Leader, Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, and Labor’s destructive policies are the biggest threat to the Territory, Territory families and jobs of local workers. His first-term agenda and conflicting follow-up announcements prove his ineptitude as a leader and the danger he presents.
His media release issued on 3 February listed the top focus of the Opposition Leader’s first-term agenda as:
- Growing the economy by growing jobs in the Territory.
His policies announced the same day herald support for the North East Gas Interconnector pipeline, yet he is taking away the gas that would fill it. What a dill!
In the same media release issued on 3 February he claimed an elected Labor government would support 12 000 to 14 000 jobs. Well, the first thing he can do is immediately subtract 6300 future full-time positions that will no longer be generated by onshore gas. He can also take away the 114 current jobs with Pangaea Resources it has been forced to slash and at least 10 permanent positions with MS Contracting, as well as 50 future jobs. That just names a few.
In the same media release, the Opposition Leader said:
- … these initiatives are designed to leverage private sector investment which will see further jobs created throughout the implementation of our plan.
Territorians can certainly slash oil and gas companies from this private sector investment, and job creation.
Let us look at what that means for Territory families, jobs and the young people in the gallery looking on today. What is their future like?
The NT is said to contain one of the world’s largest supplies of onshore gas, enough to potentially meet Australia’s combined domestic and export needs over the next 200 years. According to a Deloitte analysis, gas in the Northern Territory could drive significant long-term economic growth, create more than 6000 new jobs, and generate up to $460m of additional government revenue each year.
Yet Labor’s proposed ban is cultivating uncertainty in the industry. It has created a crisis in confidence that is already costing Territorians jobs. I will quote Bill Sullivan from local company MS Contracting to explain that impact. I mentioned earlier that the company has been severely impacted following Pangaea Resources suspending its 2016 drilling program. It is a lengthy quote but it is important. It clearly shows that the Opposition Leader’s bumbling policies are having a devastating impact on Territorians.
On Wednesday 2 March this year Mr Sullivan told ABC radio:
- This is probably going to send us broke.
Pangaea were one of our main customers and we’ve been working with them on their exploration leases for the last three years. We had between $10m and $12m worth of work to do for them this year, but we now have no work.
We outlaid close to $10m in machinery and equipment over the last couple of years, now we now have no work for that.
We have up to a dozen permanent staff and their future is looking shaky. The other 50-odd people we would have employed this year, we won’t be employing.
Based on the current regulations and assurances, Imperial Oil and Gas has spent $7m identifying and securing oil and gas targets, and it has a $60m investment and several hundred jobs at risk.
Add to that the concerns of Tavistock consultant David Armstrong, who works with 56 pastoral stations across the Territory. On Territory FM on 15 February this year, he described the impact of Labor’s backflip policy. He said, ‘They issued those licences, enticed that investment and now they have turned around and said no. I mean, investors worldwide are going to look at the Territory and think, “Why would we put money in there, you know? It is a real sovereign risk”.’
This is a momentous backflip after the previous Labor government issued permits for over 90% of the Territory to explore for gas. Companies cannot turn the tap on and off and lose millions of dollars. No business could be expected to operate in that fashion unless you are, of course, a fiscally inept and irresponsible Labor government intent on plummeting the Territory back into record debt.
Territory Labor’s proposed ban threatens thousands of new jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payments to traditional owners and tens of millions of dollars of work for local businesses in the regions that will host industry activity. It is not only the Giles government that understands this. The Opposition Leader’s statements have also prompted former federal Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson, in a speech to the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook Conference on 8 March this year, to warn:
- If Labor wins the Territory election in August – and sticks with this bad policy – it will inflict real economic harm for no environmental gain.
He also explained to ABC Darwin on the day following his speech, ‘The end result of the moratorium pulled out of a hat for short-term political expediency is that companies are already laying off Australian workers and in doing so sending a serious message internationally that a place like the Northern Territory, under a potential Labor government, is a risky place for investment’.
That is from former Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson. It is a very clear message to the Northern Territory Labor Party about its policy, which is totally different to the Labor states around us.
I remind the House of the Opposition Leader’s first-term agenda to ‘grow the economy by growing jobs in the Territory and leverage private sector investment, which will see further jobs created’. He has failed on both those promises. He is not even in his first term and he is already failing. He continues to fail Territorians on key issues. I have to wonder if the Opposition Leader has an agenda, or is he simply the worst Opposition Leader the Territory has ever seen, whose bumbling actions are destroying Territorians’ jobs and driving away investment.
The Labor states of Queensland and South Australia are welcoming the Opposition Leader’s stupidity because it means our jobs will be exported to those Labor states next to us. The Opposition Leader certainly is not standing in Anna Palaszczuk’s way. She said on radio the other day that she wanted to emphasise in the media that she would not let anyone stand in the way of creating jobs for Queenslanders. It is obvious that the Northern Territory Leader of the Opposition is not standing in her way.
The Opposition Leader would probably dismiss Martin Ferguson’s views with a flippant claim that he, as an APPEA chairman, is being paid to say these things. I ask the Opposition Leader what he thinks of the decision of former Labor Chief Minister Paul Henderson to issue exploration permits for more than 90% of the Territory.
As a former Chief Minister’s chief of staff, did the current Opposition Leader not understand what was happening in his office and government? The same question remains as was put to the Opposition Leader yesterday about a deal with the Maritime Union of Australia which saw it demand $1m in payments for subcontractors on the Blacktip project. How could a person in his position not know these things were going on? Was the Opposition Leader just an incompetent chief of staff? He is continuing to prove he is an inadequate leader, and the poll results published in the NT News yesterday show that the public is not being fooled.
I refer back to Martin Ferguson’s comments in his speech on 8 March this year, where he said of Labor’s onshore gas ban:
- They might as well call it a moratorium on new jobs.
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that instead of planning to put Territory business on hold for an indeterminate period to conduct these reviews, that the Labor Party takes the opportunity during the six months leading up to the election to inform itself of what is happening in the community. I know this may be a novel idea for the opposition, but why wait until after the election? Why not make the effort to inform yourselves to the extent that you could implement good governance without placing the future of the Territory at risk? This is lazy policy from a lazy and inept leader of the party. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, do the work you need to do now and demonstrate a capacity for good governance.
Let us look at Labor’s planned reviews. First there is the economic review to find out what business wants. Should the shadow minister for Business not understand the business community already? Should he not be talking to it, or will he wait until after the election, put everything on hold, then have a review and discuss what business wants?
As the Chief Minister said yesterday, an opposition should be putting forward policy. It should know what it will do before an election, and so should Territorians. Instead, its overarching policy is, ‘If it is too hard, we will need to have a review later’.
The plan to review the Department of Business to restructure it – the shadow minister for Business has proposed to create a unit that already exists. It is called Business NT. He has also proposed to employ six small business champions, which means he needs to sack 18 of the Business Development Officers currently deployed across the Territory. What a dill! It astounds me – or maybe it does not – that the Opposition Leader and shadow Business minister does not know he is promising to create a unit that already exists. The shadow Business minister is displaying a complete lack of understanding of what is happening within his shadow portfolio.
He will review water licences. Labor’s water policy is a recipe for agribusiness disaster. It is another example of the Opposition Leader demonstrating an alarming lack of understanding of industry and business. They have one page of dot points which either reflect what they are already doing or are proposing an interfering approach which will gravely affect the agricultural and pastoral industries in the Northern Territory.
This could set agribusiness back substantially. It could impact on everything that has been built up, from barra farms, mango plantations and cottage industry farms through to major developments such as the $0.5bn sandalwood plantation project in Katherine. It flags to potential investors looking to set up in the Northern Territory that their projects are not welcome. There is also the issue of compensation for all those who have complied with the requirements for a licence and have built a business around a licence being in place.
The next review is of gaming machine licence numbers. With a previous Labor government’s cap in place, new licensed venues which did not have the option of offering gaming machines in their venues were in some cases competing at a disadvantage. Again the Opposition Leader is planning a review that will stifle jobs and business growth in the Territory.
A review on the Department of Health to identify cost-saving efficiencies – this translates to putting Territorians’ health at risk either through reduced services or job cuts.
The review into the Territory port lease – Territory Labor passionately opposed the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which opened up the Territory to previously unexplored trade opportunities. Territory Labor was the final jurisdiction to support the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
I faced the question while in China in October last year, ‘What does the Labor Party have against the Chinese?’ Opposition Leader, this question is still pertinent as you continue to do damage with anti-Chinese scaremongering in relation to the port lease. This is a continuation of Labor’s damaging xenophobic sentiments that are putting international investment at risk.
They will review the government corporate travel contract. I recently announced that the Country Liberal government had awarded a three-year, $3.6m contract for its corporate travel provider services to QBT Propriety Limited.
I would like to point out the Opposition Leader’s embarrassing and misleading media release issued on 7 February, entitled ‘Adam Giles rips $40m out of local economy causing local businesses to shut their doors’. This shows how ill-informed the Leader of the Opposition is. The Leader of the Opposition says it is $40m. It is a $3.6m, three-year contract with QBT. Those are the facts. I do not know what planet you are on when you claim $40m is being ripped out of the local economy. I hope the Opposition Leader has the basic economic skills to decipher that the accusations do not add up. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition undertakes a review of his information before misleading the public through his incompetence.
Territory Labor will put an indefinite ban on onshore gas so it can hold another review into the science behind hydraulic fracking. This is based on the premise that Labor needs to see the science. This is another embarrassing policy stance because the validated science is freely available.
The member for Nightcliff told Territory FM’s Daryl Manzie on Monday 15 February, ‘The Hawke report has not been peer reviewed by other scientists. We need to make sure that we have the science completely right.’
That does not suit Labor so it has chosen to ignore the science. They say they want to see the science. What they really want is for the science to say what they want it to.
In a Territory FM interview on 2 March the member for Johnston, Ken Vowles, said, ‘We want to make sure that all the science is right science, and you know we are talking about an industry that is always finding new things about their industry’.
The Opposition Leader pledged that a Labor government would support 12 000 to 14 000 jobs. That in itself is laughable. However, it is not a joke for Territorians who will wear the costs. The Opposition Leader appears unable to understand that governments do not create jobs; private industry creates jobs, and if you do not have industry you do not have jobs.
Based on the Territory’s past experience with Labor governments, it is clear they have no issue with developing a grossly-inflated and costly public service. We know this is not the path to sustainable job creation. The public sector services private industry. If Labor has its way and drives business out of the Territory, we will back to the good old days of Labor government where growth in the public service sector will outstrip the private sector. That is not sustainable and will only force the Territory back to the inflated level of debt we found when we came to government and have spent the last three-and-a-half years getting under control.
We inherited Labor’s record level of debt. The Territory was facing bankruptcy when the Country Liberals came to government. We have fixed the economy and put the budget back in the black. We have a plan that secures the future for the Northern Territory. We are delivering jobs, better services, lower crime rates and a great lifestyle.
I take this opportunity to reiterate the Country Liberal government’s achievements. We slashed Labor’s red tape, which was holding back businesses and costing them millions of dollars. We have reformed procurement to support local businesses and local workers’ jobs. We have re-established the live cattle and buffalo trade, which was destroyed by Labor. We embarked on the biggest land release in Territory history. We have made record investments in roads and infrastructure. We have provided $7.5m for 200 schools.
We have the most generous childcare funding subsidy scheme in Australia. We have the most generous back-to-school funding for families in Australia and the most generous sports voucher family funding scheme in Australia. We have the most generous pensioner concession scheme in Australia.
Work has started on the $150m Palmerston Regional Hospital. We are undertaking major upgrades at the Royal Darwin Hospital. We have increased funding for elective surgeries. We have invested in Indigenous development. We have invested $21m to grow the arts. We are continually listening to and continuing to respond to business. We have invested more dollars in tourism, sport, recreational fishing and our parks and coastal reserves.
The Northern Territory has announced a $100m construction package to boost small and medium-size business, because the government is aware that some sectors of our economy are experiencing slow times. The Chief Minister and members of his government have been listening to hundreds of business operators and peak bodies, and we understand that some sections of industry are hurting. We know from listening to business that building trades, especially, are experiencing a lull, despite our strong overall economic position. That is why we brought forward the Boosting our Economy package to specifically assist businesses experiencing slow times.
The $100m is additional money to the record $1.5bn infrastructure spend in this year’s budget. The Boosting our Economy package and the project it supports are designed to provide a short-term cash injection into our economy where it is most needed. The projects in the package are designed to be under way, either contractually or physically, by 30 June. This will help keep businesses running until the capital spending of next year’s budget starts to flow into the economy.
All the projects in the Boosting our Economy package are relatively small by design, meaning they can be accessed by small businesses and/or independent subcontractors. These are the areas that will benefit most from the boost.
School upgrades, repairs and maintenance are the focus of the package, ensuring the widest possible community benefit from this spend. Parents, children and teachers will benefit from new and improved facilities, and our local businesses will benefit from the work this creates.
We are injecting $59m through this program into upgrades, repairs and maintenance of government schools, and $10m into similar work in non-government schools. We are spending $11m on sport and recreation projects under this package, $5m on boosting construction for new tourism infrastructure and $10m on a major social service project.
The government is alert to the needs of the smaller operators in our economy and we will not let them wither from lack of work, and subsequently lose staff and capacity. While we have a number of major projects under way, such as the Palmerston Regional Hospital, special schools in Darwin and Palmerston, Tiger Brennan Drive and the like, we cannot lose sight of the small operators: the painters; the chippies; the sparkies. These contractors need work too and this government is ensuring these vital parts of our economy have a supply of work also.
With recent changes to the government’s procurement policy, the Buy Local Plan, new works under this package will deliver the greatest possible benefits for Territory businesses. The government is playing its role in ensuring work flows through these trades.
Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader and Labor’s destructive economic policies are the biggest threats to the Territory, Territory families and the jobs of local workers. More and more people are realising that the Opposition Leader is not up to the job of being the Territory’s next Chief Minister. He continually fails Territorians on key issues. This is the person who is putting himself up as the alternative Chief Minister and is sending a clear message that under his leadership investing in the Territory is too high a risk to gamble on.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor’s positive jobs plan of the Territory and how we will grow jobs in the Northern Territory.
We have just heard for half-an-hour from the eighth Deputy Chief Minister exactly why nobody should vote for the CLP at the next election. This is an old and tired government. This is a government that has lived the life cycle of seven governments in three-and-a-half years. This is a dog of a government! In dog years this government is 25 years old. This is an old and tired government ready to be retired by Territorians at the next Territory election. That speech was evidence of why Territorians will vote this mob out at the next election. There is no enthusiasm, energy or passion for the Territory and the great place it could be. We will bring that enthusiasm. We will create jobs in the Territory. We are a positive opposition and we will be a positive government. We are lacking that from this CLP government and its eighth Deputy Chief Minister. It is an absolute disgrace of a government. It is old and tired. It is a dog of a government.
Despite the absurdity of wasting time in parliament today and essentially trying to censure the opposition, I welcome the opportunity to talk about our jobs plan, our plan for the Territory and how we will grow jobs in the Territory. We have detailed plans and policies, and I have had great delight in talking to and briefing Territorians about them, releasing them to the public and talking to the media about them. We understand and respect the privilege of government and we want to earn it. We will earn it with a positive Labor agenda for the Territory. We will have a better Territory under a Labor government than what Territorians are getting now from this old, tired dog of a government.
Territorians expect a government to turn up to work every day. That is a basic community expectation. They do not get that from this government, but they will from a Labor government. I will lay out exactly what we will do and how we will do it to fix the mess of the Territory after four years of high-drama soap-opera politics. Labor will clean up the stain on government that is this CLP. You have stained the government in the Northern Territory and Labor will have to clean up your mess.
We have, as a Labor Party, a strong and proud tradition of growing and developing the Territory. Despite the rhetoric of the CLP, the Labor governments of Clare Martin and Paul Henderson are widely regarded in the Territory business community for the work they did in developing and growing the Territory. During the 11 years of those Labor governments, at no time did I hear those Chief Ministers show the disrespect for the previous CLP governments that this unelected and illegitimate Chief Minister shows every day.
My first commitment to Territorians is that I will stop the drama. Territorians want the drama to stop. Labor will not have 15 reshuffles. That is an incredible number. That has seen people have to work with a different Cabinet lineup every three months. People want to understand why the Territory is struggling. There is a reason: a different Cabinet lineup every three months. This government has run this Territory into the ground by only focusing on infighting and personal self-interest, and not the best interests of Territorians. It is a disgrace, and Territorians demand and expect better.
We will not have five Treasurers in one term, nor will we have eight Deputy Chief Ministers. We will not have midnight coups. There will be no accusations that the police are conspiring to overthrow the Chief Minister, which is an appalling accusation from this Chief Minister. There will be no gay slurs, no figurative slaps and no references to smut-mongering journalism.
This government has approached the public in an appalling manner with terrible behaviour. They have no decent conduct. Territorians will judge them at the next election and throw them out on the basis of their own behaviour. It is a terrible, tired dog of a government.
We will not corruptly give away the Territory’s water supplies to our mates. We will not explore personal interests and share deals in major investment companies …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Opposition Leader is asserting corruption, which has never been justified or established.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, could you withdraw that reference to corruption.
Mr GUNNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
I can confirm, Madam Speaker, that there will be no attempts to eject you from your job at 3 am like this government attempted. This will be a respectful government. We will consult with Territorians about the way forward for our community. We will be a government that is respectful of its public service, the private sector and the importance of all people no matter where they live.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he is to be respectful to the public service…
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down!
Mr Elferink: … then do not …
Madam SPEAKER: Leave the Chamber.
Mr Elferink: … slander the Water Controller.
________________________
SUSPENSION OF MEMBER
Member for Port Darwin
Member for Port Darwin
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I would like you to leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 49.
________________________
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Mr GUNNER: A Labor government would be respectful of its public service, the private sector and the importance of all people no matter where they live. We will behave better than the member for Port Darwin just did. The government will be thoughtful in its policy making, and will not chase down every thought bubble as this government does. We will be consistent in our policy application. When a policy is properly consulted on and considered it also needs to be properly implemented and evaluated.
We will commit to this. My government will be open and transparent. We will share information, not hide it, and we will be agile in our service delivery, not constrained. Unlike the CLP, we will engage and embrace debate and criticism, not threaten and bluster at our opponents and those in the community who disagree with us.
In our first term Labor will be focused on growing Territory jobs and the economy, supporting the early years of childhood and restoring trust in government. In addition, we will protect and defend the Territory lifestyle. Let me detail each of those areas. I seek leave to table Labor’s jobs plan, which was released on 3 February this year, and the accompanying documents – the infrastructure plan and our innovation plan.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: The jobs plan we have developed is the economic framework of a Labor government, and it explains how a Labor government will operate. There are more chapters of this policy to be released. The infrastructure plan and innovation policy outline the enablers of economic growth and how Labor will use these enablers to create jobs. I will also outline Labor’s approach to trade and developing closer ties with Asia, another important enabler of economic growth.
Labor believes economic growth and development must be firmly seen through the prism of creating jobs. Ensuring Territorians have the opportunity to get work is an important commitment by a government to its people. Growing the number of jobs to attract people to live here is a significant part of guaranteeing a positive future for all Territorians.
The economic sectors that will be Labor’s focus in our first term will be agribusiness, gas and minerals, tourism, Defence-related industries and international education; however, unlike the CLP, Labor believes that if we want a sustainable, diverse economy, the government must support small industries and engage, merge, grow and create jobs. Those sectors include the following emerging employment and economic areas. Health, especially tropical health initiatives, and delivering health services through technology, and Indigenous pharmacopeia will also play an important role; Territory art culture, food and fashion; land management practices in the desert and tropics; and next-stage solar and alternative energy.
We will actively support the growth of these industries. That is why it is here in particular that we will focus our policies on supporting innovation. We have to overcome the CLP’s complete disregard for new technology and the growth and development of innovation in our economy. This has been a major disservice to the Territory and Territory businesses. We have seen this in the CLP’s attitude to renewables, Uber and driverless cars. We have a government that does not, will not and cannot understand the future and plan for it.
Labor understands you have to embrace new technology if you want to deliver it in the best interests of Territorians. We will support the growth of emerging industries by expanding the business innovation support grants. We will provide an additional $1m for the BISI grants program. Labor will ensure that Territorians in remote and regional Northern Territory will have the opportunity to attract grants. Labor believes there are many innovative Territorians living in the regions and remotely.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have incredible needs in our remote Territory. If we are smart about how we embrace new technologies like 3D printing, we have an opportunity to lead the world in creative applications. Innovators need support, mentorship and advice in taking good ideas from the drawing board to a commercial reality. We will introduce a formal mentor network component to new and existing grants. Labor will ensure that the business support grants programs of government include assistance with accessing this support.
Support from a Labor government grants program will not be limited to start-up projects, but will include support for the growth of existing business. We will encourage the development of local angel investor groups in the Territory. We will work with local innovators to promote ideas to investor groups nationally and internationally. Good ideas can come from government, but government is not home to all ideas. Government alone cannot and should not drive innovation in the Territory. That is why we will engage with local, national and international private sectors to open the Territory to a wave of innovation, ideas, entrepreneurship and exciting developments.
We have creative, skilled, thoughtful people in the Territory, and we will work closely with Charles Darwin University, the Menzies School of Health Research, research centres, Indigenous organisations such as the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the Territory business community and others to drive innovation across the Territory. Furthermore, a Territory Labor government will fund a scoping study to identify opportunities for innovation hubs, invite and encourage the creative skills available across Australia and internationally to contribute to the development and growth of innovation hubs, pilot an innovation hub model and invest in the expansion of innovation hubs across the NT with a localised focus.
I thank the member for Casuarina, who worked with us in great detail in bringing our innovation policy forward. A Labor government will implement an innovator in residence who will see investors, innovators, entrepreneurs and experts take part in residential terms within government, with a view to focus on particular complex challenges and grow their own networks and availability of resources to shape and scale up their ideas.
I do not believe we have heard a single word from this government on harnessing innovation in the Territory from outside to focus and grow our economy. Labor will support the expansion of ICT infrastructure across the Territory with investment that will expand the upload and download of capacity of people living in the bush. That will unlock business investment opportunities, eHealth and distance education. Labor will invest in infrastructure that modernises the Territory’s energy infrastructure and allows Territorians to supply their own energy needs and sell back to the system.
The infrastructure required to establish a network of electric and driverless cars will initially be trialled by government to undertake government work. This is important stuff we need to do to make sure we are delivering in the best interests of Territorians by embracing technology and working out how it can deliver for us.
The CLP’s same mindlessness about the future when it comes to innovation may also be the driving force behind the CLP’s shameful cuts to the resources of our schools. The CLP is not preparing the next generation for the jobs of the future. To help grow our economy into the future Labor will ensure all schools receive advice and training in newly-emerging industries. Many jobs we know and understand today will change significantly over the next five years, and unrecognisably over the next 10. It is critical for students that schools keep up with these changes.
Labor will invest in STEAM – science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics – education, from the early years of schooling. We will do so in partnership with the private sector. Corporations such as Telstra already deliver packages in digital literacy across the country. With leadership from government such programs can be expanded into our schools. Labor will train students from primary school onwards in coding. Coding is the language and text of the modern digital world. Teaching Territory kids to code gives them the best possible chance to take advantage of the opportunities of an increasingly digital world.
To ensure Territory schools are able to maintain their currency with changes in the growth in technology, Labor will work with schools to implement regular opportunities for teachers and trainers to be upskilled. We will host professional development days for teachers and educators as a part of our innovation events to make sure we always have the best teachers in the Territory giving our Territory kids their best chance in life.
We will be an open and transparent government. We will be a government that plans the way forward for the Territory and Territorians in cooperation with Territorians. If you want Territorians to trust you, you have to trust them. If you want to plan for the future of the Territory you must do it with Territorians. On coming to office, Labor will host an economic summit. Our jobs plan will be the backbone of that economic summit.
Prior to the summit we will bring together regional groups, industry sectors, Indigenous Territorians and the non-government sector in a way that will bring to our summit a set agenda of ideas that can strengthen our Territory jobs plan. We will be a government that works with Territorians and does not ignore them or ignore experts. We will make sure we work together. We will have long-term plans such as a 10-year infrastructure plan. We will guarantee that our plans for the future are the product of robust consultation, that we are all on the same page and that government investment unlocks private sector investment.
The best way to guarantee that is through the economic summit, and that is what we have heard from business, which this government does not engage with. People in business want to be consulted and to be part of setting the agenda with government. They have asked for this economic summit as a way to consult properly with government. We are listening and we will engage. That includes mechanisms for consistent and constant feedback. We will reintroduce the business round table as a means of engaging with local business to measure if our policies are working so we get constant and consistent feedback.
Unlike the CLP, we will welcome discussion, debate and criticism. You must have it to be better. The CLP has always ignored the advice of experts and people’s criticism. They refused to listen to the early warning signs when it came to the economy. They put their heads in the sand. You have to be constantly engaged and open to hearing the criticism so you can improve on what you do. That is how you get better at your job. The CLP refuses to do that.
We will rebuild Team NT to promote the Territory nationally and internationally. Unlike the CLP’s approach to overseas ministerial travel, Labor will conduct investment missions in cooperation with and with the support of industry, and not in secret. We will tell Territorians up front where we are going, why and how much it will cost.
Labor will grow jobs by improving the productivity of local businesses. For example, we will build an independent research and economic data unit which will share data with the business community. Make no mistake, this policy will save Territory businesses millions of dollars over time and help them make millions of dollars over time. You need good information to make good decisions. This unit will identify and provide research on key issues which will assist businesses in their start up and growth plans.
Labor will provide a focus on small business. The Territory runs on small business. Its contribution to Territory jobs and growth is extremely significant, but it does not receive the attention and support it deserves. Labor will establish a small business champions unit that will act as an adviser to small business and advocate for small business within government. Within the small business champions unit we will establish six additional mentors whose job will be to support small business through their early interactions with government agencies. Three positions will be based in Darwin and Palmerston, with positions in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one focused on remote business. This was a direct request from business to improve how it works with the existing government, and we are happy to honour it. We think it will improve how government engages with business.
If this government listened to business it would be aware of the need to improve its services.
We will provide start up assistance and seed funding for small business to assist in commercialising new and innovative ideas. We will assist and advise small businesses in their efforts to joint venture with larger companies. We will ensure the information and data needs of small business are highlighted in the work of Labor’s independent research and data unit. We will expand the number and type of small business training and professional development programs.
We will set up a small business-focused energy and water smart program to help reduce business costs. We will ensure infrastructure expenditure is broken into smaller contractor projects to allow small businesses to bid for them so they have the opportunity to contend. We will have small business-focused round tables in each regional centre, and twice a year in Darwin and Palmerston.
In addition to improving the productivity of business, we will grow jobs by improving the participation of Territorians in the economy. Labor will invest in training. We are deeply concerned that the number of apprenticeships and traineeships is collapsing, and that this will impact on the lives of young Territorians and our future economic growth. The CLP has been asleep at the wheel, with hundreds fewer Territorians in training than under the Labor government. Labor has a plan to support more training, and we will release it soon.
Labor’s training plans will make sure Territorians have a pathway beyond high school and that every eligible Territorian can access a government-subsidised Certificate III or higher as their first qualification on a pathway to a job. Territorians will get better advice on careers and training opportunities available in the Territory. Industry-defined skill sets will be recognised, which will transform opportunities in the Territory, especially the remote parts. We will not abolish the Training Advisory Councils or take away their independence as the voice of industry, which is what the CLP government intends to do.
The most important focus in improving participation is on increasing Indigenous participation in our workforce and economy. Labor proposes to:
work with Indigenous communities and their representative organisations to ensure that government and Indigenous people living in communities engage in economic development and growth in the manner and pace at which they wish to proceed. That is critical. Too often we put artificial time lines on things which prevent the participation of Indigenous people in the economy. We have to do it in the manner and pace which can be sustained in our remote areas.
bring together industry, the business community, Indigenous representative groups and Indigenous communities to plan for growth, jobs and development
ensure that Indigenous communities receive strong infrastructure spending programs focused on providing housing to ensure opportunities for work will be created in these communities
ensure that funding, particularly infrastructure funding, is devolved where possible to regional councils and authorities to promote local employment
work with communities and employers to recognise broader concepts of employment and more flexible working arrangements.
Labor will set Indigenous employment targets in key government fields and make a strong push to train Indigenous people in the delivery of key government services. This will be focused on remote and regional towns and communities where a churning workforce provides challenges to service delivery. We will aim to have 500 more Indigenous people filling roles as teachers, police officers or nurses by 2026, with 2016 as our base year. You have to set that target. There are jobs in remote communities which are often not being done by locals in those communities. We can find a way to get that strong, stable core to those communities, just as we have in Darwin. The core of the community can be the same as the core of a community anywhere else – Yuendumu or anywhere. You have to get it right around those strong, basic jobs. We can do that.
To advance skills development, Labor will work with Indigenous Territorians and industry to target training for trades, and reposition the existing Indigenous responsive training program and the Indigenous Workforce Participation Initiatives Program to better align the two for job outcomes in regions and to leverage Australian government initiatives. We will introduce a specific Indigenous pre-employment apprenticeship program to provide specific training for unskilled or semi-skilled Indigenous Territorians to gain essential industry skills that lead to jobs. This will be linked, where possible, to Australian government programs.
We will fund foundation skills for Indigenous workers who require increased literacy and numeracy in the workplace to advance in their careers and introduce a strong skills and careers-focused program into schools across the Territory. Through cooperation with the Desert Knowledge centre in Alice Springs, Labor will introduce a focused Indigenous innovation project. I will return to Indigenous issues later in my speech.
Labor intends to grow jobs by attracting more people to live and work here. We will actively seek to stem the outpouring of people to other parts of Australia. Labor will undertake research into what keeps people here and what places pressure on them to go elsewhere.
We know from the broad data we already have that we are losing senior Territorians. We have to provide more aged-care housing options. We will work with the sector to have more retirement villages built in the rural areas of Darwin and Palmerston, the inner city and regional and remote centres. We have to get smarter and better at how we look after our senior Territorians. We cannot afford to keep losing our senior Territorians to down south. When you lose the grandparents you often lose the grandkids. We need to keep the whole family tree. We have to get it right for our senior Territorians. They provide significant corporate knowledge and a sense of community. Retired senior Territorians can be the backbone of our volunteer groups and sporting clubs. We have to keep them. It is significant to providing more stability to the Territory so we do not have that constant churn.
We are also losing young Territorians who leave to study. We will expand the educational opportunities available to Territorians. One of the best things Labor did last time we were in government was to make sure you could study to be a doctor in the Territory. The base level of work we can do to keep Territorians and attract people here is to expand our support for arts, culture, sports and lifestyle. This is an important area. We have a great lifestyle in the Territory but we can always find ways to make it better.
I seek leave to table Labor’s recreational fishing policy.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: This policy has been embraced and endorsed by the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT. Recreational fishing is an iconic part of the Top End lifestyle. It is an important reason for many Territorians to stay here and continue their investment in the Territory. Good recreational fishing is important for the tourism industry. It is a jobs generator, particularly in the remote areas. Assisting sound economic development of remote areas through partnership with Aboriginal Territorians is core Labor thinking.
In our first term Labor will commit $50m to the development of much needed and improved recreational fishing infrastructure. We will directly engage with the recreational fishing community to advise on the needs and priorities of anglers. Recreational fishers will be engaged in drawing up a list of key projects against the expenditure; however, Labor believes there is an immediate need for some projects to get under way. These include upgrading the Channel Island boat ramp, upgrading the Middle Arm boat ramp carpark, installing CCTV cameras and building new toilets at the Dinah Beach boat ramp, implementing a long-term program of building artificial reefs and installing fish attraction devices, increasing land-based fishing platforms nearer to residential areas and providing improved facilities for disabled anglers and children at appropriate locations. I am sure there are quite a few mature Territorians who would like to take advantage of fishing from land too.
