2015-06-17
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 5/6 classes at Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Jodie Houghton. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the Motor Vehicles (Private Car Parking) Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 131) be considered on urgency and passed through all stages forthwith.
We realised late last week that there was an issue with Wilson Security requiring information from MVR records. It became evident that a process had been followed that would have led to information from MVR being passed to Wilson Security on the order of the Local Court in Darwin. I was very unhappy, as was the government, that private information was to be passed to a private security firm.
Territorians understand that government holds much of its information about them privately, and that should be respected. In this case the Local Court ordered MVR to pass over that information. I was not happy with the process and we spent considerable time and effort working out how we could prevent it.
We were soon to learn that more than 8500 pieces of private information would need to be passed over to Wilson Security. I do not have a problem with a private security company or someone from the private sector using a car park to make money when providing a car parking service, but I do have a concern with a third-party operator such as a private security company getting hold of this information.
Territorians expect their government to do what it can, and this government is doing that by introducing this bill today.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this urgency motion, but we believe it should never have reached this point in the first place. If passing a motion on urgency …
Mr Elferink: The legislation existed under the Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Ms FYLES: You introduced the car parking fees that turned out to be a debacle. If you want to talk about the car parking at RDH, you have picked the wrong person because I am very experienced with visiting RDH and having to guess how long I will be there.
That highlights the incompetence of this government. Whoever thought you could introduce parking fees at a hospital and ask people, when they are most likely going through a fairly anxious stage, to guess how long they will be at the hospital - it is a confusing system having to enter your car rego. You get two hours free and you then have to top it up in the foyer. I had an experience where I was charged three times for my top up, but I was refunded instantly. It has been a chaotic system from the start.
The fact that it has taken us to get to this point for anything to be done is disappointing. It was a huge issue when it first came in; it has never stopped being an issue. It is always on talkback radio; there are always heaps of letters to the paper. Even during the Casuarina by-election it was an issue.
If passing this urgency motion takes …
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member seems to be talking a lot about the bill and not about urgency.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down; it is not a point of order.
Ms FYLES: If passing an urgency motion is what it takes to fix your complete bungling of this matter, which has seen over 8000 Territorians’ government records released to a private company, of course we would support this motion.
Contrary to your words previously on this, you are passing an urgency motion to fix your mistake. Your government introduced this problem. You introduced a flawed car parking model to RDH. You did not get it right from the start. Whoever thought that parking and having to guess how long you would stay at the hospital was a good idea, clearly had no clue. Last year your minister at the time, or it may have been late the year before, said:
There has been one red flag after another. It is only when Territorians’ face having their records released to a private company that we see any action. The members on this side have been calling continually, as has the community, for this system to be scrapped. This entire issue is of your making. You would happily have seen it drag on for months. I think only last week you said it would take months to fix and when we said we would introduce a bill, all of a sudden you are doing everything with urgency.
Both the minister and the Chief Minister are on record saying they would fix the issue in a couple of months. It was only when you learnt of my colleague, the member for Johnston’s plans to introduce a private members bill that you panicked and did this.
We on this side care about Territorians. It is clear that on the other side you do not. Meeting a new baby is generally the only positive time you go to RDH. It is an anxious time for people. You might be seeking medical treatment or visiting loved ones who are receiving medical treatment. To deal with this flawed parking system which requires you to guess how long you will be at the hospital can cause undue stress on staff. That is why we would support the urgency of this motion. We need to get this cleared up for Territorians.
As I have indicated, on this side of the House we support the urgency motion. My colleague, the member for Johnston, will talk in further detail. Although this bill is being passed urgently and we will see the matter of records cleared up today, we would like to see the government finally – minister after minister has commented about the parking system, as well as the Nursing Federation, hospital staff, members of the public and talkback radio. Surely you can finally listen and fix this flawed system at RDH so Territorians can at least visit the main hospital without worrying about parking fees and overstaying their time.
The company which has been engaged, from feedback I have received in my electorate office, is not overly helpful when dealing with issues. People visiting the Alan Walker centre are able to access a special pass that allows them to seek their treatment, and I have had to help constituents do that. By acknowledging this mistake of potentially releasing thousands of private details of Territorians to a private company, the government also needs to acknowledge the broader issue. We will support this urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting an urgency motion that says ‘forthwith’. I might consider it if it says tomorrow. I am surprised the Labor Party has decided to support something without even seeing the bill.
Standing Order 173(4) says:
Do you expect me to say supporting something on urgency forthwith is a great idea? If there is such a panic for this, why can the Department of Health not say to Wilson, ‘You will not be collecting any fees for the time being until this is sorted out’. They have a contract with Wilson Security …
Mr Giles: It is against the law …
Mr WOOD: Against the law to break your contract? Against the law to have free parking for a couple of days? That is all I am saying.
I am not saying Wilson Parking is what people want. It is obvious people are upset about it. But you are introducing legislation you would like me to support without having any prior knowledge about it. Bring it on tomorrow if it is that urgent and give us a little time to check it against other people who may be in similar circumstances. Are there ramifications that have not been looked at that this bill might have?
It is silly to bring a bill on forthwith. It is a car parking and privacy issue. It is important, but it is a case of a stich in time saves nine. I am not sure we need to rush this as quickly as you want to. You might find that by rushing it, you might put something out that has ramifications you have not thought of. You might have thought of them all. You have experienced staff who deal with these issues, but parliament is the body which passes this legislation. We should have adequate time to make sure the legislation proposed does not have unforeseen ramifications.
I am not sure why the Minister for Health could not say to the department, ‘For the time being, we will not charge people for using the car park’. I am sure in the debate that is to follow there will be a lot of discussion as to whether the car park design or the method of charging people for parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital was the correct one. There was some debate about that at the time the previous Minister for Health mentioned there would be car parking charges at the hospital and gave reasons why that would occur. This discussion did not start yesterday in relation to the type of car parking controls at Royal Darwin Hospital; it has been occurring for quite a while.
The issue of Wilson Parking having the right to look at someone’s private address in relation to recovering a fee that has not been paid is important. All I am saying is leave it to tomorrow. I do not have the legislation in front of me because you have not yet produced it. Let us see what that the legislation says. If I need to get a briefing once I have read it and I think it is good, fair enough, I will support it. But if I have some questions about it, I do not have any time to ask anyone unless it goes to the Committee of a Whole.
This is a poor way of presenting legislation. I am surprised Labor is supporting this ‘forthwith’ because no matter what legislation it is, no matter what it is about, we should take each piece of legislation seriously. If we have to rush it through, then we should at least be given a little time so we can evaluate whether the legislation is good. What is the point in rushing it through forthwith if you can do it tomorrow and make sure there are no errors in it? I will not be supporting the urgency motion. I may have supported an urgency motion for tomorrow, which would make a lot more sense and treat this parliament as it should: as a place that debates legislation properly, carefully and ensures there are no unforeseen mistakes or ramifications.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for supporting the urgency motion, although I was disappointed in the speech because it went right off track and talked about the car parking initiative, the car parking system and so forth, but did not speak about what we are discussing today. This is to protect Territorians’ information. If that is where the focus of the debate had been, I would have welcomed it, but I thank you for your support.
Member for Nelson, I take on board what you said. Part of me agrees with what you are saying except it was important to make the decision on urgency based on the fact that Territorians want their government to act quickly to fix this anomaly that would allow a third-party company to access this information.
Moving the motion today on urgency was a decision I did not take lightly. It is the first motion in over seven years in this parliament that I have moved on urgency. I have moved it on urgency based on the fact that Territorians expect their information to be protected. That is the only reason, and that is why it needs to pass today, so we can ensure that Wilson Security and any other third-party private company, cannot access Territorians’ private information. If it makes any difference, member for Nelson, this will not prevent entities such as local councils accessing the information. They are competent statutory authorities that use the Traffic Act and the Australian Road Rules to enforce road restrictions in their municipalities.
This is quite different; we are talking about two different things. We are not talking about local competent authorities using the Australian Road Rules to enforce ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 113: relevance. I would love to have that debate with the minister but we are talking about urgency.
Mr Elferink: You just raised it, mate. You cannot sit there …
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it was raised and I wanted to ensure – if it makes it any easier, it will not prevent that from occurring in the future. This will prevent a private company getting that information. I stress that the government does provide information to local councils like the Darwin City Council, Palmerston council and Alice Springs council, and even to our Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have access to that information to enforce their parking restrictions using the Australian Road Rules. The difference between those competent authorities and a private company is that there are control mechanisms in place to ensure information is strictly used in accordance with the rules.
We have no guarantees. We may have a company saying it will use it strictly in accordance – do we have guarantees in place? I suspect the answer to that is no.
I thank the opposition for supporting this motion to move this legislation through all stages.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today seeks to prevent the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from being required by a court order discovery process to disclose personal information for the purpose of the recovery of private car park fees.
Private car park operators often utilise a pay and display arrangement, with the driver needing to obtain a ticket from a machine and display the ticket on the dashboard, even though the parking is free for the first two hours. If the driver does not comply with this requirement, or parks longer than the allowed free parking period, it is considered a breach of the terms of use of the car park and the private operator issues a breach notice requesting payment of a fee.
These notices are not parking fines under the Traffic Act; they are simply a notice of a breach of the agreed conditions displayed on the signs in the car park when parking your car. The notice will usually be left under the vehicle’s windscreen wiper and appears in a physical form that is similar to an official parking infringement, such as those issued by councils and other government agencies.
Where customers do not pay the amount specified in the breach notice, the car park operators are relying on what is known as preliminary discovery orders obtained through the courts to require vehicle registration authorities to release the names and addresses of registered vehicle owners/operators. This information is then used by the car park operator to send demand notices requiring payment of the original unpaid amount. These practices have raised significant concerns interstate and recently in the Territory, particularly with respect to the release of personal information.
It is a reasonable expectation that when a customer provides personal information to MVR the information should remain confidential and only be released in accordance with privacy principles contained in the Northern Territory Information Act. Unfortunately, the provisions utilised by private car park operators via the courts have enabled the release of this type of information interstate, and today I am introducing this bill which will prevent the release of personal information held by MVR to private car park operators.
The bill will apply retrospectively, thus also prohibiting the release of information as contained in a recent court order served on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
This government is determined to take the necessary steps to ensure Territory motorists’ personal information remains confidential and is only released strictly in accordance with existing laws. The bill will amend the Motor Vehicles Act introducing a new section which will prevent a court preliminary discovery order being issued to gain access to personal information held by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the recovery of private car park fees.
The new section also defines ‘debts to private car park operators’ as meaning any amount payable under the terms and conditions of parking provisions in relation to the use of a car park, including an amount payable for breaching any such terms and conditions. However, it does not include an amount payable under the terms and conditions of a contract that is in writing and signed by all relevant parties.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it defies belief that the NT government did not know that Wilson Parking was taking the government to court to access 8500 Territorians’ personal details. It is becoming common practice that this minister and this government, when it comes to taking any blame, wipe their hands of it and blame the departments. That is a disgrace.
We very rarely go to hospital other than if there is an emergency involving one of our loved ones. We go there to visit someone who is injured. You go to the hospital because you have to.
I am fully aware there are appointments some people keep to see specialists on certain days, but most Territorians go to hospital because it is an emergency. They either know somebody who is injured or they are visiting somebody who has been taken seriously ill. The last thing you want to think about is car parking, and that is the issue. Sometimes what is missing in this House is common sense.
The car park at the Royal Darwin Hospital has been a shambles for a long time now. As the local member, in one month about 15 people came to my office complaining about a $65 ticket they had received at the hospital. They wanted to know what I could do. We made inquiries. Wilson was not listening and said they had to pay the fine. This upset many people because they had been in circumstances where they were not able to go outside and update their parking details. Also many seniors go there for appointments which run over the allotted time. That is a serious concern because $65 might not seem much to us, but to a pensioner it is a lot of money out of their fortnightly payment.
It was absurd and bizarre yesterday because – and I will just put it out there, minister – it seemed you were very reactive to the interview I gave to the media yesterday morning, and what we have been working on to stand up for Territorians. NT Labor listened to the huge public outcry about the parking system at RDH and accessing 8500 people’s personal details.
We acted quickly over the weekend and worked out our own amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. We sent those amendments to your office, minister, highlighting the changes we proposed. We acted quickly because we stand up for Territorians and we make no apologies for that. We worked over the weekend on these amendments so we could introduce them into parliament and debate them, or at least get them on to the Notice Paper to be debated in August.
Introducing this on urgency, which we support, will stop the personal details of 8500 Territorians being accessed. If I was your media person, minister, I would have let people know immediately that the court decision did not allow people’s person information to be released. That story had every Territorian concerned that the details of the 8500 Territorians who had received these parking fines were being accessed. If I was your media adviser – and I am sure they are very good – I would have been running you out to the media saying, ‘They have not accessed any details yet. We have 30 days to act on that.’ I am not a media adviser. I have been an adviser, as your Chief Minister and government keep reminding me. But by hanging around media advisers, I know I would have rolled you out like a big bowling ball and said, ‘They have no information. They have not accessed anything. In 30 days they will get access. We will stand up for Territorians and stop this. We will make the amendments we have to.’
In an interview last week either the minister or the Chief Minister said, ‘We’ll sort it out in a couple of months’. Now we are dealing with a bill on urgency. We will pass the bill today because we are protecting Territorians’ personal details. We drafted amendments about making it illegal for private parking firms to access that information. I said in a media interview that I hope this government would support the amendments in August, because that would give enough time to go through it properly, so we would be protected. The amendments would make it illegal for private parking firms to access that information and, if they had that information, to use it.
We have supported this urgency motion because we want to protect and stand up for Territorians, which is exactly what you should have been doing from the start. You and your government should have been doing that when this came across your desk saying Wilson was taking the Northern Territory government to court.
I assume there is a breakdown in your office somewhere because I am sure there was a file or a ministerial briefing. I will always support departments and the great work they do. I am sure there would have been a ministerial direction about Wilson and what the government needed to do to stop this going to court. You probably buried it in your office somewhere and we are now dealing with it here.
Let us go back to the Royal Darwin Hospital car park. You are probably trying to forget her over there, but you had a minister named Robyn Lambley. I know many of you do not talk to her much, if at all. Minister Lambley, on 28 March said – I will read from an NT News of 28 March titled ‘Government to employ ‘meter maids and men’ to help visitors to Royal Darwin Hospital’.
Did that happen? Did we have meter maids and men going around with $50 in bum bags or coins in their pockets?
Mr Elferink: I was thinking of slipping you into a bikini and rolling you out there like a bowling ball.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, member for Port Darwin? If you are answering that question, that is great.
Madam SPEAKER: Order. Member for Johnston, you have the call.
Mr VOWLES: I will go on:
If the minister could tell me if those meter maids and men were employed it would be great. A line in this article says:
Did it? I am not sure:
I look forward to being updated on that, minister.
From the NT News on 11 September 2014, ‘Royal Darwin Hospital parking “mistake” ’.
Have you done that? That was September 2014.
Wait for it:
We have listened to Territorians, and if you had listened to us, you would know the Leader of Opposition, Michael Gunner, has proudly announced that we will build a free multi-storey car park for the hospital.
Mr Chandler: After thinking about it for a day.
Mr VOWLES: If the minister, the member for Brennan, would stop interjecting that we thought about this for a day – if the minister has any political experience and can think back to 2012, it was an election commitment from the Labor government. Before you throw accusations that we have thought about this multistorey car park for one day – we had a commitment in 2012 to build the multistorey car park. Member for Brennan, Minister for Transport, it would be built now; just like the hospital, it would have been built before you built it. That is what we do; when we say we will do something, we do it.
If we say we will build a multistorey car park at the hospital, it will be built. If we said we would build a Palmerston hospital, which we were on our way to doing, it would be built. We still do not have a date for the completion of Palmerston hospital, but that is a whole new discussion. I have about a thousand pieces of paper with all different opinions, but I will get back to that.
When we say we will do something, we do it. We say we will build it, we build it. You guys cannot even sort out when the hospital will be built. Is it late 2021 or 2022? We do not believe that; nobody believes it. Early 2018, mid-2018 – you say it is $150m, but now we are finding out you are telling porky pies around the extra $50m coming from the federal government. Peter Dutton, the federal minister, has not said a word about this. He does not want to talk to you guys about that.
Let us go back to parking. It has been a shambles from the start. I will give some credit to your government. The then Health minister was listening to Territorians and she tried to fix it. She was obviously hamstrung by a government that does not want to do things like listen to Territorians or fix things. Those articles are from March and September 2014, and here we are. The government is allowing a private car parking firm to access personal details, to go to court and win the court case.
The media reports are saying on the same day, in Victoria, the courts threw out the same application by the same company to access data and personal details of Victorian citizens. On the same day, according to media reports, the Territory government rolled over and stopped standing up for Territorians.
Sometimes you mob need to look at yourselves in the mirror and ask, ‘Why am I an elected member?’ You have been given the privilege of being a Minister of the Crown to stand up and make decisions. I respect and understand that you have to make hard decisions; sometimes you have to take a softer stance on something. I know personally some of you do not agree with the directions your government is taking, but with this you should always remember why we are elected, which is to stand up for Territorians and protect them.
If something goes wrong for the Territory at a federal level, we should be in Canberra smashing down the doors of our federal colleagues’ offices, regardless of what political party is in power. We should be beating on the door saying, ‘This is not right. This is what Territorians want. We will fight you on this.’ I do not see this government doing that.
We believe this is a serious issue, as do Territorians. I have said many times that we bring the concerns of Territorians here. Territorians are crapped off about this Royal Darwin Hospital parking fiasco. It is a disgrace.
We support this motion on urgency because something needs to be done. I thank the government for deciding to do this, but I believe we forced you into it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for eventually giving me the bill. I received an apology from the Chief Minister and I appreciate that. However, I did not have any documents before me to at least evaluate whether the urgency debate was reasonable or not. That is why I made the statement I did; I had nothing. Now I have two copies of it, so I get double trouble.
With a normal bill there would be a second reading where I could listen the minister’s speech. Sometimes I would have an explanatory note and would have time to look at the bill. Then I would assess whether I needed a briefing. I will ask the minister if he would mind that we use the Committee as a Whole as a substitute for the briefing and give us a little latitude with that. This is the only opportunity I have, and I need to clarify what is in the bill. I get the general gist of it, but there is a number of questions I would like to ask in relation to whether this has broader ramifications.
Speaking in general, I remember the debate that was held some time ago – I do not have the exact date – when the then minister, Hon Robyn Lambley, announced she would charge for car parking and she had reasons for that. One was to try to reduce the number of staff using that car parking area and another was to raise money to build other car parking facilities. That was my understanding of why they introduced car parking charges.
I presume the government put it out for tender and the tender would have allowed Wilson Parking to run the car park and charge accordingly. When the government or the department was doing that, I do not know whether they took a duty of care to find out whether having a private car parking company running a car park on government land filled all the requirements, or if it was checked out for its legality. That is a broader question I will be putting to the government.
We have many car parks. The airport has car parks on federal land. If I overstay there, I cannot get out. That is slightly different. But I do not know if I park in the wrong place whether I can be booked and the airport operators can get my registration number. If I park on the median strip before I get into the gated car park – if I can call it that – or I park in the area where I am only allowed to park for two minutes and I park for 10 minutes, does the airport have the right to take my Northern Territory licence plate number and find out who I am?
There is a range of other issues this raises. That is why rushing this through is not the way to go. We have supermarket car parks and some of them are free, but many of them, even when free, have disabled car parking. Who has access to the registration number of people parked in the disabled car park? Does this have any ramifications in relation to that?
I rang three councils this morning advising them this bill was going through, a bill I did not have any paperwork on. I said, ‘I’m not sure what is in this bill. I will get back to you if I think there are any ramifications in relation to councils.’ Darwin City Council, for some time, operated the waterfront car park. That was a government car park basically because the government owned the waterfront. The council took on a contract, I presume through the Local Government Act, which allowed them, with permission from the minister, to collect car parking fees. Section 14 of the Local government Act says:
I have not found where they get the regulatory powers that enable them to take the registration number and get the information from MVR. All three councils receive information about car parking registration from the MVR. Obviously they are not private, they are government, and they can say. ‘Trust me, I am government’. I know they have processes.
For instance, Alice Springs has only two people who have access to that information. If people continue not paying they go to the Fine Recovery Unit, which is a government body, and chase that up and charge an extra fee. In fact, I wondered why Wilsons did not send all the information on infringements to the Fines Recovery Unit because I presume that unit, being part of government, has the power to see who owns a vehicle and what their address is.
I wonder if there are other solutions that have not yet been investigated. That is why we should have left this until tomorrow to enable me to go through the legislation and ask for a briefing. Some of my ideas might have meant you had to bring in an amendment. That would have been good.
It worries me that we are doing it this way. We are not being attacked by another country and need conscription today because we do not have enough soldiers. We are talking about a car park issue and a privacy issue which has been around for some time. It is a serious issue and concerns many Territorians, but we have to make sure the bill solves the problem and does not create other problems in the process.
The government, after all this, needs to look again at the car parking issue at Royal Darwin Hospital. I remember the argument against having a car park system similar to the airport’s was that it might not stop staff – I am not knocking staff, but that was one of the issues initially – from using the facility because you pay when you go out the gate. No one is fined for not paying because you cannot get out the gate until you put money in the machine.
That discussion should come from this to see how the hospital car park operates. There are other hospital car parks around Australia. I am not sure how they work, they might use Wilson Parking, but Royal Darwin Hospital is not the same as a shopping centre. It is a place where people go to see the birth of a child, visit someone who is sick, or speak to someone who is dying. People go there with lots of feelings. They are not just parking to get a cup of chips at the cafeteria. It is not your normal shopping centre-type car park. Even though that might sound silly, there needs to be some indication that when government is doing something like this, it understands it must be sensitive and knows who the customers are. The customers are people, in many cases relatives and friends, who are going to see someone in hospital.
We could have the debate another day about whether there should be a review of the hospital car parking. That would be good. At the moment, I gather the government is simply trying to – I have my legal dictionary just to understand the word – abrogate, which just means it will get rid of it. I get the gist of it the bill but I would like to go through it clause by clause. There are really only two clauses, inserted sections 137D and 140. I ask that this could go to the committee stage so I can ask the minister specific questions.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments, largely on the back of what the member for Nelson had to say, because he takes these debates seriously.
The member for Johnston was ill-prepared because his speech had not been written for him. He stumbled awkwardly through the issues without being able to effectively articulate the matters before the House. But, in deference to the member for Nelson’s genuine approach to what is going on in the House today, I will attend to his matters with earnestness.
In relation to how this system works, and the member for Nelson touched on it very briefly, there are several nexus which are operational in this space. The first nexus is between the public and private arrangements. Wilsons is a private company, it builds a business model, it suggests to government its business model and how it can make money. The government of the day and the former Health minister said they would like to secure the car parks around the hospital so people who are there for a short time do not require a cut lunch to walk across five car parks to get to the hospital, especially for the reasons people visit a hospital in the first instance.
It was a way of disbursing the demand on car parks close to the hospital. That is the rationale and you can understand why people wanted to go down that path at the time.
Then it comes down to how the business model works. You can either do it on a debt recovery basis or on a restraint basis. I will give you an example of the debt recovery basis, that is, the example we are dealing with now. You enter your information into the car park booth, you get a ticket, the ticket expires, and you get an infringement for failing to comply with the boundaries of that ticket. It is effectively a form of contract between you and the private provider. I will not bore the member for Nelson with the detail of the ticket cases in the law of contract, but they are voluminous and have gone to the High Court of this country in relation to the contractual arrangements of offer and acceptance around tickets.
It then has the effect of an infringement being applied, and because there is no boom gate, no physical restraint, you can drive off and ignore the infringement. There is then a debt between you and the provider issuing the infringement. That is a civil debt for a breach of contract.
The restraint system is the one you described – the boom gate. You drive in, grab your ticket from the boom gate and validate it before you leave. We recognise this far more commonly. The airport is a good example. What happens in that instance is the vehicle is restrained until such time as the terms of the contract are met. If there is a breach of contract, that is, you do not pay the ticket, you do not get out of the car park unless you …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Exactly right. I pick up on the gestured interjection of the member for Nelson. … commit a criminal offence, which is drive through the boom gate. That is a different kettle of fish altogether because that is criminal damage.
If there is a dispute between you and the provider of the car parking space as to whether or not you are in breach of contract, your process for recovery would be the damages process because you would still, in the real world, pay the extra money which you resent having to pay. Then you would pursue the private car company for the losses you had incurred because you felt it had not held up its side of the contract.
However, that is not the system used by Wilson. Wilson uses a system by which they go through a debt recovery process. What information do they have about the people who have parked in the car parks? The registration number of the car – as I understand it, you have to type that number into the car parking machine when you collect the ticket, so they have that information. But a registration number I know nothing about and you know nothing about, until such time as you go to the person who owns that list of information that says, this registration number belongs to that human being.