A Territory Labor government will stock residential lakes with barramundi fingerlings – one good thing this government has done – provide grant funding for fishing clubs to run children’s fishing clinics, work with Indigenous representative organisations and Indigenous communities to develop …
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 3/4 class from St Paul’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Carol Carey. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr GUNNER: We will work with Indigenous representative organisations and Indigenous communities to develop a fishing NT remote community prospectus of potential fishing and tourism investment. Getting that prospectus right is a particular passion of the member for Nhulunbuy, and there are some exciting opportunities.
We will establish a grants program aimed at backing the fishing NT remote community prospectus and continue to negotiate improved fishing arrangements with traditional owners.
One of the great job generators and enablers of economic growth in the Territory is infrastructure spending by government. Labor has provided a comprehensive plan for the way we will use infrastructure spending to grow the Territory. Labor believes the government must invest in infrastructure to support the construction industry, grow jobs and expand the economy. Labor has a history of building the Territory, and if elected to government we will invest in improving and expanding infrastructure over the course of our government. A Labor government infrastructure program will be focused on leveraging the natural resources and other advantages of the Territory to enable economic growth, underpinning the social development of the community, and Labor will ensure that the infrastructure program is spread across the Territory. Labor will ensure it is released in a way that supports local industry.
Infrastructure expenditure must leverage our natural resources and other advantages of the Territory to enable economic growth. Labor will use the funds available to it for infrastructure growth in three main areas. We will invest in growing and developing the transport supply chain to underpin our trade-focused economy. We will invest in major tourism infrastructure to add to the Territory’s tourism attraction, and invest in infrastructure that supports innovative technology and renewable energy.
Labor will invest in the Territory’s supply chain design to unlock the industry across the Territory and allow the Territory to produce goods and deliver them quickly to markets. We expect this will involve significant investment in roads, railway spur lines, port storage and handling needs.
To invest in the transport supply chain you need a transport supply chain infrastructure master plan. We do not have one in the Territory and that must be fixed. If we are elected we will use the opportunity created by the Northern Territory jobs plan and the work done by our economic summit to develop a transport supply chain infrastructure master plan.
There are projects that Labor believes will underpin expanded growth in the Territory. Based on the outcomes of extensive studies, Labor will support the creation of a railway spur line to Queensland. Labor will develop Katherine as a major inland port and transport hub. Labor will develop Tennant Creek as a major mining services centre. Labor will support the development of a shiplift facility at Darwin port, a project that has been on the books for a decade.
We will also invest in major tourism infrastructure. All Territorians understand the importance of the Northern Territory tourism industry, but we can provide further support.
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 4 class from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by their teacher, Leisa Beynon. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
___________________________
Mr GUNNER: We can grow the number of tourists who come here, through smart investment. The Northern Territory can be the nation’s leading centre for Indigenous art, and recognised as such. We have wonderful artists spread across the Territory. Let us take something we do well and elevate it nationally and internationally. Labor will create a world-class Indigenous arts trail across the Territory. Over the next 15 years Labor will develop a network of international-class Indigenous art galleries throughout the Territory. These projects will be linked and will form an Indigenous art trail across the Territory. Wings or smaller galleries will be developed regionally.
We want every tourist who comes to Australia to know they must travel to the Northern Territory to see the world’s best Indigenous art on display and experience one of the world’s oldest cultures. We will base the iconic national Indigenous art gallery in Alice Springs as part of our plan to develop Alice Springs as the nation’s inland capital and make Alice Springs a destination in its own right again, which is something that has been lost as access directly to Uluru has become easier. This project will be the first of the national Indigenous art gallery projects. This proposal will create an iconic building in Alice Springs and will house the definitive national collection of Indigenous art.
Labor will also support the development of an internationally significant Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs. This project will be owned by the Indigenous community of Alice Springs, in Central Australia, and it shall remain in control of the project. Labor’s role will be to provide financial advice and legal and secretarial support to the project, and to assist where required to get this important project under way.
The iconic national Indigenous art gallery and the cultural centre will complement each other. Together they will elevate Alice Springs and again provide a reason to visit Alice Springs in its own right, and support our plan to develop Alice Springs as the nation’s inland capital.
As part of the development of our Indigenous art trail, Labor will work with communities in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Arnhem Land to ensure that wings of the major national gallery in Alice Springs are developed to bring together the works of the saltwater people, the desert people and everyone in between.
We will also promote community galleries as part of the national Indigenous art trail. Labor will offer infrastructure grants, through its tourism infrastructure grants program, to improve the buildings housing the art. I have had the privilege of witnessing the extraordinary talent we have in our remote communities. Our art centres are assets and our trails will promote an experience too few have enjoyed.
In Darwin, following the design of a museums master plan, Labor will build a new Northern Territory museum in Darwin as part of the development of Darwin as the nation’s north Australian capital. The current Northern Territory Museum and Art Gallery is great, but it is small and needs to be expanded. It also serves multiple roles; it is a museum and an art gallery. These are usually separate buildings and important in and of themselves.
Labor believes it is time for a community discussion about the development and building of a new Territory museum, preferably in the Darwin CBD. A Territory-wide museum will be an iconic feature of the capital city, and placing it in the CBD complements the existing capital city architecture. Labor will continue to use the Bullocky Point centre as a museum. It is an incredible location for a museum and remains a wonderful community asset.
I turn to infrastructure expenditure that underpins community development. We will use our infrastructure budget to support the development of improved community outcomes. The major focus of this expenditure will be housing that will be a key component to urban growth, particularly in Darwin and Palmerston.
A Labor government will use its infrastructure budget to invest in housing in remote communities, which I will say a bit more about in a minute. We will also improve and expand housing for aged Territorians, improve and expand the community housing options, support the Darwin and Palmerston CBD master plans, and support urban growth in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas, including developing Weddell.
Labor will allocate infrastructure funds into a strategic local government fund aimed at investing in projects designed to lift liveability, health and community development outcomes in remote communities. These funds will be used to back projects such as resealing internal town and community roads, green streetscape projects, storm water management, barge landings, cemetery upgrades, accreditation of rubbish tips, communications infrastructure and other projects.
Labor will work with regional councils, local authorities and the Australian government to ensure programs and funds are coordinated and used most effectively. Labor will work with non-government organisations such as LGANT and Indigenous representative bodies to ensure their input is also provided. Labor will ensure that this funding leverages the development of local Indigenous enterprise and businesses, and will employ and train local Indigenous people.
We also need to invest in regional and remote sports and recreation infrastructure. Labor will invest in supporting identified regional sports, recreational arts and festival events. Labor sees this as important investment which is designed to lift important community outcomes.
Labor will invest over $1bn over 10 years into remote housing. I seek leave to table Labor’s remote housing strategy.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: In government, Labor will provide a 10-year, $1.1bn remote housing program to lift the amount of housing, living space and rooms available to Territorians living in remote communities. This funding will be allocated to five housing construction expansion programs. These are:
1. HomeBuild NT – our direct Territory government investment in building new housing, living space and rooms in remote communities. These funds will be additional to the Australian government’s commitment through the national partnership. Labor will provide $500m over 10 years from Territory infrastructure budgets to pay for this program. HomeBuild NT will be focused on bringing new homes on line for Territorians in remote communities. The program will be flexible enough to include remote specialist housing for aged Territorians and for those with a disability, mental condition or who are recovering from addictions and dependency on alcohol and other drugs.
2. The Territory government will invest in repairs and maintenance on houses beyond the funds currently provided by the Australian government. Labor will provide an additional $20m per year to repairs and maintenance programs, beginning in the 2017-18 budget and extending through the full 10 years.
5. An expanded Homelands Extra funding program. Labor will lift the program to $6000 per eligible family per year and reform the eligibility criteria. We will manage all this through devolution to local groups.
It is the intention of Labor to devolve key decision-making over housing back to Indigenous people living in remote communities. Labor is prepared to devolve to shires, regional authorities or housing groups the decision-making about what to build, where to build it, how to build it and who will build it. Labor is also prepared to work with new models of decision-making that engage communities and external groups such as resource centres. This devolution of powers will be a hallmark of the relationships we will develop with Indigenous Territorians.
In 40 minutes I have gone through some of Labor’s plans. We have many more. I have not touched on investment into early years and our plan to restore integrity and trust to government. I seek leave to table both those papers.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, this has been an excellent opportunity to talk about Labor’s plans to grow jobs in the Territory. We will be a positive alternative to an old and tired government that has, in three-and-a-half-years, lived the life cycle of seven governments. This is an old tired dog of a government, and we will provide a positive alternative to the CLP. We will create jobs in the Territory and build a better Territory with Territorians because we will work with and engage with them, unlike the CLP.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it takes a lot of guts to call us dogs. Shame on you. You come into this parliament and tell Territorians and the school children here, looking at an alternative government and Chief Minister – to show as little respect and dignity as you have and call us tired old dogs; shame on you.
It also takes a lot of guts to come in here with your empty policies and plans. It would be wonderful, as a government, to have a plan to make a plan, but that is not the reality, Opposition Leader. You need a lot more than a plan to make a plan, which was all you outlined in 40 minutes. I am very embarrassed for you that you stood here to outline that you would be an alternative government, particularly in front of those school children. It is hard to be a government, and you do not always have the answers, but you listen to Territorians, take the time, respond, and pre-empt the things you can. It is much more than a plan to make a plan.
It was interesting that you tabled a lot of documents, Opposition Leader. My colleague, the member for Blain, and I were perusing some of them. It is amazing, because I am holding our plan for economic development and I could swear it is exactly the same as the document you tabled. In our plan we have a plan for energy, minerals, tourism, agribusiness, international education and training, and Defence supply and service. You tabled Labor’s Northern Territory jobs plan and, what do you know, on page 7 you can see agribusiness, gas and minerals, tourism, Defence-related industries and international education. I could have sworn I read that before somewhere else. It is amazing. I cannot blame you because it is an excellent plan and it is delivering excellent results for Territorians. I applaud you for realising that we have a plan and we are taking Territorians in the right direction.
It is important to go back to where the Territory was three-and-a-half years ago and the enormous task we had as a government to turn the Territory around and get it back on track. We had to fix the mess of the budget. None of the policies announced by Labor today would have been costed. None of them had any detail or a figure attached to them. The member for Blain is a numbers man and he did not see a dollar figure in sight in any of the plans. That does not matter though, because under Labor you can put everything on the credit card. They do not have any costings because – ca-ching, ca-ching. I like using my American Express card as much as anyone else, much to my husband’s disgust, but you cannot do that when you are in government and forging a future for Territorians.
When we came into government there were major money problems which we had to fix. We had to diversify our economy. All the platforms we have talked about – energy, minerals, tourism, agribusiness, Defence supply and service and international education – are areas we have worked very hard on to develop so we can diversify our economy and there can be a variety of jobs for people so when one industry is going through a tough time, people can move into new industries, so there is always something there for everyone.
The CLP learnt a long time ago, when the ConocoPhillips project was being developed, that these huge projects create a spike and then there is a massive fall. Labor did not account for that with INPEX. It promised the world, and we have talked of this a number of times over the last three-and-a-half years. INPEX was the world’s solution to everything. Of course, it was not; we saw an economy that had nothing left for Territorians.
We worked hard to boost that. The Chief Minister and the member for Greatorex, when he was the Tourism minister, worked extremely hard to boost our tourist numbers, which has created jobs not just in Central Australia and the Top End, but in Aboriginal and remote communities. It has created an industry that was never there before. Central Australia has seen a fantastic increase in international tourism, which is brilliant. It deserves that; Central Australia is an amazing and beautiful place and has so much to showcase.
On the domestic scene, we have seen a 29% increase in tourism in the Northern Territory. That is an enormous increase. There are still many operators who would like to see more and need more people through the door, booking tours and engaging in the tourism sector. There is no question about it, you can always do more. But we were starting from a very low base and we have come a very long way.
When we came to government there was a ban on the live cattle trade. We have had to turn around an entire cattle industry. We now have the biggest live cattle port in the world, with 650 000 head of cattle going through our port. We have created a buffalo trade and developed new markets into Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. We have done an amazing job in that space. It is a far cry from where we started three-and-a-half years ago.
We have been issuing water licences to support agriculture. You cannot have agriculture without water; that is just the fact of the matter. The last government sat on water licences since 2004. It could not make a decision, work out its policy direction or do anything. It just sat there and suffocated Territorians who wanted to grow watermelons and mangoes, and engage in the agricultural sector and create jobs, which Labor could not do in 11 years.
Mining goes through tough times. We are fortunate enough now to see gold turning around and a massive expansion in gold in our economy. That is an important part of diversifying the economy and providing opportunities for Territorians. Without looking at how we can innovate and create new markets we will not be able to deliver jobs.
I loved what the Opposition Leader said; I wrote it down. There will be, if Labor forms government, a ‘wave of innovation’. A wave of innovation will come out of somewhere like a tsunami and take the Northern Territory by storm. I am not sure what will create the wave. We are hearing and reading a lot of words but there is no substance to it. There is nothing behind what you are saying. People do not want to hear a plan for a plan. They do not want talk. They do not want governments to just say words. They are meaningless unless they transpire into something on the ground. That is what our government has been able to establish over the last three-and-a-half years.
We have a long way to go. In our second term of government – we will have a second term of government – we will see the continued roll-out of opportunity for Territorians well into the future. We are not here for the now; we are here for tomorrow. We are here to see our children and their children’s children love the Northern Territory as much as we do. We need to put things in place now for the next 50 to 100 years. It is not opportunism, grabbing for votes, plans to make a plan and meaningless words. I am not sure what will cause the wave of innovation. I think is it highly unlikely that there will be a wave of innovation because it does not mean anything to anyone.
Recently, Defence White Papers were released which state there will be $20bn of Defence spending in the Northern Territory. I think the closest thing Labor did in 11 years – what is the Defence hub called near Robertson Barracks? I do not even know what it is called; that is how impressive it is. Defence spending of $20bn in the Northern Territory is fantastic. It will create jobs, new businesses and opportunities for Territorians. It secures our importance in the national Defence space, and we will see many new opportunities come into the Territory. That is real; I am not making that up. We did not come up with that as a plan we would like to have. That will happen.
International education is another one of our economic development focus points. It will be an exciting urban industry for the Top End. Many of the other industries we talk about are things that happen off shore or in regional areas, whereas education will be happening right here. Why is it that in Adelaide 12 000 high school students are from overseas? The Northern Territory is about to emerge as part of that market and opportunity. It has never happened before and we have come a long way to put things in place to get that to happen. These things take time. We are not there yet, but it is certainly something we set our sights on right from the start and have been working hard to deliver.
Pretty much everything is made out of oil and gas – plastics and all types of things. Everything comes from that industry so the more of it we have in the Territory the better it will be for Territorians. We want to see power prices come down and we want to make our own petrol and make it cheaper. We want to develop petrochemical industries so we can make plastics in the Northern Territory …
Mr Barrett: They want a moratorium.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Yes, and the opposition wants a moratorium.
Yesterday the Chief Minister outlined very articulately in Question Time all the reviews Labor would undertake if it were to form a government. I cannot even list them all. It was an entire A4 page of reviews. That is not doing anything. You need to do something. You cannot just have meeting after meeting that achieves nothing. You cannot just have a plan to make a plan. You need to set your goals then achieve them.
We have $1bn worth of exploration in the Northern Territory this year. That is research and development happening here. Over the next 20 years 6300 jobs will be created in that sector.
Going back to education – and the Opposition Leader mentioned investment in education which sounded very similar to some of our policies – all of the $1bn in royalties from onshore gas will go into education. That is massive. If you talk about innovation, that might be something you want to think about in your wave.
This is our plan to create jobs. This is part of what we are doing to create jobs. We saw, for 11 years, that Labor did not support agriculture, gas, cattle or any of the things the Opposition Leader so fondly spoke about when he said, ‘If we were to return to government we’d do X’. You had 11 years to do it and you did nothing. I do not think the light bulb has just clicked on this year and things will change.
It was fantastic that you spoke about the Territory lifestyle. No one defends our Territory lifestyle more than me in this parliament. It was interesting that you mentioned a recreational fishing program that sounds a lot like a program we are already doing. Actually, I think the Neighbourhood Fishing Program was my idea, where we are already breeding barramundi and stocking lakes. I believe minister Higgins recently went to Manton Dam with barramundi fingerlings. My fingerlings are fattening up at Fisheries, ready to go into Durack Lakes as part of the Neighbourhood Fishing Program.
Minister Price has opened up our parks. Under Labor everything was too hard and was closed down. We have been getting people back outdoors. We want Territorians to enjoy the Northern Territory. We want families out and about. Recently there was a press release about upgrades to Howard Springs. We are committed to Territorians and providing opportunities for them. We want Territorians to be enjoying our beautiful Territory.
How many studies can you do before you have to come up with your own plan? How many reviews can you undertake? The message from the opposition today is that you cannot risk Labor because there is nothing to go to. There is no alternative government. There is nothing but empty promises, and, quite frankly, Territorians deserve much better. Territorians do not want a government that has a plan to make a plan, and I cannot stand in this House to represent Territorians and let the next generation suffer as a result of a Labor government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I probably will not talk for long, but I am sure I can fairly well sum up what the Leader of the Opposition said in his 40 or 45 minute speech in much less time.
It was really disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the debate of this motion. He started out quite passionately; I will give him that. It was long on passion and rhetoric but very short on detail. It did not give me any confidence that he, as the aspiring next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, can deliver a government that will do anything to better the economy of the Northern Territory.
In past weeks, and again today, we have heard a lot from the Leader of the Opposition about slowing the Territory down. If you distil everything out of what the Opposition Leader says, you can see that he wants to slow things down, rather than get on and get the job done, speed things up and make them happen. He talks about plans he and his aspiring government would have for the Northern Territory. It is a shame that plagiarism is not listed in the standing orders of this place, because we could well and truly use that standing order, if it existed, to totally disregard everything the Leader of the Opposition placed on record today, including the papers he tabled, which in many cases are a direct lift from the policies of the Giles CLP government, but also from all of the things we, as a government, have been doing for the past three-and-a-half years.
In talking about growing the economy, there is very little the Opposition Leader has come up with that is new, innovative or inspiring. It tells me that we simply cannot risk having a Labor government in the Northern Territory.
Let us look at a few things the Opposition Leader has announced in recent times. As this motion describes, one can be best described as a moratorium on jobs. Let us talk about his gas moratorium. If you look at the map of the Northern Territory that was put together by the Department of Mines and Energy a couple of years ago, it showed that some 90% or 95% of the Northern Territory’s entire land mass was either granted or under application for petroleum permits, and petroleum, naturally, includes gas. That is a legacy of the former Labor government. Those things were in place three-and-a-half years ago, before the CLP came to power.
Now, from some epiphany, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to do everything he can to destroy confidence in the Northern Territory by those companies which would or could come here and explore for oil and gas. We all know that the oil and gas industry is potentially enormous for the Territory. Deloitte put out a report saying up to 6000 jobs could be created if gas and petroleum industry in the Northern Territory flourished. It would create hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, all of which have been earmarked by the Chief Minister, in a sensible call, to go towards educating young people in the Northern Territory. Labor’s moratorium would deny Territorians access to all that – no more jobs and no more massive amounts of money that could be pumped into the education of young Territorians. I find that disgraceful.
The gas industry has the potential to drive the economy of the Territory for the next 50 or 100 years. It has been mooted by some people that the Territory’s gas industry will drive, to some degree, the economy of the entire country. The Leader of the Opposition would kill that.
His announcement of a moratorium is already damaging confidence, let alone what would happen in the future. Look at Pangaea’s announcement about jobs. How can you trust a potential government to do the right thing by Territorians when the announcements it has made are destroying the economy. That is what it is trying to achieve, and I know what it is; Territory Labor is putting the future of the Northern Territory economy at risk just because it wants to play popular politics. That is an absolute disgrace.
It is easy to sit in opposition – most of us on this side of the House were there for four years, from 2008 to 2012 – and throw stones at the government. Once you get to government you realise that it is hard to make decisions. It is easy to do nothing but hard to make decisions because every decision you make will annoy somebody. But if you stand here with the true interest of Territorians at heart and make those hard decisions you are doing, as a politician or minister, what the people of the Northern Territory elected you to do.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 3/4 classes from St Paul’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Tessa Browett and Lauren Penny. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, look into the gallery and see all those young faces. They are our young Territorians; they are our future. You are in school and will continue to grow up in the Territory, I hope, then you will move into jobs created by a government that is supporting the private sector to do what it does best, which is grow the economy. Under Labor’s plans the future for those young people looks bleak because of its job-destroying policies.
Water is always a controversial topic. The opposition has now said it will put a moratorium on jobs in the agriculture sector by – the code words are ‘reviewing water licences’. When we came to government in 2012 we discovered that, in Labor’s best and truest form, it did nothing. We discovered there were 75 water licence applications sitting on a shelf gathering dust because the former Labor government could not make tough decisions. It did not want to upset anybody. It did not want to upset its Green mates. I do not know who else it did not want to upset, but it did nothing. It preferred to see the agricultural industries of the Territory flounder, because they could not have access to the most important natural resource that agriculture needs: water.
When we came to government we issued water licences. I was the Minister for Land Resource Management from December 2012 until quite recently. I am very proud of the work done by me, my office, both Water Controllers at the time and the department in furthering our government’s agenda to grow the agriculture sector by issuing water licences. In recent times the statistics have shown that since we came to government we have issued 167 new licences, increases to allocations or renewals of water licences. It might even be a few more than that by now.
That is what a government does to support the agricultural community of the Northern Territory, amongst many other things. If the Labor Party is given power in August 2016, we will see the agricultural industries start to slow down, flounder and stop because of the uncertainty associated with Labor’s appalling water policy. You could well see a clawback of water allocations by Labor. How will that improve the economy of the Northern Territory?
Mr Barrett: It does not.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Blain. It does not at all. All it does is slow things down. There could not be an individual working in the primary sector of the NT who would support a slow-down of their industry. That is why you cannot risk a Labor government in August 2016. That is one reason, and it is a compelling one. We will see a return to the bad old days of the Labor government, where it was too frightened to make decisions. ‘It is all too hard; we will do nothing about it. We will play popular politics and pretend we are doing something.’ It is a disgrace.
I also heard earlier something we have, sadly, become accustomed to in this House, which is the Labor Party slurring our public servants. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that the Water Controller issues water licences. The Leader of the Opposition said this government corruptly issued water licences to mates. That is a direct slur on the good public servants in the Northern Territory, particularly the Water Controller at the time. Once again, the Labor Party members should be ashamed of themselves. Every public servant who heard that, who has it replayed to them or sent out to them in a transcript should be quivering in their boots knowing that if a Labor government is returned in August this year, there will probably be some sort of witch-hunt. I suggest that those public servants who supported the policies of the CLP will be in the direct firing line of a Labor government.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Leader of the Opposition’s response to this motion was long on rhetoric but short on detail. When a response such as that is given, one must turn one’s mind to whether there is a prior history of the way in which a party tends to govern. Let us look at some of the priors of Labor over the past few years. It is very quick to turn to moratoria. Let us look at land clearing in the Daly. It was too hard and it did not understand it. ‘Oh, let us put a moratorium on land clearing.’
In more recent times, the gas industry – too hard, do not understand it, want to play popular politics, ‘Let us put a moratorium on it’. Water policy – ‘Let us put a moratorium on it’.
Let’s not even talk about what the Labor Party did to the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Why would anybody want to inflict a government on the Northern Territory that was complicit in the banning of live cattle exports in 2011? Think about the prior history of the Labor Party and what it has done.
I was the shadow minister for Tourism for a period between 2008 and 2012. I remember questioning the then minister, Malarndirri McCarthy, in estimates about the falling tourist numbers. It was easy to discern that because of a savage underspend by the government on promoting the Northern Territory as a tourist destination, our tourism numbers were diving. I asked what the priorities were. The response staggered me. Without going into specific detail, the Labor government was more interested in pursuing social agendas than it was about economy-growing ideas and actions; that was clear.
What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition was another example of that. There was a lot of talk about social agendas. It was hidden amongst the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition. There was nothing the Leader of the Opposition said that instilled any confidence in me that they will be able to grow the economy of the Northern Territory. We will end up with another mass Labor spend-a-thon. It will keep racking it up on the credit card and reverse all the good hard work this government has done to bring spending under control, bring our budget back into the black and reduce our projected debt by around half.
We will end up with a bunch of spending on social agendas at the expense of the economy of the Northern Territory. That is why you cannot risk installing a Labor government in August this year. The Labor Party does not get business or economy. It does not understand it. You cannot blame them for that. It is built into their DNA. Social agendas do not build the economy. It is as simple as that.
I think the member for Nhulunbuy might be keen to speak on this motion. I hope the member for Nhulunbuy can say something that will inspire me, or instil confidence in me or anybody else that they have an agenda.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, as the member for Nhulunbuy I will not be lectured by members opposite or the Chief Minister about jobs, or lectured to by this woeful government. I will not be lectured to by the member for Katherine about plagiarism. I will not be lectured to by this dog of a government.
The Chief Minister and this government singlehandedly destroyed the …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 31. I let it ride a couple of times, but use of the word ‘dog’, particularly from the left, but in any circumstances, is highly offensive. It should be expunged from this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I disagree. It is not highly offensive but I take your point. It will not be expunged, but, member for Nhulunbuy, please couch your words a little differently.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, this Chief Minister and this government singlehandedly destroyed the refinery at Nhulunbuy, costing thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. They did so because the Chief Minister ripped up an agreement which was reached with his predecessor in a fit of pique.
In a complete betrayal of the people of Nhulunbuy – we only have to look to the newspaper front page in 2013 which said, ‘Gas to come to Gove’. A deal had been reached with the former Chief Minister and his Cabinet …
Mr Chandler: Provided enough gas.
Ms WALKER: … then the following week – I hear the interjection from the member for Brennan – there he is on the front page of our local newspaper, and there is the member for Katherine, alongside the former Chief Minister, who was knifed in the back, receiving congratulations for delivering gas to Gove. Do not tell me, member for Brennan, that it is nonsense. You were part of that Cabinet that approved gas to Gove, and you were part of the same government that axed it. What an utter betrayal of a community of 4000 people, which is now home to about 2000 thanks to the CLP government.
As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will not be lectured to by this Chief Minister about messages to our neighbours, and I will not be yelled at by the member for Port Darwin. After all, it was three years ago this week when this Chief Minister, ably supported by his now Deputy Chief Minister, waited for his leader to go to Japan on an international business trip before knifing him in the back.
That ranks amongst low acts at about the same level as Trevor Chappell’s underarm bowl to New Zealand.
Mr Chandler: Too soon.
Ms WALKER: Adam Giles is the Territory’s Trevor Chappell, and if he thinks his treachery was not noted in Japan, then he should think again.
I am surprised by you, member for Brennan; you have been on the receiving end of his treachery. I notice you are no longer the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
I will not be lectured to by this Chief Minister and government when they condone their former Deputy Chief Minister, the disgraced member for Katherine, for conducting his private business with an overseas investment company while in control of the resources that can benefit that company in the Territory. I will not be lectured to by people like that.
I will not be lectured to about sovereign risk by a government that has had two-and-a-half Chief Ministers, eight Deputy Chief Ministers and five Treasurers in three-and-a-half years, which equates to a reshuffle approximately every three months. The biggest risk to the Territory economy is four more years of this dreadful CLP government.
I will not be lectured on economics and jobs by a Chief Minister and government that have their policies so terribly wrong that business confidence has dropped 22 points in 12 months to be the second-lowest in Australia, and there is a 21% vacancy rate in CBD commercial premises. This government has it so wrong that we have seen a 33% drop in first home buyers loans, despite low interest rates. It has it so wrong that it has allowed businesses in Nightcliff, Palmerston, Casuarina, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine to be constantly harassed, threatened and abused by rampant, out-of-control antisocial behaviour. It is not funny, Deputy Chief Minister. It is very serious for the residents of these places, who have suffered under your terrible policies. It is nothing to be laughed at, Deputy Chief Minister.
I will not be lectured by a government that was elected with a majority of 16 members in the House and is now relying on secret deals to pass legislation. I will not be lectured by a government and Chief Minister that behave like that.
When the CLP was elected in August 2012, it immediately set the tone for the government it has had since. As you know only too well, Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder, you were dumped as deputy leader upon coming to government. Public service chief executives were axed and thrown out because they were not liked, not because they could not do their jobs. Departments were split and reshuffled backwards and forwards. Ask the staff in Asian relations and trade which government agency they are in this week.
Power prices were jacked up 30%, and water and sewerage prices were jacked up by 40%. Still today Indigenous people in remote communities do not know why it is lucky if $20 on their power card, which might have lasted five days in an average household, now lasts two days. At Milingimbi the week before last, people were telling me they still did not know that power prices had gone up, but they know their power cards do not last as long. Shame on the CLP government for hurting Territorians, and our most disadvantaged Territorians – Indigenous Territorians – in remote communities. When these power cards run out, they do not have the cash to buy another one. They sit in the dark. The fans and washing machine do not work and the fridge does not stay cold.
Under the CLP, schools and education programs have been cut, in some cases by a 30% reduction in grants and programs. More than 330 staff in schools have been removed and 550 in total in the agency. That is appalling.
Welfare organisations have had their budgets slashed. Support to youth programs has been slashed. There is a direct correlation in youths being incarcerated because we have seen diversion programs slashed and a reduction in resources to the Department of Children and Families. So many of those young people who interface with the justice and corrections systems are in care and protection. It is all a direct result of the CLP government.
Let us not forget the cutting of the Banned Drinker Register, the BDR, simply because it was a Labor policy, not based on any data, research or evidence. They knew it was working and axed it simply on the basis that it was a Labor policy.
The CLP set itself up as a mean and vindictive government that assumed it knew better than anyone else in the Territory. Very soon we saw policies dumped on the public service with little input from anyone and impossible time lines in which to deliver them. We saw taxes imposed on the mining industry with no discussion or consultation, and it was the same for the casino. We saw ministers engage in public witch-hunts of key groups and the Treasurer’s attack on the racing industry. We have seen endless deals for mates.
The government, through the now disgraced former Deputy Chief Minister, corruptly allocated water to the CLP candidate, Tina MacFarlane.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy knows she has to move a substantive motion to allege corruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you need to review the word ‘corruption’.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Araluen
Member for Araluen
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I would like to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am aware of the request from the member for Araluen. In accordance with convention, we will hear the personal explanation in silence.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yesterday the Chief Minister made some statements about me in this Chamber that were factually incorrect. I feel the Chief Minister has misrepresented me, and for this reason I am making this personal explanation.
The Chief Minister said yesterday in parliament that I delayed the building of Palmerston Regional Hospital. This is not true. The progress of building Palmerston hospital was well on track when the Chief Minister did his major reshuffle in December 2014, removing me from the Health portfolio.
In 2014 the then federal Minister for Health, Peter Dutton, the major funding partner of the hospital, required that we pursue a full public-private partnership model of procurement. That is exactly what I was doing.
My pursuit of a full PPP was met with enormous resistance from a few colleagues who could not comprehend such a bold and innovative approach to building a modern hospital and delivering hospital services. It also caused great consternation and nervousness in the bureaucracy, despite the fact it had the full backing of the federal minister, and the model was being replicated throughout the country.
Finally the Chief Minister dumped me from Health so a traditional build and operate procurement model for the Palmerston Regional Hospital could be adopted. Was the Palmerston Regional Hospital behind schedule in December 2014? No, it was right on schedule. Any delay was due to a dramatic change in the procurement model after my departure.
The Chief Minister also claimed yesterday that I knifed the member for Goyder in the back to become the Deputy Chief Minister in August 2012. Again, this was not the case. I was nominated to become the Deputy Chief Minister by my colleagues and it came as a complete surprise to me that I had the majority support of my colleagues. I did not campaign for the position, and I did not covet the position. I was not even confident I was the best person for the job at the time, because of my lack of experience. Did I plot or knife anyone to get this position? No, an open and transparent process was followed.
Yes, I did instigate $5m of health and hospital funding to be transferred from the Gove District Hospital Emergency Department to fund a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs. Gove was looking at a population drop of anything up to 50% in 2014, with the sad closure of the bauxite refinery. As Health minister, I made the difficult decision to keep $8m of a total of $13m in Gove to upgrade the emergency department, and $5m was allocated to build a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister also said yesterday that I reneged on a palliative care hospice for Alice Springs. This was my initiative as Health minister. I have remained fully supportive of a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs, despite what the Chief Minister may say. I came to Alice Springs many years ago and worked in the hospital there. I know firsthand the need for a palliative care hospice in Alice Springs, which is why I initiated the funding transfer, planning and development of a palliative care hospice.
Yes, I did initiate the car parking charges for the Royal Darwin Hospital. It was a monumental mistake, and, in hindsight, we should never have done it. However, it was done with the best intentions to use the money to upgrade the parking, lighting and security throughout the Royal Darwin Hospital campus. We achieved this, but the pain was not worth it. The Chief Minister was part of those deliberations in Cabinet to make that decision to charge for parking at RDH.
Yes, in Question Time yesterday I asked a question about the Chief Minister’s remote contracting and Aboriginal employment policy. The Chief Minister accused me of being racially divisive. It was not racially divisive; it was a question about a government policy pertaining to Aboriginal employment. Have we reached the point in this Chamber that asking any sensitive questions about race-based policy is racist? I hope not. Saying my question was racially divisive was inflammatory and simply untrue.
The Chief Minister also stated yesterday that I sacked a disabled person from my ministerial office. During my time as a minister, I employed two disabled people, one on a four-month contract, which he completed, and the other was employed in my Darwin ministerial office shortly before I was removed from Cabinet by the Chief Minister in February 2015. As a result of the Chief Minister sacking me, this disabled woman was subsequently sacked from her position by the Chief Minister. To say I sacked any disabled employee is disrespectful to them and entirely false. On the contrary, the Chief Minister sacked my disabled administrative worker several days after he sacked me.
Madam Speaker, I stand in this parliament speaking the truth. I have nothing to hide. I am more than happy to take ownership of my mistakes, but I will not be misrepresented or maligned by anyone in this Chamber. I will continue to defend myself, as I recommend that all members defend their honour and integrity. I will also, without hesitation, defend my community and the people of Alice Springs against bad policy and nasty politics.
MOTION
Condemn Territory Labor and its Leader for Creating a Crisis in Confidence
Condemn Territory Labor and its Leader for Creating a Crisis in Confidence
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Araluen for her personal explanation. It is clear that she also will not be lectured to by an incredibly dishonest government, led by the Chief Minister, who she has just put in his place.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you should withdraw it. Thank you, member for Sanderson.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, they are thin skinned on that side, and they fail to recognise that they are terribly offensive. The Chief Minister is clearly quite an offensive individual and the member for Araluen will not be lectured to by him. She has corrected on the record, as she should and is entitled to, the comments made in an attack yesterday.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. I believe this is number two on the Notice Paper. It is about the motion as opposed to …
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, member for Sanderson.
Ms WALKER: We resume debate on this important but surprising motion, as the government has nothing better to bring forward. They do not want to talk about their policies. They would rather deliver the equivalent of a censure motion on the opposition.
I was at the point in my speech of describing the crumbling of the CLP over the last three-and-a-half years, the deals with their mates and how the government, through the now disgraced former Deputy Chief Minister, corruptly allocated water to the CLP’s candidate, Tina MacFarlane.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Forgive me. I withdraw the word ‘corrupt’, although clearly there were some very dodgy dealings with the former Deputy Chief Minister. That is why he is sitting on the back bench. He breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take offence to the comments being made by the member for Nhulunbuy. I ask that they be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, if you could rephrase your wording. If the member feels offended he is offended.
Ms WALKER: I apologise that the former Deputy Chief Minister feels offended by the fact that he has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has been asked to withdraw. She keeps qualifying and giving apologies. Is it withdrawn?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. She has withdrawn it.
Ms WALKER: Sensitive.
We started to see splits emerging within the ranks of the CLP, and the disunity that remains with this team. It started with the dumping of the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Araluen. There was a front-page headline about the CLP being in crisis again in March 2013. There were day-long meetings of the CLP wing. They are not governing because they were too busy sorting out their internal functions. We then had the knifing of the Chief Minister, the former member for Blain, whilst he was on overseas business in Japan.
Since that happened and the member for Braitling was put in charge, we have seen the emergence of divisions and splits, the bullying of leaders and one scandal after another.
First there was the split with the Indigenous members. The members for Arafura, Arnhem and Namatjira walked out on the CLP government and held press conferences about the CLP, which they described as racist. For three Indigenous members to walk out on the CLP was a clean sign that things were not right within the ranks.
There was also the ongoing case of the mouth from Fong Lim, with the member for Fong Lim demeaning a gay staff member, which was another front-page news story, another shocker with his homophobic slurs.
Then the scandals around travel started to mount. First the member for Port Darwin …
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification on the use of props?
Madam SPEAKER: All members have used props, but they are put up then down. The member for Sanderson has used a chart on a regular basis. They are relevant to the member’s speech and that is okay.
Ms WALKER: The member for Port Darwin was on the front page of the NT News with, ‘Elf’s space odyssey’. Taxpayer dollars were spent on a trip to Lord knows where. We do not know what he came back with but we know he visited NASA along the way. Then the member for Brennan went on a trip to China paid for by the Education department and not the normal channels of the Chief Minister’s department, which usually pays for ministerial travel. It was money that should have been spent on students in schools. That was a great front-page story. ‘School holidays’ was the title.
How could we forget the member for Stuart and her $50 000 junket on Women’s Policy to New York. There is the front page of the NT News saying, ‘The Price is not right’.
The member for Greatorex then discovered the joys of a bar in Tokyo, the Red Rose. That was a front-page story with the headline, ‘Tales of Tokyo’. In that bar he racked up a bill of some $5000 and then insisted, in the early hours of the morning, that his CE get out of his hotel bed and pay the bill. That is shameful.
We move on to the McRoberts affair, where the Police Commissioner stood down from his position. We still have not had a resolution as to what happened there. We know the Chief Minister is embroiled in that case.
The government is continuing down the path of ignoring the wishes of Territorians, in spite of a massive backlash from them. TIO was sold. It was announced in the NT News on 24 November 2014, which was a very difficult time for the member for Katherine, who turned against his constituents in Katherine. They did not want him to support the sale of TIO, but he did.
Buckling under the pressure of internal division and disastrous public polling, CLP members decided to act at the midnight coup. ‘The night of the long knives’; we all remember that one. Could anyone truly say they have ever seen a more bizarre political period in Australia? Seriously – a media conference at 1 am with the member for Katherine, and the member for Port Darwin alongside, declaring themselves as the new Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister apparent. The Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, refused to budge and, in the same debacle, accused the police of organising a coup against him.
He remains the Chief Minister, even though nine of his colleagues wanted to vote him out and only five supported him.
We saw a massive internal brawl after the midnight coup. Here is another great front-page headline showing the retiring Chief Minister who would not retire, and the new Chief Minister who lasted about five minutes before having to stand down.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. I know we are given latitude during debate, but I am not sure what this has to do with Labor’s moratorium on jobs.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. The motion is questioning the opposition’s ability to govern. The opposition is responding accordingly about the government’s ability to govern.
Ms WALKER: We had this massive brawl, where we saw the CLP go into lockdown. Bizarrely, the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, emerged victorious with his challenger as his new deputy, shoving aside the member for Brennan, who was the Deputy Chief Minister, and the member for Araluen was thrown under a bus.
That was followed by the vindictive hunting down of internal enemies, the removal of the member for Greatorex and the sacking of the member for Araluen because, in the words of the unelected Chief Minister, ‘I will not work with that woman’. But there is more. The Minister for Housing’s senior adviser, and a former CLP candidate, was charged with corruption, the first such incident of its kind in the Territory’s history. The member for Araluen then departed the CLP. She later described it as ‘a dark, amoral cabal’.
There was another front page story when she went on to say, as she did on the floor of this House:
- The community expects more from its leaders than getting drunk in topless bars.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Then the member for Goyder made an exit. That is four women in total who have walked out on the boy’s club that is the CLP government.
In July last, when the member for Goyder walked out, the government went into minority. The government then dug a hole at the Palmerston hospital – another front page for the NT News called ‘Cover up’ – and covered it up again to demonstrate progress on building. At the same time, the hapless member for Solomon, embarrassed to be standing alongside the Health minister, put in a ‘please explain’ to the Chief Minister.
Then they decided to take away part of a school’s oval to build a football stadium without telling that school. Just when you think it could not get any worse, the Deputy Chief Minister decided he could have a private share deal with a major overseas company with whom he was directly dealing in matters of government business, which is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. So we saw the seventh Deputy Chief Minister – or was it the eighth – make an exit, and now we have the member for Sanderson. I am reminded of that saying, as I say his name, about the scraping of barrels.
That is why I and our side will not be lectured to by this government and Chief Minister about sovereign risk. Let us be serious and honest. The greatest threat to the Northern Territory’s economic interest is four more years of this terrible government – four more years of drama, soap-opera politics, scandal, bad behaviour, internal division and disarray, and a revolving door in Cabinet, which is a deplorable state of affairs.
For one moment let us forget the scandal, drama and self-indulgent political high jinks that is the CLP government. Does this government deserve re-election on the back of its economic performance? This government ripped the heart and soul out of Nhulunbuy and its actions cost the Territory hundreds of residents and thousands of jobs. It is unforgiveable! It has failed my constituents completely.
Business confidence is the lowest in the nation at 24% and the respect for Northern Territory government policies sits at -4%. This is a 22 point drop in business confidence in 12 months. It is the direct result of the CLP government’s policies. The number of first home buyers who are taking up housing finance has dropped by 33%. That is a direct result of you chopping the First Home Owner Grant on existing buildings.
What does this mean for the Northern Territory economy? It means people are not buying houses. That means people are not able to move out of their houses into the next level because they cannot sell their existing house. It means fewer white goods are sold, fewer renovations are done and there are fewer jobs.
There is a 21% commercial vacancy rate in the CBD in Darwin. There is a 34% vacancy rate in C-grade property, which is usually retail. Why? Because businesses are closing. In 2014, 3329 more people left the Territory than arrived. That is the worst year in many decades. Those 3329 people who have left the Territory are adults, spenders, and many of them are skilled workers. They will now be spending their money in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and elsewhere. That is fewer people to go shopping in our retail centres and go to the movies, pubs and sports fields, or go fishing. It is 3329 fewer people boosting our economy.
Retail trade is now very slow. Motor vehicle sales are going backward by -4.8%. We have hundreds fewer apprentices and trainees than when Labor was in power. We have a hospital being built by interstate interest. We have a procurement policy that is all talk and no action. Business people are going on radio to sheet home to this government the problems it is causing. A caller to the ABC morning show on Wednesday 3 February said, ‘There is no work mate. You know, I have got mates in the building industry and the earth moving industry up here and this is probably the quietest wet season they have ever experienced.’
This is what the people are saying about the government’s economic performance and jobs creation, but the government does not need to listen to radio to hear it. It used taxpayers’ money to ask focus groups this very question and these are some of the things that were said:
- We haven’t got a prosperous economy –everyone is doing it tougher.
That focus group also said:
- If it is a government story, we won’t believe it, especially about the economy.
Another quote from that focus group:
- Stories implies lies and that is what we expect from the government.
That is from their own taxpayer-funded focus group, which was part their $0.5m for the On Track campaign. That is absolutely shameful. Clearly they are way off track.
There is a very simple question to ask the government. If the economy is doing so well under its policies, why has it had to put in an urgent last-minute stimulus package? Because now, after being told by business, industry, small-business and us for 12 months that they have a problem, they have finally realised they do have a problem.
Now, desperate, they are doing what they should have done a while ago and pushing spending out the door. That is the real story of today. This is a desperate government, flailing around trying to sell a message that it is in control despite overwhelming evidence of the opposite.
Madam Speaker, I can say quite safely that Territorians are not fooled by this government.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, there is a verse and proverb that comes to mind: something always sounds right until you hear the other the side of the story. That was an unbelievable stream of vitriol that came from the other side, at times quite insulting and crude.
We will have four more years of developing economic enabling infrastructure like the new gas pipeline, and possibly a new rail link; and four more years of passing legislation allowing Aboriginal people and pastoralists more choices as to how they use their land.
We have reinvigorated the live cattle and buffalo export trade, with Darwin now the number one port in the world for live exports, and may God bless us with four more years of that.
We have invested $60m in remote communities, and four more years of that would be nice. We are spending record funds on roads in the bush and helping to develop new bush industries like horticulture, aquaculture and wood chipping, which would be seriously hampered by our opposition, which wants a moratorium on agribusiness. The member for Nhulunbuy was talking about how terrible four more years would be, but we would have four more years of building remote infrastructure such as health centres, police stations, classrooms, airstrips and barge landings. We are seeking to develop a responsible onshore gas industry in the bush, which the opposition is looking to put a moratorium on, threatening jobs.
We would have four more years of mandatory local involvement in all requests for quotes up to $100 000 in addition to existing local content requirements for all tenders above $100 000. The minimum weighting of local content and benefits has increased from 20% to 25% under this government’s Buy Local Plan, and may there be another four years of that.
Ensuring local content commitments included in tender responses are carried through into the contract terms and monitored throughout – this gets us out of the loophole of people putting tenders in and saying they will use certain contractors, and when they get the tender they fail to use the contractors they used to win the tender process.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the minister has run out of time.
Madam SPEAKER: No. Can we check the clocks please.
Ms Fyles: We don’t want to listen to him for any longer than we have to
Mr BARRETT: We have to listen even when it is not your turn, member for Nightcliff.
An independent local benefit advisory panel of Territorians has been established to review and advise on the Buy Local aspects of the tender responses and contracts, estimated as being worth more than $5m. Cost of living was a big issue during my by-election, and the Territory’s biggest ever land release has driven down the cost of renting and buying homes. Our fuel summit and subsequent work have recently made fuel prices very much the centre of attention. The fuel price disclosure legislation has dramatically cut the price of petrol and diesel. May there be four more years of good fuel prices in the NT, because there was not under Labor.
We have focused heavily on helping families, with increases to childcare subsidies, sport vouchers and back-to-school payments.
I struggle to find what is happening with Labor’s policies on the economy, which either sound incoherent or like a direct copy of what we are doing. There are not many numbers on the economic policies being released. They make as much sense as a Harry Nilsson song. ‘There seems to be a problem in the economy and we will do the most basic thing we can think of.’ What are we going to do? Put lime in a coconut to fix a tummy ache. You have to understand the problem before you talk about economically rational solutions to it.
I have not heard anything from the other side of the Chamber that shows that anybody on that side understands the economic problems at all. They are very good at standing here with 35 pieces of paper from the NT News and slagging every person on this side of the Chamber and calling them dogs, but I did not hear is any rational economic argument that is not a direct copy of what we are doing.
We have diversified the economy, and expanded the tourism industry and the gas industry. May there be four more years of that. The Northern Territory is now Australia’s best-performing jurisdiction. Yes, there are problems and headwinds. The opposition will happily point out those headwinds coming towards us, but may we also bring this into the global and Southeast Asian context and what is happening in other states than the Northern Territory. We have a very good unemployment rate, a low inflation rate and great participation rates. We are making inroads into Indigenous unemployment issues. All we are hearing from that side of the Chamber is, ‘You guys, the business confidence has gone down’. Business confidence has gone done in many places in the world right due to several factors outside the control of this government.
I am not hearing anything from the other side of the Chamber that will materially change it. Where are the costs associated with the things you are saying? There are none; there is no rigour behind anything you are saying. Saying you will have a summit to think about what you will do – planning to have a plan is not a plan, members opposite.
Strong economic management has also allowed us to cut power bills after we tried to get the reforms through in the Power and Water sector to make them more cost reflective. The Power and Water issues I looked at, and the process that is unravelling in the structural separation of these entities, showed there are very deeply-seated issues within Power and Water, which we have had to wade through as a direct result of poor economic management.
In education, we invested $7.5m to supply computers to 200 schools. We have increased Back to School payments and sports vouchers. The government is making an immediate investment of $68.5m to upgrade and repair schools across the Northern Territory under our March 2016 boosting the economy package.
The members opposite would have us believe this is some kind of cash splash. At the same time they would accuse us of not responding to people in the Northern Territory. You guys had to get on a bus to work out what was going on in the economy. We are aware of what is happening in the economy. We are also aware of how this problem is coming about, what sector this problem is arising in and what we need to solve it. We have a stimulus package on the table that is directly solving these economic problems with an economic solution. We are not saying, ‘Let us have a summit about it in six months’.
We are not sitting back and trying to come up with a plan for a plan. We are putting money on the table and saying if we are going to pump prime this economy, stabilise the sectors of our economy that are struggling and help those people who the member for Nhulunbuy said it is really tough for here – I hear and understand that. This is what this stimulus package is about. They cannot on one hand deride us for putting a stimulus package together and on the other deride us for not listening. This is what this is. It is listening and acting, not listening and hiding behind a review or moratorium. Make a decision, is what I say to the opposition.
We made a massive commitment with the decision to invest all proceeds of future onshore gas royalties into education and training for Territorians. We see in the economic framework the opposition has put on our desks today that its second focus in its first term will be gas and minerals. We have a moratorium on it. We do not know how long the moratorium is for. We do not know what it is for and we do not know what you will be doing in the time space of the moratorium. You have not said how long it is for. All you are doing is undermining confidence in the sector which your own economic framework says you are supposed to be supporting.
Let us stop talking about NT News things. Let us stop talking about, ‘Remember that time when this happened’. Let us look at economic policy for a minute. Let us think about the list you have put in front of us and the things you have done in your track record in relation to them. They are not fantastic.
The Country Liberals government is investing heavily in environmentally-friendly initiatives, including $55m on solar technology. It is also funding water and soil research, improving our national parks and rebuilding at-risk fish stocks. Flood mitigation works have been undertaken in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. We will continue to manage our natural assets in a responsible and sustainable way. We will not make broad statements about reviewing this and putting a moratorium on that, which undermines confidence.
If we statistically analysed the factors influencing the decline in business confidence and you took X out – the fact the INPEX project is moving to another stage – and if you took out things that are affecting it from an international and national perspective, if you think about the way the Labor Party has been talking the economy down and has done every day I have been here – we wonder why it is coming down. I wonder how much of that they are responsible for. They are very quick to say it is the Giles government‘s fault, but I think it might be a bit of the opposition’s fault because they cannot talk anything up. All they are doing is putting moratoriums on things and asking for reviews on things that people are relying on for consistency and so they can move forward in the economy.
I staggered when the Leader of the Opposition talked about fishing and mentioned several programs which have existed for a few years. He was talking about programs for young kids. I go to the young kids’ programs. I know how they operate, and he says this is a great idea. I would love it if people from the opposition turned up to these things so they do not make policy statements on things that already exist. It is embarrassing.
The government’s recreational fishing development plan is a roadmap for the sustainable growth of recreational fishing across the Northern Territory. The government’s Million Dollar Fish initiative is a huge success, attracting 43 000 registrations in its inaugural year, many of them, in tourism’s lowest season, were from interstate. That means people are coming to the Northern Territory and spending bed nights and time here, and are pumping money into our economy. That creates the jobs to sustain our economy.
As the Minister for Young Territorians, I am waiting for questions in Question Time, trying to catch me out on things, and asking what are we doing for young Territorians. We are diversifying our economy. We are making sure that industries in the Northern Territory can provide meaningful jobs for young Territorians. We are reducing the cost of living for things that matter to them. Fuel matters to young Territorians. House prices matter to young Territorians trying to get into a house. I remember the former member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, speaking passionately about how sad it was his son could not afford to buy a house. I was staggered. I had only been in the Chamber a couple of weeks. I thought, ‘You have been here 11 years; we have been here five minutes. Whose fault is this?’ We are bringing the cost of housing down and achieving the goal, saying to Territorians that we have some solid things to say in this space. We brought down the cost of living. We are listening to Territorians. We are doing the things young Territorians need and addressing the issues they care about.
A $55m upgrade of Royal Darwin Hospital is under way. Construction of the $150m, 116-bed Palmerston Regional Hospital is progressing well and the project is on schedule. Hallelujah! There are five local businesses with workers on site carrying out contracts for early works. Despite all the negativity from the other side of the Chamber and despite holding up things from the NT News saying, ‘Look, they dug a hole, put concrete in it and covered it up’ – go out there now. There are a lot of other holes with concrete in them now and there are big poles sticking up out of them, and all the services are going into it. It is coming together.
I will take you there and we can look at what has happened, where the concrete is and what is springing up out of it. We can see the Palmerston Regional Hospital coming up, and I am proud of that. The people of Palmerston need it, and the Giles government is delivering it rather than giving empty promises, like the other side of the Chamber saying, ‘We shoulda, woulda, coulda done this, and will will review this and that’. This Giles government gets on with it.
When I played football we had a saying: it is a run not a war. We do things with purpose and passion. We bring people on the journey and consult; we do not sit on our hands. We do not do nothing. It is easier to do nothing and cop nothing from anyone who is upset. It is a lot harder to forge a path forward and be visionary. This government is visionary. It has a vision and a plan for the Northern Territory, which is lacking from the other side of the Chamber. This is why this motion is in this Chamber now.
We have opened a day-stay unit at Katherine hospital. Seven new remote community health centres are operational or being built. We have launched the Territory’s first ever mental health strategic plan. That is very important to young Territorians. I went to the young Territorians’ round table, and one of the biggest things they spoke about was mental health. We are doing things in this area. Minister Elferink is working in this mental health space and doing a fantastic job, showing vision, direction and leadership, and making decisions.
We have delivered record land releases and our planning system is recognised as the best in Australia by the Property Council because people are not waiting for years and years to get something through Lands and Planning. Rent and house prices have stabilised or fallen across the Territory as a result of government policies.
In 2015 we invested $100m to rebuild homes in devastated regions. We are upgrading neighbourhoods across the Territory. We are also building more housing in remote communities. In 2016 the Giles government will continue land release and planning reforms, with an even greater focus on community consultation.
Indigenous empowerment has been completely lacking on the other side. I have never heard them talk about Indigenous empowerment. The Chief Minister, Adam Giles, made history by becoming the first-ever Indigenous Australian to lead a government. We have set ambitious targets to double Indigenous employment in the public service by 2020, including at senior management levels. We are also building more health centres and housing in remote communities, including the homelands allowance.
Our expansion of the tourism, gas and mining industries in the bush is bringing jobs to Indigenous Australians where they need them. I am passionate about this because it is something the Northern Territory governments, forever, have done badly. We need to create finite economic bounds around communities and get a circular flow of income running around those economies. That is why the Chief Minister says contracts that go to very remote places must have people from those places working there so the money is not going in one side of the community and – bang! – out the other side. We are capturing money within that finite economic space, and that money starts spinning. That creates wealth and is the basis of an economy. That is the basis of where we go – the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker.
It is not hard to understand economic policy. It is hard to do in real life because we have to get our policy settings right to capture money in these very remote locations. This is what we are about. We are trying to get Indigenous empowerment up and running. We are trying to get Indigenous people working and spending money with each other, winning contracts, improving their own economy and community, and being proud of that. As pride comes into that scenario, that is where we start seeing changes. This is where we start to see parents sending kids to school, and all the other metrics start improving.
The opposition members can throw mud over this side of the fence all they want and hold up things from the NT News – ‘Look, the NT News said that Bess is a bad lady. Look, the NT News said that the member for Brennan is a bad guy.’ I am sure in my lifetime the NT News will publish an article telling everyone what a horrible person I am. I am not looking forward to that day, but it is coming.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: Madam Speaker, we are passionate about Indigenous issues. We are passionate about seeing change where it needs to happen.
We have been here for not quite four years, and we have put a dent in it. We are making inroads.
The member for Nhulunbuy said, ‘God forbid that we should have four more years’. I would say God bless us with four more years where we are trying to sort out Indigenous issues.
The Giles government’s tough law and order strategy is working. Total crime rates are 11% lower than three years ago. The assault rate has reduced by 7%. House break-ins have reduced by 23%. Commercial break-ins have reduced by 20%. Property damage has reduced by 19%.
They can trot out some tiny figures and say this and that went up. They can say, ‘Bob from Palmerston said this’. I am the one who organised the meeting with Bob from Palmerston, and had the police there. I was there, standing next to him. I was in Bob from Palmerston’s lounge room after he told me about his car being stolen when someone broke into his house. I am aware of the issues. I am aware of the statistics. I am aware of what the police are doing, and I am proud of them.
I am proud of what this government is doing in working towards reforms in various acts around the youth justice system and the like. That will bring change in this area so we can best help these young people who are crying out for help, and they need help.
A community that does not feel protected – when they see these things on Facebook and think something is rampant. The members opposite will play that up. This government is not about playing it up. This government is about coming up with some solid policy, which we are not seeing here.
The Country Liberals government invested heavily in our police force, and backed it with strong new laws against one-punch assaults and other violent crimes, alcohol-fuelled crimes and drugs like ice. Paperless arrests, expanded CCTV and our Sentenced to a Job Program are also making the Northern Territory safer. We will meet our election promise of 120 extra police officers compared to 2012, and continue to be tough on crime, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour.
Major projects include an $800m gas pipeline to the east coast, the $1.45bn Project Sea Dragon prawn farm, international education, a high-end hotel in Darwin, the Darwin LNG backfill and the marine industrial park. These are not things where we have had a meeting and talked about doing them. These things are costed and done. The Land Development Corporation is involved and we are talking to proponents about what they want. We are talking to Defence about what sort of ship lift it wants. We have committed dollars and put them out.
We are not hearing a policy argument asking, ‘Why does it cost that much? Why did you use those dimensions?’ We are hearing, ‘A year ago the NT News said you were really bad’.
They can spew vitriol from that side all day. I will rise above it and be positive because these projects will become a reality and we need to expand the Port of Darwin. The marine industry park, the LNG – this is why the Giles government entered into partnership agreements to unlock the port’s potential. The amount of misinformation I have heard about the port come from the other side – the Labor Party peddled that we were getting $5m a year over 100 years because it was a $500m deal. My gosh, anybody with a brain who understands finance asks, ‘Are they mad?’ The sum of $5m over 100 years is not the same as $500m up front. It is called the time value of money.
If I asked you if you wanted $5m a year for 100 years or $500m now, you would be nuts to take the $5m a year, and we did not. We have taken the right deal for the Northern Territory. I was on the committee that put the recommendations together and the Leader of the Opposition signed them.
Onshore gas – look at the safety and environmental protection. We have asked Dr Hawke to undertake a review of current environmental regulations and recommend changes so the Northern Territory can have the world’s best-practice environmental regulations, particularly protection of our water supply and assets. As a result, the government developed its Oil and Gas Industry Development Strategy. The safeguards around water are paramount. For the rest of 2016 and as long as it takes to get it right the government will continue consulting with the community and developing world’s best practice, which will be independently monitored.
How does the Territory benefit from this? Unlike offshore gas, where the royalties all go to the Australian government, royalties for onshore gas go to the people of the Northern Territory. An independent report from Deloitte Access Economics found that onshore gas could deliver the Northern Territory more than 6000 full-time permanent jobs in the bush, nearly $1bn in royalties and a major boost to our economy. If we go ahead with onshore gas, the government is committed to investing the royalties into education and training for Territorians.
Increased gas supply will also put downward pressure on electricity prices and help develop a manufacturing industry in the Northern Territory. We have an economic framework that says this is important, but Labor has said, ‘We will have a moratorium on this’. The two do not make any sense. It is completely incoherent. It is almost as insane as thinking, ‘I am on a life support system; I will unplug it to charge my iPhone.’
The Northern Territory has this great opportunity in front of it, and we are able to go ahead with something that will diversify the economy, create jobs and drive education and the Territory forward, and the opposition wants to put a moratorium on it. We have an opportunity for Territorians. We want them to move forward, and I think they do as well. They are just stuck in this political mess where they are unable to make a decision and move forward. This government will move forward because it has a plan for Territorians.
We are investing record funding into sporting infrastructure, which I am very proud of as Minister for Sport and Recreation. This includes a 50% increase to peak bodies, and we are bringing great national and international sporting events to the Northern Territory. We have revitalised pride in Territory Day and the Territory flag.
New CLP government initiatives like the Million Dollar Fish campaign, improved access for shooters and the Mitchell Street Mile are examples of our action. This is about action. We made an announcement recently about tennis, which is an example of more action. Shovels will hit dirt this Dry Season, injecting another $8m into the Territory economy. The member for Nhulunbuy said I am an earth mover and I do not have much work on; this will provide work. We are solving the problem.
We look at what we are doing and the action we have taken, and we listen to the vitriol coming from the other side of the fence, and we say yes. It is easy to put one side of the coin across, but for everything here there are two sides. If the people of the Northern Territory judge us, they will say this government has acted and gotten some tough decisions over the line. The Port of Darwin is a great example, as is power. We had to increase electricity prices; do you think that was easy? The people opposite would have Territorians believe we did it with a sneer on our face to try to rip them off. The reality is Territorians were already paying it; it was going on the credit card. It was not cost-reflective. At some point someone has to pay the piper.
In rolls the Giles government and we had to fix this mess. They sit there with a cricket bat belting us over the head saying, ‘You put power prices up’. If you on the other side had increased power prices slowly over a long period of time and managed it when you were in government, we would not be in this situation. Again, they could not make a hard decision.
Small businesses – our Buy Local Plan is giving Territory businesses the best opportunities ever to access a share in the $3bn a year the government spends on procurement. The Country Liberals $100m Boosting our Economy package is specifically designed to support small and medium-sized construction businesses as we transition to a diversified economy. We will not have little groups having a chat about what we should to for small business. We have listened to small business and put together a stimulus package. This is what it is about, action on the ground – people getting work on the ground.
This motion is about condemning the Leader of the Opposition, who I recently found out is the shadow Treasurer. I did not know who the alternate Treasurer was. We have nothing costed, funded or that makes any sense. We have a bunch of things on a list, most of which you have put a moratorium against or that went backwards last time they were in, and they will say that somehow they have some economic credentials?
Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing reading through this bunch of motherhood statements. This government is not about motherhood statements. It is about action and moving the Territory forward.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Minister for Business’ motion on Labor’s job moratorium.
Territorians cannot trust the Labor government to deliver jobs. The Country Liberals care about jobs and economic development. Labor’s own federal Resource minister in the former Labor government, and former trade union boss, warned that if Labor wins the Territory election in August and sticks with this bad policy, it will inflict real economic harm for no environmental gain. Even Labor does not trust Labor to manage the economy. Even Labor says it will inflict real economic harm.
Harm means jobs gone. Over 6000 jobs that onshore gas will create will be gone. Across the Territory we cannot risk jobs with a Labor government. Territory Labor’s proposed ban threatens thousands of new jobs. It threatens millions of dollars of work for local businesses in the regions that will host industry activity. This places local development and Indigenous jobs at risk in all sorts of industries. Furthermore, it places tens of millions of dollars in payments to traditional owners at risk. We have seen the benefits properly managed royalty payments can bring to the Territory. Labor is putting all that at risk. It is putting Indigenous employment and economic development at risk. In the bush only the Country Liberals value jobs and working. In housing, the Country Liberals government has delivered strong Indigenous employment. We have moved to create more local jobs for local people.
Under the remote repairs and maintenance contracts, local people have been employed into real jobs. The current Indigenous employment target for repairs and maintenance is 40% as a part of the national partnership agreement. The current Indigenous employment rate is 59%. This is 19% higher than the target.