You still then have all of the other challenges of proving that is the person who you had the contract with, but we will set aside that process. The process to recover a civil debt in this jurisdiction is through the Local Court Act, generally speaking, and the Local Court Rules. That is what Wilsons has done. The issue has arisen because the keeper of the information is the Northern Territory government, and people give information to the Northern Territory government – names, addresses, those sorts of things – under the expectation that information will be kept private.
Similar circumstances have occurred in New South Wales and Victoria. Their response was to legislate against the use of that government information for the purposes of recovering a civil debt. That is what we are doing today. It is not a complex bill.
I understand a phone call was made to you this morning, but perhaps because you were talking to the councils or other people your phone was engaged. We apologise for the lateness of the bill coming before you. This process is hurried and we will go through the committee stages so you can cross-examine government, if you like, on all the specific details. That is what has occurred and what we are attempting to remedy here today.
I draw honourable members’ attention to a couple of clauses in the bill. It is a mercifully short bill by standards of this House. The discovery process I just described is the one which will now be attended to. Sections 137D(1), (2) and (3) deal with the structure of the discovery for the purposes of recovery of debts under car parking contracts. That is exactly what I described before; you have this car parking contract – one of the variant forms of a ticket case – and we have now structured a description of what that is.
It then goes on to say there is a transitional matter – and this is the core of the issue – that any existing preliminary discovery order is taken to have never been made. We, as a parliament, are creating a legal artifice which says that if you have a process for discovery in relation to a car parking-related matter on foot at the moment, it does not exist.
The second component of it is:
It basically closes the door on these applications and nullifies the court order made in relation to the Wilson application.
I pause briefly on that because the member for Johnston made an unusual and surprising statement in the House. He said he would have interfered, and he may well have. I remind the member for Johnston that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is beyond the order of government. It is an independent statutory office and a Registrar of Motor Vehicles should not be subject to government directions per se unless it comes through a legislative process through this House and the public domain.
Of course, boundaries and probity are not things which particularly concern the Northern Territory Labor Party. They are more than happy to …
Mr Vowles: You can just walk into any department, you have, keys, and you’re talking about us.
Mr ELFERINK: ... sidestep probity on every occasion and announce, even in this place, that they are prepared to act unlawfully. That is essentially what the member for Johnston …
Mr Vowles: I’ll have some tea with that fruitcake.
Mr ELFERINK: .... said he was prepared to do. The member for Johnston was quite wrong …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. It is difficult to hear the member for Port Darwin over the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Johnston was wrong, and I suspect is mischievous in intent, when he said the statutory officer was unrepresented. I understand the statutory officer was represented in court and that the Solicitor for the Northern Territory provided a legal presence. For some reason, best known to the statutory officer, the statutory officer chose not to inform the department and, through the department, the minister, of what was on foot. That decision is up to the statutory officer to deal with as an independent statutory officer. It then led to the unfortunate circumstance we saw the other day. The minister’s response was the appropriate one, ‘We will fix it’. Shock, horror.
Mr Vowles: In a couple of months.
Mr ELFERINK: I just heard, ‘in a couple of months’. The members opposite are seeking to introduce a bill – and the member for Johnston worked very hard over the weekend. That must have been the first weekend he has worked in a long time. They were planning to introduce a bill to fix these things by August. They were going to instantly fix this by August. By that stage Wilson would have been in possession of the private records of 8500 Territorians, something this minister is working very hard to stop. He had no interest in protecting those private records. There was no suggestion yesterday when the member for Johnston gave notice that he was preparing some form of urgency motion to ensure the information did not get across to Wilson. He was not interested in that. He was just interested in saying he would introduce a bill.
Will the bill be effective is the first question? The second one is, why not do it on urgency when the provisions for urgency under standing orders are specifically targeted at hardship? The government feels – and I think the opposition has finally figured out – there is potential hardship when we do not protect the information of Territorians in a sensible and sober fashion when it comes to contractual ticket cases between private companies and Territory residents who give their information to the Northern Territory government, as they are required to do by law.
By August they would have introduced a bill into the House, after the horse had well and truly bolted. Of course, it behoves us for a moment to look at what was to be suggested by the member opposite.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Wulagi Primary School. Welcome to Parliament House, I hope you enjoy your time here.
Mr ELFERINK: Here are some interesting things, because they were planning to say the registrar must not provide an abstract, a form or a copy of an entry contained under section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If memory serves me correctly, section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to keep certain types of information about licences and other things on a register. If memory serves me, section 2 says that information should be protected and only passed out under certain limited circumstances.
The legislation then talks about car parks and the creation of a car parking fee and defining that. Then it says a person is not entitled to be furnished with information or particulars relating to registration, if the purpose for requesting information is for recovery of a required car parking fee, as mentioned in section 118 of the act.
That sounds good; you are not supposed to give the information out. It then goes on to create offences, ’A person must not request an extract from or a copy of or an entry contained in records kept in accordance with section 118 of the act knowing that the purpose for the request is in relation to the recovery of a private car park fee’.
We will now make a criminal of a person asking for the information. How would that have dealt with the existing court order Wilsons has in relation to the car park? Does that place them in a difficult situation? The court has said, ‘You get access to something’, and this legislation says, ‘You cannot ask’. By the way, if you ask you are a criminal. I have a court order and you are a criminal.
The second component says a person must not use an extract or copy of an entry contained in the records kept in accordance with section 118 for the purposes of recovery car park fees mentioned in that section.
Bearing in mind this would have passed in August. The information would have already been provided and what you would have said was, ‘We will create a crime’ so Wilsons could not use it to recover.
Rather than dealing with a contractual issue, we will make Wilsons a criminal for even asking for the information in August. That was a clumsy way to go about it. Thank goodness, the minister, with a much more sober mind, has managed to deal with this issue in a more effective way. I have sympathy for the position taken by the member for Nelson, but the minister has explained his reasons for wanting to pursue the matter on urgency forthwith. I extend my apologies to the member for Nelson for the lateness of the bill getting to him. I understand attempts were made this morning but …
Mr Wood: I was ringing the councils.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine and I am not being horrible. I also want to address some of the other issues you raised in relation to disabled car parks and those types of things.
My understanding of how these things operate is that the question arises as to who generates the fine. As I described before, you have a private contract between two people; that is an object of the civil law. Even if it is a private car park, there are requirements under the motor vehicles arrangements nationally that such car parks be provided. When such a car park is provided, if a person parks in it who is not disabled they are required by law not to do so. There is a criminal component.
This is a component of the criminal law, albeit a regulatory offence, which says you do not park in them. If the ticket is issued by an authorised officer, such as a council worker, which is a form of government as it is a product of an election process, or a police officer, who also is able to issue such an infringement notice, the infringement notice is a product of the criminal law system.
Regulatory offences, low-level criminal laws – recovery for those fines is a matter of a criminal process. It is not a ticketed agreement or contract between me and another party. If the infringement issued was, for argument’s sake, issued by the private owner of the car park - and the infringement was something like a note saying you should not park here so you owe $50 - that is a contractual dispute between you and the person who owns the vehicle. The process of recovery is then quite different. This is your civil debt between you and the person who owns the car.
This issue is not who owns the car park. The issue in those circumstances is whether an offence has been committed against the criminal law, albeit a low-level and regulatory offence. If the answer is yes, then the ticket is issued by a government authority. Government authorities have a capacity to collect on fines through a system which is quite different to a civil debt recovery. It is a process pursued through the criminal justice system, and ultimately leads to fines recovery, which is why we have the Fines Recovery Unit.
The Fines Recovery Unit does not recover civil debts. It recovers debts that are the product of government-issued fines, and debts owed to the Northern Territory by way of costs orders imposed by courts, so there is some judicial or legal oversight which is quite outside the law of contract. That is the difference between those two systems.
This legislation attends to the simple concept that the law of contract will continue to operate, and Wilson will continue to engage in contracts with every person who purchases a ticket in the car park at the Royal Darwin Hospital. That is how the contract will work. The only thing this bill does is say that if you are in that contractual environment with Wilson, then the enforcement process will have to be something other than getting the information from the government database. That is essentially how the system is designed to work.
Wilson can still step down the path of debt recovery, but it will have to find a different way in which to bill its contract, or, alternatively, find a different way in which it enforces its contract. We will not be allowing Wilson to use government-stored information to achieve that outcome.
That is essentially what is happening today. Fortunately it is not technical or difficult, but reasonably straightforward.
To that end, I fulsomely support the minister and the government in its response to this situation. It is timely. It will be effective and will prevent Wilson from exercising the right it had extended to it in the court. It will enable Territory residents to have their public information protected, at least inasmuch as the enforcement of private contracts in relation to car parking arrangements.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak to this debate in my capacity as shadow minister for Health.
Let us face it, we are debating this bill today because of a complete and utter debacle and mishandling by the government of this issue. We are debating this on urgency as a direct result of the opposition’s member for Johnston giving notice of the introduction of a private member’s bill to put through very similar legislation to resolve this debacle.
That was the trigger for the CLP government and for the minister, who said last week on the record that he would fix this issue in a couple of months, which is not good enough. It is only because the opposition gave notice yesterday of introduction of private member’s bill this afternoon that the CLP government was spurred into action.
As I said, this is a complete and utter debacle. Parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital from day one under the CLP government has been a debacle. There have been endless complaints which have fallen on deaf ears on that side until finally we had former the Health minister, the member for Araluen, step up in September last year to say, ‘We made mistakes. We know people are not happy. The complaints have been consistent.’ As the minister said, ‘The system is not the easiest to use. We have made a few mistakes.’ Well, my oh my, is that not an understatement about the debacle this government has created.
Why do we have this debacle? Everybody knows this is a government in constant chaos. We have had four, maybe five, Health ministers as a result of 14 Cabinet reshuffles, so small wonder that issues in Health, as well as other agencies, about what should be simple things like car parks have not been addressed. It is because of the revolving door of Cabinet and who is in what portfolio.
If the CLP cannot even organise a functioning car park that meets the needs of people who utilise that car park at Royal Darwin Hospital, how on earth can they build Palmerston Regional Hospital? If it had proceeded down the path Labor had committed to, it would have been completed by the end of this year. Time frames for delivery of Palmerston Regional Hospital have blown out to 2018 and we still do not know what the opening date will be. The Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the Health minister are all at odds with one another as to exactly when it will be opened.
Maybe Palmerston Regional Hospital has been delayed because they are trying to work out how to run the car park there. I am waiting to see which minister is about to put their hand up to go on an expensive first-class, taxpayer-funded trip overseas to examine functioning car parks at major hospitals and maybe examine privacy legislation to see how to fix it. That is how this government operates. This government could not organise a chook raffle at my local pub. They are absolutely useless.
The issue we are debating is a direct result of the failures of your government in introducing a flawed car parking model from day one. You have not got it right. It sits with you, minister, not your staff. You can give the public wrist slap that you are angry with your agency, but it sits with you and the buck stops with you. No one believes there was not a hot issue brief sitting on your desk advising this matter was about to go court. This has seen private information relating to Territorians being handed over to Wilson parking. It is unbelievable. Shame on you!
Nobody on that side ever wants to step up and accept responsibility for the debacles you have created. It is a car park that does not work and has been on the receiving end of endless complaints.
I utilise that car park on occasions. I visit constituents who have to be admitted to Royal Darwin Hospital for whatever treatment needs or health issues they might have. I used it when a member of my family was in there. I remember in February sitting in the day surgery unit at Royal Darwin Hospital and being very grateful for the service we were receiving for my teenage son. He was awaiting day surgery and a woman in her seventies was sitting there. We were chatting with her and the first thing she wanted to talk to me about was how hopeless the car parking system was at Royal Darwin Hospital. Because of conditions she has, she is a regular user of Royal Darwin Hospital and as she said, ‘You never know how long you will be there’. There can be delays while you are waiting to be seen by a doctor at outpatients. In her seventies she had received a parking fine she could not afford and any appeal she made fell on deaf ears. It was, ‘Too bad, sorry, you have to pay it’.
It is inherently unfair the way that car parking system operates. I am advised there are people who have been booked for not having a ticket on the dash of their car whilst they have been at the machine trying to obtain the ticket required. That is unforgivable. I find the system confusing every time I use it. I have to read through the instructions again and double check them. Luckily the registration vehicle of my hire car is in my hand on the key tag.