The Country Liberals are beating targets and getting local people in local jobs. The tenancy management contractors across the Northern Territory also provide for local employment opportunities. The national partnership agreement for remote tenancy sets a target of 40%. Current Indigenous employment is at 70%. This is 32% higher than the target. Once again, the Country Liberals are beating targets and getting local people into local jobs in the local community.
In Nyirripi the Country Liberal government is upgrading every house in the community. Work was contracted to the Central Desert Regional Council to upgrade 43 houses in Nyirripi. This work has achieved significant local employment, with 41% Indigenous participation across the project. This has exceeded targets by 11%.
I have heard the Labor candidate for Stuart, Scott McConnell, say there is no local Indigenous employment in Nyirripi. There is significant Indigenous employment in Nyirripi, and I am proud to say that. I have been to Nyirripi. There is a 41% Indigenous participation rate across the project. I am proud to a part of that, to help achieve employment opportunities for my people who wanted jobs on the ground. The Central Desert Regional Council has upskilled local Indigenous people through refurbishments, including some locals achieving completion of qualifications for Certificate II in Civil Construction, delivered onsite by the Centre for Appropriate Technology.
The council and the head contractor are working with the community to provide further training to local women who have expressed an interest in forming an all-women work crew. As a result, advertisements were placed for a female team leader with painting experience to assist in providing training to local women. One applicant, of British background, applied and has been engaged to provide this training and leadership to a local all-women work group. We have the Labor candidate for Stuart spreading slurs that there is no local employment. But, unlike Labor, I applaud and congratulate the local council and the local women for taking up this opportunity and initiative. The community said it wanted a female to provide this training and leadership to the council, and the council has responded. This is a good news story for Nyirripi and shows we are helping to create real jobs for locals in their community.
The community has upgraded 27 of the 43 houses. It is clear that only the Country Liberals support local jobs, whereas Labor has proven, yet again, it does not care about local jobs for local people.
On 9 September 2015 I committed to finding a solution to housing dilemmas in the town camps. These were forgotten by Labor while they were in government. I have made $3m available for housing refurbishments to extend living areas within Elliott town camps and the Marlinja homeland in the Barkly region, making inroads into addressing overcrowding. It shows that we listen and act. Further, we honoured our commitment.
We also honoured our commitment that local contractors would be given opportunities. There will be a large focus on Aboriginal employment and training while delivering the housing works. Labor did not want this. Do you know what Labor said when we said we wanted to use a local business and not government? The member for Barkly said, ‘You know how unrealistic that is’. Despite Labor, the Country Liberals are empowering Aboriginal people in remote communities through economic development, which means real jobs will come to remote communities. We cannot trust a Labor government; Labor neglected Elliott.
Consultation between Triple P Contracting and residents about the first tranche of houses has commenced. Materials for these houses have been ordered, transitional accommodation arrangements are being negotiated and the workforce is being mobilised. Gordon Jackson and Susie Kidd are a local Elliott couple who established Triple P Contracting in 2013.
Both Gordon and Susie have extensive experience in delivering repairs and maintenance services. I am pleased to provide this economic development opportunity to Triple P Contracting, an opportunity for a locally-based Aboriginal business to be involved in addressing housing issues and making a difference in the lives of those within their community.
This is real economic development and jobs for local people, but Labor did not want the work to go to Triple P, a local business formed by local people. Instead, they wanted the work to go to a council. Labor has no issue with creating a bloated public service. They want to patronise people with government but do not want economic development.
The Country Liberal government has made a record investment into infrastructure in our parks and reserves. There is over $23m for the new Parks capital works, which is the largest-ever Parks spend. We are investing over $10m in the Litchfield National Park, another $10m for Casuarina Coastal Reserve, and $2.5m for the Alice Springs parks project. With our biggest-ever investment in parks we continue to deliver an incredible Territory lifestyle and are delivering opportunities for local businesses and creating jobs for Territorians. It is embarrassing that the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition have no credible plans for jobs or the Territory economy.
Current works contracts at Litchfield National Park for local companies are supporting the employment of over 100 jobs for Territorians, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous apprentices. With that example of 100 jobs, it is no wonder the community trusts the Country Liberal government to deliver for the economy. Under the Country Liberals the NT has the lowest unemployment rate and a 75% workforce participation rate. That is what we are doing as a government for the people. We are listening to the voices in the communities.
At Litchfield National Park, upgrades to the termite mounds were awarded to Scott Hammet Building & Carpentry for over $700 000. Upgrades to the Florence Falls were awarded to Alan Birch Transport for $650 000. Upgrades to Sandy Beach Falls campground and to Buley Rockhole were awarded to Intract Australia for over $1m. Intract is a local majority Indigenous-owned, managed and controlled company providing long-term, meaningful employment for Indigenous people across the civil construction and mining industries.
The Country Liberal government continues to deliver more Indigenous jobs. At Casuarina Coastal Reserve a contract for works at Dripstone Park, Free Beach and Lee Point has been let to local Indigenous-owned contractors, the Rusca Bros Services for over $1m, and will support the employment of 36 people.
The Country Liberals continue to deliver more Indigenous jobs, with more work coming soon at Casuarina Coastal Reserve, such as contracts for works at Rapid Creek and Dripstone cliffs, works at Buffalo Creek and contracts for paths and mountain bike tracks. So watch this space.
At George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens the Country Liberals recently awarded over $500 000 of works to local companies such as Wolpers Grahl, KCOM Constructions and Alan Birch Transport, which is creating local jobs for local Territorians. Unlike Labor, we do not just govern for Darwin; we govern for the whole of the Territory.
Some of the jobs we are creating in Central Australia include jobs in Alice Springs for local company MPH Carpentry & Construction for over $1m for construction of the shared path to Alice Springs Desert Park. In the West Macs we are investing in a camp site facility upgrade which was awarded to M & C Fior Constructions for over $300 000. These are just a few examples of projects in parks that the Country Liberal government is delivering and why we have the lowest unemployment rate and such a high workforce participation rate.
Under the Country Liberals the local employment outcomes are positive, and we are delivering infrastructure for the Territory lifestyle and the tourism industry. Only the Country Liberals has a plan to deliver a prosperous economy.
The Country Liberals have delivered jobs in remote communities in the Northern Territory. We are delivering jobs, better services, lower crime rates and a great lifestyle. We have built over 450 new houses in remote communities across the Territory and completed over 450 rebuilds and refurbishments, and over 800 houses have been upgraded across the Territory by the Country Liberals. The biggest parks budget ever was by the Country Liberals. Homelands Extra Allowance was delivered for the first time by the Country Liberals. The first homelands policy in years was by the Country Liberals. There has been record investment in Indigenous development by the Country Liberals.
We are delivering, for Territorians, real jobs in remote communities and across the Territory. The Territory cannot risk Labor. Labor has proven repeatedly it does not like real jobs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. We have clearly seen the effects that Labor’s narrow-minded policies are having on business in the Territory, and national and international investors.
Time and again we see the opposition, led by the member for Fannie Bay, trashing the Northern Territory, the economy and confidence. I can recall, in opposition, the then Chief Minister Paul Henderson begging us not to trash the Northern Territory because it sends an unusual and damaging message to business, particularly investors in the Northern Territory.
If an economy is going well, you should get on the back of that. Come up with other ideas. Minister Barrett eloquently detailed how it would be far better to come into this Chamber and debate policies rather than throwing mud at each other.
I was at Darwin High School the other day and I had some 900 students stand on the oval with me, talking about anti-bullying. It was a marvellous message where photos were taken from a cherry picker, from hundreds of feet above. All these children talk about anti-bullying – I think a couple of other members mentioned this as well – and when they come into this place and see the quality of the debate, they must be horrified.
There is vindictiveness, a bitterness that comes across the Chamber. It would be dramatic for a young child to witness. They are told to go back to school and do the right thing, yet they see people in this place not acting like mature adults.
There is a bitterness that comes across the Chamber from time to time when we should be spending the time debating what is good and bad about policies. Let us face it, there are some things that government does very well and there are some things that government is challenged with, and it has to come up with bigger and better policies, just as the former Henderson government did.
I used to come into this Chamber quite often and say government does not get everything wrong. I was referring to the Labor government of the time. But wherever I saw there was an issue that needed to be debated, that is the area I went after.
This is not about personal attacks on anybody, yet we do not get the same approach taken by today’s Labor opposition. They know no other way than to throw mud, criticise people and make it personal. I would rather be debating the policies of the Northern Territory. Let us talk about some of the things this government has done over the last three-and-a-half years.
Minister Barrett mentioned many of the things in this booklet. I criticised the former government for always putting out flyers and all the political advertising it did, which we are getting into trouble for today because they are hypocrites.
It is impressive to realise we have a booklet of achievements after only three-and-a-half years in government. If you think about what we have achieved as a first-term government – to pick up the economy we did from the previous Labor government, the unheralded debt. We were in debt up to the eyeballs. It was not a good position to be in. I remember some of the early Cabinet meetings where we discussed the finances of the Northern Territory and what the hell we could do to get the Territory back on track. Mr Deputy Speaker, you were part of it, and we got the Territory back on track. We took some hard decisions to do that. I do not think the opposition has anywhere near the courage to make some of the decisions we had to when we inherited the debt from the Labor government.
The Labor government did not do everything wrong; it had some good policies and initiatives in place. We were never ones to criticise those initiatives; however, we will criticise the areas we think we can do better in, particularly over the last three-and-a-half years. I remind people listening to this that this is a first-term government. Will we get everything right? No. We have had many reviews and have inherited areas of the economy and business that were challenging, and to some degree still are.
We are a government that is taking action, and the latest stimulus package is just that. We recognised there was an issue. Before Christmas I was with then minister Westra van Holthe, a number of CEs and minister Barrett. We drove to businesses with the Chamber of Commerce and spoke directly with them. We learnt about some of their challenges and, together with the Minister for Business and the Chief Minister, we had many meetings. I know Pete will attest to this. We had many meetings discussing the fact the economy was going really well but we had identified an area that could do with some stimulus. We worked hard to see how we could get that money and make a difference. Again, that is a demonstration of government taking action. Of that $100m stimulus, $68.5m is going into education. I was pretty chuffed. I was really excited that I had the support of my Cabinet colleagues, the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister to put $68.5m into education infrastructure.
The Labor leader announced a jobs plan for the Territory, then he stifled an industry with a moratorium on gas; thousands of jobs are jeopardised. I cannot believe it. His words from this morning in this House were ‘leveraging natural resources’ as part of his idea of creating jobs in the Northern Territory. I do not know what the member for Fannie Bay thinks natural resources are. I think they might be things like water, things that stimulate the economy around the cattle industry, or even an onshore oil and gas industry. They are natural resources that we have.
How in the world does he think he will create jobs by leveraging natural resources when he puts a moratorium on the onshore oil and gas industry? This has been said here before, but that was after they were in government and opened up about 95% of the Territory to exploration. That in itself sends a message. They opened up the place, as if they put out a welcome mat for people saying, ‘Do business in the Northern Territory’. Those businesses that do are now being told, ‘Sorry, we are having a moratorium’.
How long is this moratorium? Is it 12 months, three years or five years? Is it 10 years? And for what real reason? It is pure politics; they ain’t using science. They know the science is in. They know fracking has been undertaken in the NT; even in the eleven-and-a-half years they were in government fracking was happening. What has changed? The regulations today, under a Country Liberal government, are tougher than what they were under the Labor government and for decades before that. We have had nearly 50 years of fracking. Anyone who is drawing a conclusion that coal seam gas has anything to do with fracking in the NT and shale gas is being completely misleading. The Labor opposition is playing into the hands of easy political, populist decisions. They do not have the courage to make hard decisions that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for Territorians.
On top of that, it puts at risk hundreds of millions of dollars that could and would be, under a Country Liberal government, pumped into education. The government in waiting says it is behind education, but it wants to strip hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system. It is a very shallow argument when you see some of the policies – or should I say lack of policies – that have been introduced in the last few weeks and days.
Labor’s promised ban threatens thousands of jobs, millions of dollars in works for local businesses and millions of dollars in payments for traditional owners. What about those traditional owners? The Labor Party says it backs those people and it is the real supporter of Indigenous people in the Territory. Bunkum! Again, it is shallow. Labor uses Indigenous people for the vote, but does nothing for them.
Already we have seen a major oil and gas company letting go 140 workers and reducing its spending until there is no certainty around the Northern Territory government’s fracking policy. Those 10 permanent positions for contractors and another 50 future jobs – the Opposition Leader’s reckless policy has even prompted the former Labor Resources minister and trade union boss, Martin Ferguson, in a speech to the Australian Domestic Gas Outlook conference on 8 March 2016, to say:
- If Labor wins the Territory election in August – and sticks with this bad policy – it will inflict real economic harm for no environmental gain.
You have to think about that for a moment. For someone like Martin Ferguson, a former Labor federal minister, who has been around long enough to know what does and does not work, particularly when it comes to stimulating and creating an economy, to say that Labor’s policy is wrong, clearly demonstrates that the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, and his team are so shallow and devoid of policy ideas on the real way to stimulate the economy – it am frightened for the Territory should they take government in August 2016.
Let us talk about their policies, or lack of policies. For one moment focus on their number of planned reviews. Let us remind Territorians that many in the opposition were advisers to the former government. Many were ministers and members in the previous government. What they do not know is beyond me.
After eleven-and-a-half years of a Labor government with the number of reviews and go-slow processes the former government used, surely they know just about everything that needs to be known about how to make an economy work. Then again, if you look at their track record you can understand that they do not. That is the reason they want to have so many reviews and they have policies that are no different to what we are working on now.
The Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, was talking about their lack of policy, and some of the policies they do have mirror what we are doing. It has uncovered is the fact they have no idea, and have done no research to find out, what this government is doing. What the minister for Business is doing in the Department of Business – there is a stark difference between what we have on that side of the Chamber and on this side.
What worries me is that history tells you that governments often lose elections; oppositions do not win elections, governments lost them. There is so much more here. Territorians deserve to know what the alternate government would look like in the Northern Territory. From what we are hearing with the process and ideas they are coming forward with – oh my God. That is OMG for the young people.
I am serious. I am extremely worried about my children, their job prospects and the future of education when this potential government on the other side wants to strip hundreds of millions of dollars from education and thousands of jobs from Territorians. It is very harmful and serious.
The opposition’s reckless policy has been promoted by others as a way not to do things. Martin Ferguson has demonstrated that quite clearly, someone I hope they will listen to. Business wants confidence in government in implementing policies that will promote, and not stifle, growth in the economy. Their reviews will stifle the economy. Business will come to a standstill. That is not what business wants; business wants to continue. We are doing the hard work behind the scenes. We do not want the economy to stall. We do not want to see the fear that is in the community today. It is not because of the hard work the Country Liberals is doing and stimulating the economy the way we are, injecting another $68.5m. They are fearful of a having Territory Labor after August 2016.
Everything will come to a standstill because they will enter a phase of reviews that stifles the economy. That is not something the Territory can afford. Our economic development strategy details that government’s priority is to drive economic growth opportunities for the Territory in areas including a shared vision of developing the north with the federal government and a Defence strategy, that we have heard about today, which the federal government’s 2016 Defence White Paper highlights.
There are significant business opportunities for the Northern Territory with $20bn to be spent on new and improved infrastructure over the next two decades. That is like a billion dollars a year. That underpins the economy going forward for the next 20 years, which is the kind of confidence that business should have in the Territory. But it is on shaky ground if the Labor government gets its hands on the wheel.
We are focusing on international education and there will be some great announcements soon around that area. Tourism, the ship lift facility, agriculture – although that is at risk if Territory Labor takes power after August – luxury hotels; international investment, an interconnected gas pipeline – severely put at risk if Territory Labor takes over in August 2016. Do not get me started on land release because that is the one thing that was pushing up the cost of living, particularly in the Darwin area.
Because of the failure of the previous government to release land we have had to spend record amounts releasing land across the Territory to bring down the price of land. When I was the Minister for Lands and Planning that was one of my responsibilities. Looking at the way Dave has taken over, we have continued down that way to ensure land is available and the cost is brought down. We have delivered that.
When I took over as Lands and Planning minister, early in our time of government, the cheapest block of land in Palmerston was $300 000 because of the policies of the former Labor government. Today people are able to buy blocks for $130 000, albeit smaller blocks of land and we have had to change the Planning Scheme to do that, but it gets people in the door, which is what we wanted. We wanted to give younger people the opportunity to buy a home, many for the first time. They were finding it so hard when the cheapest block in Palmerston was $300 000 in Bellamack.
The Labor government at the time did not understand. I have heard them admit to taking the foot off the pedal in that regard. That is the reason the price of land went through the roof.
The Country Liberal government’s investment fund is the first of its kind in Australia. Using the $200m from the sale of TIO as a financial cornerstone, the fund will seek a further $800m of capital from Australian and overseas investors to create a $1bn investment pool which should generate at least $3bn in infrastructure investment.
I asked Treasurer the other day if that $800m is capped.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: The Treasurer said no, so we could end up with a lot more money coming into this investment fund. The Treasurer said it is the first of its type in Australia.
The CLP will not sit on its hands waiting for the next INPEX project to come along. We have a plan to build a prosperous economy and we are implementing it. This financial year we are investing more than $1.5bn in infrastructure across the Territory. All these projects support the development of northern Australia. They create real jobs and opportunities for local contractors and small businesses, meaning Territorians receive far better services.
Labor has made it clear it has no ideas of its own on how to drive the Territory forward. Other than doing what we are already doing, they want to take it backwards, have reviews, hold moratoriums on things and stifle agriculture and the cattle industry. These things are Territory born and bred, and we should be promoting them to the hilt.
I do not know about you, but I want to get away from the reliance on the federal government. The only way we can do that is to use our own natural resources.
We are investing in schools, police stations, roads, health facilities and boat ramps – the list goes on; this is all in three-and-a-half years. We continue to invest in education infrastructure. We are giving our children more daycare facilities, better opportunities for distance learning and new and improved special education options. This government is constructing a new $4m preschool at the Braitling Primary School and a new $5.5m child and family centre on the Larapinta school site. The Larapinta child and family centre will become the sixth of its kind in the Northern Territory, along with those in Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ngukurr, Palmerston and Yuendumu.
Connecting the Territory through education will be enhanced through the operation of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre, an amazing building I got the chance to visit again last week. It will be the first time in the Territory that have an open education centre with infrastructure built fit for purpose.
This government recognises the needs of special education students. To help address this we are building new schools, with $33m allocated to the design and construction of a new school to accommodate the increased number of special needs children attending the existing Henbury School. It is coming along fabulously, built under this government.
In addition to this, there is the construction of a new $21.4m Palmerston special school in Bellamack – again, more special education infrastructure. Neil Sunners and Sunbuild are doing a fabulous job. I drive past and I am impressed with how quickly it is going ahead.
In response to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments this morning regarding Territory schools, I make it very clear that this government is equipping young Territorians with the skills and knowledge to engage in a rapidly-changing world where technology is driving new ways of doing business and relationships are no longer bound by borders. Rather than being critical of the work going on in Territory schools, I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to go to schools and see the work our students are engaging in with information communication technology, preparing them to engage in the future.
The member for Wanguri, Nicole Manison, does a great job getting to schools and seeing them firsthand. I wish she would speak to her leader and tell him how wonderful our schools are. I heard the member for Fannie Bay say that one of their policies would be to get the best teachers. Is he saying we do not have good teachers today? We have some damn good teachers, and I am proud of them and what they do. The results we are getting in schools are amazing, and they are going from strength to strength.
It was only last year that this government invested $7.5m into improving the technology in our government schools, allowing schools to take advantage of the latest technologies. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to go to those schools. Spend time at Nemarluk working with students to create, listen to and read iBooks that recount their personal experiences, or head to Bakewell Primary School and see over 100 students in Year 4 engage in a one-to-one iPad program which is enhancing student and parent engagement, and outcomes in literacy and numeracy.
It is very easy to point the finger, facilitate reviews and moratoriums, and discuss ‘maybe’ strategies. How about spending some time talking about results and achievements? It is easy for the member for Nhulunbuy to throw mud; that is all she is good at. Look at some of the policies and things this government has been working on over the last three years and you might be a little surprised. Look a little deeper, member for Nhulunbuy.
In 2016 Northern Territory schools are in the best place they have ever been. That is thanks to the strategic vision and the commit of this government to the strategies and initiatives that improve student outcomes and evidenced-based teaching and learning practices, and enhance school autonomy and local decision-making. The Labor members do not like that. They do not like the fact that schools have the autonomy to make decisions and have global budgeting they can make decisions on. They do not like that we have independent public schools and that we have reviewed middle years and remote education.
The fact that we are driving in change is a testament to this government, not the former Labor government, which had eleven-and-a-half years and did not do much other than throw cash at no particular focus or target, hoping the problem will go away. It does not go away. You have to focus on and understand what the problem is and start to find ways to do things differently. If you do not, you will continue to do the same thing. Minister Styles often talks about the madness of doing the same thing over and over again; it is a truism.
The Country Liberals government has introduced its Boosting our Economy package, aimed at providing immediate job opportunities for local small to medium businesses. Schools across the Territory will be refurbished and upgraded as a part of the $110m initiative. The Boosting our Economy package is designed to provide a short-term cash injection into the Northern Territory economy where it is needed most. That is a government responding, taking action and recognising that there is an issue and dealing with it. Imagine if we did not take action. You would have the opposition demanding we take action and saying we have failed because we have not taken action. What are they doing now? They are still attacking us for taking action.
In government we are in a position where we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. If we take action the opposition will throw mud at us. If we do not take action the opposition will throw mud at us. It is a little disheartening, particularly when I know the effort I went to when I was in opposition to research and investigate issues you were dealing and try to make structured contributions to debate on your policies, and not just throw mud and call people dogs and the other names that came up today. That was in front of students. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
What this government has been working on is about the Territory economy. It is about creating jobs and business opportunities for Territorians right now. I go back to the $68.5m for education projects, because it is important. Labor’s only plan is to stifle jobs, and they are very short-sighted with many of their policies and ideas, or lack of ideas.
I recall a limited mention of transport. The Country Liberal government recognises that roads, bridges and other transport assets are economic enablers. We have a record program in 2015-16 of $670.8m for roads and other transport assets. I do not recall hearing a road or bridge being mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about stimulating the economy. Is that because they do not like the export cattle trade? Do they not like that we have Territorians, including Indigenous people, working remotely on these cattle stations?
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about working with councils to fund roads; again, the Country Liberals government is doing this already. We have implemented grant programs: the Improving Strategic Local Roads Infrastructure Program and the Regional Economic Infrastructure Fund. These grant programs are designed to advance the development of economic infrastructure. Local governments, Indigenous organisations and enterprises, and community organisations can apply.
The grant process provides a consistent approach that is transparent and accountable. With our record transport program this year of $670m we have committed over $370m to projects. The remaining works are either in the project development or design stage and will be released for tender.
A number of significant projects have been awarded this financial year, all creating jobs for Territorians, including $25m for sealing the Mereenie Loop; $40m for the Roper and Wilton bridges; $4.5m for Larapinta Drive; and $57m allocated for Palmerston road upgrades, which is a strong piece of evidence that the community is strong and there is business confidence in Palmerston. When you see hoteliers building new hotels and new shopping centres being built, you wonder why we have to bring forward $57m.
This government, in three-and-a-half years, has probably done more than the Labor government did in eleven-and-a-half years.
Territorians should take the time to sweep back the surface, look at what we have delivered and look at what the alternative is, because it is pretty damn shallow.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion and I wish to air the voices of my constituents in condemning the opposition and its leader for their anti-jobs stance.
I wish I could say I was surprised at the Labor Party’s stance on jobs, particularly remote jobs, but I am not, especially after watching the previous Labor government actively discourage jobs-creating investment in remote communities.
As an example, one of the Opposition Leader’s old bosses, Mr Kon Vatskalis, travelled to Singapore to discourage a company from investing in the Tiwi Islands, in particular Port Melville. Maybe that was at the request of the Labor puppet master of the MUA. The impact of Labor’s action directly put at risk not only jobs during the construction of Port Melville, but also the jobs in the Tiwi forestry plantation.
The first boat to use Port Melville was a vessel loaded with Tiwi woodchips that set sail for Japan in November last year. The event was so significant we had a crowd of local people at the port to witness the woodchips being loaded. The Chief Minister was there, and he said:
- A port operation in a remote Aboriginal community, working in partnership with international investors to get jobs for local people, particularly local people, is a great outcome.
People in remote Aboriginal communities know that the best way to better their lives is by gaining meaningful employment. They know, as I do, that the worst thing for Aboriginal people in remote communities is passive welfare, sit down money. They also know the only way they will be able to create jobs is through economic development. Unlike the Labor Party, they know the best way to develop economies in remote communities is to invite and encourage private investment.
The Tiwi Islands and the Tiwi Land Council have led the country in this thinking. People in the other remote communities are saying, ‘We want the same thing and we want to do what the Tiwi are doing’.
What is happening on the Tiwi Islands could not happen without private investment. The opposition backflipping and its moratorium on jobs has those looking at the Territory to invest now looking elsewhere. Investors simply cannot trust the Labor Party. The people who will miss out the most are not the Opposition Leader’s union mates in the cities and towns, but those most desperate for work – people in remote communities who no longer want to rely on government and want to get off the desperate cycle of welfare and into real jobs.
Those remote jobs and future jobs are at risk because of the opposition’s urban populist policy. What the Opposition Leader fails to understand is that governments do not create jobs; private industry and private investment create them.
Since coming to government, the Country Liberals have worked hard to improve the lives of people in the bush, mainly through the development of remote economies. The government continues to invest in remote infrastructure to help facilitate and encourage private investment in remote communities. We have seen the government increase local Indigenous employment in remote communities through its remote contracting policy.
Another positive policy has been the Department of Infrastructure’s provisional sum initiative. Through the initiative, 576 Indigenous people have been employed since October 2014. Prior to this there were only 40. This government policy is having a positive impact on employment opportunities for Indigenous people living in remote communities.
As well as government playing its part, so have traditional owners, by looking at ways to develop their land to create business opportunities, either through their own investment or by partnering with private enterprise.
While I encourage the development of Aboriginal land to create jobs, it must always be done in consultation and agreement with the traditional owners and the land holders. The government understands this.
Earlier today we heard the Opposition Leader making a pitch for government. Unfortunately we heard unfunded and empty promises of some type of utopia. It was disappointing but it was what the bush has come to expect from the social Labor Party: promises of utopia that only ever result in Aboriginal people being trapped on welfare and solely reliant on the government.
It is no surprise that the Opposition Leader wants a moratorium on jobs. It is no surprise they want to prevent jobs in the bush. The sovereign risk they have created by their backflipping and poorly thought out policies is damaging the future of Territorians in the bush. They should be ashamed.
I continue to support the Chief Minister and the work of his government in the bush. I support this motion and I call on the Opposition Leader to drop his jobs-killing moratorium.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be short and sweet. When these motions come up you know there is an election coming. When I supported this coming on yesterday I thought it would be something really important. I suppose it is important to one side of the parliament; it is probably not as important to the other side.
It is a free kick to the other side because the Leader of the Opposition gave out his entire …
Mr Chandler: It is a House of debate.
Mr WOOD: It is. I have been around long enough to know when an election is coming. The tone of the debate starts to change to, ‘Look at me; I am better than you. Look how terrible you are.’
The government cannot not be too cocky about this – I said that word once in the parliament before and I got in trouble.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is fine. It is just an expression.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have spoken in this parliament a number of times about major problems the government has had, especially with medium and small business in the Territory. People have said to me, ‘We had a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, 40 of us; we are suppliers. We told them we are struggling because we cannot get work.’
A Humpty Doo housing company that provides repairs and maintenance in Arnhem Land was losing work. They had to say goodbye to many people working for them because of the lack of work. They were concerned. I am confused because I have been saying that for some time but it was only late last year that the government started to realise there is a problem. Now we have the Buy Local program happening, which is fine, but why has it taken so long? If they had been in touch with local businesses they would have heard that many small and medium businesses are hurting.
Some people have done well out of INPEX but there are others – look at the businesses in East Arm and Winnellie and the For Sale and For Lease signs.
An issue I think is interesting, and the Minister for Infrastructure may also be interested – has anyone asked what the private industry is doing to help itself. My understanding is that Gateway has bought all its steel for the roof from China, and so has Jape. What is that doing to help local businesses?
Yes, the government has introduced something about buying local, but it also needs to focus on encouraging business, the private industry, to help local businesses by getting their steel and scaffolding, etcetera, from local suppliers. I think the scaffolding for Gateway came from Queensland.
There is fair bit of, ‘Look at me; I am better than you.’ But I say to the government that is has not been doing as well as it makes out in this area. An area that it can focus on is trying to encourage companies that are building to use local suppliers. That will do a lot for the local economy.
Motion agreed to.
Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill
(Serial 148)
(Serial 148)
Continued from 3 December 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have spent hours on the floor of this House on a purely politically-driven motion from the CLP government when we could have been debating this important legislation. We have 35 minutes before General Business comes on. I cannot believe we have spent the last few hours on a ridiculous time-wasting exercise, but here we are. Let us see if we can get through these two bills in 35 minutes, not that it is my agenda to get these bills through, although I support them. I am flabbergasted at the way the government conducts business in this House.
I thank the minister for bringing the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148) to the House. I speak on behalf of the Labor opposition.
The opposition gives its support to this bill and recognises that it sees the continuation of the implementation of some very significant reforms which the government enacted following the passage of the Local Court Bill on 28 April 2015. That bill came about as a result of some months of consultation with stakeholders and the publication of an issues paper and a final report from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice on those consultations and reforms, which the Attorney-General summarised in his second reading speech on 26 March last year. There is obviously no need for me to repeat that.
I responded at length in that debate of the bill and raised stakeholder concerns which had been noted in the consultation phase. I was grateful to have access to a number of the submissions. Following my contribution in that debate, the member for Nelson rose to speak and said I deserved an honorary law degree, which was very generous of him and perhaps a little tongue in cheek. With a number of second reading debates before the House in the last sittings, I would have been happy to be credited with a pass in Year 10 Legal Studies, such is the volume of material the shadow Attorney-General has to endeavour to get through, especially with such significant reforms afoot, including these Local Court reforms and the NTCAT.
The debate around policy and court reform was had last year when the Local Court Bill was passed and we moved on. It was flagged at the time that there would be up to 154 acts, rules, regulations and bylaws to be amended. It is no surprise then that when you get a bill titled Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill you come across a swag of amendments. There are, in this bill, a total of 22. In this fairly weighty document I have, which is 121 pages, half of it contains 14 schedules of amendment across 14 acts, omissions and insertions to various sections of acts, and language and terms contemporised for clarity and application of consistency.
In the briefing I had on the bill I was advised that there is a bewildering array of inconsistencies which need to be address and we will see further amendments in these sittings and perhaps beyond.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if we can, as per Schedule 1, amend the section 22 (1)(c) of the Justices Act and get rid of language like:
- … therein mentioned, before such justice as shall then be there
to something much plainer and less wordy, as in, mentioned in the summons, then I am all for it.
I may not have a law degree or a school certificate in Legal Studies, but as a former high school English teacher, I am all for plain and concise English.
I acknowledge the parliamentary draftsmen and women who have the painstaking task of making sure the language and terms are accurate, semantically and syntactically correct and that every reference to ‘judge’ with a lower case ‘j’ has been corrected with capitalisation of the ‘J’.
The bill also repeals section 3 of the Criminal Code so that offences are classified as either summary or indictable, with the key factor, as the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, being whether the maximum penalty is greater than two years’ imprisonment.
The bill amends the Criminal Code and other acts so offences are no longer described as crimes, and Schedule 4 of the bill further amends the Criminal Code.
The bill omits, among other terms, the word ‘crime’ and replaces it with ‘offence’ or, where appropriate, ‘indictable offence’.
To the punter in the street it must seem odd that there is no definition of crime in our legislation. I refer to Gray and Blokland in the second edition of Criminal Laws Northern Territory, which makes reference to this on page 74 under the heading, ‘Classification of offences’. This is a very handy textbook.
I will read from page 74:
- When a person is charged with a criminal offence, one of the first questions a lawyer will want to answer is how the offence is classified. What type of offence is it? Which court will hear the matter? The answers to these questions will be relevant to various issues including the likely penalty, the chances of securing an acquittal, whether costs can be awarded, and whether the accused’s presence at proceedings will be required …
Under s 3(1) of the Criminal Code, offences are either crimes, simple offences or regulatory offences. While there is no definition of ‘crime’ in either the Criminal Code or the Justices Act, a note to s 3(1) of the Criminal Code refers to s 38E of the Interpretation Act, which provides that where an act provides for a term of imprisonment exceeding two years, the offence is a crime unless otherwise specified. Under s 3(2) of the Criminal Code, a person charged with a crime cannot, unless otherwise stated, be prosecuted or found guilty, except upon indictment. The indictment is the document which commences criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court. The term ‘indictable offence’ used in the Justices Act must be regarded as interchangeable with the term ‘crime’.
The text then goes on to talk about the second type of offence being a simple offence. All that I have just quoted concurs with the outline in the second reading speech, and the amendment provided in this bill to replace the word ‘crime’ with ‘offence’ provides clarity.
I raise two amendments in this bill, even though consideration in detail stage amendments have come forward. They are the original amendments to sections 120 and 131A of the Justices Act. These were raised with me during recent contact I had with legal stakeholders, whose views I sought on this bill.
During my briefing with the officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, before the February 2016 sittings, these two amendments were acknowledged as having generated feedback and challenges from stakeholders. A consideration in detail stage amendment is being introduced in response to legal stakeholders. Now we know why this bill was delayed from its second reading debate in February.
I quote the Attorney-General’s second reading speech:
- … the bill amends section 121A of the Justices Act so the value of property for the purposes of that section increases from $5000 to $50 000. Currently, section 120 provides that various indictable offences involving the theft of property can be dealt with summarily if the value of property concerned is $5000 or less. This amount was set in 1997. It is proposed that the monetary figure be increased to $50 000. It is considered that the Local Court, rather than the Supreme Court, is the appropriate court to try offences for property of this value.
The issue raised by a number of legal stakeholders is that there is no reason to amend section 120 because it has worked so well to date. The proposed changes would erode the right to trial by jury if a defendant on stealing charges wishes to opt for that as opposed to having the case heard summarily in the lower court. The argument not to amend section 120 is clearly set out in a submission from the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory to the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. ‘Section 120 ‘Minor Offences’ currently provides that there is no right to elect a trial by jury to a defendant on a charge of stealing up to $5000. The bill would increase that threshold to $50 000 or any greater amount prescribed by regulation. The effect of this would be to deprive defendants facing potentially ruinous charges of the right to be tried by jury. Stealing is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of seven years, or 14 years if the amount is $100 000 or greater. Theoretically, if this amendment proceeds a person charged with multiple offences, each involving less than $50 000 but totalling, say, $1m, would be prevented from electing to be judged by his or her peers in a jury trial.
‘The current law is arguable subject to a similar problem in that a person could be charged with multiple offences, each of less than $5000, adding up to a large amount. However, I have never encountered a case like that in which a magistrate has insisted on hearing the case over the objections of the defendant. In practice, where large amounts of money are involved the prosecution usually frames the charges in such a manner as to ensure they can be dealt with upstairs in the Supreme Court to reflect the seriousness of the matter. That would be more difficult to achieve if this amendment is passed.
‘In addition, any greater amount prescribed by regulation is too open ended. In our view, the jurisdictional limit is a matter which should be fixed by parliament, not a minister.’
In his second reading speech the minister was clear that the amendment to section 131A, while supported by the Chief Minister and the Chief Magistrate, was opposed by legal service providers. I thank the Attorney-General’s senior adviser for providing me with a copy of the report on section 131A of the Justices Act which was published in September last year.
Section 131A of the Justices Act, headed ‘Certain assault and harm offences may be dealt with summarily’ has been repealed and replaced. The amendment provides for, according to the explanatory statement:
- … offences relating to harm that can be dealt with summarily if the Court considers that the charges can be properly done in a summary way.
The report on section 131A shows that there have been different interpretations of the intent of this section and a comparative look at other jurisdictions reveals that, ‘There is no general consensus between Australian jurisdictions as to whether or not the defendant should have a right to a trial by jury for certain violent offences’.
You cannot help but think that section 131A has been poorly drafted to allow for wide interpretation as to whether or not a defendant provides consent as to which court he or she may choose to have their case heard.
I thank the minister for providing me with a briefing on this bill and the consideration in detail stage amendments the day before yesterday. I was offered a further briefing. I said, ‘Thank you very much’, but I did not see the need for an additional briefing’. I had been given the heads up last week when I was in the minister’s office being briefed on another bill, so I knew these amendments were coming.
Mr Deputy Speaker, by and large, the opposition supports these amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her comments. I pick up on almost everything she said. Yes, it is a complex matter. I maintain my mystified fascination of legislative draftspeople, in a most wonderful way. They are an extraordinary people who do a remarkable job. This is the product of many years of work and is the tidy-up after the major amendments being made to the Local Court legislation.
On 1 May the Local Courts will be launched in their new form. Magistrates and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction are gone. We will have a Local Court, which intrudes into the space of the district court in other jurisdiction, hence the substantial changes to the thresholds. We no longer have magistrates; from now on we will have judges. These are the changes we have made so that the rats and mice stuff sits with NTCAT, the Local Court can intrude into areas which were normally the preserve of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can get on with its business.
This is common sense and good legislation and I am proud to have been given the opportunity, as the minister, to be the person who guides this through the House. As it is non-controversial, I have little more to add to what has been said.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.1. I move that clause 14 be amended by omitting the proposed section 120 and replacing it with new section 120 in the amendment schedule. Section 120 of the Justices Act provides for the circumstances in which specified indictable offences dealing with the theft of property and related matters can be dealt with by the lower court in a summary manner rather than by way of indictment in the Supreme Court.
Clause 14 provides that the basic monetary limit be raised from $5000, as set in 1997, and referred to earlier by the shadow Attorney-General, to $50 000. The proposed section also provides that this monetary figure can be changed by way of regulation.
The new section 120(1), like the current section 120, permits charges to be heard together with no limit on how many charges. Thus, under the current law and the proposed section 120 there is potential for the value of the property involved to far exceed $5000 under the current law or $50 000 under the proposed new section.
Various legal service providers, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions, have raised concerns about the potential problem. This amendment seeks to limit the total amount to $50 000 when the court is dealing with more than one offence. The amendment also removes the capacity for the monetary figure to be raised by way of regulation. The government had previously taken a policy position, in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court, that the jurisdictional limits should not be changed by legislation. This change reflects that policy position.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.2. I move that clause 15 dealing with the amendment of section 124 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to section 120 and 121A, and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
Section 124 identifies the section under the indictable offences that can be tried summarily. Both the current section 124 and new section do not include a reference to section 131A. As section 131A deals with indictable offences by trial or summarily it would be cross-referenced in section 124.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 43.3. I move that clause 16 dealing with the amendment of section 125 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to section 120 and 121A and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
As with section 124, section 125 identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. This section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 163, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendments 43.4, 43.5, 43.6, 43.7, 43.8, 43.9 and 43.10 to Schedule 1.
In relation to 43.3, I move that clause 16 dealing with the amendment of section 125 of the Justices Act be amended by omitting sections to 120 and 121A, and replacing them with reference to sections 120, 121A and 131A.
As with section 124, section 125 identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to section 124, this section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
In relation to amendment 43.4, I move that the words ‘in form of Schedule 3’ as used in the heading for section 57A be included in the list of words to be omitted from the Justices Act, and that those words be replaced with the word ‘issued’.
I also move that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so that sections 60AC(1)(b) and (2) are amended by removing ‘201A’ and replacing it with ‘49 of the Local Court Act’ so that section 105D(1)(c) is amended by removing ‘201A’ and replacing it with ‘48 of the Local Court Act’.
Section 201A, dealing with the rules of the court and practice directions, is being repealed by clause 21 of the bill. The new provisions will provide for practice directions as referred to in section 60AC. The rules of the court as referred to in section 105D are sections 48 and 49 of the Local Court Act.
The purpose of the amendment to section 57A is to amend the heading. This is occurring because of the amendment to section 57A to be made in the next consideration stage of the amendment. Consequently, amendment 43.5 is that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so that the words ‘issued under section 57(2)’ are inserted in place of the words currently proposed to be removed.
Section 57A deals with what happens when a summons is received. It is being amended so it is clear that the summons referred to is the one issued under section 57(2).
That brings me to the amendment to 43.6 that section 106A of the Justices Act be amended by omitting references to sections 120 and 121A and replacing them with references to sections 120, 121A and 131A. As with sections 124 and 125, section 106A identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to sections 124 and 125, this section should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
That brings me to amendment 43.7, the intent of which is that the schedule dealing with amendment to section 116(2) of Justices Act be amended by omitting the current proposed amendment and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. The purpose of this amendment is limited to replacing the words ‘proper office’ with ‘proper officer’. This was a typographical error.
That brings me to amendment 43.8, being that the schedule dealing with the amendment of section 122A of the Justices Act be amended by omitting the current proposed amendment and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. As with sections 124, 125 and 106A, this section identifies sections under which indictable offences can be tried summarily. For the reasons expressed in relation to those sections, section 122A should contain a cross-reference to section 131A.
Amendment 43.9 is that Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 be amended so the proposed amendments to section 139 dealing with the transmission of documents to the Supreme Court are omitted and replaced with a new set of amendments, as set out in the amendment schedule. The effect of the amendment is to remove the words ‘as the case’; otherwise the new amendment is the same as the amendment in the bill.
Amendment 43.10 – Schedule 1 to the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 is to be amended so the proposed amendments to section 141, dealing with the withdrawal of ‘plea’ and substitution of ‘pleas of not guilty’, are omitted and replaced with a new set of amendments as set out in the amendment schedule. The main effect of the amendment is to correct an error that would have arisen if the word ‘he’ had been replaced throughout section 141 by ‘the defendant’, as proposed in the bill. One of these references should have been to a court.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Proposed New Standing Order – Language other than English in the Assembly
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the standing orders of the Assembly be amended to allow the use of languages other than English in this Chamber, provided that, for the purposes of Hansard, a translation of the words spoken by the member must be provided directly following the speaking of language or provided by way to tabling a copy of the member’s remarks immediately upon the conclusion of the contribution.
This motion introduces a new standing order, 23A, that states, ‘A member may rise to speak in any language other than English so long as an oral translation is provided in the English language by the same member immediately subsequent to the words spoken in the language other than English, or a written translation is tabled (without the need to seek leave) immediately at the conclusion of the contribution by the member in the language other than English’.
In the last sittings for 2015 I spoke ad lib in my first language, Warlpiri. Madam Speaker reacted with a statement regarding the use of language other than English in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker stated:
- … should a member use a language other than English without the leave of the Assembly, it will be ruled disorderly and the member will be required to withdraw the words.
It was further stated that:
- It is not desirable for the Assembly to enter into the business of seeking translation and interpretations to determine if words used were offensive or disorderly … Disorder is not permitted and the use of words in a language other than English to interject, or during debate, will be ruled disorderly and required to be withdrawn.
I have taken some time to consider this statement. I spent the Christmas period renovating our home with my husband. While my hands were busy at work my mind was reflecting on the past year, my achievements, my portfolios, the challenges and frustrations I face and the year ahead. In the new year I began discussions with my department on the planning of International Women’s Day. The theme for 2016 was Pledge for Parity. As we were discussing what that means, I continued to reflect on the topic of parity in gender equality, economic security and political representation.
In the Northern Territory our journey as women is twofold. Some were civilising and pioneering; others were just surviving, or not surviving. There are amazing stories of resilience and persistence about the formation of the foundation of our Territory, but the story of Aboriginal women is still part of the hidden story. I reflected on the day’s theme and navigated through all the hype and marketing material on the web, and later that night I asked myself, ‘What is my pledge to the Aboriginal women of the Territory? How can I stand in front of all the Aboriginal women who have elected me, along with their daughters, nieces and granddaughters, without a pledge for their parity with the women and girls of other ethnic groups?’
One of the elements in the theme of International Women’s Day was institutions. In Aboriginal society we have our own traditional governance structure. It governs who we are, what we do and how we think. This structure has been broken up over the years. It has had to evolve and adapt to survive. It is not the same, but it is similar to the governance structure, called the Westminster system, that we work with in the Chamber.
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory must understand both these systems. We are often left bemused by what is really going on within the system imposed on us because the communication used in it is not always clear or understandable.
That is why, through my portfolio of Local Government and Community Services, we have developed a remote engagement strategy for public servants. It is a well-developed, thorough strategy for the whole NTG to guide how we engage and communicate information clearly to those of our citizens who have extra problems understanding our message because of differences in language and culture. Perhaps more importantly, it is about how we listen to and consult with them. We do not take an interpreter with us just so they can understand us; we also take an interpreter so we understand them. As a government we cannot govern unless we understand the needs and aspirations of those we govern.
As I reflected on International Women’s Day I thought about this political institution, our parliament, and how we as Aboriginal people participate, understand and communicate within that institution, and how this institution communicates with the Aboriginal people who elected us to the positions we hold in it. I was thinking about how we could achieve institutional parity. I used one sentence in my own language in this place. That one sentence was challenged and immediately assumed to be offensive by those on the other side of the Chamber. It was not offensive; it was a simple observation, but it caused real worry on the other side.
The memory of this moment was still burning in my mind and heart. It was only a few weeks later that I heard the Prime Minister of Australia develop part of a speech in the Commonwealth parliament in the Aboriginal language of the people of the country in which he spoke. Then I realised that I needed to speak up.
Out of the hundreds of languages Aboriginal Australians spoke in 1788 only about 15 or so are still spoken as first languages. Most of those are spoken in the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister used a language that nobody now speaks as a first language, and he was praised for it. I spoke a language that still lives and is spoken as a first language by thousands of citizens of the Northern Territory, and it was assumed I was offensive; I was misunderstood.
The population of my electorate is 75% Aboriginal. Most speak an Aboriginal language as their first. All members of this House represent Aboriginal Territorians who speak a traditional language first. Every one of you would have some in your electorates. Some others, like me, represent an electorate with a clear majority who do.
If Aboriginal Territorians are not allowed to express ourselves in our first language – the one we think in which gives us our sense of identity and pride in who we are – then we are not achieving the parity we are looking for, not just for women and girls but for all of us.
For the speakers of our languages to be truly equal at the table and participate in robust debate and feel welcome, then our language must be respected and allowed to be used in a way that can be appreciated and understood by those who speak only English.
It fascinates me to think that a few seconds of frustration that caused me to use one sentence in the language I have spoken all my life brought so much outrage and fear to some of the non-Aboriginal women in this Chamber. It is ironic that one of those who objected the loudest also represents an electorate with a very large majority of speakers of traditional language. Along with mine, Yolngu Matha is one of the healthiest and strongest in the nation.
In the time it took to utter one sentence, the tables were turned. How did it feel not to understand? You had a tiny taste of what it is often like for us. Did it occur to you that this happens to my people most of the time? We are belittled, ignored, harassed and patronised in English all our lives.
I wrote to Madam Speaker and expressed my concern and frustration, and sought clarification of the standing order. I should not need to state that this was not a personal attack on Madam Speaker, who I hold in high esteem. As an elected member, I merely sought clarification on the relevant ruling and the standing order so I could then determine how to go about challenging or addressing this disparity.
We have people from every culture in the world in our country who now call themselves Australian. Most came here voluntarily to make a better life for themselves. We are one of the most open, liberal, tolerant and free societies on Earth. That makes me proud.
We should emphasise our commonality that makes us Australian, but everyone should be able to participate fully. If all people are to be properly represented and, more importantly, if we are to properly represent ourselves in parliaments of our country, then our languages must be recognised in some way.
We need to be able to use our own voices. I believe that if a policy on legislation is not written by us, that it is not written for us.
We have Aboriginal doctors, lawyers, architects, professors, politicians and more. But the playing field is still not level. Our institutional foundations need to represent our diversity.
The fact that we live in such a culturally diverse society harmoniously is unique to Australia, and it is only right that our institutional structures are reflective of our society.
I understand that this is an uncomfortable conversation for many, including English-speaking Aboriginal people who will have different opinions, strongly held. But as a Walpiri-speaking woman and a minister of the Crown, with English not being my first language, I wanted to raise this issue.
We need to make sure we encourage people to enter politics and for them to feel that they can be proud and have a seat at the table if they truly want to influence the future for the next generations.
My letter to Madam Speaker was about me and all those women and girls like me who are citizens of the Northern Territory. I have been told that English is Australia’s official language, and yet nowhere can I find any documentation that states English is the official language of Australia. I challenge anyone to find it.
Other English-speaking societies like ours do have official languages. Canada has given French equal status to English. New Zealand has passed a law that has given that country three official languages: English; te reo Maori; and New Zealand sign language. Interpreting and translation occurs every day in their parliaments. Switzerland has four official languages. There are 11 official languages in South Africa.
I am not asking for my language to be made an official language. I understand that in New Zealand there is one Maori language. There are around 15 Aboriginal languages still spoken here. In South Africa, millions of people speak the official languages. Here only thousands, and in most cases far fewer, speak surviving Aboriginal languages.
But as a first language speaking Walpiri woman, I am asking for the right to freedom of speech to express myself in my first language spontaneously at times. I also ask for this right for every member of the Legislative Assembly.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one’s opinions without fear of retaliation or censorship. The use of my first language allows me freedom of speech.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 13, declares that states shall take effective measures to ensure that Indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
I accept that all members and citizens have the right to understand what is being said in this place, and I respect that right. Aboriginal members should have the right to express themselves spontaneously in their own language, and provide a translation, when they feel the need, without the assumption they are being offensive and disorderly.
I have great support from my colleagues who have welcomed me into the Cabinet, embraced my input and valued my contribution to the development of policies and legislation that governs us all. We do not believe in the continuation of the victim mentality that has driven Indigenous policy in the past and suffocated Aboriginal advancement. Instead, we believe in liberalism.
We believe in preserving the dignity of people and enabling them to be free to make their own choices. We Aboriginal people can only survive in the 21st century if we embrace a liberal mindset. I look forward to hearing the contributions to this motion. I commend the motion to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing forward this motion. It is clearly a matter of importance to her; however, I am concerned that the member has determined that the Assembly must act today, with no further delay, to bring into effect a new standing order.
I am at a loss as to why the member is so keen today to move to action. I am also at a loss as to why the member has not raised this issue before with anyone in this parliament, within wing meetings or within the party when I was a member.
I have no concern about the proposal to allow languages other than English to be spoken in an orderly manner; that is what occurs already, by leave. I recall the member for Namatjira speaking eloquently in language when we were in opposition. The member for Port Darwin also spoke in language. The past member for Casuarina spoke in his language, Greek. I have welcomed people in symbolic ways to this parliament in different languages. Formalising the procedure is not and never will be a problem.
I will recap why we are debating this matter. During sittings on 2 December 2015 there was a heated debate. The member for Nhulunbuy was on her feet, speaking to an emotional debate on education or health, and there were many interjections from the floor.
After every sittings I issue a procedural bulletin which discusses where standing orders have not be adhered to, have been abused, or other things that have gone on in the Chamber. That is done very deliberately to assist members and staff who work with members to get a better understanding of, and learn about, the procedures, policies and standing orders of this Chamber.
It was in that procedural bulletin that I included reference to an interjection by the member for Stuart across the floor in response to something the member for Nhulunbuy said. Following the interjection, which was in a language other than English, I was approached as the Speaker by someone who, given the intensity and manner in which the interjection was delivered, perceived – which is their right; their perception is their reality – that some of the interjection may have been less than parliamentary. Based on that incident in this Chamber I made comments in the procedural bulletin, which goes to all members and chiefs of staff.
On 12 February, nearly three months later, I received a letter from the member for Stuart in regard to what I had put in the procedural bulletin, which was appropriate. If any member of this parliament has a concern about something that has happened in the Chamber – if they feel wronged, offended, upset or distressed about anything – it is their right, and they should write to the Speaker, not only in regard to their own standing but the standing of their constituents.
Just after 12 February I received the letter, which was dated 12 February, from the member for Stuart, putting her concerns down. Some of them had nothing to do with me as the Speaker. She expressed her distress about language and spoke about how things had happened in the federal parliament, which was nothing to do with the Speaker’s office here. I was working on a reply because I took it as a serious matter. Clearly, judging from the content of the letter, the member was concerned about what had transpired, and not just about interjecting in language but the nature of the debate on that subject. But before I could get my letter to the member for Stuart, I received a phone call from a woman in the ABC in Sydney, not anyone in the Territory, saying she had a copy of the member for Stuart’s letter and asking if I had any comments. I said, ‘I have only just received the letter. I am working on the reply and how to address the member’s concerns and comment on things that were under my control and management.’ I was a little taken aback that the letter had been sent to the national media before I had the opportunity to reply to the member.
I told the journalist I was happy to talk on radio about it because I did not have any issues with what had transpired; they were procedural issues related to standing orders. I drafted the letter, which went to the member with a copy of the audio, which focuses on the member for Nhulunbuy. You can hear the interjections of many members in the background, including the member for Stuart.
I gave an interview on ABC radio Sydney, and as a consequence of that it shot around the countryside that the member for Stuart was not allowed to talk in language in the parliament and that the Speaker had not allowed her to do so. The member subsequently gave interviews, and I gave a couple of interviews in Darwin.
Clearly that was not the case and I was very concerned that information released to the national media was not correct about what had transpired in the Northern Territory.
I seek leave to table a copy of the member’s letter.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: I also seek leave to table a copy of my letter in reply to the member for Stuart.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: The letter to me as Speaker was copied to Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, so I thought it only appropriate that I send my letter to the Prime Minister of Australia.
In my letter to the member for Stuart I addressed areas I could comment on as the Speaker, the presiding officer of this parliament. I am not in a position, as the Speaker or as a member, to comment on whether members of this parliament had adversely or inappropriately commented on her. That is nothing to do with me in my job.
I am and was concerned that the matter was never about speaking in another language. As members well know, we have had many people in this Chamber speaking language for many reasons. It was never about improving this parliament and its procedures and processes, and it was never about representing members. I believe it was mischievous and malcontent behaviour, and that does not bode well for our parliament and its future.
I compliment the member – or any member, for that matter – who speaks a language other than English. The member for Namatjira speaks five languages, and she is exceptionally fortunate. My younger sister, Thisbe, speaks three Aboriginal languages, so this is not about me or anyone to do with my family having an issue with languages. She speaks Yolgnu Matha, the Ngaanyatjarra language and the Pitjantjatjara language. She speaks them fluently, and she can write in them. My family is very familiar with Aboriginal languages, without a doubt.
This started with a robust debate, members interjecting, and then a member interjected in a language other than English. Somehow it has morphed into this national issue that has focused on the Northern Territory parliament, saying, implying and writing that we do not let people in this parliament speak in another language, and that is not correct.
It is not correct historically, and it is not correct currently. The parliament in the Northern Territory has had an Aboriginal person in it for every session. In this session we have six or seven members of an Aboriginal background. We are probably the leaders when it comes to having representation in parliament of people from other cultures and races, as we do in our local government.
I remember a time when we had three mayors in Darwin who were Chinese. Nowhere else could you ever have had something like that. One of the first mayors of Darwin was Harry Chan, whose bust is in the foyer of this parliament. This is a place that embraces the diverse mix of cultures and races historically, currently and will, I am sure, into the future.
Interjections in any language are disorderly. If you are interjecting, you are asked to stop interjecting.
Instead of the Assembly taking the unprecedented approach to its standing orders and immediately adopting a new suggestion, it would be best if the motion being considered by the Assembly today referred the matter for detailed consideration by the Standing Orders Committee.
The Standing Orders Committee exists to examine proposals to do with the rules of debate and the order or this Assembly. That committee, which has a majority of government members on it, will be able to take the time – a short time if that is preferred – to examine the procedures and precedents, and to conduct research and analysis, and report to the Assembly with the recommendations on the best way to achieve the outcomes sought by the member for Stuart.
To rush this motion through would circumvent the normal procedures this Assembly has applied when it comes to changing standing orders, and I stress the word ‘circumvent.’ This parliament should not circumvent our standing orders and proper processes and procedures. From time to time, as members should know, the Assembly adopts sessional orders to test procedural innovations and refine them before they become standing orders.
Standing orders are never changed on the spot, as is being proposed today. This is setting a precedent that we should not embark on or accept. A lengthy review process over the past two years resulted in the Assembly adopting new standing orders on 1 December 2015. For two years we reviewed the standing orders. The member for Port Darwin was the chair and the member for Daly was a committee member, as were the member for Nelson and I. I think the member for Nightcliff was also on the committee.
For two years the Clerk and the committee worked to review the standing orders. Documents went to the Labor Caucus and the wing. We kept saying ‘Do you agree with this? This is how we are changing it’. There was considerable consultation on changing standing orders in this parliament. Where was the member for Stuart’s concern over the last two years in regard to changing standing orders?
I have no issue with what the member wants to achieve in changing standing orders, but why was this not brought to the attention of her wing colleagues, even when I was in the party. The member for Araluen was in the party. It was never raised. Why has it not been raised before in an adjournment or any other way? Why has it not been brought forward previously? I am at a loss.
The Standing Orders Committee has not had the opportunity to consider this proposal and provide proper advice to the Assembly. That is what the Standing Orders Committee is about: providing sound, decent advice as to what could, should and might be the way forward. It is up to the Assembly if it accepts the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.
As I mentioned, government has a majority and the chair of that committee. That is where it should be considered in the first instance.
To proceed today is to establish an unfortunate precedent where the proper committee is cut out of consideration and its role of analysis and providing advice to us all. Why have a Standing Orders Committee if every time you want to change a standing order you bring a motion to the parliament? It does not have to take long to have it reviewed by the Standing Orders Committee. It can be given a reasonably short time frame.
On that basis I move the following amendment to the motion: delete all the words after ‘that’ and insert the words ‘the Standing Orders Committee is requested to inquire into and report to the Assembly with recommendations about the best procedure to allow members to speak during debate in any language other than English, and that the Standing Orders Committee reports to the Assembly no later than the sitting week commencing Tuesday 24 May 2016’.
A copy of my amendment is being distributed.
I commend this amendment to the motion to the House, and I ask members to support it because it is the appropriate way to go.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I know this time on Wednesday is traditionally set aside for the business of members in opposition or Independents, so I will keep my comments short.
I support the motion moved by the minister and member for Stuart. The Stuart electorate is similar to mine. It has a large majority of Indigenous constituents, many of whom do not speak English as a first language. Not only do the majority not speak English as a first language, but they also learn the customs and culture of their people, many of which are thousands of years old, long before they are taught in understanding the customs, culture and law of the mainstream in the Northern Territory.
In the past this misunderstanding between the different cultures has led to violence, anger, sadness and confusion. I am proud to say that this is happening less and less, but it is often at the expense of Indigenous culture.
Quite often we hear of Indigenous people having to walk in two cultures; the first is their own and the second is mainstream culture. While these days we have numerous people who do this well, managing to become successful doctors, school teachers, police officers, scientists, lawyers and even politicians, at times there can be confusion, particularly when it comes to speaking and conducting business in a foreign language.
I was disappointed to see the response from those opposite when the member for Stuart made a comment in her mother’s language. Straightaway they went on an attack on our culture as being offensive. It is disappointing that those opposite were faced with their own ignorant act in fear and aggression towards the member for Stuart.
Quite often we have seen those opposite attack the minister for reading an answer from a note, implying that she is too stupid to be a minister because she must read from notes. Of course, she reads from notes, but the one time she made a comment off the cuff those very same people reacted in fear and aggression in attacking her.
It is sad that they only highlight when the member for Stuart reads a prepared speech. I take this opportunity to point out that every member of this Assembly speaks from prepared notes. The ministers and every member opposite does, and so do I. I wonder why they only attack the member for Stuart when she does it.
I understand and I believe that for the ease of all people of the Northern Territory the business of this House should be conducted in English; however, I acknowledge that at times there will be moments when members need to express themselves in their mother’s language. I hope when those times come, even if they are off the cuff and unplanned, that we can embrace diversity, providing a translation is given immediately to show the words were not offensive and they should not be ruled out of order.
I promised I would keep my remarks short, so I finish by saying I support the member for Stuart, and commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment the member for Goyder has brought forward. I wrote my speech last night, and by the way, member for Arafura, I do not always write speeches; I sometimes make them up standing here, off the top of my head. I do not have a large staff, so I generally write my own speeches.
I welcome this debate. As mentioned by the member for Goyder, we have a Standing Orders Committee and we spent the last two years looking at the standing orders and putting new ones together. During that time people had the opportunity to add things to those standing orders if they wanted to.
As you know, last year I went to Canada and visited two provinces: Nunavut and Northwest Territories. When I returned I spoke about how great it was that I could sit in a parliament and listen to different languages.
In Nunavut there are three languages: English, French and Inuktitut. There is a dialect of Inuktitut spoken as well.
The Nunavut members of parliament speaking their own language made a tremendous difference to the way that parliament ran. I felt it was a parliament which welcomed people speaking in their own language.
As the member for Stuart said, it may be the case that Australia does not have an official language. In Nunavut there are three. Nunavut also has a language commissioner and so does Northwest Territories. The language commissioners have a mandate to protect the language rights of the native people and those who speak French and English. There is even the Official Languages Act.
I am not necessarily arguing that we go down that path. Obviously we have many more Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory than they have in Northwest Territories and Nunavut. But if you use different languages in a parliament then you need procedures. Otherwise people will speak in other languages and people who do not know that language will have no idea what they are saying.
Some of this discussion is about one particular case, and I have been in this parliament when various Aboriginal people have spoken in language. It is rare and is done with approval from the Speaker, and you receive a translation afterwards. But what is to stop someone speaking in their language all the time? Why should they not? I am not saying they should not. I do not have a problem with it. In Nunavut and Northwest Territories there is a series of soundproof rooms right next to the Chamber where translators are operating all the time. There us a little box in front of you and you press a button for Inuktitut, French or English, and you can listen to it. You get a live and independent translation of what is being spoken.
One of the dangers of having somebody give you a translation is that you do not have anyone to test its accuracy. Whether it is a paper given to you before the speech is made or after, you have to accept that is the translation and it will go into Hansard. In Northwest Territories and Nunavut someone translates immediately. Hansard picks up that translation at the same time. Their Hansard is written in the three languages. It is actually four languages, if I can call them that, because they have a syllabic version of Inuktitut. I cannot show it to you here, but it uses the symbols that were used by missionaries in the 1800s. It is a peculiar-looking language but you know where you are when you see it. You know you are in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, or some of the other states.
They also write Inuktitut in the Roman alphabet, and there is French and English. In the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit, the stop signs are in Inuktitut, English and French. Also part of what this language issue is about is that not only do they allow the languages to be spoken in parliament, but the official languages are required if someone wants a document in one of those languages.
On the website for the Nunavut Legislative Assembly, if you click on Hansard, across the top of the webpage you will see the four languages. Just press the button and you the Hansard in the language you want to read.
That is a much advanced version of what we are talking about today where a decision was made by that territory to have three official languages. I think Northwest Territories has eight official languages. It does not use all of them all the time. It is recognised that there are issues in relation to translating.