One day I assisted the person behind me, who was struggling to work out how to use the parking system. Even though it has been in place for a couple of years, it is not getting any easier to use. People hate it. It is unworkable and costly, and this government is failing to act on it.
I have also been advised that people who return to their vehicle just over their time limit by a couple of minutes because they have been delayed in a clinic, the X-ray unit or consultation with a doctor, are booked by the Wilson inspectors - who are forever lurking in the car park - with no consideration of why they were delayed. This is absolutely inhuman. It is unforgiveable.
The AMA has raised objections to this parking system. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation of the Northern Territory has raised concerns. The ANMFNT has advised me that through its union it has had productive meetings with the Department of Health and management at the Royal Darwin Hospital regarding the car parking issue. I have been advised that RDH management has been receptive and responsive to the demands put forward in those discussions, and I acknowledge the bureaucracy for that.
Clearly the obstacle is the minister, who is not listening to staff or what the issues are with this debacle of a system. People have other questions about this Wilson Parking debacle, including from the estimates process; how much revenue is being raised through this system and what assurances do we have that the money is being put back into the health system for the benefit of Territorians?
We do not know how much money is being raised by Wilson Parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital car park because it is commercial-in-confidence. You can ask the question in estimates, but the answer you will get is, ‘Sorry, it is commercial-in-confidence. We cannot tell you.’ That is no surprise from these government members given they hate accountability and transparency. They do not want to tell Territorians what is really happening. This is the hallmark of how they operate, not only across Health, but every portfolio they operate.
Let us be very clear, we are here to debate a bill which has come about because of the incompetence of the CLP government.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I rise as the local member for Casuarina where the Royal Darwin Hospital is situated. This issue about car parking continues to be raised as a concern. I am really glad we are debating this today because the issue of details provided to the government to be handed over to a third party is simply outrageous. Territorians do not provide their details to government agencies so they can be provided to third parties.
I am very glad we seem to have agreement in this House on that point, because Territorians have been waiting for the government to stand up for them on this issue. I am glad about actions taken by the member for Johnston, who was working very hard on this to ensure we were listening. I am glad about the actions brought on by the opposition to ensure this issue is dealt with in a timely manner, in response to what has been raised to us consistently by constituents. I am glad the minister has also brought on actions to amend the bill because that is what is expected by the Territorians we represent.
This week I doorknocked two people within doors of each other who had received fines through the parking system at Royal Darwin Hospital in the last few weeks. One of them told me they were issued the fine as they were at the parking meter topping up. They explained this to the parking warden, but unfortunately they did not get a reprieve. This is how fines are being issued at the Royal Darwin Hospital. The parking issues are huge around this fining system.
Regarding the privacy issue, which is a breach of trust, and we all agree on that, there are deeper issues about how on earth the Minister for Transport did not know this was occurring. Yesterday we heard from the Chief Minister that he had learnt about it through the NT News. We are expected to believe the government learnt about the fact the department had been taken to court and that Wilson had won the right to access Territorians’ private details through the media?
That is a pretty big issue. I hope it is being rectified within the government. As a Territorian, that does not make me feel confident about the security of my details. I know the wider Territory community feels that way. There was no representation from the department present when this went through the court. Again, that is concerning, and nobody was there even whispering ‘No’ or making representations on behalf of Territorians’ rights to have their details protected.
Nevertheless, I am glad this has been introduced on urgency and we are dealing with this issue now. I hope this is not blamed on public servants because the members who have spoken so far are correct: the minister and the government must take some responsibility for this.
I encourage the government to heed the member for Johnston’s advice that Territorians have not received information about whether any exchange of details has occurred in the interim or what this process means. They are very concerned about what level of access to their private details has already been provided. I encourage the government to talk to Territorians about the security of their details.
Going more broadly to the circumstances that have brought about such an action, Territorians continue to pay in a myriad of ways for a system that remains chaotic. It is an issue that has been raised in this House consistently for well over a year, and the government has been promising to fix it. I will refer to an NT News article written in March 2014 about meter maids and men, which has been already referenced, that talked about the anger over the convoluted parking system.
In March last year there were promises to fix this parking system. There were promises in the October Casuarina by-election to fix the Royal Darwin Hospital parking system. Of course, it has not happened. The former minister, the member for Araluen, stated that complaints had been consistent:
She also went on to say:
That was September 2014, during the Casuarina by-election. Let us think about that, ‘We do not want to be criticised as a government for a car park people are not particularly happy about’. Here we are in 2015, the middle of the year, and you are still being criticised as a government for a car park people are not happy about.
As local member, I see regularly the impacts of the convoluted parking system at the Royal Darwin Hospital, particularly down Rocklands Drive. There is a whole lane of the road outside the hospital taken up by parked cars. It is an ongoing issue. It happens because people are trying to avoid what parking at Royal Darwin Hospital entails. It is happening in areas around the hospital identified as Casuarina Coastal Reserve, which is also presenting problems for local residents. But most importantly, the car parking along Rocklands Drive is blocking the visibility for cars, pedestrians and ambulances coming in and out of the hospital. If you have ever stood there – which many members opposite will have done, particularly the Minister for Health, I am sure – there are cars and ambulances going in and out of the hospital constantly, around the clock. Their visibility is hampered by a lane of cars parked on Rocklands Drive.
Within my electorate I have many people who work at the hospital, many who live close to it because they need consistent access, and others a bit further away who go to it regularly by car. This is raised with me every time I go doorknocking or hold a mobile office. People want to talk about this problem and have wanted to raise privacy issues.
This has really been brought home to me because when this issue came up last week I was having to visiting the hospital regularly. I was in and out for three days over the weekend under not very pleasant circumstances. When you get a phone call to tell you something has gone wrong with somebody in hospital and you have to make the mad dash there and are driving around trying to stay calm while looking for a park, it is distressing. I know that has been raised by a number of people. It has been raised by the public through the media, but it was an odd moment for me to be on the media trying to stand up for Territorians on the privacy and car parking issues while, at the same time, heading in and out of the car park myself.
I saw drivers nearly having accidents around the Royal Darwin Hospital car park. I suppose there is easy access to the hospital if it happens, but there were many near misses. I saw signs across the entire main strip of Royal Darwin Hospital saying work would commence soon. They have been around for quite a long time – since late last year. I saw many signs that said, ‘Do not park here’ – big yellow ones that seem new. There were many signs to say a car park was closed and to head another way. The markings on the road were not very clear and there was chaos, and that was before I even got to a car parking meter.
As I sat in the room with a family member who had just had surgery, I looked out over the car park and saw they were slapping fines on cars of people who were stuck in hospital and people who were there with sick family members and had not remembered to top up the parking meter; those who thought they may stay there for two or four hours and happened to be there for 12. That was raised with me this week and also raised with the Minister for Health because we both received correspondence from local residents who were in the hospital for 12 hours. How can you possibly prepare for that? How do you know that will happen? You do not.
It has been brought home to me this week. I knew it was a massive issue for my local constituents, who want to see the car parking chaos finish. They want a resolution, and they want to know their private details are valued and protected by the government. I am glad to have spoken in this debate today to make sure their details are protected.
I am proud to be part of an opposition that will continue to see that parking issues are resolved and this unfair system is fixed. We are committed to that because we recognise the importance of access to quality healthcare and this is a part of accessing our important hospital system. I implore the government to use this opportunity to truly work on car parking issues at Royal Darwin Hospital immediately so we are not here again debating this issue, or other issues relating to a system that has already been identified by the CLP government as a mistake.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments today. I will make a few comments based on what has been said. Sadly, this debate was taken away from what we are trying to achieve as a government, and that is simply to protect Territorians’ information.
Much of the rhetoric from the opposition – although I believe they support the intent of the legislation – was on the rights, wrongs and philosophies about whether or not we have paid car parking in hospitals, whether it is RDH or elsewhere. One of the biggest pieces of rhetoric must have been from the member for Nhulunbuy, who stormed in here and tried to rewrite history. To say things like this government’s hand was forced because of the member for Johnston coming forward with his own legislation - member for Nhulunbuy, you can try to rewrite history, but that is not the way it happened.
I only learnt of the member for Johnston’s bill yesterday. In fact, we had been working on a solution from the moment it was made known to us that there was a court order which would release some 8500 pieces of information to Wilson Security. I have said publicly before, I was angry about the process, but rather than focus on that anger and dwell on the past, we focused on motivating a team to get behind us and find a solution.
The moment we learnt of this information was when the work started to find a solution, not because someone’s hand has been forced by the member for Johnston, who walked in here yesterday and tabled some clumsily written legislation.
Unfortunately the debate has focused on private car parking philosophies. I do not know how you used to govern, but we do not try to micromanage our departments. We have trust in our public servants to do the right thing. Does that mean everything will be perfect? Absolutely not, but when things go wrong, it is responsible to fix it and find a solution.
The member for Nhulunbuy said we cannot blame the public servants. I said I was angry with the process, but no one is blaming public servants. She also said, ‘You have to take responsibility’. Hello, what are we here for today? Why are we moving this legislation on urgency if we are not taking responsibility for fixing a problem which, if it not fixed, would see 8500 pieces of information handed over to a private security company? Rather than dwell on the past and the frustration, we have been focusing on a solution.
The member for Johnston said he had been working on this and would solve it all, yet you can see that the legislation proposed, if you read it closely, is clumsy. It does not provide a solution. There was no motion of urgency to move on this quickly, so there was no understanding whatsoever that we had 30 days to give this information to Wilson. We knew we had that time to find a solution, and the solution is here today. Member for Johnston, you had no solution in your legislation and there was no way you would make this on urgency. There was also no mention of it being retrospective.
It was as if you would come here and allow legislation to sit on the Notice Paper until the August or September sittings before it could be debated, with no understanding that the government was given 30 days to respond to Wilson. That time would have well and truly passed. You had no regard whatsoever for the 8500 Territorians whose information would have been given to this private company.
If you had put some thought into this rather than just play politics you would have done this retrospectively, but you had not thought about that either. How about we stop playing politics and try to do the right thing, which is to protect the information, as Territorians expect of their government.
Member for Nhulunbuy, is someone taking responsibility for it? You are damn right. I am taking responsibility for it. That is why we are here to move this legislation on urgency.
The facts are, on learning about the court order we focused on how we can protect Territorians. We have worked day and night to find a solution to this problem, not due to some bill being introduced by the member for Johnston, a clumsy bill with no retrospective consideration and no regard for the 8500 Territorians at risk if we do not fix this today. Let there be no politics in thus; let us pass this legislation, let us protect the information of Territorians and move through this as soon as we possibly can. Let us put aside the debate about the philosophies of car parks for another day. Today is about fixing, adding to and strengthening our legislation to ensure third-party private companies cannot access personal information.
There will always be, as I said earlier in the debate to the member for Nelson, a reason to pass on personal information to competent authorities, but there are control mechanisms in place to ensure that information is only used for specific purposes. Have we those same guarantees with private companies? I do not know, but I do not want to take the risk. Hence, this legislation needs to go through today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I know we will get onto the clauses in a minute. I have some general questions, minister. Could you say who is allowed access presently to information from number plates? Which bodies are allowed to take it presently?
Mr CHANDLER: I am seeking some further advice, but my understanding at the moment is local government such as Darwin City Council, Palmerston City Council, Katherine Town Council, Alice Springs Town Council and Parks and Wildlife. I believe also the Waterfront Corporation, but it does its car parking through a contract with Darwin city, so it would be done through its system as well.
Mr WOOD: What about Commonwealth bodies, for instance, as I mentioned, the airport? Does the Airport Corporation have power to get that information?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it does. I believe the contract has been in place since about 1998 that allows it to do that through the Commonwealth. That was reviewed again in 2003 under the former Labor government and that access is still there.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, this about the RDH parking, not the airport. Please contain your comments to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Whoa! Mr Chair, this is an important issue in relation to …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Let me finish!
Mr CHAIR: No. Member for Nelson, resume your seat!
Mr WOOD: Let me finish.
Mr CHAIR: Resume your seat! This is the Motor Vehicles (Private Car Parking) Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 131). Okay? It has nothing to do with airport parking. I ask you …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr CHAIR: … to contain your … Member for Nelson, please resume your seat!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! I dissent from your ruling and I will put it in writing.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you are quite entitled to dissent. Put that in writing. I assume, therefore, that you have concluded your comments.
Mr WOOD: No, I have not. I am asking for a ruling from the Speaker.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, if you feel confident your dissent motion will be upheld, then we can proceed. If you feel you may not gain the support of the House with regard to a dissent motion, then I am prepared to allow the minister to continue with those remarks and, potentially, answer your question if the minister feels he would like …
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, please … the minister then may be able to offer an explanation.