I have just seen this today, which I have been given permission to use. The Legislative Assembly has put together a background and options paper on Aboriginal languages and the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. It deals with some of the reasons we have raised this discussion today, but it also a very detailed document. The Standing Orders Committee will need to look at it if this amendment goes through. It looks at 10 options for using language in this Assembly. For instance, the first option is to use English only. Another option is that the Legislative Assembly transacts all business in English with members able to speak in any language other than English upon request, by leave, and the member provides a spoken interpretation of what was said. It goes on with various versions of that.
There are approximately 75 communities in the Northern Territory which are non-Indigenous, which is a reflection of the multiculturalism of the Northern Territory. We have people from all over the world. If we had a Cambodian in this Assembly, I would expect them – if we are keeping all things equal – to be allowed to speak in Cambodian.
The question really will be how would that work in practice? Is this an impractical outcome? Should we just use it for special occasions? The advantage of taking this to the Standing Orders Committee is we can look at what is a good idea and see how it would work in practice.
As has been said, a number of people, such as the member for Namatjira, have used language in this parliament, but usually for a specific purpose on special occasions. I do not think there has been an issue. If we are to introduce it in the form of the motion by the member for Stuart, then we are going down the path of something more official and formal in the way we approach it.
As I said, member for Stuart, it is great that Aboriginal languages can be spoken in this parliament; but obviously there are some practical implications that need to be looked at.
I first saw this paper at lunchtime. It lists all the languages that are well spoken, if I can put it that way. I am not saying it covers all languages; my wife’s language is not listed. There are many languages that are not used by many people. Batjamalh is a language that, unfortunately, will probably die out with my family. There might be one speaker of Emmi left. There are languages that will never be used, but there are common languages that are still used.
We have in the Territory the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. That organisation could be a way of enabling languages to be used in this parliament with someone translating it at the same time. Even if that was to happen, there would be a fairly major cost. You would have to have a soundproof room, electronic equipment and ear pieces. None of that would be cheap.
I am not saying that is the path we go down, but there may be one-off occasions where languages are used, or we might allow it on occasions where there is a debate and it is appropriate, for example, if there are people from that person’s electorate who want to hear the debate in their own language. Or it may be that we make rules that say the languages can be used all the time, as long as there is someone here who can interpret.
I have moved away from my written notes, because they were written last night for the original. An amendment to the motion has been moved, and it is a good change. I do not think anyone is knocking what the member for Stuart wants, but if we are to go down this path, we should make a sensible decision. We are not the same as New Zealand or Nunavut. We have many more languages, and if you include non-Indigenous languages, of which there would be 75, we need to ask whether they can be spoken as well.
The former member for Casuarina spoke in Greek sometimes. Dr Lim probably would have spoken in Malaysian Chinese occasionally. Jackie Ah-Kit sang Slim Dusty songs at his farewell, but I do not know whether we need to give approval for that.
It is an important debate. I thank the member for Goyder for bringing the amendment forward. I think the member for Port Darwin is going to move an amendment to the amendment, to try to change the date and bring this along faster.
We have a fairly substantial background paper, put together by the staff, and that will help us come to a conclusion about how we work this.
It is good that we are discussing this. What continues to make the Territory unique is that we have Aboriginal people in this House, and if they can speak their language, that is something we should be proud of.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank and congratulate minister Bess Price for bringing this before us. It is important that we address a couple of issues.
In a former life I taught at Kormilda College. One thing that struck me as amazing about the many Indigenous students I taught was that they are really smart. They turn up to school and may be terrible at written and spoken English, but they speak about five other languages.
People who have dealt with traditional Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory will know that. They are conversant in languages in their own sphere. They might speak two or three languages within their own community, or a language they speak to people older than them in which may be completely different to a language in which they speak to their peers or people younger than them. It always struck me that when I got to the heart of understanding what they were talking about, the intelligence of what they were saying was profound.
The minister is not as fantastic with written and spoken English as someone who may have been well-educated through an English-speaking system, so she writes notes and reads from the page. Then we have the members opposite interjecting and carrying on like pork chops saying, ‘Why don’t you just table what you have there?’ That is really disrespectful considering that the minister is speaking in a second language. She is trying to convey meaning. She is doing it in a format she is not comfortable with. She writes it down so she accurately conveys what she wants to present.
Then the members opposite make fun of her for doing that. I listened carefully to what Madam Speaker said in her speech. To my mind it is not about what happened with Madam Speaker; it comes back to the disrespect shown in this House and how people have targeted this minister in a way that will make her feel inferior or that she has a less important role in this House because she is not as conversant in the English language.
That is where the heart of this comes from. It resonates with me that she has brought this forward. I wanted to speak on this and support her in this motion because I am disgusted with the people opposite who talk about how they respect people and cultures, yet, multiple times – and they know who they are – they have denigrated this minister because of the way she converses. If the answer to the problem in the House is that anybody who speaks an Indigenous language can confidently convey meaning – suddenly those on the other side are saying, ‘You cannot do that. You can’t speak in that language because we don’t know what you are talking about’, and taking offence.
What the member for Nelson said is right. There needs to be an understanding of what is being said. It is hard to have a debate when you do not understand what the other people are saying. The other side of that is that if people on the other side of the House showed more respect for the minister, we would not have this motion before the House. Those members opposite – and they know who they are – who have belittled the member for Stuart and tried to make her feel inferior because of the way she speaks, and because she needs to read some of the things she says to convey meaning, should be ashamed of themselves.
Whatever happens with this motion, she has my support. I will stand beside her and anybody in this parliament who is ridiculed on the basis of a language they feel comfortable conversing in, particularly when it is an Australian Indigenous language.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Stuart for bringing this forward for debate in this House. I commend the member for Goyder for bringing an amendment to it because it needs to go through the proper channels so the committee can see what we can do.
As a language speaker, in 2005 I gave my maiden speech in an Aboriginal language with the permission of the Speaker, Jane Aagaard. I just said to her, ‘Madam Speaker, I want to make my first speech in the Chamber in my language to acknowledge that I am an Aboriginal person and politician, and acknowledge my culture and language’. She had no objections about it. She said, ‘No problems, member for Macdonnell’ – it was the seat of Macdonnell then. I wrote my translation and had it in both my language and English ready to go – identical.
We get into a problem – when we talk about language do we talk about changing standing orders to make sure we go through the consideration in detail stage in English and we can use language just for adjournments or ministerial statements? What is it?
It is very good that the member for Goyder has referred this to the Standing Orders Committee. I found the member for Blain patronising in the way he spoke about the opposition continuously heckling the member for Stuart. I am a former minister as well. That is part of politics. As ministers of the Crown we have to ensure we set a standard. Are we setting a standard in this parliament where we are black politicians, or are we politicians? I spoke from that side of the Chamber at one stage a couple of years ago and said to this side that we did not want them to refer to us as Indigenous politicians. We wanted them to refer to us as politicians.
I took a stand a very long time ago when I started talking about teacher assistants, Aboriginal police officers and Aboriginal health workers. Why is it we always tag positions with the word ‘Aboriginal’? Will we now be known as Aboriginal politicians? Are we not politicians? Are we not duly elected to represent an equal group of people? We live in a very diverse community of the Northern Territory. We have Greeks, Italians, Sudanese, Indonesians, Chinese – all these people.
You, member for Blain, were very patronising in saying the member for Stuart cannot express herself. Of course she can express herself! She has spoken English for a very long time. Of course she is nervous. Every minister is nervous. When you take the government side of the Chamber for the first time you are nervous. We all are. We have butterflies. You do not know what to expect. You are thinking, ‘Will the next question be to me?’ Every one of us has had the jitters on that side when we were government ministers.
To say that the member for Stuart cannot understand English is wrong, because she is a minister of the Crown. If she is not able to understand and interpret English, does she know what she is signing?
Those are the kind of things we have to be careful of. It is appropriate that the member for Goyder has moved an amendment to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee so we can look at what we do in this Chamber and how we use language.
Language has always been used in this Chamber, but you have to seek permission from the Speaker. It is appropriate that we give her the courtesy, as the person who runs this parliament, of asking permission to speak in our language.
No one has ever stopped. The member for Goyder put it into perspective when she said there was an interaction between the members for Nhulunbuy and Stuart. That is all we are talking about here.
If you are saying this parliament has stopped people from speaking language, that is not true. We have been speaking language in this parliament since 2005.
Looking at, in its entirety, the suffering of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, with poor housing, education, health and roads, and children with foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, is this our priority? We need to get the priorities right. We talk about parity, but we have to use the word in context.
Ms Price: I am using it.
Ms ANDERSON: I am not saying anything to you, member for Stuart; I am talking about the word ‘parity’. There are all sorts of priorities we have to put first for Aboriginal people before we start talking about using language in parliament.
I would like to see housing conditions improved. There have been refurbishments done in communities, but there is no air conditioning. I just came from Areyonga where I went to my sister’s funeral. I stayed in a house with 25 people. The water pressure was terrible. You could not do ‘number two’. In any house where you have water pressure problems and there are 30 people living there, of course that house will break down.
A report was handed to this parliament yesterday on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. That will be a major issue for the Northern Territory in years to come, not just with those children but with child protection, health and education. Who will look after these children? They are the real issues we have to be talking about.
As I said at the beginning, member for Stuart, I applaud you for bringing this discussion to this parliament. It is wonderful to see that we can talk about these things, but we have a real crisis in the Northern Territory with Aboriginal people. We need to make sure we get our priorities in order. Speaking language in the parliament is a priority, but it is at is at the top? Is it number one, two or 10? We have to make sure we talk about these issues in their full form.
When we have discussions here, I go and interpret into Luritja in Mount Liebig, Kintore, Papunya and Haasts Bluff. I go to Areyonga and tell them what this parliament talks about in Pitjantjatjara. I go to Hermannsburg and talk to people in Arrernte and tell them what this parliament has been talking about. It is up to individual members of this parliament to tell our people in our language.
If I said to Madam Speaker, ‘I would really like the statistics on how many people stream this parliament live every time we have sittings and how many of them are Indigenous people from remote Aboriginal communities’ – are they interested in what we say in this House? I do not think so. They have bigger priorities. I went to Papunya the other day and the people said, ‘The pies and the bread inside that shop, Alison, are $7’. I said, ‘I believe you. I will go to the shop in the morning.’ I call it the famous pie. It was $7 at the Papunya shop. How can these people afford to live with such expenses in their shop?
Those are the priorities I like to see us talking more about, but, as I said, member for Stuart, I commend you for bringing this motion to the House, and I commend the member for Goyder for moving an amendment to send it to a committee to look at it for us properly so we can do it properly. If we are going to speak language in this Chamber then it needs to be done properly. Will we do it in the consideration in detail or adjournment? Will you and I be talking just between ourselves, or Francis and Larisa? Taking it to a committee gives us a way of getting more for this parliament in regard to Aboriginal languages. There is no harm in the discussions and debates we are having; they need to happen. As I said at the beginning, this discussion needs to happen in this Chamber and it is fantastic that you introduced it.
I commend the member for Goyder for looking at this in a very different way, because she is doing it properly by sending it to a committee. The committee will look at it properly. Going back to what the member for Blain said, if this was so important to the government members they would not have taken up GBD time; it is taking up our time. They would have brought it forward as Government Business. It is not important to your side, member for Stuart, because you would have introduced it as Government Business instead of General Business.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as opposition Whip I will speak on behalf of the opposition today.
We strongly support a parliament that reflects the diversity of the people of the Northern Territory. We strongly support the recommendation of the Speaker, who presides over the sittings of parliament, to refer this motion to the Standing Orders Committee for its fulsome consideration.
We believe this is an important motion. We believe in the importance of language across our schools and the whole of the Northern Territory. By referring this motion to a committee we will be able to look at it in its entirety and can work out the best way to take things forward.
The minister raised some very interesting points in her speech and we need to look into those. We need to value language and culture, and respect them. People here tonight have spoken about the diversity of this parliament. Currently we have people who speak Indigenous languages and one who can speak Dutch. Previously we have had people who could speak Greek and Italian. We need to make sure we represent all Territorians and acknowledge the importance of language. We welcome the intent of the minister in bringing this motion to the House.
The minister raised the fact some people in her electorate do not understand the parliament, and we appreciate efforts to make parliament more accessible to Territorians. As elected members in this parliament we operate in English. We pass legislation that becomes the law of the Territory, so we need to ensure any changes to our standing orders are fully understood and we have thought of all the implications. We would not like to inadvertently make changes in haste that seem good in intent yet cause problems down the line.
By referring this to the Standing Orders Committee we can best progress the minister’s request with the full understanding of the decisions we are making. There are a number of questions we have about procedure and the practicalities. I welcome the intent of the minister and the government to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee, as suggested in this Chamber tonight. We can take this very serious matter about the procedure of our parliament and associated changes that could have a huge impact or there could be costs involved, and we can fully understand what we are taking on board.
We welcome the intent, minister, that by sending it to the Standing Orders Committee we can best look into this matter. We would like to see a way that acknowledges the languages and traditions of the Territory, but makes it workable within those standing orders.
Madam Speaker took a great deal of time to explain to the House tonight the importance of standing orders and that her intention is to ensure we have a document that guides us, has the detail we need and we are not making changes that could inadvertently cause problems without an intent to do so.
This is about acknowledging the different cultures, and languages spoken, across the Northern Territory. It is about incorporating that into the standing orders and the process of the Northern Territory parliament. I was going to ask the minister to consider accepting the amendment, but the government has indicated it will be open to it. We are grateful for that. It would have been unprecedented, as a number of speakers have mentioned, to accept the motion straight off the floor.
As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this and look into the details and practicalities of it. The Speaker spoke with great passion tonight about her role. Obviously, minister, you have passion, and people do not deny that. Referring this to the Standing Orders Committee seems like a practical way to go forward. I will keep my words short in the interest of time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports the amendment to take this to the Standing Orders Committee and allow it to be debated there.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): (The member spoke in German.)
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has not passed yet, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I am in breach of the standing orders, but that was my best broken German to explain that my German is no good.
The first point I make is that the lingua franca of the parliament has to be English by virtue of the fact that if you want to convince people of your argument and your world view, it follows that you should express it in a language they can understand. There is no point trying to run an argument in a different language when most of the people will not understand you, because they will not be convinced.
The lingua franca of this parliament is English, and that is the language in which we do so much of our business.
(The member spoke in Dutch.)
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General …
Mr ELFERINK: In my broken Dutch, I ran the same argument that I just ran in English. I appreciate you pulling me up for the breach of the standing orders; that is correct.
We have to look at the Commonwealth as an indicator of what languages we speak. If we do that, the first thing we have to understand is that the Commonwealth is the remnant of the British Empire, which pushed into all sorts of places, including China. The lingua franca of the Chinese governing authority is still English, I understand, from time to time.
It also pushed into places like New Zealand, South Africa, North America and Canada. There were Indigenous cultures in many of those places. In South Africa the Indigenous cultures included Xhosa, Zulu and Venda, and any other number of languages are spoken, including Afrikaans.
(The member spoke in Afrikaans.)
I do my best in broken Afrikaans as well, and that would be well understood by many people who speak Afrikaans in the parliament in South Africa.
In New Zealand you can speak Maori and it is translated for you. The reason is that a large slice of the New Zealand population speaks Maori. They speak it to their own people in parliament, and it is translated as they speak.
The South African parliament is Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa and Zulu, which makes for some interesting debates in the parliament.
In the Northern Territory, 30% of the population speaks languages other than English; I am only talking about Indigenous people.
From time to time, a member of parliament will be speaking to their electorate rather than the House. The member for Barkly appreciates this; the former member for Macdonnell certainly appreciates it, as does the member for Stuart. The argument was eloquently put by the member for Arafura. There are times when you would like recorded in the Hansard record, in your own language, the things you say to your own electorate.
It is not an inconceivable or inconsiderate thing to do when talking to your electorate. When I speak to my electorate of Port Darwin I do not address them in German or Dutch; I address them in English. That is why I speak English in this place exclusively, except for the rare occasion when I have spoken languages like Dutch, such as when I wanted to send a message to the people of Enskede after a very great tragedy befell that city. I did not want to send that message in English. I wanted to send it in Dutch, because the people of Enskede speak Dutch. There is cause to do it from time to time.
The reality is that if you want to convince people of your position, you must do it in a language they understand. It is pointless trying to convince someone of an argument if they cannot understand. We stand in a ‘parliament’, which is a French word. I comes from a root meaning ‘the spoken word’. We have French roots in the building in which we stand.
Lingua francas are important, and as a consequence I am supportive of what the member for Stuart is trying to do. She will want to speak her language from time to time. If someone is offended by what she says, that is fine. If they understand it, it is easy to be offended. They can say ‘Madam Speaker, I am offended by what the member has just said in Warlpiri. I understand it; she called me such and such.’ The Speaker can rule on that point after investigating it in a superficial fashion.
Perhaps I said something rude about the member for Barkly when I spoke in Dutch. The member for Barkly would not be offended because he does not know that he has been abused. If someone in the gallery said to the member for Barkly 10 minutes later, ‘Mate, you want to hear what the member for Port Darwin called you’, then the member for Barkly could have it translated. If it turns out that I said something rude about him he could take it to the Speaker, and the Speaker could direct that I withdraw it. That could happen next week, in 10 minutes’ time or six months’ time.
We can get around the navigable issues this motion represents. There have been negotiations between the member for Stuart and the Speaker, I am grateful to hear.
An amendment has been put on the table by Madam Speaker which members on this side will accept; however, I move that the words ‘24 May’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘21 April’, which is the Thursday of the April sittings.
I understand this has been negotiated between the various parties around the room and no one seems to have raised any form of objection to the proposed amendment. I understand the member for Stuart is happy with it, which means the matter will be referred to a committee to report back on Thursday 21 April and make any such determinations as necessary in accordance with the wishes of the member for Stuart’s committee.
Having said all that, hopefully having encompassed it in about six minutes rather than 20 – I am keen to get on to further debates today, particularly the RU486 debate – I think it is time we push this through.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to clarify the member for Namatjira’s comments. She was not here that night. She came to me after Madam Speaker had made the ruling, the next morning, and she was surprised. I stood in the corner, where I explained to the member for Namatjira exactly what happened.
She replied by saying, ‘That is a serious issue and we should bring it back next year to talk about how we can have input into how we use languages in this House’. I want to make it clear to this House that I look after my constituents. I also spend time in her electorate, looking after her constituents, who do not see her there.
I thank the members of this Chamber for their contributions to this motion – the members for Goyder, Arafura, Nelson, Nightcliff, Blain and Namatjira. I note the member for Goyder’s comments in relation to why I chose to raise this matter. I believe that was covered in my initial statement. Whilst moving a motion to change a standing order was one of the recommendations to pursue this matter, I note the member for Goyder’s concerns and will accept the amendment to the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by member for Port Darwin to the amendment moved by the member for Goyder be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the member for Stuart’s motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Referral to Committee of Privileges
Referral to Committee of Privileges
Continued from 17 November 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this motion.
My goodness, what a stir this serious motion caused. I take members of the Assembly back to where we saw this motion brought forward some time ago. The member for Goyder introduced it. Debate around it was shut down immediately, and then we heard a lot of chatter during the night that there were moves happening to remove the member for Goyder as the Speaker. Later that evening we saw what everyone is now referring to as the midnight coup mark two, where the government tried to remove the Speaker from her position.
We went through hours and hours of debate in this place. If I remember correctly we were here until 3 am. When it came down to the secret ballot on whether the member for Goyder or the member for Greatorex would be the Speaker, the member for Goyder won and it was clear that someone from the government had dissented amongst the ranks.
It was an extraordinary night and another chapter of the chaos and dysfunction we have seen from within this government. It was a clear defiance from within the ranks of the Chief Minister and another farcical night of life in parliament under the CLP.
It was another attempt to hide their actions, as we saw in the first midnight coup where the member for Katherine tried to remove the member for Braitling as the Chief Minister. That happened in the middle of the night, including the press conference. The recent swearing in of the latest Cabinet was done at night too, away from the media and the public view. We will call that the midnight coup mark three.
One thing I quickly learnt as a member of this parliament, and from my observations of this government, is that often the measure of their reaction speaks volumes. The harder the Chief Minister and his ministers swing back at you, the clearer the sign that you have hit the nail on the head and they know something is up. That is their survival instinct, and what we have seen in this debate with the attempt to remove the member for Goyder as the Speaker, and their ongoing attempts in other parliamentary General Business days to filibuster to avoid this motion, says a lot about the seriousness of this motion and their concerns about a disgraceful advertisement run by this government.
Speaking to this motion goes to the core of the standards and conduct that Territorians expect from their members of parliament. They expect to see members of the Legislative Assembly perform their jobs properly, and with integrity and trust. After the publication of the now infamous ice advert, it was clear that Territorians believed this government had taken another step too far in an unacceptable direction. They again saw that this government will stop at nothing to cling to power, including abusing the workings of this parliament.
That is why I support this motion. This motion, introduced by the member for Goyder, goes to the heart of the freedom of all members of this Assembly to perform their duties unconstrained by improper influence.
This is one of the foundation stones of Westminster parliamentary democracy. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 states:
- That the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
This freedom is a fundamental prerequisite for representative democracy. So important is this principle that section 6 of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly (Power and Privileges) Act makes direct reference to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Significantly, section 5 of the act states:
- Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper influence with the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee, of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
Mr Tollner: Is there anything untruthful in that ad?
Ms MANISON: There certainly is, member for Fong Lim, and the Auditor-General agrees.
The Chief Minister is responsible, under the Administrative Orders for the Northern Territory Flag and Emblem Act. With a clear reference to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 introduced by the Attorney-General on 15 September, the advertisement states:
- This week, the NT Government proposed legislation to give police more power to stop and search ICE traffickers on our major highways.
This law was BLOCKED in parliament.
In his answer to Written Question 364 about the advertisement, the Chief Minister said:
- Design, production and associated costs were authorised and managed completely within the Office of the Chief Minister.
Documents released under freedom of information also expose the involvement of senior ministerial advisers in the Chief Minister’s office in the design, production and authorisation of this untrue and misleading political advertisement, funded by the Territory taxpayer.
I seek leave to table the documents obtained under freedom of information.
Leave granted.
Ms MANISON: If one goes through the documents they will see, in folio 115, clear evidence that a senior adviser in the Chief Minister’s office directed public servants in the Chief Minister’s department to place these taxpayer-funded political advertisements in local press.
Folios 5 and 7 prove these political advertisements cost taxpayers in excess of $8000 each. These documents directly point to several senior staff within the Chief Minister’s office producing and placing this advert. It would be difficult to believe the Chief Minister was not directly involved in the political strategy behind the decision to run this advert. It would also be very difficult to believe he had no knowledge this advert would run, given it was produced in his office, it was a full-page advert to run in the NT News and the deep political message in it.
It is clear there was enough time for the Chief Minister to know about these advertisements. On Wednesday evening, when the first draft of the advert was produced in his office, the advert was sent at 10 pm with the subject line, ‘New project for the morning’, followed by a smiley face. The next morning, on Thursday 17 September at 8.26 am, senior staff in the Office of the Chief Minister ordered the public service to get this advert placed in the NT News.
One would think that at some time between the Wednesday evening and when the advert was produced and the Thursday when the arrangements took place through most of the day, as the folio of FOI documents will show – the to and fro, and back and forth between the Office and the Department of the Chief Minister – the Chief Minister would have given approval and direction for this to proceed. Surely within that time there were conversations within that office about the advertisement. Surely no rogue staffer went it alone in producing an advertisement of that magnitude. It would be a very brave rogue staffer indeed to place a full-page advertisement in the Northern Territory News with this highly-political content that was misleading and simply not true.
Surely between Wednesday 10 pm through to the end of the day on Thursday when the all clear was given for this advertisement to run and the redrafting would have taken place, in that time through the many discussions with senior staff in that office in meetings about strategy and what is coming up in the media, the Chief Minister would have been aware of the content of this advertisement and given his approval for it to run.
It is very hard to believe that senior staffers within the Office of the Chief Minister would go it alone and run this deeply political, expensive full-page advertisement in the Northern Territory News. It simply would not happen that way. The question now is will the Chief Minister outline his role in the placement of this advertisement and take responsibility for it?
Honourable members, if you look at the content of the advertisement, on the left-hand side you will see a list of the members who apparently voted in favour of the bill, together with their CLP affiliation. That is all the members of government listed clearly in this full-page advertisement with their party affiliation to the CLP. If you look at the other column of the advertisement, you will see in a very big box with the headline ‘blocked by’ the names of the members of the Labor opposition and of the crossbenchers. The members of the Labor Party are very clearly marked as members of the Labor Party. You will note that for the Independent members that space is left blank.
This reinforces again the misleading and untrue statements inherent in this advertisement and designates it is political.
We did not block the bill. Independent and Labor members did not block the bill. We know that. Listing the members who purportedly blocked the bill, with their electorate names and party affiliation, brings us back to section 5 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. Why? Because these untrue advertisements are designed to punish those who purportedly opposed the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.
As set out in section 5, they are:
- … intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee, of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
Since that time, and since this motion came before the parliament, the Auditor-General has made her findings about this disgraceful advert, which were tabled in this parliament in February.
The findings of the Auditor-General were listed in the February 2016 report. I will quote from the report, the conclusion of the findings:
- I have considered the content of the referrals received and made appropriate enquiries. As a result I have concluded that the referred material represents a contravention of the provisions of sections 6(2)(a); section 6(2)(b); and 6(2)(c) of the act as discussed below
Section 6(2)(a). In my opinion, the advertisement placed by the Office of the Chief Minister could conceivably be interpreted by the public as meaning that the legislation intended to minimise harm from the drug known as ‘Ice’ had not passed through the Legislative Assembly as a result of the actions of non-government Members of the Legislative Assembly. I am therefore of the opinion that the advertisement has contravened section 6(2)(a) of the Public Information Act …
Section 6(2)(b). The ice drug laws were not blocked as communicated in the advertised content ‘This week, the NT Government proposed legislation to give police more power to stop and search ICE traffickers on our major highways. This law was BLOCKED in Parliament.’ The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill had not progressed to the point where it was being debated therefore it is my opinion that the advertisement includes statements that are misleading and factually inaccurate and consequently the advertisement is a contravention of section 6(2)(b) of the Act.
Section 6(2)(c). The list of the Legislative Assembly members listed under the heading ‘Government members who voted in favour’, represents the names of Legislative Assembly members who voted for an urgency motion to be supported, in order that the Misuse of Drugs Amendments Bill could be debated.
The content and format of the advertisement suggests that the listed Legislative Assembly members voted in favour of a piece of legislation relating to the drug known as ice. The list of Legislative Assembly members listed under the heading ‘Blocked by’, represents the names of the Legislative Assembly members who negatived this urgency motion, proposed in order that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill could be debated … The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill was not debated in parliament and therefore it was not voted for or against by any Legislative Assembly Members. The advertisement does not provide a reference to the Parliamentary transcript of Wednesday 16 September 2015 in order to enable a reader to determine for themselves if the public information provided in the advertisement was factually correct and therefore, it is also my opinion that the advertisement is a contravention of section 6(2)(c) of the act in that the advertisement does not clearly distinguish a statement of facts from a statement of comments.
In summary, the Chief Minister is ultimately responsible for this taxpayer-funded political advertisement which breaches the Public Information Act and, on face value, breaches the provisions of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
The breaches of this act are also captured by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, section 12 of the Self-Government Act and section 4 of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Privileges Act 1997.
The appropriate way to resolve these prima facie breaches of the act is by referral of the named member to the committee of privileges. These are extremely grave measures that go to the essence of all members’ freedom to perform effectively within this parliament on behalf of our constituents and in the public interest.
I can understand why these matters have been of such serious concern for the member for Goyder that she raised this very serious motion. Everyone in this parliament who supports the role of members to perform their function in this House freely will support this motion. Now is the time to stand up for parliamentary democracy and demand an accountable government for our constituents. How we respond to this motion will not go unnoticed.
The advertisement which landed us in this debate outraged the public. Territorians well and truly understand what is appropriate public information and advertising for government, and what is not.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: Territorians were outraged by the content; they knew it was misleading, untrue and politically driven. Territorians understand this advert was designed to be deceptive and misleading. They again saw that this government will stop at nothing to cling to power, to the point that they are now recklessly abusing the functioning of this parliament.
Let us not forget how the government reacted to this motion last year when it was raised. As I said in opening, their actions often speak louder than their words. It was a huge reaction; they could not have kicked back any harder than to wait. We all heard the whispers in the hallways that day that they would pull something on the Speaker and try to throw the member for Goyder out of her role as Speaker of this parliament. We all heard the rumours, then, what do you know? It all started rolling on at about 11 pm that night. We debated that until about 3 am, only to have a member of the government go against the wishes of the Chief Minister and ensure the member for Goyder appropriately maintained the role of Speaker of this parliament.
Members of the opposition support this motion. The ice advert was an outrageous abuse of power and taxpayers’ money. Territorians expect far better from members of this parliament. We support this motion brought forward by the member for Goyder, and I urge all other members to carefully consider this motion if they truly believe in the values of democracy and the importance this parliament plays within them.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that we are not talking about RU486 because we are talking about ourselves; that is all well and good.
The public was not outraged. Doorknock down the mall tomorrow and ask them about the ad from last year and you will find that one in a hundred will remember it, so that is wrong. We want to talk about ourselves because it is about political point-scoring. I saw a raft of women sitting in the bleachers before, and I do not think they were here to listen to this debate; I think they were here to listen to the RU486 debate. Members opposite did not negotiate in the appropriate time to bring that debate on. It is a very important debate. Those women have left disappointed, but all right, we are here.
Point two, there is no bill of rights from 1688. There is a bill of rights from 1689. The year 1688 was the year of the Glorious Revolution when King James VII was removed in preference to William III of Orange.
Ms Fyles: Let us go to the issue.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the issue. You raised the issue and now we have to respond to it. If you want to start running this in here, start doing it properly.
In 1688, the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange took the throne, with Mary II, if memory serves me correctly. Then in 1689 the parliament moved to protect itself because it had not had an opportunity to meet since Charles II came back after the Restoration.
James VII tried to exert Charles II’s authority and the people of England were well shot of it by that stage, so the Glorious Revolution happened. William III took the throne jointly with Mary II, I think. The net result was parliament then moved a legislative instrument to protect itself from the excesses of the Crown, which William III was prepared to accept.
That is the contextual environment for which this argument for a bill of rights runs. I do not believe there is any attempt to behead any member of this parliament. I do not believe that at any stage Queen Elizabeth II has tried to exert her divine right to rule over the people of the Northern Territory.
Why are you quoting the Bill of Rights in that context? It does not make sense. It means someone has cleverly scratched out a few words, probably from a Wikipedia entry, saying, ‘This is what we will bang on about and make it sound like it has some gravity’, when in fact you are talking about a political environment which was so fundamentally different as to render your argument utterly nonsensical. It was excruciating to listen to.
Having dealt with that component of the argument, let us talk about the relativities between the positions placed by the member for Wanguri and the Speaker of the House. Let us talk about the levels of offending. Let us accept for a second the assertions from the Auditor-General in relation to the lawfulness or otherwise of the act. The Auditor-General has given her advice. I ask members opposite and the Speaker, what have you done about it? You brought a motion to this House. Have you made a complaint to any authority? Is there a criminal offence that flows from this? Probably not, so it is one of those legislative instruments that sets a benchmark, but ultimately the judges of it are the public.
If you do something unlawful you are convicted of that crime. Nobody stands convicted at this stage. Under the Self Government Act you have to be convicted of a crime and sentenced to a period of at least one year imprisonment before your seat is vacated. Mr Clerk, is that correct? Yes, thank you Mr Clerk. I do not know the section number off the top of my head. No such conviction stands in this place – no action, no court action, nothing.
In terms of the offence to which the member refers – what offence? What breach of the Self Government Act is she referring to? It is not there.