When the Chair is speaking, the Chair expects to be heard. Member for Nelson, you have been a Chair of Committees and Deputy Speaker yourself and I am sure you know and appreciate the position. You have been in this House for a long time.
Nevertheless, if the minister is prepared to answer the question with regard to airport parking and its relationship to this bill, I will leave that in the purview of the minister. First, member for Nelson, I need to know your intent. Do you wish to proceed with the dissent or will you withdraw it?
Mr WOOD: Thank you for those comments, Mr Chair. Yes, I have been Chair of Committees for a long period of time. The committee stage allows …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, please …
Mr WOOD: No, you made the comment. You asked me the question …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I asked a simple question. Will you proceed …
Mr WOOD: I am trying …
Mr CHAIR: Will you withdraw …
Mr WOOD: No, let me answer. You are obstructing me. You asked for an answer and I am giving you an answer. I will withdraw the dissent if you at least give me a chance to explain why my questioning is going down this path and what relevance it has to this bill.
If you do not understand that I cannot help it. I am asking the minister this question to make sure this bill does not have ramifications for other bodies, because the bill is not specific to Wilson. This bill just talks about ‘a person’. I am making sure it is not picking up people who unintentionally should not be picked up by this bill, and that is why I am going down that path. If you do not believe I can do that then I will take it to dissent. Otherwise, I am happy to withdraw it.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, have you withdrawn or not?
Mr WOOD: I have withdrawn, as long as I can continue my questioning.
Mr CHAIR: I said that is now at the discretion of the minister. Minister, are you prepared to take the questions?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I am.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I will it explain again. The reason I am asking that question is because this bill is not specific to Wilson Parking. You have introduced something that could cover a range of people who have access to number plate information, and that is what I am getting at. For the airport, could this bill – not necessarily cars in restricted car parks, but say someone parks on an area in the car parking area – it might be the light aircraft area or somewhere else that does not have those restrictions but they have gone over their limit – has that Commonwealth – I do not know if it is a Commonwealth body. I think the airport is private …
Mr ELFERINK: Commonwealth owned, statutory or corporation, I think.
Mr WOOD: Will they come under the scope of this legislation?
Member for Nelson, that is a really good question. Airports, such as Alice Springs and Darwin, have access to data for infringement purposes. The 8500 records we are talking about protecting have come through a discovery notice, where Wilson Security took the government to court, and through a discovery notice they stand to get access to that information. This legislation only precludes companies following that process in the future, whether it is Wilson Security or any other private security company.
Those arrangements are already in place, they are contractual arrangements between the government and other bodies, such as the airports corporation. They remain in force and will continue to do so. This legislation protects that as well.
Mr WOOD: I know the Attorney-General mentioned this. Some councils have authority to collect fees on private car parks. That is different to collecting money from the waterfront. It is a private car park; are they entitled to do that for a private car park?
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps I can give some guidance; this is why during the second reading debate I was so careful to differentiate between the criminal and civil components of what is occurring here.
Any fine issued as a result of law that creates an offence to park in a certain place or to do any other thing, but for the sake of this conversation parking, means that is enforceable through the process of pursuing the criminal law. Even if it is a private car park, for arguments sake, the disabled car park at Coles …
Mr WOOD: Just say it is not the disabled car park because I understand …
Mr ELFERINK: If there is an offence that says you cannot park in a private car park for more than two hours, whether it is in Yulara or an airport, the offence is pursued, not the car park. The law has been created for a reason, through an elected body, which then allows that offence to be pursued even on private land. If the issuing of the fine is in accordance with the law in relation to a breach of the law, it falls under the recovery processes in criminal law.
If we are talking about a civil contract, which is the contractual arrangement between, in this case, Wilsons and the person who parks in the car park at the hospital, then the recovery process is such that you have to recover as you would any civil debt. This bill is designed to do one thing, which is to say we will not use Territory publically held records for the recovery of the civil debt between two parties when no criminal law has been broken. It is a very important distinction to make.
The question you need to ask is not whether the car park is private or public, or a disabled park or otherwise. The question is, what is the nature of the fine issued? A fine is an allegation you have done something wrong and when you pay the fine you are effectively pleading guilty. If you read carefully the back of a fine, it describes that if you dispute it, there are processes which you go through to have the matter heard in a court of law as a criminal matter.
In the case of an arrangement between the Northern Territory government and the Federal Airports Corporation, the offence would be some civil offence, or there is some contractual arrangement pre-existing with the Federal Airports Corporation. Nothing in this prevents the government from honouring that contractual arrangement if it is a private car park. What it does is prevent people seeking discovery of information held by government. You can no longer go into the Local Court and say, ‘There is a breach of contract between me and somebody who parked in my car park. I want to know who they are. I have their registration number and I need a court order to get that information.’
The court order is the only way a person can compulsorily acquire that information from the government. The enforcement of a contractual arrangement between government and something like the Federal Airports Corporation is a matter for that form of contract, which is pre-existing, so there is no court order in place. In this instance, government is resistant. They will lose under the current arrangements and that is what we are trying to change. So you have that criminal component.
The other thing I will say in a practical sense about the airports is that they run on a boom gate model, if I am not mistaken, unless you are parking right out the front. The contract is resolved before you drive out of the boom gate. I suspect you will find Victoria, New South Wales, us and other jurisdictions will now start doing the same about their information. Boom gates will be the way of the future because these contractual arrangements will be unsatisfactory in the public mind as a general principle.
Mr WOOD: Minister, if Darwin City Council ran the hospital car park, going by what you said, there would be no problem finding out who did not pay their fine? Correct?
Mr ELFERINK: No, not correct. Do not look at who the authority is. What is being enforced is the question.
Let us say we created a regulatory environment that said at the Royal Darwin Hospital there was a by-law to say you could only park in certain hours, and then we got the council to enforce that, no worries. It would recover that in the same way it recovers a fine off the street. At the waterfront there is a series of by-laws, and they have their own local government authority, for lack of a better term. It has the capacity to issue fines so the nature of the fine you have is of a criminal nature. You receive the fine and on the back of the ticket is written, ‘If you dispute what is in this, fight it in court as a criminal offence. You have been alleged to have broken this simple law.
A contract is completely different. A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two parties. When you walk up to the machine in the hospital car park, type in your details and get your ticket, and then you overstay for whatever reason, then there is a contractual arrangement. There is no fine, there is no by-law that says you cannot do that, it is just contractual. ‘I will agree to pay you X number of dollars for parking in that car park for such a time.’ One of the default clauses in that contract is if you overstay your welcome, extra money will be demanded of you. It is $65 for overstaying your time.
Mr WOOD: If you replace Wilson with the Darwin city council using the same process …
Mr ELFERINK: No, is the answer.
Mr WOOD: … where they give you a ticket ...
Mr ELFERINK: If there is the same contractual arrangement between you and council, which is not enforced by a by-law, then it is a contractual arrangement and it is not enforceable in the same fashion. What makes a council, government or a police officer’s fine enforceable is that it creates an offence which is then breached – criminal law. An agreement between two people – I will pay you $4 to park my car in your car park for two hours – is a civil agreement between two parties. It does not matter who the enforcing body is, what matters is the nature of the agreement.
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the clock has just struck 12 noon. Ordinarily we would suspend for lunch. What are your intentions, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I move that the Chair do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the committee will resume after Question Time.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Lookrukin Indigenous Women’s Leadership Development Program participants accompanied by Camille Lew Fatt. I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 43 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Mr VOWLES: We worked quite hard over the weekend as you know, and we sent our amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act to you. With regard to Part 3, section 18, we amended it to read, the registrar must not provide an extract from or a copy of an entry contained in the record for the purpose of the recovery of private car parking fees’.
Was that considered in the changes?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Johnston, you said you worked hard on a bill over the weekend, and no doubt you did. Did you take up the offer to speak with the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant, about your bill and did he give you any advice on your proposed bill?
Mr VOWLES: Have you answered my question, first? I will speak to the Solicitor-General because we are supporting this coming through; it was simply a question to ask you, as the minister, about our changes in a collaborative approach.
Mr CHANDLER: I could go into further detail, but my advice is when you speak to the Solicitor-General it will become very clear why that portion of the act you are suggesting we put in would not be a good idea.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, minister. Can you give me that advice here, please, if you know it?
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is that it would not address the issue we are faced with. If we did what you are suggesting it would not prevent any person in the future applying to the courts and getting a discovery order, or the government being left in the same position as it is now.
Mr VOWLES: Part 3, section 4 of our amendments says a private car park does not include an area under the control of an agency, a government owned corporation or a local government council. Did you consider those amendments?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I did, but we can clear up two things because a question was asked earlier by the member for Nelson. You have to remember that in private car parks – let us say, a shopping centre, which is where the member for Nelson was going earlier – councils have contracts with the owners of those centres. A car park used by the general public is covered under the Traffic Act, which comes under the Australian Road Rules. If it is open to and used by the public it is a public car park, therefore the road rules legislation is enforced in those areas.
This legislation will not amend any of those contracts in place with local councils and shopping centres. We do not want to get confused, and the Attorney-General spoke very clearly on this earlier. We do not want to confuse the difference between contracts in place with local councils and specific shopping centres using the Traffic Act where a competent authority is writing infringement notices, compared to, in this case, a private security company not writing infringement notices. They are essentially writing contracts with their tickets. People are entering into those contracts by parking in those areas. This is not covered under the Australian Road Rules or the NT Traffic Act.
Mr VOWLES: Has any confidential information been given to Wilson?
Mr CHANDLER: I can categorically deny any information has passed from MVR, from the government, to Wilson. The order stipulated around 30 days that we had to provide that information and no information has passed over.
Mr VOWLES: Will all of the outstanding parking fines still have to be paid?
Mr ELFERINK: This is what I was trying to explain before lunch; these things are not fines. Fines are a product of a statutory body – generally an elected body, a parliament, a council – being empowered by the people who elect them to determine what is criminal and what is not.
In the case of Wilson car parking at the hospital you are engaging in a contractual arrangement between two private people – in this case a private citizen and a company – which is outside the domain of fines. A person is bound to pay or adhere to the terms of this contract, the terms of which, without having paid a great deal of attention to them myself, will be on a signpost somewhere in the car park. You see this in car parks all the time. There are any number of cases called the ticket cases that deal with the arrangement and enforceability of those terms of contract – a civil arrangement.
In the arrangement with Wilson you contract with a machine, effectively, to purchase a ticket to stay there for a particular period of time. If you then depart that environment within that period of time, the contract has been completed by both sides and no consequence follows from it. If, however, because of some delay inside the hospital, you extend yourself beyond that period of time which is the time agreed to in the contract, then a damage, if you like, will flow to Wilson under the terms of that contract. In …
Mr VOWLES: That is a yes?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, do not …
Mr VOWLES: Is that a yes, minister?
Mr ELFERINK: Do not use the words incorrectly. Mr Chair, I have the call, I understand.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Johnston, please, you have asked a question and the Attorney-General is answering it.
Mr ELFERINK: If you are going to say ‘fine’, know what a fine is!
Mr VOWLES: I know what a contract is. I do not need a lecture from you.
Mr ELFERINK: It is like trying to explain algebra to a garden slug.
Mr CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is the problem we have. It is not a fine.
Mr VOWLES: Fine, contract: whatever. I am asking the minister, not you. Sit down.
Mr ELFERINK: Then speak English, sir.
Mr CHAIR: Order! Member for Johnston.
Mr ELFERINK: Understand what you are talking about. Your ineptitude is apparent to all, which is why I am standing here with a crayon and sheet of butcher’s paper trying to explain it to you. He is not interested, clearly.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General.
Mr VOWLES: I have my answer.
Mr CHANDLER: If I may, for the member for Johnston’s information, there is still an alleged debt between Wilson and the drivers of those vehicles who used the car park. That allegation of the debt owed to Wilson would still be there. This legislation will prevent them from using government-held information to recover the debt.
All we are trying to do is prevent Territorians’ private information which is held by the government being passed on to a third party, in this case Wilson Security.
Mr WOOD: I thank the minister for his offer of a briefing during lunch; I appreciate that. I said I would repeat some of those questions as they need to be on record.
You mentioned a competent authority, and I received an explanation of what a competent authority is. But could Wilson Parking apply to be a competent authority to get around this clause?
Mr CHANDLER: Technically they could become a competent authority, but that would mean changes to the existing contracts and would depend on whether Health wanted Wilson to be involved. But it would revert back then to using the Australian Road Rules, the NT Traffic Act and doing it just like a council does today. Technically they could, but it would have to be through an arrangement with Health.