Let us turn to the argument of privilege and contempt. For that I draw the honourable members’ attention to page 707 of the 5th Edition of House of Representatives Practice. It is an interesting read because it talks about standards.
Bear in mind that this motion talks about contempt. Contempt may well be a contempt of parliament but may not be a breach of privilege. That has not been established and I do not believe the member for Goyder has in any way introduced any element that tells me there is a breach of privilege, but where does the member for Goyder want this motion to go? To the Privileges Committee. Why?
Let us remember what the protections around the parliament are. Let us talk about the distinction between the breach of privilege and contempt.
I quote from page 707 of House of Representatives Practice:
- ‘Contempt’ and ‘breach of privilege’ are not synonymous terms although they are often used as such. May has this to say in respect of contempt:
- Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member of officer … in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary.
- … impedes either House of Parliament …
Or in this case our parliament:
- … in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer … in the discharge of his duty …
What imposition has been placed on any member? Was the ad naughty? The Auditor-General says so, but who has been prevented from doing their job as a member of parliament as a result of this? Who has been impeded? Who has been physically stopped or restrained coming into this room? Which person in this room was not able to talk about their anger at this ad at any stage, either publically or in this House? None.
The thresholds of contempt have not yet been met as described by May and quoted on page 707 of House of Representatives Practice. There is no such imposition or restraint on any member. This is the hurly burly of average political life. Okay, members are angry; they were criticised. I am criticised every day. ‘I was criticised unfairly.’ Well that happens too. Take a walk through Facebook or Twitter and look at the heaps of criticism mounted upon us all. Are we impeded? Are these people in contempt of this House? Of course not; it is a ridiculous argument.
What exactly is the issue being driven here? People are angry because they were identified for having blocked a bill. Define ‘blocked’. Did the bill pass? No it did not. It stopped because members of this House voted in a particular way. They did not want it to go forward for whatever reason, for better or worse. I will not enter into the merits of the argument, but the bill was essentially blocked by this House. Yes, it passed later, but the fact of the matter remains that the ad says the bill was blocked. For the average punter with their nose pressed to the glass, when a bill moving through this House suddenly stops because members have stopped it, they will say it was blocked. Where is the contempt in that? ‘It might be naughty’, says the Auditor-General, but is it contempt? No.
- The distinction is made clearer in Halsbury’s Laws of England:
- The power of both Houses to punish for contempt is a general power similar to that possessed by the superior courts of law and is not restricted to the punishment of breaches of their acknowledged privileges … Certain offences which were formerly described as contempts are now commonly designated as breaches of privilege, although that term more properly applies only to an infringement of the collective or individual rights or immunities of one of the Houses of Parliament.
It goes on to say:
- It has been said that ‘All breaches of privilege amount to contempt; contempt does not necessarily amount to a breach of privilege.’
The offences are down here. The hierarchy is criminal, minor and civil offences, which this is; contempt of parliament is higher, then privilege is higher again. Even if you accept that we make out the civil breach of the legislation governing this – I do not necessarily accept it, but if you did – you do not get anywhere near contempt and you are certainly not in the area of privileges; in fact, you are a million miles away from it. That is the hierarchy that is contained.
If a member was impeded and stopped from doing their duty, tackled to the ground and a gag was put on their mouth by a police officer acting on the orders of the Chief Minister, then that would be a breach of privilege. That would be a breach of the Bill of Rights, as described earlier. That has not happened in this case. It is overcooking the goose way too much. It is like using a tokamak reactor to boil an egg.
It goes on to say:
- In other words a breach of privilege (an infringement of one of the special rights or immunities of a House or a Member) is by its very nature a contempt (an act or omission which obstructs or impedes a House, a Member or an employee of the House, or threatens or has a tendency so to do), but an action can constitute a contempt without breaching any particular right or immunity.
It says it is broad, because we want to keep open the options in relation to what a breach of contempt or privilege is. We accept the argument; it is broad. May’s quote on page 707 mentioned that it is broad. But it must reach the threshold and benchmark of impeding. Not one skerrick of evidence that I have heard today comes anywhere near reaching that benchmark. I listened carefully to the member for Goyder when she made her submission in relation to this argument. I listened to the member for Wanguri running out her argument. But I have not heard any suggestion of any member being impeded in their duties in this House.
They were criticised. The Auditor-General would go so far as to say it was a breach of the legislation. That is okay. Be that as it may; let the consequences of that flow through whatever the appropriate mechanism is, but to run the argument that you are in a contempt environment, let alone an environment where you would then take that contempt to the Privileges Committee – you are not even close. That is the challenge we are being presented with in this argument.
Let us talk about the original advertisement. It was about a bill that was clogged up in the House. The government wanted certain search and seizure powers in relation to being able to stop the scourge of ice in our community. We moved an urgency motion which was rejected, which had the effect of blocking the legislation in this House. We were angry about that because we wanted to protect Northern Territorians.
Was there a single amendment offered by any member after that debate was over? No, there was not. Yet they said they wanted to look at it. It was not difficult legislation. You did not need a doctoral thesis on law to understand what the legislation would do. There was an urgency to deal with it because during that hiatus ice continued to be seized in our communities in substantial quantities. There was a house in Alawa, if memory serves me correctly, where ice turned up. We do not manufacture that much of the stuff locally, so how is it getting here? It is getting here by the very vehicles that this legislation attempted to do something about.
The only thing in that advertisement which was truly affronting to members mentioned in the advertisement was simply that they were criticised and identified critically. ‘Naughty’, said the Auditor-General, but the fact of the matter remains that this government was acting with a sense of urgency. This government and Chief Minister, I imagine, was frustrated, as was I, with the tardiness of this House’s response.
The timidness of this House sometimes frustrates me. I understand why these Houses are necessary, but be brave, be bold. To the alternative government, be brave and make a decision. We do not have to have a moratorium on everything or send everything to a committee simply to pursue a matter.
The Labor Party members did not like this advertisement simply because they were criticised in it. The felt like they were being criticised and it was awful. They were not being impeded. There is no exercise in this ad which amounts to a contempt of this House. It does not amount to anything the Privileges Committee would have to deal with. It just does not; it is not close.
Dressing it up as an argument under the Bill of Rights from 1689 is nonsensical; you are just filling up space.
From our perspective, of course we will not be supporting this. We understand why those members were cross; they did not want to be identified in the way they were. I get that. That is the nature of politics; they were criticised. I have a pretty thick skin after nearly 20 years in this place.
This does not come close to meeting the benchmarks required by a Privileges Committee motion. As far as I am concerned, it cannot be supported through straightforward legal assessment of the arguments being put by the members for Goyder and Wanguri.
This is an unnecessary exercise. It is not for this House to judge a contempt issue. It is a matter for the public to judge at the next Territory election, in six months’ time.
If, as the member for Wanguri says, the public was so outraged at this ad that they continue to beat down her door, then they will express their opinions through the ballot box, and the glorious democracy in which we live will continue to roll on. But we do not need to get the sledgehammer of the Privileges Committee to deal with this fly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not accept that this bill has been debated to hold up RU486. We had a discussion about it at the last minute. There were some technical issues in relation to where this bill should go.
The government needs to look at itself. It introduced a bill into our General Business day, which took up over an hour or so. This motion could have been handled quickly – it has been less than an hour – and we could have got into the debate on RU486. It is the government that has slowed its passage down by using General Business day to debate its own business. That is a fact.
The other issue is that if this bill had been deferred, it would have gone to the bottom of the Notice Paper, and we probably would not be able to debate it again in these sittings. It came into parliament on 17 November, so it has been waiting a length of time to be debated.
I thank the member for Wanguri for her detailed discussion on this issue. I am sorry you were one year out with one of your quotes, but that is the way things go –1688 – 1689.
I am not saying the member for Port Darwin is wrong. He is a more astute and learned person on some of these legal issues, but part two of the motion says:
- … the committee investigates whether the creation and publication of the advertisements may constitute a contempt of the Legislative Assembly.
It does not say they are in contempt of the Legislative Assembly; it just raises the question.
If it goes to the Committee of Privileges and it says the member for Port Darwin is spot on then that is good. That would say there has not been a contempt of the Legislative Assembly.
It is important to discuss this. It is not about whether we have a thick skin or not. It is about saying to government that if you criticise people do it in a truthful way. This was not truthful.
You can argue the toss about the average Joe Blow, but the average Joe Blow is not a legal person. You can argue from a legal point of view that this does not mean what it says, and that the government is getting tough on crime and these people who stopped it from happening are these people. We have put a red circle around their names and typed above it ‘blocked by’ and emphasised that they are the people who stopped the drug laws from coming into place.
You would think a fair-minded government would say they stopped an urgency motion. A fair government will say the reason they stopped the urgency motion was because they had concerns about this important legislation. They may have mentioned that some of us spoke to the Commissioner of Police, and after that we still thought this needed more time. We did not get the impression from talking to the Police Commissioner that this delay would make any difference from a practical perspective.
I received a practical analysis in relation to how the police were handling this matter. I was not told by the police that this was a problem. It was a political stunt to make the government look like –that lovely clich that I have heard for 20 years from both sides – it is tough on crime. That does not mean you are silly on legislation. This was a case of down-in-the-gutter political advertising.
I saw this on a Friday morning and could not believe it. I had a busy day and late in the afternoon I checked the Public Information Act, and it said this was not right. The government might say you have to be a bit tougher in this business and show thick skin, but why did the government not show some thick skin and put its name on this ad?
I was also the target of advertising by the CLP members at the last election where they were not even be brave enough to put their name on it, except right down the bottom it said it was authorised by one of their members. If you are talking about having tough skin, why did you not put your name on the ad? This does not say where it came from; it just sticks the two kangaroos, or antilopine, on the front. It does not say which department or minister. It does not even have a phone number. It says, ‘Have your say by contacting your local member’. I thought it might say, ‘If you want more information, ring the Chief Minister’s department’. Give us a break.
That is the reason many of us are cranky. It is no big deal if the government goes crook at me and says, ‘Gerry Wood did not support that’. Fair enough. If I did not support it then I did not support it. But I did support this legislation. Was there an ad to follow this up saying, ‘Gerry Wood supports legislation’? You could have put ‘finally’ if you wanted to. I did not see any follow up. This was a deliberate ad.
Mr Elferink: That is a good idea; I think we should put that ad out, with those who supported it at the front then those who finally came around.
Mr WOOD: I cannot afford the $4800 you blokes spent on it.
We could go on forever and a day, and we do have to discuss other bills, but the issue that needs to be looked at and brought into parliament is the honesty of the advertisement. It was not honest. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; we have to be thick-skinned and things will be said about us in the media, not on Facebook because I do not have an account. We have to put up with that, but when it comes from the government, you would hope it would be honest about what it is saying. Government should put its name to the ad and show the people it has the courage of its convictions.
It did not have the courage of its convictions; it was playing dirty politics. It was putting people down on one side of parliament as if they supported druggies. There was no way we supported the druggies. People might forget that we had an ice committee at the time, and this was not even referred to the ice committee, which the government set up. Why would I attempt to block ice legislation? I was a member of the ice committee so it would not make any sense.
Mr Tollner: You might have been on it to support ice.
Mr WOOD: I only support those transparent cubes – that kind of ice.
We had a committee and you had some legislation. This would have been great legislation to take to the ice committee and ask if it could look at it and bring it back to parliament, but that did not happen.
I will not go on forever and a day. I support the motion. It would be nice if the Northern Territory Chief Minister made an apology, but he will not because he said:
- We’re not sorry for pointing out that Labor and Independents blocked ice legislation … We shouldn’t have put the party political preference of who they were, whether they were Independent or Labor, so we’ll put that apology out there …
Still waiting for that:
- … but we won’t apologise for the ad itself.
It was a dishonest ad. All you need is the Chief Minister to say, ‘Sorry about that, we went a bit over the top’ – end of story, let us move on. That will not happen, obviously.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will support the motion that is before us tonight.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a refreshing sight it is to see you in that chair. Normally I have to sit here and look across the Chamber at you. This way, you are right there.
I will not be supporting this motion, fundamentally because it is ridiculous. The most ridiculous thing about it is item four:
- … the committee reports back to the Assembly on its findings with recommendations the committee considers appropriate by or before 17 March 2016.
That is tomorrow. Whoever put this motion might want to consider that the motion is redundant before it has even finished being debated, which is a ridiculous situation. I am not even aware that a Privileges Committee has been formed to look at this matter. One would think that an opposition and Independents focused on bringing the government down would at least have its act together enough to make sure motions they bring in to their General Business time of the parliament would at least be relevant to what we are debating. But, no, typically, they cannot get their act together and put nonsense in front of the parliament.
That is fundamentally what brought this referral on in the first place. The opposition was playing games and lost sight of the big picture. The big picture was to try to stop ice traffickers bringing ice across our borders. The opposition was too interested in playing silly political games and trying to disrupt government and demonstrate it had the numbers on the floor of the Chamber. They decided, ‘Let us oppose this and put a roadblock in the way of the government’.
Now it is sour grapes because they have been called out. They had their names published. These people opposite think no one takes any notice of what is said in this place and they can get away with any sort of high jinks they like. Sorry, you have been caught out.
Do I see the member for Greatorex replacing the member for Karama in the Speaker’s chair? I was getting used to the member for Karama being in that chair. It is great to see the member for Greatorex anyway.
It is a ridiculous motion. Fundamentally, the opposition and the Independents do not like the fact that Territorians got to find out the way they carry on in this place.
I am not suggesting they support ice dealers, but in opposing this legislation they delayed for three months the ability of the police to crack down on ice traffickers. Fundamentally you supported ice traffickers. Irrespective of whether you say you would never support ice traffickers, you came in here to play games with the government. You were caught out and it went into the newspaper.
That is the offensive thing the other side does not like: that this government had the audacity to name and shame them.
They say, ‘I heard the members for Goyder and Nelson on the radio saying we did not block this legislation’. You did; you stopped it dead in its tracks for three months.
They said, ‘We want to take it to the ice committee. We want an inquiry. We want to deal with police.’ Then it went straight through without a murmur. Not a question was asked of government three months down the track, which proves my point that you were only doing it to frustrate government.
There was no concern about the legislation. It had nothing to do with the legislation. Your only opposition was to government, trying to demonstrate that you could throw this place into mayhem as an opposition and a bunch of Independents. ‘Look, we now have the numbers. We can dictate to you what will happen in this place.’ Unfortunately your dictating to the government rebounded on you. Now we are in a silly situation where you are arguing that we should be taken to privileges for having the audacity to have the truth printed in the newspaper.
Goodness me. Now you are trying to hide behind privileges to suggest the government did something wrong. Shame on you, member for Wanguri, for supporting this ridiculous motion. Shame on all those who try to divert attention, once again, from the fact you blocked, delayed – whatever you want to call it – legislation that gives police more ability to crack down on people trafficking ice across our borders.
I know you do not like it; you do not like being called out on these things, but grow up. This is the parliament. It is not that the public does not have any visibility of this. It does. I support the Chief Minister absolutely and when I was asked if I would support the government notifying the public that the opposition and Independents voted to delay, or block, the ice legislation I said, ‘Absolutely’. The public has a right to know the shenanigans these people carry on with in this place. You are not the meek and mild, precious honest people you say you are. You try to disrupt the government’s business and you have not regard for what that business is. At least pick your target. Pick a target which does not matter to people.
People on our side of the Chamber were outraged at the way you carried on, not because of the way you carried on in parliament but because of how we see things in the community and the way ice affects people. I have colleagues who have friends and family who are suffering ice addiction. Most of us know somebody who has suffered ice addiction. I have a brother-in-law who is the only government psychiatrist on the central coast of New South Wales. He will not go into a house where someone is on ice without being accompanied by a minimum of two police officers. He said to me, ‘Dave, it is not worth the risk. I am not prepared to go near these people. You do not seem to understand the damage it does to people.’
That is the concern we have on this side of the House, and that why we wanted to push it through on urgency. Fundamentally it was because we have a caring heart about what goes on in the community, only to find the opposition does not seem to register any of that, but blocked the bill and stopped it dead in its tracks.
For another three months the police operated without these laws. Three months later you came back here and unanimously support it. Not one question or issue was raised and no reason was given for blocking it apart from, ‘This is the process, you know. We do not just rush through things on urgency.’ In some cases you do. That is why there are provisions in the standing orders to allow things to go through on urgency. The people who put these things together understand that from time to time there is a reason for parliament to act on urgency. When you hear the anecdotes of the devastation ice is causing in our community, the trouble parents are having with children, the break and enters, and all the crime associated with the devastation of lives, you see all that and understand it.
You know an ice committee was set up and this is a real issue, but you blocked it anyhow just to frustrate the government. Then you had the audacity to complain that it appeared in the paper. Shame on the lot of you. I am proud as hell that I am part of a government that had the audacity to name you people for blocking that legislation. You should be named publicly. We should have done television and radio ads as well, telling the public that these are the people sitting in the parliament.
Mr Giles: Hypocrites.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely.
Aside from all that, we have an opposition and a bunch of Independents in chaos. If they cannot manage General Business how would they ever manage government?
Here we are, debating a bill for a referral to privileges that says the Privileges Committee must report to this place by tomorrow. Goodness me!
This motion is flawed, and you want to argue for it. I encourage one of you to stand up if you believe in this and move an amendment to another date because there ain’t no way known we will have the Privileges Committee called and reporting back to this place by tomorrow. It is just not possible. Maybe that is a little tip for you.
I am opposed to it whatever you decide to do. I reckon if the shoe fits, you should wear it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for identifying the Chief Minister’s fingerprints all over this ad, because that was one of the essential elements of the government’s denial. It was good that the member for Port Darwin was able to hear that, because the member for Port Darwin, wearing his legal wig and gown tonight, gave a very interesting legal presentation as a defence lawyer.
It is interesting to watch the member for Port Darwin shift his MO from defence lawyer to prosecution. I prefer his prosecution to his defence. Tonight was a good example of a very poor defence.
In terms of evidence presented in this place, the member for Fong Lim clearly identified the Chief Minister in soliciting support to lodge this ad, which has been called out by the Auditor-General.
I thank the opposition member for Wanguri and the staff for putting together a very concise and clear case of why this matter is important and why the Chief Minister, as the leading minister in the Northern Territory, should be referred to the Privileges Committee and held to account. This essentially relates to power and privilege, and the use of taxpayers’ funds. For that we must be held to account. We have heard quite a bit from the government this week around those values and ethics.
It was running community events. It was running junior rugby league sporting activities. I said to the rodeo committees, the Barkly muster committee, the junior league committee and those kids, ‘It is all good, but once you touch money you raise the bar to an incredibly new level of accountability and transparency. The selling of raffle tickets brings you to that level of accountability and transparency.’
That is essentially why I am calling out the Chief Minister, our senior minister in the Northern Territory, for inappropriate use of taxpayer funds on this ad, which has been documented by the Auditor-General. It was wrong. The ad was misleading, considerable taxpayer dollars funded it, and the government needs to be accountable.
The mechanism presented by the member for Goyder, who I am sure will amend the date, is a referral to the Privileges Committee. That should bring the Chief Minister up to speed on his accountability, transparency and responsibility to the Northern Territory, particularly in the parliament and within the constituency.
I thank the member for Goyder for this referral. It is exactly what we need in terms of democracy.
As for the argument about blocking and irresponsible politics, let us get a quick reality check. Is this government highly functioning? Does it have enormous auras of integrity around it? Has this just happened recently?
It has been one chaotic episode after another. This government is flat out running a parliamentary program. This government is called out time and again on its dysfunction and lack of integrity and consultation.
Why would the opposition not step up and hold this government to account and try to ensure no more calamity occurs in our legislative instruments? I commend the opposition and the Independent members for holding this government to account, which screamed urgency and had the audacity of a spoilt child to spend considerable taxpayer dollars, consult the big hitters on that side to get their approval and run this public attempt to smear the characters and reputations of those on this side of the House.
It is disingenuous and dishonest, and needs to be called out and held to account. That is what we are doing tonight.
The member for Port Darwin, with his wig and gown on, ran a defence and talked about contempt. It was a select use of semantics once again – he quoted from an important document – then an argument after a lecture on English history.
I call on the member for Port Darwin – and it may come at some time in your future legal career – to take up the issue for me and clarify or provide comment on my impediment through character assassination. Did this exercise run by the Chief Minister, who was clearly identified by his colleague the member for Fong Lim – it has his fingerprints all over it – using taxpayer’s money impede my ability as a local member through character assassination? I would love to hear your comment on that, member for Port Darwin.
This is not the first time this has happened to me, from this Chief Minister. Something I have learnt very clearly is that the member for Fong Lim’s media strategy is that any media is good media. When the Chief Minister chose to put my name on the top of the list, which suggests other issues I do not have time to discuss tonight, it outed me in the public. People in the electorate I am privileged to represent called it out and asked, ‘What’s going on? What is this about?’ Any media is good media – I became a media celebrity with people asking me what it was about, giving me the opportunity to explain to them.
I was able to get the truth out from amongst the fog, mist and disingenuous politics that underpinned this exercise. I was able to explain clearly to constituents what this represents and what happened in the parliament. ‘This is about the passage of legislation. This is a completely disingenuous attempt to smear my character, and your funds were used to do it.’
This is not the first time this has happened. I remember when the Chief Minister booked a fleet of charter aircrafts and flew to Tennant Creek for the Tennant Creek Show. He booked a fleet of hire cars and transported his entourage – ministers, department officials and media – around Tennant Creek and to the Tennant Creek Show. There is nothing wrong with that. He has the power and privilege to do that.
But, coincidentally, while that was happening a commercially produced pamphlet attempting to smear my character and name was distributed throughout the car parks of the Tennant Creek Show and placed under windscreen wipers. This commercially produced product was highly colourful and literate, and had a sophisticated level of graphic arts to smear my character and impede my ability to conduct myself as a local member of parliament, through character assassination.
Once again, the member for Fong Lim’s media strategy rang true, because when that document mysteriously appeared along with the Chief Minister’s entourage of charter aircraft and hire vehicles, friends, associates and colleagues, a number of constituents brought it to my attention. They did not necessarily support me as a Labor member, but they brought it to my attention and were quite disturbed this was being conducted at our annual district show. I looked at and read it, and I was amazed. I immediately thought of the member for Fong Lim. I thought, ‘Any media is good media; my name is out there everywhere.’
My colleagues were not so impressed. There was an element of great concern that taxpayer funds could have been used to impede my ability to conduct myself as a local member at the show, through character assassination. They were outraged that this was being conducted at our regional show. I told them not to worry, that it was okay.
Another couple of constituents came in with a collection of these commercially produced leaflets smearing and assassinating my character. They said, ‘We have taken these off people’s cars because it is offensive and not what we expect at our show’. I thanked them, but I asked them not to worry. I had formed an opinion on what was going on by that time. I had read the leaflet and understood this was a cheap political smear campaign to impede my ability to act as a local member. I dismissed it.
There was a group of close associates that then started to move within the car parks and collect the leaflets. For a couple of days following, in the electorate office, people came in to have discussions, some with examples of this leaflet. They were quite confused about this exercise and were asking questions.
Chief Minister, one of the most serious issues created in this attempt to impede my ability to operate as a local member at our district show by assassinating my character was the allegation that whoever did this interfered with their private property, their motor vehicles, in a public space. They had no right to put this smear campaign under the windscreen wipers. That was the most alarming part of the whole episode I endured. I had to agree with constituents that this was and is wrong – the member for Port Darwin could help me here – and it is possibly illegal to interfere with somebody’s motor vehicle in a public place.
Mr Elferink: It is an offence. Did you make a report to police?
Mr McCARTHY: It is an offence, I am told by the interjection. Did I make a report to the police? No, but I encouraged the constituents who had concerns to report it to the police …
Mr Elferink: So you did nothing?
Mr McCARTHY: I let it roll, member for Port Darwin, as I did with the taxpayer-funded advertisements in the Northern Territory News which were called out by the Auditor-General. That seems to be the best way to deal with it, in my opinion, although I have been challenged by others as to whether I should have let it roll. I tend to deal with these things in the rough and tumble. I suppose 36 years of blood, sweat and tears in some of the remotest parts of the country might assist with that attitude. I believe it does. I stand in this House and represent the people I have shared that time with, and we all have that special level of resilience that comes with our time out back in the Northern Territory.
That episode, whilst I cannot put the finger on the Chief Minister with it, was very coincidental. It brought back memories of when I discovered my name published in the Northern Territory News, as we have established here. That was wrong, misleading and an improper use of taxpayer funds without their permission.
These things have been established in this debate and it is very important that we are here discussing this matter in this House, and that we are all accountable.
The essence of this motion is that the Chief Minister should face the music. He should front the Privileges Committee, participate in that process as a parliamentarian and show a bipartisan example for the rest of us.
He is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the most senior representative of the Northern Territory, who travels nationally and across the world representing us. He should front the Privileges Committee and show us there is a level of integrity, honesty and transparency. It is not just for this parliament; it is for the Northern Territory. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say.
I thank the member for Goyder, not only for her integrity but for having the courage to bring this matter to the House to make sure it is dealt with in an open and transparent way. This ad in the newspaper was not.
The member for Wanguri pointed out the specific elements of deceit and a disingenuous political agenda that underpinned this exercise. It needs to be dealt with by a Privileges Committee and an appropriate mechanism of parliament.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support this motion and I encourage all members of this House to support it. I am sure the member for Goyder understands the amendment that is necessary to this motion, which could be moved in the summary. It is not a fault of this motion, it is a debateable matter as to why we are debating this now, when it was first put forward in late 2015. One has to ask whether the government is disingenuous about this as a motion, but that is not part of the debate. We will live with that protocol in parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be wrong if I did not speak. Given that the member for Goyder is seeking to send me to the Privileges Committee, it is only fair that I say something.
Interestingly, three days after these very relevant ice advertisements were published in the newspapers highlighting that the opposition and the Independents sought to stop the urgent passage of legislation to give police more powers to stop and search vehicles on our three major highways — the Barkly, Stuart and Victoria Highways – there was an article in the NT News, on Sunday 21 September 2015, on page three, with the title ‘Grand theft auto on ice’. It talked about joyriders high on ice being linked to fatal crashes, which is a perfect example of one of the issues in our community that we sought to change.
I recall many people talking about ice over the last 12 months – the level of ice and the supply, manufacture and prevalence of ice in the Northern Territory. Many people were trying to say it is rampant across remote parts of the Northern Territory, not just in urban areas. People were calling out for ice rooms in hospitals, not that I am against that. People were raising the issue of the negative effects of ice in our community and on families and individuals.
We heard that message and sought to urgently bring this in, as a matter of public importance, to give police more powers and tools to stop and search vehicles to try to reduce the amount of ice on our streets. It was at that point in time when shenanigans and silly-buggers were being played in this Chamber, again, when the legislation was put forward urgently, and it was voted down by the opposition and the Independents.
It would be too cute by half for me to go through that three-month time frame from when it was blocked by Labor and the Independents to when the legislation was put forward and, quite rightly, passed without any amendments. It would be too cute for me to start tabling the amount of additional ice that came into the Northern Territory in that time. It would be too painful for families, communities and individuals for me to start highlighting the number of people who are using ice that, based on analysis, would not be using ice if it had been taken off the street. It would not be fair to those people who are victims, whether they are individual users, their families or the communities, to highlight that.
This newspaper article explains the level of the impacts of ice quite well. I have heard the debate today. I will not take up 30 minutes; I am not trying to stop the RU486 debate; I am happy for that to go ahead. Given that I am in the firing line of the member for Goyder, who is trying to shoot me, it is only fair that I respond.
The member for Fong Lim raised some important points in this debate. I thank him for his support. We are not ashamed of putting the ads in the paper. Did the Auditor-General find some inaccuracies? Technically, yes. We should have said it was ice drug laws being passed on urgency that were blocked. That would have been right. And, yes, there was a technical element where we were told we should not have identified the individual parties people were in. We take that on the chin, but we do not take back putting the ads in the paper. We wanted ice off the streets, and for members of parliament to provide police more power to get these drugs off the street.
Instead of that, Labor and the Independents wanted to play games in parliament, and they allowed more ice and drugs onto our streets. I am not ashamed of the ads; I am proud of them. They were paid for by my office, not by the department. They were paid for honourably, in good faith, and in anger. For stupid political reasons, Labor and the Independents did not support us to give more powers to the police. After their silly games passed, over Christmas, they passed the legislation without making one amendment or showing any concern or contempt. The biggest issue is that I spent $4800 out of my office demanding the Independents support the bill.
What has happened since that bill passed? The police have run a range of operations, and not only on the three major highways where this legislation gave the most power. They have also been running operations at the airports and in shipping and so forth.
Albeit that ice has not disappeared from our community – there is too much ice; every bit is too much, and there are too many communities, families and individuals suffering – the levels of ice have decreased. There have been apprehensions of individuals, manufacturers and suppliers – people trying to traffic drugs into the Northern Territory. It is not just ice we have found; there is also a lot of marijuana coming into the Northern Territory.
While there is still a level of concern in the community, it is not as high as it was. Police tell me that the amount of ice used in the Northern Territory has decreased, particularly since this legislation was introduced – not just because of the legislation, but there has been a driving change.
I am quite proud. The member for Fong Lim said we should have put ads on TV and the radio. Maybe we should have gone further and done a blanket campaign. We could have done more on the social media, whether it was Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. We could have marketed a whole lot more that we needed support in this Chamber.
We are elected to be legislators to provide good governance for the Northern Territory to help drive change and protect people, to make sure we have jobs for the future, but particularly to work on social elements such as keeping drugs off our streets and helping to keep people safe. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about. It is not about playing games, which was the concern here.
I note some comments made by the member for Barkly, who was referring to a leaflet that was dropped around, trying to make himself popular at Tennant Creek. I am not sure how much it cost you, Gerry, to make that brochure and try to promote yourself at the show. I have not seen the brochure but I am very keen to see how popular you became from it. I also take from your conversation that you would be very happy to see me sent to a Privileges Committee for advertising the fact that you did not try to stop ice coming into the Northern Territory; you did not see that as important enough to pass urgent legislation. I ask this rhetorical question, what should happen to you in relation to Stella Maris? There has been an inquiry and a report. I read out some of it yesterday. There are special references to you handing over a government asset to your union mates when you were the minister.
I quote from page 11 of the inquiry report:
- In a strict legal sense, Minister G McCarthy, not Cabinet, made the decision to propose the grant of the site exclusively to Unions NT, and he was the only person with the power to do so under the Crown Lands Act. As such, it was his responsibility to ensure that the decision he made was formed and followed due and proper process.
Minister G McCarthy’s decision was arguably unreasonable and, if challenged in a court, would be susceptible to being overturned. It was unreasonable because he did not have the necessary information to justify selectively choosing Unions NT over any other group. He should have sought this information and confirmed it before making the decision.
This lack of information was further compounded by Minister G McCarthy’s absence at the 10 July 2012 Cabinet meeting and the fact that his own submission strongly advised against granting the site to Unions NT, or any other community group, without following an expression of interest process.
In making this decision, Minister G McCarthy did not act with accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration of those likely to be affected by his decision …
Those words, ‘Minister G McCarthy did not act with accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration’, are damning. If we are talking about referring anybody to the Privileges Committee, perhaps it should be you.
It was a $3m gift of a government asset to your mates in the unions, and you want to crucify me for spending $4800 of my office money to try to protect the community.
I was open and transparent. I was telling people. We put a full-page ad in the NT News saying, ‘Help us keep ice out of the Northern Territory. Tell your local member.’ You want me to be crucified for that, yet you gave a $3m asset to your union mates and told nobody, and you think that is fine. You sit on the front bench, quite smug, quite glum, looking to an election, hoping to become a minister of the Crown again one day.