Mr ELFERINK: Then you would be enforcing a fine.
Mr WOOD: Then you would end up with the issue you have today. They would have knowledge of people’s registration numbers.
Mr CHANDLER: I will answer that. This is the important part. These competent authorities have frameworks built around them that very much control how that information is used. My concern is – and I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling – that when you pass on information to a private company there are no guarantees that information could not be used again. I am not saying it would be, but it could be.
I will give you an example. Let us say we give Wilson security your registration number because you parked at Royal Darwin Hospital and stayed longer than you said you would. Wilson then alleges you owe X amount of dollars for parking there. If, for instance, your information is passed to Wilson and it is to be used in accordance with the court order – once, to follow up on that debt – what happens in six months’ time if you are caught again overstaying your welcome?
What guarantees do we have that Wilson will not use that information again? What are the guarantees? I do not think there is a way of guaranteeing that like we can with a competent authority, such as a council, that would have to access the information again. In the case of a private company, what guarantees do you have that they would not keep that information or even on-sell that information to somebody else. That is my, and I think Territorians’, worry. This legislation will prevent that from occurring.
Mr WOOD: I am worried too because I heard today that when you have a debt, you have to ring a Perth number, which means our information could have gone interstate. I do not want to harp on this because I have other questions, but theoretically the airport corporation is the competent authority over airport parking, but the airport authority is really a private company. There is nothing stopping Wilson parking, except perhaps the contract saying, ‘Next time we apply for this we will apply for it as a competent authority. We can then get the registration number information we cannot get at the present.’ Will this legislation still protect people?
Mr ELFERINK: It will probably not be a problem in relation to this. In regard to a competent authority acting on behalf of a democratically-elected organ that has the power to issue by-laws, laws and those things, the information is still owned by the government. The government can put rules around what you do with that information. That is to say, if you execute any outstanding matters that arise out of our ownership of this information you can only use it for those purposes. That is the arrangement as I understand it. I could stand corrected, but those are the arrangements you can have where a private provider will enforce tickets so government can ultimately sell the debt owed to it by other businesses. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem with the arrangement in the Wilson environment is that the information then finds its way to Wilson and it is theirs to dispose of as it sees fit. That is the difference.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, that is good. It is worth clarifying because it is an important area. It leads me to the question about the Wilson contract with the Department of Health. If the Wilson contract was made at a time when they could do what this act is trying to overturn, is the contract void because we have brought in legislation which does not allow them to do something they could do when they signed the contract?
Mr ELFERINK: There are several elements that apply to the contractual environment. The first question is: is this an acquisition of property rights? Do they possess a right that we are now taking away? The advice I received from my Solicitor-General was quite certain on this point. No, it is not an acquisition of property rights. If we were taking something they possessed away from them then that would be an acquisition of property rights. That would render the Territory liable for compensation on just terms. That is slightly different to what you are asking. You are asking about the effect on the contractual environment. Like any contract, nothing prevents Wilson from pursuing these matters in the future.
They are still able to pursue everybody they determine to be a debtor who owes them money through such processes as they may have. This then comes down to a question of their business model. If their business model was predicated on the assumption only that they would go down this path of finding out who owned the cars, it is a pretty weak business model. I will tell you why.
Simply being able to match a registration number to a person does not mean that is the person you entered the contract with. My wife is driving my car around town at the moment because hers is in the workshop. If she goes to the hospital, and I am unaware of it, and she breaches a contract with Wilson Parking, they can knock on my door and I would say, ‘It is not my contract. I do not know what you are talking about.’
Wilson then has to go through a whole bunch of other evidentiary steps to link the person they are pursuing to the actual contract they have. There are a number of contract cases on common law that deal with all of these issues; they are called the ticket cases. In truth, if that is there business model, that is something they should have thought about before they negotiated with the Northern Territory government.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said, ‘If we bring in this legislation, Wilson will have to find another way to collect fines’. I do not want to give them any hints, but if they cannot get the payment for the contracts that were not agreed to then, unless they have licence numbers and the addresses to go with them, they have no way of collecting that money. Would that be fair enough to say? And that would be their fault.
Mr ELFERINK: I cannot speak for Wilson’s business model. That is their choice. They have a system in place; they have contractual terms on a sign and I am sure it is on the back of the ticket. I have not seen the ticket, but I guess it is. I have used the car park at the hospital. I have never read the back of the ticket; who does? But it would have contractually obliged me to meet my terms of the contract. All we are saying as a government is if you enforce your contractual terms, that is fine, but do not expect to do it with government-held information. If that is a flaw in your business model, then that is a matter for you.
Mr CHANDLER: I have seen the contract but I cannot say I have read every page in it. I could not find anything in there that obliges the Northern Territory government to help Wilson in any way to recover debts.
To me this whole thing has uncovered a flaw in their business model. Now they are expecting government, through the passage of that information to them, to fix their business model, which we are trying to prevent here today.
Mr ELFERINK: Considering the events of New South Wales and Victoria, I would be very surprised if they were unaware of the reality of this sort of thing.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, ministers. I do not think I have any more questions unless something comes out from further discussion. Thank you, once again, for the briefing.
Mr VOWLES: Minister Chandler, you just said you could not find anything in the contract, so we do not have to pay any cost to Wilson because of the court case and them recovering their fines – the government is not accountable or liable for any cost to help recover that?
Mr CHANDLER: Exactly. I know I cannot mention that you were not in the Chamber, but that is exactly what minister Elferink just described to the member for Nelson.
Mr VOWLES: I am very thankful.
Mr ELFERINK: A court might rule otherwise, but the legal advice we had is the answer is no.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 42 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act, which pertains to domestic violence orders issued by police, known as police DVOs. This amendment will ensure that whilst an authorised officer defined as senior sergeant or above is authorised to make a police DVO, they do not need to physically note the matters on the police DVO and can authorise a junior officer to do so.
Section 41 of the Domestic Violence Act gives authorised officers the powers to issue a police DVO in circumstances where the authorised officer is satisfied that the police DVO is necessary to ensure a person’s safety because of urgent circumstances or because it is not otherwise practicable in those circumstances to obtain a DVO by filing an application in the Local Court, and a Local Court DVO might reasonably have been made had it been practicable to apply for one. A police DVO may be made even if the defendant has not been given an opportunity to answer any allegation made in relation to the making of a police DVO.
Section 42 sets out the particulars that must be recorded on a police DVO – being the reasons for making it and the time and place for its return to the local court – and states that the authorised police officer must record those particulars on the police DVO.
Recently an increasing number of respondents are arguing that the police DVO that has the particulars recorded by an officer who is not an authorised officer is invalid. The interpretation has not been widely adopted by the courts. However, in the interests of safety of victims of domestic violence, this amendment is being made to put the matter beyond doubt.
Police DVOs are often issued in the immediate aftermath of an alleged domestic and family violence incident, and are usually served upon the defendant forthwith. In circumstances where the defendant is not taken into custody, this offers immediate protection to the protected person. The police DVO has immediate effect in that any breach of the DVO between the time of service and the first return date to the local court will result in a charge of a breach of a DVO. The police DVO also acts as a summons for the defendant to appear in the Local Court where they may seek to contest the police DVO, or alternatively it may be confirmed for a period of time determined by the Local Court.
From an operational perspective, the police officer in the field contacts the authorised police officer, often by telephone, to seek authorisation to issue a police DVO. The police officer will then record the particulars as dictated by the authorised officer on the police DVO. The order can then be immediately served, thus providing immediate protection to the protected person. If the authorised officer has to personally record the details on the police DVO, the officer in the field will have to physically seek out the nearest authorised officer, which will often result in significant delays, thus endangering the protected person. The delay may also result in the police having difficulty in locating the parties to which the order applies.
The amendment clarifies that the authorised police officer may cause the relevant particulars to be recorded on the police DVO by another officer, and it is not necessary for the authorised officer to record the particulars in person or be physically present when the particulars are recorded on the police DVO.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill represented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the recovery of debts, strengthen debt management processes and streamline the debt payment processes in the Northern Territory, which is timely considering the debate we have just completed.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act establishes the Fines Recovery Unit, the Territory’s debt collection agency which is given the powers under the act to enforce court fines and penalties imposed by way of infringement notices. As of 18 March 2015 over 63 000 individual fine defaulters owed in excess of $58m. Given the amount of debt outstanding, it is clear the current measures are insufficient and are failing to encourage people to pay their debts and outstanding fines.
This government is committed to responsible fiscal management through a more proactive approach to pursuing the Territory’s debt. It is important that sanctions are pursued against fine defaulters so they are encouraged to pay and be held accountable for their actions.
In order to improve the effectiveness of the Fines Recovery Unit and provide other mechanisms for enforcement, the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Amendment Bill will implement the following new enforcement measures:
1. publication of the Northern Territory’s top fine defaulters on a website
2. immobilisation of motor vehicles owned or used by fine defaulters who continue to evade the Fines Recovery Unit, and
3. extension of cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform any functions in relation to fine defaulters.
The new enforcement measures will be aimed at those high-end defaulters owing $10 000 or more who blatantly disregard their obligation to pay despite being more than capable to do so. It will not be targeted at those members of the community who take responsibility for their actions and pay their fines, or those suffering financial hardship. However, those people who commit offences and refuse to pay will face increasingly harsh enforcement measures.
Although this government will be taking a hard-line approach with fine defaulters, we accept that for many reasons there may be individuals who are unable to pay their fines by the due date. If this is the case there are alternate options available, with the Fines Recovery Unit regularly implementing flexible payment plans for those who are unable to pay their fines in full. Given this option is available there is no excuse for defaulters to refuse to cooperate.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Amendment Bill 2015 inserts new Division 7A into Part 5 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, which will provide the Fines Recovery Unit with the power to immobilise a fine defaulter’s vehicle. Similar to other enforcement sanctions under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, the immobilisation of a defaulter’s vehicle will be at the discretion of the Fines Recovery Unit, although it should be noted the targets for wheel clamping will be repeat high-end defaulters who owe more than $10 000.
Division 7A has been drafted to allow for the immobilisation of fine defaulters’ vehicles to be outsourced for the task to be carried out by an immobilisation officer, being a bailiff, Director or Deputy Director of the Fines Recovery Unit or another person approved by the director. If the task is outsourced, then the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit will retain discretion and make any decision regarding the appropriateness of the immobilisation.
New section 66C will provide for the immobilisation of a fine defaulter’s vehicle for a period not exceeding seven days through the attachment of a device, such as a wheel clamp, or by any other means approved by the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit. Although the provisions will initially be enforced through wheel clamping, the provisions have been redrafted to ensure they remain technologically neutral and will be applicable even if the technology of wheel clamping is superseded by other means of vehicle immobilisation. Upon the application of an immobilisation device, section 66C(3) will require a notice to be affixed to the vehicle advising of the immobilisation and outlining how the defaulter can seek to have the removal of the immobilisation.
New section 66G provides the person authorised to apply or remove an immobilisation device with the power to enter any premises for the purposes of applying or removing an immobilisation. However, the provision will only allow entry to residential premises occupied by the fine defaulter by a bailiff without consent. Only then will the bailiff be able to enter those parts of the premises that are not a residential building, for example, a bailiff will be authorised to access driveways or carports for the purposes of applying and removing an immobilisation device.
If the immobilisation officer is not a bailiff they may not enter residential premises without consent, and if the premises is only occupied by a person other than a fine defaulter, then an immobilisation officer, whether a bailiff or otherwise, may not enter without consent. This application of the provision means that if a fine defaulter lives in a share house or unit which shares common property, a bailiff will not be authorised to enter the part of the premises which is solely occupied by other persons without consent, but will be able to access areas of common property.
New section 66K will also provide the immobilisation officer with protection from criminal or civil liability for an act done in good faith in the exercise of power, or performance of a function as an immobilisation officer.
In order to ensure the safety of the defaulter and any other person, new section 66D will provide that the vehicle must not be immobilised if:
(a) the vehicle could be a safety or traffic hazard
(b) the safety of the driver or other occupants may be at risk, for example, at an isolated location; or
(c) it is otherwise inappropriate.
In accordance with new sections 66F and 95(7)(c), the immobilisation will be released if:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full
(b) the defaulter enters into a payment plan; the immobilisation will cause undue inconvenience to a person other than the fine defaulter, for example
(c) if the vehicle is the only available means of transporting the debtor’s children to and from school; or otherwise
In order to deter interference with an immobilised vehicle, new sections 66H and 66J will create offences for moving or tampering with an immobilise vehicle or immobilisation device, which will carry a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units. Due to the operation of section 43BE of the Criminal Code Act the offences will not apply to a person authorised under any other act to move a vehicle, for example, a police officer acting in accordance with Part 5 of the Traffic Regulations.
The bill also inserts new Division 7B into Part 5 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to provide the Fines Recovery Unit with the power to name and shame fine defaulters who owe more than $10 000 by publishing their full name, suburb of residence and amount owing on a publicly accessible website. In order to ensure the safety of the community, the names of fine defaulters who are children, protected persons for whom a domestic violence order is sought or in force, and any other person whose safety would be endangered will not be published on the website. The bill will also consequently amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis that a person has been listed as a fine defaulter under the new naming and shaming provisions.
New sections 66N and 95(7)(d) will require the Fines Recovery Unit to remove the defaulters name from the website if:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full;
(c) at the discretion of the Fines Recovery Unit.
The bill will also amend section 62 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to extend cessation of the business orders to individuals. Under section 62 the Registrar of Motor Vehicles may, at the request of the Fines Recovery Unit, cease all business of the body corporate which is a fine defaulter.
In order to encourage fine defaulters to pay their debts, cessation of business will be extended to individuals and will provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform one or more of the following functions in relation to a fine defaulter:
(a) issue or renew a licence to drive
(b) test the defaulter for the purpose of issuing a licence to drive
(c) register, renew or transfer the registration of a vehicle
(d) grant or renew a motor vehicle trader’s licence
(e) grant a temporary licence under section 137 of the Motor Vehicle’s Act
(f) grant or renew a pastoral vehicle permit;
(g) issue a number plate; or
(h) a function described by regulation.
Similarly to new ‘naming and shaming’ and immobilisation provisions, a cessation of business order will be lifted as soon as:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full or
Prior to 2012, a cessation of business order could be applied to individuals; however, the provision was amended by the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 to apply solely to bodies corporate. At the time the amendment addressed concerns that:
(a) the application of the provision to individuals would negatively impact on families who shared vehicles; and
The bill will also make a number of other minor amendments to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to provide:
1. for bailiff costs to be paid in relation to Community Work Orders; and
2. for Community Work Orders to be served by a bailiff or the Director or Deputy Director of the Fines Recovery Unit.
The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Regulations to prescribe:
(a) enforcement fees for the new sanctions;
(b) an enforcement fee for bailiff costs incurred when serving Community Work Orders; and
(c) the threshold amount for the application of the immobilisation and ‘naming and shaming’.
The bill also converts all offences in the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act so they will comply with the principles of criminal responsibilities and Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
Transitional provisions are provided in the bill so that all amendments, excluding those relating to offences, apply retrospectively to any outstanding debt, whether incurred prior to or after commencement. The principles of criminal responsibility of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act are only applicable to offences committed after commencement.
The community expects that those who commit offences are punished and the imposition of sanctions under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act ensures the integrity of monetary penalties as effective sanctions for minor offences. The proposed amendments and new enforcement measures will ensure fine defaulters are aware of the consequences for failing to pay their fine debt, and are encouraged to pay and be held accountable for their actions.
I commend the bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I notify the Assembly that I withdraw the Notice of Motion of General Business Notice No 1 pursuant to Standing Order 173(5).
Continued from 30 October 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to see government cleaning up the Notice Paper. Over the course of the Assembly a few things have been become backed up on it. This is one of them, and it is good to see it come on.
For the benefit of people listening, this annual report was tabled in October last year. It relates to the financial year 2013-14. We have just finished debating the 2015-16 budget, and many of the issues covered in this report are now history. We covered much of the economic debate during the 2015-16 budget debate.
In the report this period covers the Territory still owned the Territory Insurance Office and the Territory was not talking about a plan to sell or lease the port, so there is a range of issues where time has moved on since this report was tabled. Fundamentally, this report covers a time no longer relevant to the current economic debate and we are having after this, I note, a debate on the mid-year report, which covers the 2014-15 financial year.
I went through the notes from the Treasurer at the time, Mr Giles, and the financial report it. It is important to note that at that time the Treasurer was the Chief Minister. His remarks were short. He thanked the members for Araluen and Fong Lim as former Treasurers. Time has passed on. One is no longer the former Treasurer and one will probably no longer be thanked.
It is significant to note that one of the key factors to an improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget was the revised timing of the handover of the $521m Darwin Correctional Precinct.
As the then Treasurer explained in his contribution:
To summarise, the effect of the new prison sliding from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and coming on the books then is a significant improvement to the 2013-14 bottom line. I would not call it a magic trick or a card trick, but I also would not call it a miracle of economic management. It is a shift from one financial year to the next.
The former Treasurer also notes in his Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report the possibility of a 2017-18 surplus. We have seen that projected in the 2015-16 budget, and we gave in our debate on the 2015-16 budget several reasons why we believe that surplus is in danger. The current Treasurer has the forward estimates for Palmerston Regional Hospital coming on in 2018-19 while the Health minister says it will be built in the 2017-18 financial year. There is obviously a big financial difference about when Palmerston Regional Hospital will be available, running and costing money.
The Commonwealth Treasury predicted much lower GST revenues in 2017-18 than the NT Treasury. The CLP said the 2017-18 surplus will be built on cuts to the current infrastructure budget at a time when we know we will be in the post-INPEX construction stage. They are three things that put the 2017-18 surplus in considerable doubt. These are all things we debated in the 2015-16 budget and are not really relevant to the 2013-14 economic debate as time has moved on. This is a debate from 2013-14 that saw things slide into 2014-15. We have the mid-year report coming on next which is about 2014-15, and after the last sittings we finished the 2015-16 debate on the financial report.
I thank the Treasurer for bringing this TAFR back on. My remarks are about the same length as those of the previous Treasurer at the time.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
The Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2014-15 makes for interesting reading. Let me turn to two datasets.
In the mid-year economic forecast, the Treasurer and the Treasury made some forecasts about population and economic growth and other key economic indicators. The same table of data was repeated in Budget Paper No 2 of the 2015-16 budget. This was effectively delivered some six months after the mid-year review. What does it show? It looks at population growth and it has four charts for 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. It shows that only six months ago Treasury was much more optimistic about population growth than it is today.
In 2014-15 the population growth figure was overly optimistic by almost 100%. It has now being revised from 1.6% growth to 0.9% growth, which is a significant revision. Clearly, Treasury has also predicted a significant rise in population this coming financial year to coincide with the final stage of construction of the INPEX project.
They put it at 2.6% initially, but have now revised that downwards in the budget by almost 40% to 1.8%, and are now predicting a reduction to 1%. That 1% figure comes along where the budget was, so the first two years were out of sync and were overly optimistic projections of population trends.
The Treasurer and I had an extensive discussion at the estimates about population, so he knows my view. I believe we need an increasing population, as characterised by net and state migration being as close to positive as possible. I had that conversation with the Treasurer about page 7 of the Economic Review, and the graph which shows those net interstate migration figures heading south at quite an alarming rate.
It shows net and state migration, even at the height of the INPEX construction phase, is falling through the floor, negative to the extent of about 3500 people in 2014. Natural increase is flat lining and the minor upward trend of overseas arrivals is plummeting. In other words, population figures are in some trouble.
If you look at what Treasury has done and how it has revised the two figures for those financial years, we need question marks around the two financial years after that. We need to think about planning for our population, not just growing it, but retaining our Territorians and having policies and plans for that. That will probably form a large number of our conversations between now and the next election.
I asked the Treasurer about population growth during our estimates contribution. I look forward to the briefing he promised me. He wanted to be there as well so we could talk about population. We received some interesting answers, during the estimates debate, from Treasury.
I am very optimistic about the long-term future of the Territory, but I believe we have some short-term challenges which we need to plan for, and one of them goes to population. When you look at the mid-year report and compare it to Budget 2015-16, once again we see a revision around a series of predictions in the mid-year economic statement, compared to what we have seen in Budget 2015-16. One of the critical areas is employment growth. We have seen a revision down from the mid-year projections or predictions, from 3.5% in 2014-15 to 1.5% in 2015-16 for employment growth, and 2.1% down to 1.5% for 2015-16. We are concerned about the growth of employment in the Territory as we see it struggle.
It is still growing and we recognise that, but we are concerned about how employment is travelling in the Territory and the direction it is taking. Employment growth is obviously critical for the Territory. People move to the Territory to work; not many people move to the Territory to retire. That is something we would like to improve. We want people to choose to retire in the Territory.
Employment growth is critical. We have often sold the Territory around jobs, so it is concerning. The government talks about boom and bust. You could very well argue that we should be in a middle of a boom with INPEX. In the middle of the boom we are seeing the employment growth predictions in the mid-year report being scaled back in the budget.
We have some concerns about how we are attracting and keeping our population. The budget report identified the mobility of people currently working in the Territory, which I think is a good way of talking about the fly-in fly-out workers. We have a highly mobile workforce and we need to think about how we will keep them.
We should be a major attraction, especially for young mobile people who want to come to the Territory and work, but we need to convince them while they are here to settle down for a while. When you think about the unemployment problems down south, we have a way of selling the Territory. We have to recognise the early warning signs with our employment growth going backwards.
Over the last couple of weeks we have seen a couple of key economic reports published. They have shown there is growing cause for concern about Territory jobs. The ANZ job advertisement series showed a 21% decline in the year to May 2015, and the Manpower Employment Outlook Survey of Australia showed a significant decline in the hiring intentions of Territory employers by 13% over the quarter and 18% over the year. This comes at the start of the Dry Season, which is traditionally a time for optimism.
There are some early warning signs, and the latest labour force figures show fewer jobs in the year to May 2015 compared with the previous year to May 2014. All this adds up to something we need to plan for and be aware of. These are early warning signs for this government regarding how we plan for the economy.
We also should note that the mid-year economic review had predicted unemployment at this stage would be about 4.2% but it is 4.5% at the moment and heading upwards. We need to be careful, recognise the early warning signs and plan. I believe in a growing Territory, in investing in infrastructure and creating jobs. We recognise infrastructure is one of the best ways to create jobs. The Territory is still growing. We still have strong demands, especially compared to other jurisdictions around the country which are often, in many ways, mature, established cities. We still have many growing demands on us and have to meet the expectations of Territorians.
A growing Territory means more people coming and staying here. More people means more houses, schools, retail outlets and stronger transport links. We want to grow the Territory’s population. We need to recognise the problems around the net state migration loss. We need to work out how we can keep those Territorians here and stem the flow to keep that highly mobile workforce coming to the Territory. For the Territory to have many of the services it needs and wants, we need to have a growing population so we can afford that.
As the Treasurer knows, much of our GST is predicated on our population and we have to be very aware of demands on us. At the moment the population is growing through the natural birth rate. We welcome new Territorians – the newborns – but they are not the workers on the job sites around town, nor are they spending money. We need to think about how we can keep workers in the Territory.
Investing in infrastructure is something that governments and the private sector both need to do. It is crucial to creating jobs in the Territory and how we manage the population growth we want to see in the Territory. I am a big believer in big infrastructure budgets. I will not be shy about that; big infrastructure budgets are good for the Territory. The size of the infrastructure budget this year is good. It is unfortunate it was on the back of the sale of TIO, but it got the infrastructure budget back up to about where it was under the Martin and Henderson governments.
We still need to invest in infrastructure in the Territory. I still refuse to believe that the CLP’s planning for the post-INPEX construction stage is as it is in the budget books, which is to cut infrastructure spending. We will be watching that space with interest to see how the government plans around post-INPEX, but I cannot see how it will be done by cutting the infrastructure budget. It will be interesting to see. Government cannot sell TIO again; maybe there is another rabbit in the hat we will see. Realistically, when we go into that post-INPEX phase, there will be spending on infrastructure in the Northern Territory.
Part of the role of government when it spends on infrastructure is to enable businesses to conduct their business. It is great when government can put the conditions in place that create private sector investment. You can often do that through how you invest in infrastructure. You can also do that by how you approach and work with business. Clare Martin and Paul Henderson did that in approaching and working with INPEX to deliver it to the Territory. They backed it up with their Marine Supply Base. It is important for government to work with the private sector. That is how you get investment levels that spur infrastructure growth and create jobs in the Territory. They were two important achievements, one backed up by the other. The Marine Supply Base came off the back of INPEX coming. We saw two projects that were important to the future of the Territory.