When you have an independent report saying you did not act with accountability, responsibility, or with proper consideration – those words speak for themselves, member for Barkly. It is you who should be going to the Privileges Committee, answering questions about the level of professionalism, ethics and integrity you hold for your electorate and the people of the Northern Territory. Serious questions should be asked about whether or not you hold them in contempt.
Anybody who supports Territorians would say, ‘Let’s act urgently and get ice off our streets’, unlike the member for Araluen, who thought that acting urgently on ice was not important. Her most important agenda item was to use the numbers of parliament to change the structure of the PAC so she could be the chair and give herself a $25 000 pay rise. You are seeking to put the knife into the Chief Minister for spending $4800 of his office money trying to convince parliamentarians to take ice off the street, yet the member for Araluen was playing games to give herself a $25 000 pay rise.
She does not talk about that; she comes in high and mighty – the member for Araluen, the great saviour. You played games, stopped the ice legislation and gave yourself a $25 000 pay rise. Maybe you should go to the Privileges Committee because you actually received a privilege: pay. It is an entitlement if you are the chair of a committee; I accept that.
I understand the investigation that is going on through the court process. I am not getting in the middle of that, but there are a couple of fair questions, and I see you nodding, member for Barkly. I do not think that it is unreasonable.
It was my office budget. Yes, it is taxpayers’ money; I understand that, but my office budget paid for these ads because I support taking ice off our streets. I have seen too many people on drugs and I think ice should be taken off the streets. You may have a different opinion.
I would love to chat to you outside of this Chamber one day to see what you think about not being sent to the Privileges Committee for the asset of government you gave away to your union buddies. That may be a conversation for another day, member for Barkly, when you are not in parliament playing union and Labor games.
I take the point of the Auditor-General. We should not have said, ‘Ice drug laws blocked by Labor and the Independents’. We should have said, ‘Ice drug laws blocked, that were sought to be moved urgently, by people who are not the government and not CLP’. Maybe we would have gotten away with that. We may have gotten in trouble for naming ourselves. I am not sure, but I think it would make it clear. The next ad could have been, ‘Chief Minister says, “We tried to rush laws into parliament to give police more powers to take drugs off our street to help protect our kids, but one side of the Chamber did not support it’. That might have been the go.
I should not have spent $4800; I probably should have spent $48 000 and we could have recalled parliament and passed it earlier.
I do not support this motion. I support Territorians. I support getting drugs off the street. I support giving police more powers – more powers to Operation Trident and Strike Force Vega, to all the operations they are running to bring assaults, grog assaults, property crime, homicide and crime levels down in our community. We have been successful in getting crime down. It has not all gone, just as drugs have not all gone, and houses are still getting broken into, but there are fewer houses being broken into now than there were four years ago. There are fewer people being beaten up, and fewer women being beaten as victims of domestic violence. That is a good thing.
Until we get to zero, we will not have been successful. Little wins along the way might feel good, but every woman in the NT deserves to be protected and free of violence, just like every child. Too many suffer the pain of violence at the hands of drugs. That is why we hold ourselves high on a pedestal saying we will fight drugs, because we know they cause pain.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, what an extraordinary speech from the Chief Minister. He just attacked the member for Araluen again, saying she gave herself a $25 000 pay rise by being chair of a standing committee of this Legislative Assembly. I recall that either today or yesterday the NT government recommended that the member for Katherine be the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which also comes with a $25 000 pay rise. It is amazing that he can digress so much and never miss an opportunity for a nasty attack on someone on the cross bench who chooses to hold government to account. That is what the crossbenchers’ job is.
I find it extraordinary that we are talking about a very serious issue, and once again he digresses into a dirty area. I would not be surprised if someone listening to this broadcast would want to know exactly what chairs and members of committees do get in addition to their base salary. I am sure people will be interested, after the passing of the AMSOR Act yesterday, in exactly what the severance pay is for the members for Port Darwin, Fong Lim and Greatorex. However, I digress.
This is a serious motion. When I introduced the motion I did not do it easily or on a whim; I did it very carefully.
Those ads were misleading and contained big fat lies. I know it, the government knows it, the crossbenchers know and people in the community know it. The Auditor-General knows it; she said so, but not using those words.
I thank members for talking to this motion. Some I thank more than others. The member for Fong Lim showed once again that he is pretty vacuous in what he brings to this parliament. He is too cute by half, but that is his style and it is probably not a bad thing that he was not preselected and will not be here in the next term. I do not know who will be, but he will not be and this parliament will be a better place.
The motion was never about the legislation. I know that, the government knows that, the crossbenchers know that and the community knows that. Ads were placed in the paper because the government got cranky. I would like to use other words but they would be unparliamentary. It was never about the legislation, which, as we know, passed.
The Chief Minister said that since the legislation has passed we have had many apprehensions of people with drugs. Good! I commend the police and everyone else involved. Let us not forget Border Force. The Customs and Immigration people are also working hard in this area, in conjunction with the Northern Territory Police and Federal Police. It is a combined effort to combat this drug problem we have in our community.
The Chief Minister said the ice supply decreased following the introduction of this legislation. Good, but prove to me that this legislation was responsible for the reduction. Just because B follows A it does not mean that A caused B.
I say that the reduction in the ice supply and the apprehensions of the villains and the criminals is due to the hard work our law enforcement officers across the board – Federal Police, Northern Territory Police and Border Force – put in to apprehending people and stopping the supply of this drug into our communities.
I listened to all members’ comments, such as those from the members for Barkly and Nelson. Thank you, because it has taken a while to get to this stage where we can put this motion to a vote.
The Chief Minister said, ‘It was never about shooting the Chief Minister’. This is not about shooting the Chief Minister. The ad had a Northern Territory government crest on it. The person who is responsible under the Emblems Act is the Northern Territory Chief Minister. It was not about him personally being sent to privileges. Someone has to be responsible for that piece of legislation. That is the Chief Minister.
If you think you are personally being sent to privileges, you are wrong. You are responsible for that crest. You used it. You said you used $4000 out of the Chief Minister’s office. It is not your money, Chief Minister; it is taxpayers’ money, which you used to put out misleading information and lies in an advertisement.
No one in this parliament wants drugs in our community. For the government, the Chief Minister and members opposite to suggest otherwise is arrant rubbish.
Member for Fong Lim, the word is ‘arrant’, not ‘errant’. It is arrant rubbish, and they know it. To peddle that kind of misinformation is morally wrong. The bill has passed, police have got on with it and this parliament has moved on.
The government did not like what I did so they moved to do what they did and they did not succeed, because there are still people in this parliament who are decent, honourable people who have ethics and morals. That is why I am still in the job of Speaker, apart from being the member for Goyder.
The Chief Minister says he should have gone further; he should have spent a lot of money on TV ads saying how bad the crossbenchers were for holding government to account for trying to push it through on urgency without proper consultation. Even if you had spent more money on TV advertisements, had put more ads in papers and put leaflets on people’s cars in Barkly or Tennant Creek – God knows why they did that at the Tennant Creek Show; it would have been a waste of time. The breeze down there would have blown them off anyway – no one would have believed you, because you there is such a deficit of trust in you. The amount of money you spent would have exacerbated the problem and your trust deficit. It is very disappointing.
The misuse of public funds and the dishonesty in those newspaper advertisements in portraying what happened in this parliament – which did not happen – is the reason I did what I did. The rest is history.
I thank members for what they are doing. I commend the motion to the parliament and ask that they agree to it.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson 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
MEDICAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 150)
(Serial 150)
Continued from 2 December 2015.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing this very important piece of legislation before the parliament, and I provide my support for it.
I indicate now, so the government is under no illusion, that I do not support the amendments being led by the member for Port Darwin. It is incredibly disappointing that, yet again, members of government are trying to limit the very reasonable access women in the Territory are seeking to have to medical termination of pregnancy. It beggars belief, with the opportunities this government has had over the last three-and-a-half years to proceed with the fair and reasonable access women have sought to the medical termination of pregnancy with the drug known as RU486, which women in every other jurisdiction in Australia have access to. It beggars belief that this government, at every turn, has ensured that women are denied access.
This is not a debate about termination. That debate has been had and won. This is a debate about safe access to medical termination. We have had, of course, only access to surgical termination in the Territory until this debate of legislative powers for access to RU486 has come forward.
That has been incredibly stressful for many women. Because of the requirements for surgical termination it has meant that women are relying on an ever-decreasing number of surgeons available to perform terminations. The reality is it has only been available in the Royal Darwin Hospital and the Alice Springs Hospital. For the women who live in the regional and remote areas, with the exception of Alice Springs, it requires travel.
I have yet to find a woman going down the path of termination who considered it lightly. In my experience, being surrounded by people you know who love and support you is important. Having to travel from a remote community to access termination is cruel, quite frankly. When we have safe medical termination available and appropriately qualified nurses and doctors in our effective and awesome remote health clinics, why are we still forcing our women to travel away from their communities and the people who would love and support them in what most women would understand is a pretty tough time and, for many, traumatic?
Here we are in an Assembly with a male Minister for Health who wants to restrict access through the amendments. He wants to arbitrarily have powers to determine which clinics can and cannot. That is not appropriate. The research that has been done – and I acknowledge the women in the gallery who have done the hard yards and heavy lifting. All stakeholders, whether it is the Family Planning Association, the women’s legal rights groups or the female doctors – it is women who have led this debate.
It is women who said to government ministers first, then to members of the opposition, then to the member for Goyder – finding a sponsor for this legislation – that they have the evidence that shows it is safe. They have the evidence that shows how it occurs in a clinical practice. They have the evidence that shows there should no longer be any barriers to accessing RU486 in the Territory – the evidence from the practice of using RU486 since the 1990s in England, and the evidence of other large jurisdictions in Australia which introduced access to RU486 once it was recognised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme after debate in the federal parliament.
Can we stop putting barriers in front of women who just want to make fair and reasonable choices about what is occurring in their life? Can we stop putting barriers in front of an alternative to the pretty tough surgical procedure they go through now?
Because there are so few who are doing those surgical procedures – they are confined to only two locations in the Territory – the practical reality is it means some women are having to wait, and therefore terminate later in their pregnancy than they want to. RU486 provides an opportunity for women to terminate earlier in their pregnancy.
I do not know whether a man will ever fully understand this debate. I hope we can expect their support. I know we get it from some of you, and I thank you sincerely for that.
Being a woman who has been through three pregnancies, a woman who has been confronted with people urging her to have an abortion, I understand the need to consider carefully how well placed you are to proceed with a pregnancy.
Once you have gone through those difficult considerations, to then have the practical impediments that currently exist in the system of getting access to surgical procedures and getting on the waiting list, and overcoming the distance to the facility if you happen to live outside Darwin or Alice Springs, is a horrendous thing to put women through. We are finally debating legislation and now the Health is minister leading amendments that will continue to place unreasonable restrictions on access.
Why do we have fewer rights than other women in Australia? What is this notion that women who live in regional or remote areas are not capable of making the choices, with medically trained staff, about whether or not they have a medical procedure to terminate. Is it a bizarre racist or patronising stance?
We have highly-trained professional nurses and doctors in our remote clinics who have to make a series of medical considerations on life-threatening things all the time. We trust them to do that. Yet with the amendments being led by the Health minister, we appear not to trust them to make a decision on whether that person is medically safe to go through the procedure.
It is not without risk. The risks have been identified. The risk of haemorrhage has been spoken about. Every medical practitioner will need to be trained, with the requirements the member for Goyder has of two doctors being involved, who are fully aware of the risks and will be aware of each patient’s clinical status and will make informed decisions. That is what trained medical professionals do every day for other medical interventions, yet on this one we want to put extra barriers in place. What is that? It is abominable.
Without the support of key members of government for the legislation as led by the member for Goyder, this may not pass. How in all conscience could you accept putting those barriers in place, Minister for Health? Women deserve access to RU486. The legislation as it was brought to the parliament by the member for Goyder is a conservative model – two doctors. Minister for Health, you want to put further barriers in place in what is already a conservative model.
The seriousness in which this has been considered for a great deal of time also poses the question, why have the proposed amendments by the Minister for Health come forward relatively late in the piece? I do not think anyone in this Chamber would be unaware that it has been about two years’ worth of work for the women who have pursued the rights of Northern Territory women to have access to RU486. They have made themselves available to me and other members of parliament to provide detailed factual information about what they propose is adopted in the Territory in regard to medical termination. I cannot recall during that debate, over the last two years, the Minister for Health raising the matters he now brings forward as amendments.
Mr Elferink: I certainly did.
Ms LAWRIE: I wonder why they have come late in the piece as a last-minute barrier. Women have needed access to medical termination for some time. Surgical termination is far more brutal for women to endure, and limiting their access to medical termination, which you are proposing to do in the amendments, is bordering on cruel. Can we avoid putting further barriers in place for women? Termination by RU486 is safe; it is not without its risks, as with any medical procedure.
Mr Styles: It is safe but not without its risks.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection, ‘It is safe but not without its risks’. That is right; it is a safe procedure. It has some risks. One of the risks is haemorrhage. Medical interventions carry risks. Where they are known, identified and there are procedures and practices around them to deal with them in the event they occur, that is appropriate. The bill provided by the member for Goyder, which I describe as a conservative model of two doctors, provides for a minimisation of risk.
It is fair and reasonable. I am an advocate of ensuring that while this legislation goes through, we also accept that life moves on and we can adopt some best practices from other jurisdictions. I am, for example, also an advocate of ensuring what I refer to as exclusions zones around locations where medical and surgical terminations occur. I do not think it is okay in this day and age to continue to allow innocent people to be hit with a barrage of abuse by protestors. I am a big fan of the exclusion zones. I hope that is a part of the legislation that is ultimately passed.
We all have views about whether or not the bar of two doctors is too tough because it will exclude some more remote clinics. That is the reality, but in all fairness it is a reasonable approach for a jurisdiction that currently seems so far backwards, so let us take the good legislation we can get now.
I urge the Minister for Health and Attorney-General – and I will not hold my breath – to remove the barriers he is proposing to put in place with his amendments. I urge you to genuinely recognise that much work and research has gone into this by people who are experts in the field and this is a sound bill that puts in the right amount of checks and balances to ensure there are safety precautions and procedures around medical terminations. It has landed in a genuinely safe place. Do not proceed with divisive amendments that would restrict access where it is unnecessary to restrict it any further than the legislation as proposed by the member for Goyder.
Can men stop telling women what to do with our bodies? Women elsewhere in Australia have every right to choose a medical termination over a surgical one. The surgical ones are so much more traumatic, with the greater waiting time, and in the surgical procedure itself.
Some members opposite have expressed their support, and some members on the cross benches will have a very different view to me. I am hopeful of bipartisan support on a conscience vote so we get this legislation through. I am concerned the amendments proposed by the member for Port Darwin, the Health minister and Attorney-General, might make that more difficult.
I urge the members who have expressed bipartisan support to the lobby groups to stick with that and support the member for Goyder’s legislation, and not to support the Health minister’s amendments.
I commend the member for Goyder for bringing this legislation to us and I look forward to its passage.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this bill. I thank the member for Goyder for introducing it to this House.
This bill is long overdue. It is a shame that the government had not seen fit to bring forward amendments to the Medical Services Act during its current term, especially when there has been such a strong and concerted campaign to lobby members of parliament over the last three-and-a-half years to reform abortion laws in the Northern Territory. I also acknowledge that it is a shame the former Labor government, of which I was a backbencher in its last term, did not bring forward amendments to the Medical Services Act.
It would be an even greater shame if this bill and the amendments brought forward by the member for Goyder do not get support today from at least 13 members of this House.
If this bill is supported today, if it has passage, Territory women will have access to a medical termination, access to RU486, and, importantly, will be able to exercise choice about the best course of treatment they want in the event they find themselves with an unintended pregnancy.
The Territory is years behind the rest of the country and it is simply unfair that Territory women cannot access a medical termination of pregnancy when other Australian women can, and women right around the world. One in three women of reproductive age will have an abortion at some time in their lives, and approximately 25% of all pregnancies in Australia end in abortion.
When this private member’s bill was introduced in December I thought it fell short of what was needed but it was a really good start, and perhaps in putting forward such moderate amendments the member for Goyder’s thinking was that it would be more likely to gain support from a majority of members.
Like all members of this House, I am sure, I have attended many meetings, read and absorbed many papers and much research, and weighed up whether I think Territory women should have access to medical terminations. It is a difficult decision for some members, which is why my colleagues have the right on this occasion to exercise a conscience vote and why, as I understand it, the Chief Minister is allowing his colleagues a conscience vote.
While the bill tabled in December does not address all the recommendations of experts in women’s reproductive and sexual health in amending the Medical Services Act, as I said, it is a really good start. While the bill did not manage to come forward for debate in February because of time constraints in this GBD time slots, it has meant that the member for Goyder has had the time to listen to experts – doctors, nurses, lawyers and women from around the Territory – and consider further amendments. I have had discussions myself with the member for Goyder.
I have also met with and listened to those who do not support abortion or abortion law reform, including, most recently, a representative from the Australian Christian Lobby.
I will be exercising my conscience vote in support of the amendments the member for Goyder’s bill brings forwards. They are sensible in supporting access to medical termination of pregnancy. I would, however, have preferred to have seen the legislation amended to say that a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a woman to a doctor who does not and will support that woman to have her pregnancy terminated.
I would have preferred that the legislation included an exclusion zone around hospitals or clinics where abortions are performed to protect those who work there or the women who attend. I could think of nothing worse or more intimidating for a woman who has arrived at a, no doubt, difficult decision to have her mental health and wellbeing further threatened by the intimidating presence of conscientious objectors casting judgment on those women, along with the health professionals who choose to provide this important service.
I would have preferred amendments that might see young women under the age of 16 only needing the approval of one parent or guardian instead of two, which would lessen the barrier for a young woman. Lessening the barrier is helpful, but I am inclined to agree with the views of What RU4 NT in its recommendations regarding minors, where it states that all references to consent should be removed, and section 11, clause 5 should be removed altogether.
I will quote from the recommendation:
- Minors who are considered ‘mature’ already consent to their own medical care in Australia. Doctors use a competency test to assess their maturity and ability to legally consent. If they fail this assessment their parents or guardians are notified. The existing law governing consent and confidentiality for young people is adequate.
Special requirements for parental consent for terminations of pregnancy is not necessary or appropriate. Involving parents or guardians can mean young women are ostracised from their families, that they face issues of violence, or are forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, delivering and maybe having to give it up. Forcing a child to have a child carries its own risks.
I agree that one doctor, not two, is surely sufficient in determining if a woman should be able to proceed with a medical termination of pregnancy before 14 weeks gestation. My preferences have been informed by research and an evidence base.
Access is a significant hurdle in the NT if you are living remotely. As a member who lives remotely and represents women who live remotely, I am concerned that the minister’s amendments circulated last night restrict that access significantly and, as such, I will not support his amendment to the bill.
I place on the record an opinion on the issue of access from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I quote from college statement C-Gyn17:
- Non-availability of termination of pregnancy services has been shown to increase maternal morbidity and mortality in population studies. Access to termination services should be on the basis of health care need and should not be limited by age, socioeconomic disadvantage, or geographic isolation. Equitable access to services should be overseen and supported by health departments in each jurisdiction, in the same way it is for other health services. Women have the right to access any medical services without their privacy being infringed or being subjected to harassment.
Effectively, the amendment from the Health minister would give the minister the power to decide how many abortion clinics there are, where they are and what facilities they need. It would mean a risk that only private clinics that charge high gap fees would be approved, and only in Alice Springs and Darwin. This would only improve access for women who can afford to pay these fees who have private health cover and could, therefore, already afford to pay for a private procedure or to fly interstate to access RU486. It almost entirely defeats the purpose of the bill, especially if the Health minister of the day decides not to approve any clinics at all.
The more I speak with experts and the more I read, the more I am inclined to think the issue of where the drug should be prescribed or dispensed is an issue for medical guidelines and not legislation. There is no reason this needs to be in the legislation. We do not legislate that you cannot do an appendectomy in a remote community, yet it is not done because it is not appropriate. Medical guidelines are used to determine appropriate and safe professional practice. These have been developed for RU486 by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I quote from the RANZCOG Guidelines C-Gyn21 on the use of mifepristone for medical termination of pregnancy. They state:
- These arrangements must include 24-hour access to specific telephone advice and support and to provision of surgical uterine evacuation or other interventions required for the management of complications, for example through on-call arrangements or in an emergency department resourced to respond to women’s health needs (such as required for miscarriage care).
Many of our remote clinics are equipped to deal with any emergency that comes their way, and we have an excellent service in CareFlight, which can conduct medical evacuations around the Northern Territory in the very slim and rare chance that they are required in these circumstances.
To be honest, I do not know if this bill will be successful this evening. In fact, it will not get through this evening, again due to time constraints. But should there be a change of government following the August election, it would be a priority for a Labor government to address, once and for all, the Medical Services Act and the amendments needed. We will examine the very things raised by the Family Planning Welfare Association Northern Territory, the Public Health Association and the Top End Women’s Legal Service – which were outlined in a letter to the former Health minister, the member for Araluen, in October 2013, of which I was provided a copy – and ensure that Territory women are on a par with other women in the country with regard to their sexual and reproductive health choices and access to abortion.
There might have been some will within certain sectors of the current government to address the inequities Territory women face in their choices when terminating a pregnancy. Having three Health ministers in the first two years may not have helped the situation. A lack of women within the ranks of the party wing and Cabinet also clearly has not helped.
The report of Professor Caroline de Costa, who was commissioned to provide a brief to the Department of Health on possible changes to the Medical Services Act and abortions in the Northern Territory was a step in the right direction by the former Health minister to progress reform. The call for legislative reform is quite clear in Professor de Costa’s report.
I was somewhat alarmed about her reference to abortion tourism, which refers to women who want to access RU486 who have the means flying interstate to do so. What an appalling state of affairs. Clearly there needs to be change. There needs to be significant reform to abortion laws in the Northern Territory, and it needs to be decriminalised.
I like the approach to abortion law reform taken in Victoria. It removed the process from politicians and placed it expert hands – independent and at arm’s length from government – through the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which produced a thorough report based on investigation, evidence and best practice. That report was then presented to the parliament, with recommendations to be adopted. Those recommendations were adopted, and Victoria has very good legislation.
Territory women cannot be expected to wait any longer for RU486 to access medical termination of pregnancy. They cannot expect to be abortion tourists in order to access a medical abortion. For those who live in the Territory’s regional and remote areas, they cannot accept that they have to put up with a system which does not support their rights in the same way women in urban areas are supported.
I wish place on the record my thanks to the member for Goyder for progressing this bill, and to the many people who have lobbied hard, sensibly and from an evidence-based non-political approach to drive reforms.
The first person to contact me was Dr Suzanne Belton, who is sitting in the gallery this evening. Of all places, we met at the Merrepen Arts Festival. As the Chair of Family Planning and a researcher and lecturer at Menzies School of Health, I have always appreciated Dr Belton’s no nonsense, cut-to-the-chase approach. Members may or may not be aware that Dr Belton was nominated for a human rights award, the Fitzgerald Social Change Award, in late 2015.
I also place on the record my thanks to the Top End Women’s Legal Service and all those women who supported and drove the What RU4 NT campaign and the On Her Terms campaign and the Family Planning Association and Robyn Wardle, who I have met with on a couple of occasions. I am sure there are other women in that space that I have overlooked, and I apologise.
I thank the member for bringing her bill before this House. I do not support the amendments of the Health minister.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Dr Belton and those who have been here today to observe the debate of this bill. It will continue at the next General Business day, in April.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Public Accounts Committee – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct May 2013 Report – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I speak on an issue raised by the member for Araluen earlier today in an explanation to the House. The member for Araluen recently circulated a flyer in Alice Springs saying she was disappointed in the Health minister for not supporting a palliative care facility with the $5m taken from the Nhulunbuy hospital expenditure, as had been arranged with minister Dutton.
The member put into her flyer that on 19 February 2016 I informed her by e-mail that I had made this change of policy in relation to the palliative care facility. It rang untrue to me because I had concerns about the timing of that decision. When I checked the e-mail which was sent by my ministerial staffer to her office, there was reference in that e-mail she was relying upon that the determination to move from a palliative care facility to a multifunction facility was made in June 2014. That should have been a warning bell for the member for Araluen because she should have realised that was when she was Health minister.
Nevertheless, I asked my department to ferret back through the paperwork in relation to this. It was abundantly clear that the member for Araluen had written to the then federal Health minister, Peter Dutton, to say the purpose of the expenditure was to change from a palliative care facility to a multipurpose facility. In the letter she signed on 9 June 2014, she said she intended to use it for purposes other than palliative care, including aged-care facilities for people near the end of their life, which of course is not palliative care.
Not only that, but attached to the letter was a document of some 64 pages, the title of which was ‘Multipurpose Facility’. It is disingenuous in the least for the member for Araluen to continue to maintain in this House that she has always argued for a palliative care facility. She has not. She told the federal Health minister she was prepared to sign up to a multipurpose facility.
When this issue was raised with me, the first question I received from Stewart Brash on ABC radio in Alice Springs was, ‘Why the change in plan?’ The answer was, ‘I do not know’. The reason I had to give that answer was I did not make the decision. I have merely been enforcing and pursuing the decision that was made by the former Health minister, Robyn Lambley.
I understand she was interviewed shortly after by Stewart Brash who put this to her, and she said she would have told the federal Health minister that she would have built the Taj Mahal if it got the money for her palliative care facility.
The former minister wonders why she lost her ministry. She said to Stewart Brash, ‘I am prepared to mislead and lie to the federal Health minister to extract money out of him to pursue my own goals’. It is not only disingenuous; it is downright dishonest. What is worse is she continues to say to the palliative care groups in the Northern Territory that she was always pursuing a palliative care facility. How can she be trusted if she has already articulated on radio, just the other day, that she was prepared to lie to the federal Health minister to extract money? If she is prepared to tell lies to the federal Health minister, who else is she prepared to mislead and deceive?
I get very cross when I am painted as a villain for her decisions and the letters she signed convincing the federal minister to part with the money. In truth, the multipurpose facility with a palliative care service incorporated is not a bad idea. That is why the policy will continue to be rolled out in that fashion.
To seek to deceive people and mislead them in the same way she sought to mislead the federal minister, by her own admission - saying she would have built the Taj Mahal if that is what it took - is representative of the way she conducts her business.
Raise that issue with her and you are branded a bully. That is not the case; I am not a bully. I am somebody who is highly critical of people in ministerial positions who do not tell the truth, particularly to federal ministers when trying to extract money from them.
Alternatively, that is your intention; go into your electorate and misrepresent what you have been doing. That inconsistency is not acceptable, certainly not at the ministerial level or in this joint to peddle it by way of a personal explanation. It is not fair to deliberately mislead.
To hear the member for Araluen say on radio she is prepared to deliberately mislead for her own outcomes demonstrates a disingenuous disposition. ‘I am prepared to lie for the welfare of the people of Alice Springs.’ I get the argument, but the point is the opening part of that line is, ‘I am prepared to lie’. Once you have taken up that position you have signalled to all and sundry you are prepared to lie.
So what is the truth? The fact is we do not know. However, the letter that was signed on 9 June 2014 has the signature of Robyn Lambley at the bottom of the page. She clearly intended, in that letter, to use the unit for which she was asking Peter Dutton for money for purposes other than exclusive palliative care.
The attachment to that letter refers to a multipurpose facility, precisely what we will build.
For the member for Araluen to peddle this is wrong, dishonest and does her reputation no good. It is one thing to say I am going to go through my political career saying I left the CLP because they are a pack of bullies, etcetera – I get the argument. But the fact is if you are prepared to not tell the truth to the federal Health minister, and to misrepresent the truth to the people of Alice Springs, maybe you are also prepared to misrepresent the real reasons you left the CLP.
We do not know anymore. The member for Araluen’s credibility is seriously compromised in this process. I lay my criticisms on the table. I could also speak further in relation to some of the misrepresentations she has made about her position on the Palmerston Regional Hospital.
I do know that based on the material she circulated on earlier occasions, the work on the Palmerston Regional Hospital would not have started until October this year if everything had gone according to her plan. The first clearance would not have occurred.
Yet this is the minister who authorised the clearing of a block – to do what? To demonstrate what? That she was building a hospital? The block that was cleared, I understand, was not far from Wallaby Holtz Road, and the member for Goyder ...
Ms Purick: I spy on the site all the time on my pushbike, to see what I can.
Mr ELFERINK: Good, so do I. How many columns are there now, about 200 columns?
Ms Purick: I am looking more at the things that might be relocated to other blocks.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you can be reassured, where we want the columns is where they are. The fact is, had we following her processes, the building would not be anywhere near where it is now.
Member for Araluen, please be honest with the people of Alice Springs and those who represent the interests of the palliative care organisations across the Northern Territory. It is not doing them a service when you say one thing to the federal minister and a completely different thing to them.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I speak about something unrelated to anything we have spoken about today. I will talk about some of the exploits of talented and clever people in my electorate, from young people to not-so-young people.
I start with young Kida Langham who attends Girraween Primary School. She was in Year 6 and she wrote to me recently because she was looking for sponsorship to go on a trip down south, as she had been selected to sing in a choir. She auditioned and was selected for the Gondwana National Choirs late last year. She went to Sydney in January this year to attend a camp.
For those of you not familiar with the Gondwana Indigenous Children’s Choir, it gives talented Indigenous children the opportunity to share their voices with the nation and the world. They have been operating since 2008 and were founded by artistic director Lyn Williams.
They recruit children from all around the countryside and the major cities, and are hoping to create pathways for young people from across Australia to come together and take part in not only the musical but the social and cultural education of performance opportunities.
When you participate in these programs, you get a bit of pride under your belt and confidence, and you might start a career in music or directing music. You clearly will build many friendships with people you meet along the way.
I say congratulations to young Kida, not only for being able to sing, which is wonderful, but for being selected to travel there. I would love to hear how she went. I am sure she has met some good friends and has some lasting memories. Well done to Kida and her parents for supporting her and encouraging her to go down this path.
The next young person I will talk about from my electorate is a young fellow called Jayden. He has been involved in one of those sports that has been around forever for young boys and girls – BMX. He has been involved since he was eight years old and is now 15. He wants to race at an elite level of the competition, which means to continue to race into adulthood, which he should because he is very talented.
He has attended many interstate races over the years, some of which have included the Australian titles in Shepparton, Cairns, Mount Gambier and Brisbane. He has represented the Territory as part of the NT team and qualified as a dynamite representative, which sounds interesting. He has raced in the NT titles at Satellite City, Jingili, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, with fantastic results in receiving an NT plate at all events. He is currently number one in the cruiser class, and eighth in the NT in the 20-inch class, after a crash in the final. I am not sure if that meant the 20-inch class is higher or lower, or that he just had a crash.
He has recently been accepted into the BMX Development Academy at a senior level, which is pretty exciting. He and his family returned from spending two weeks in Victoria earlier in the year where he competed in the track attack series, where Jayden finished third overall in six rounds, even after missing one round due to his handlebars snapping.
I have seen these fellows and young girls at the races, on Facebook and YouTube, and they are daredevils. I am not surprised that bikes break, given the stress they put them under.
In November he competed in the Victorian state titles in Shepparton and placed second in both races.
With the great benefit of a roof over the track at Jingili BMX Club, he has been able to train and prepare for the upcoming Australian titles at Bathurst. He spent 10 days at Bathurst to ensure he could get as much track time in as possible. A bit like any sport where you want to get a feel for the ground, the pool or whatever you do your sport in so you can get some edge against your competitors.
His parents are great supporters, and I have supported this young fellow before. I never had an opportunity for BMX; I had a plain old pushbike. This young fellow will go big places. He will continue to go further and higher in his sport, not only in the Northern Territory but in Australia. I am pretty sure he will go international.
To Rachel Walker and Darrin Fletcher, his parents, good on you. You have a real star. To young Jayden, all the best. I am happy to keep supporting you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016