When you tease through the 2015-16 budget you will see they will be able to deliver a surplus in 2017-18 by cutting into the Infrastructure budget. They are saying outright on page 11 of Budget Paper No 2 that achieving the 2017-18 surplus will be on the back of reducing their infrastructure spending. I do not see how that will marry with having a plan for the post-INPEX construction stage.
Another key element the budget that has unravelled is that prediction of the $9m surplus in 2017-18. I touched upon it briefly in talking to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, but there are several factors that put in doubt the ability to deliver a surplus in 2017-18. The first is the fact that the CLP is saying outright it will come on the back of reducing the infrastructure budget. We find it hard to believe that you will cut the infrastructure budget. Secondly – and Treasury warns about this throughout the budget – any new or additional spending puts that surplus at risk. The Treasurer acknowledged that.
However, at the heart of the fight between the Treasurer and the Health minister’s $100 bet they have about the delivery date for the Palmerston hospital is the Health minister saying it will come on in 2017-18. The Treasurer is saying it will be 2018-19, and the forward estimates have spending for the Palmerston hospital in the third quarter of the 2018-19 financial year. The Health minister says he will be able to deliver it in 2017-18 – much earlier. If you shift that spend from coming on in …
A member: A couple of months.
Mr GUNNER: It is an important couple of months – it is a very slim $9m surplus – if you bring that spending for Palmerston hospital into the 2017-18 financial year. You do not employ the nurses for the Palmerston hospital the day the hospital opens. They have to be on board and working before that as they get the hospital up to speed and ready.
The Treasurer also said it will cost about $25m to run Palmerston hospital in the 2018-19 financial year, and that is what is in the forward estimates. I find it hard to believe the $25m per annum figure will be the total operating cost for Palmerston hospital if you are running a 116-bed hospital with an emergency department. From the work I have done talking to people in health around the country trying to get a handle on this, there is no convenient bed price but you are probably looking at $50m-plus, as a conservative estimate, to run the hospital. We will keep working on getting estimates for that. Looking at how you break that up in the 2017-18 financial year, the surplus goes away in the 2017-18 year. On top of that, you have the difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Treasury and the NT Treasury around GST predictions in the 2017-18 financial year.
Three things put that surplus for 2017-18 in doubt: the Palmerston hospital and when the expansion will occur; the GST figures and the difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Treasury and the Territory Treasury; and the fact the CLP is saying outright it will cut infrastructure spending in the post-INPEX year. Because of those three things I am not convinced they will deliver a surplus in 2017-18, but we will be keeping a close eye on this. I am sure there will be many economic debates between now and then about the CLP promise of a surplus and how they will deliver that. Those three things stand out as to why I have question marks about the ability to deliver the 2017-18 surplus.
Why do we think we are facing this situation? From our side we believe the government has dropped the ball. We do not believe they have a plan beyond INPEX that stacks up. We believe there has been too much infighting on their side. We have had two Chief Ministers and a brief minister, and 14 reshuffles. As I said in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the then Treasurer was the Chief Minister and he thanked the former Treasurers, the members for Fong Lim and Araluen. Time has moved on and one is no longer the former Treasurer and the other one will no longer be thanked. We have seen a change and 14 reshuffles.
We do not believe the government consults properly with industry. In addition, too often the government is guilty of 180 degree politics where they scrap things simply because the Labor Party did them.
We do not think they have had a plan over the last three years as a result of the infighting, and they are trying to cobble one together before the next election. We support some of the work done by the Deputy Chief Minister in diversifying the economy. There has been some good work done and we support the work of the Developing the North team. We have some question marks around what they have been doing, though.
The mid-year is an outdated document to be banging out. They have already done the 2015-16 book, but it gives us a chance to look back at some of their predictions and compare them to the 2015-16 budget now that we have them.
I take this opportunity to place on the record that we support the work the government has been doing on the gas pipeline. We support the venture and think it can be an important element for the economic future of the Northern Territory and the regions, but we also have questions about it. We will keep exploring that with government to make sure there is no risk to the taxpayer and the CLP can get the project up and running with buyers and sellers involved in that pipeline.
There is work to be done there, and we will keep testing the government on it because that is an important role for opposition. We support the efforts of economic diversification, but this is an old story not a new one. Diversification is not new. Every government since self-government has looked at supporting the diversification of Territory industry and niche industries. We have concerns about selling the port and whether that places niche industries at risk in getting their material to and out of the port.
In conclusion, the data provided in the mid-year review, when compared to the data in the budget, makes for interesting reading. It shows an alarming result about population and employment growth, and shows early warning signs we need a plan for. There is work that needs to be done to manage the short-term challenges for the Territory economy because we are very optimistic about the future of the Northern Territory and where it is heading overall. But it is always important to recognise early warning signs, to react and respond to them in a considered way and consult with industry, and to have a proper jobs plan post INPEX, as well as for the Territory at large.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, what a great privilege it was to listen to the Opposition Leader bang on about the mid-year report. I say that genuinely. It has been a pleasure to listen to him because I am glad he did not talk about the mid-year report that this statement is on, because it is somewhat dated and he did a great job of pulling the present together with the past. It was worth listening to. I do not agree with many things he said, but it was interesting to listen to.
The concerns the Opposition Leader raised about population are somewhat of a red herring. The opposition has been working diligently to find something in the last budget they did not like or could attack. I might be a bit big-headed here, but I do not believe there was a hell of a lot they could find to attack.
I think the Opposition Leader has seized on population figures simply because they are the weak spot. I was quite up front when delivering the budget in saying we had to focus on population because whilst we are a fast-growing economy and our population is growing, which it is - if people listen to the Opposition Leader they would get the impression everybody is leaving and this is not a good place to be. The reality is the population is growing strongly. It is probably not growing as strongly as the Opposition Leader or I would like to see, but in any case it is a growing population.
It was an interesting time in estimates; I admit I learnt a couple of things about our population turnover in the Territory. It was interesting to learn that on average 600 Territorians leave every year, and those 600 are predominantly seniors who leave the workforce and go south to retire, and school leavers who go interstate to university. When you put it in those terms, you can understand why they are leaving. It is nothing to do with the Territory’s economy, cost of living or those things. People go interstate, and have done for decades, to retire or study at university; there are no surprises there. The population is being sustained by the Territory’s birth rate and other things, as well as overseas migration.
Whilst population is a concern, it is not a crisis. We are doing everything we can as a government to attract workers to the Northern Territory: working with the Commonwealth on the Designated Area Migration Agreement; running job shows interstate - my colleague, the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Business, has also been running job expos around the country and our region, trying to drum up people to come here and work.
The Opposition Leader has raised some interesting concerns. He takes a doom and gloom approach. I made a point in Question Time today that he likes to talk down the economy and the Territory, which might be seen as good politics from the opposition’s view but, from an economic point of view, it saps confidence; it gives people the wrong impression, especially when you are talking about using cherry-picked statistics that do not form the correct part of the Territory story.
In the mid-year report we are debating now, which was tabled in December last year, we talk about the operating surplus of $130m in 2014-15. That was the first good sign.
Something else I noticed that was quite interesting was talking about a small deficit of $25m in 2017-18. Of course, the last budget showed a $9m surplus. Net debt was projected to be $3.7bn in 2017-18 at the last budget. We are now projecting net debt to be about $2.6bn. The ratio of debt to revenue was predicted to be 58% in 2017-18 when the mid-year report was tabled in December last year. During the budget I was able to update those numbers and we have seen a net debt to revenue ratio of about 35%, levelling off at nearly 40% by the end of the forward estimates.
We have made some incredible inroads, and I appeal to the Opposition Leader to show some faith. The remarkable turnaround is no accident. These things do not just happen. As a government we are actively working to fix the fiscal and financial problems left to us by the previous government. The opposition does not understand them as financial problems, they think that is just the nature of government, but things are turning around quite rapidly and the economy is growing strongly.
The opposition members seem to be almost totally driven by what happens after the INPEX construction phase. They are certain we are going over a cliff. But as I said in the budget debate, government is working hard to diversify the economy. We do not want to be a one-trick pony as far as the economy is concerned, or a one-business economy. We are very keen to diversify our economy and have a range of business opportunities and industries operating in the Northern Territory, which we are keen to support. In fact, government has been working hard to do that.
The Opposition Leader mentioned infrastructure investment and how he sees, after the INPEX construction phase, government spending on infrastructure will be reduced. He cannot understand that. That signals to me I have to do a bit of work with the member for Fannie Bay, the Opposition Leader, because it is something I am very keen for him and the opposition to understand.
After the INPEX construction phase and the focus on north Australian development, we want to see more private sector investment in infrastructure. The government, whilst not many people have taken note, is working to set up an infrastructure development fund for the Northern Territory. In fact, $200m of the proceeds of the TIO sale will go into that infrastructure development fund as seed funding to attract more private institutional money.
The intention is that the fund will then partner up with other businesses, industries, sectors and governments to start to deliver infrastructure. In fact, in the last federal budget Joe Hockey delivered, he announced the $5bn debt facility where private enterprise will be able to access debt at the same rates as governments. When you toggle those two vehicles together – the infrastructure development fund and an infrastructure debt facility – we can see projects being funded. We have seen, since the announcement of Joe Hockey about that $5bn debt facility, much interest in private infrastructure development in the Northern Territory. I am pretty upbeat about the whole thing.
The reason I am very keen to talk to the Opposition Leader and the opposition about this is when we are attracting private sector infrastructure investment it is highly important that as a government we approach this – if we can – in a bipartisan manner. Companies that invest money in infrastructure do so on a long-term basis. Infrastructure investments tend to pay small amounts of money over a long period of time. Generally, superannuation funds and other institutional investors take a very long-range view when they are investing in infrastructure projects.
The stability of governments and bipartisan support for private infrastructure investments are highly important if those investments are to be delivered. For that reason I am genuinely saying to the Opposition Leader and members of the opposition that I am seeking bipartisan support on the infrastructure investment fund we are setting up and on the projects that fund will invest in. I look forward to working with the Opposition Leader and the opposition to see if we can get a bipartisan approach to private infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory because ultimately – and I think the Opposition Leader acknowledges this – you cannot have growth and development if you do not have strong investment in infrastructure and those job-creating infrastructure projects.
I do not want to speak at length on this mid-year report. Obviously it is part of the government’s story about where we have come from and where we are going. It is worth noting what our projections were just six months ago and how we have delivered on those projections. Again, it demonstrates the projections Treasury and I produce are generally very conservative, particularly when you get further out into the forward estimates, they become much more conservative.
It was interesting to listen to the Opposition Leader’s concern about Palmerston Regional Hospital and how operations would be funded, saying $25m would not be enough in 2017-18 to get the hospital operating. That is really a matter for the Health minister to advise me on, but in my limited view I understand money and effort will go to where demand is. Once Palmerston hospital is built, demand will reduce at RDH as one would expect, and the resources will go to where the demand will increase, that is, Palmerston hospital. There will be additional costs, hence the allocation of additional money. As that project nears completion and the operational aspects are worked on by the Health minister, I am sure we will come to a much more realistic figure of what it will cost.
In my view, $25m is a significant increase to the Health budget. An additional hospital does not necessarily mean there will be a range of additional services. It will simply mean some services will be performed at another place in the Territory and will not come with additional costs.
I thank all members for speaking on this mid-year report and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 19 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Auditor-General performs a very important role in the Northern Territory of keeping a close eye on the books of government agencies, and how they are performing. It has been some time since this report came to this Chamber. As the Leader of the Opposition stated earlier in a previous debate, the government seems to be going about cleaning up the Notice Paper. I am glad those members have given some priority to the Auditor-General’s report in cleaning up the Notice Paper, given they are extremely important reports.
So far the government has come into this House and let us know the Auditor-General reports are there, but there was no debate at the time. Here we are almost a year later getting down to the report of the Auditor-General’s findings. I hope the government cleans up that process by making sure when the Auditor-General’s reports come forward - the next one will be in August this year - we have timely debates about the findings of the Auditor-General. Territorians have a very clear expectation of that.
I realise with deep sadness this was the last Auditor-General’s report of the late Frank McGuiness. I was on the Public Accounts Committee. I had the good fortune to meet Frank and have a few briefings with him, ask him some questions and hear from my colleagues the high esteem they held him in. Our deepest condolences go to his family. He would have wanted to see us debating the findings of his report.
A range of agencies were looked at in this Auditor-General’s report. The first one I will turn to is the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, where the Auditor-General noted declining revenue underpinning the work of the institute. Batchelor Institute is an important post-school education asset, providing a range of vocationally orientated courses for Indigenous students. There was a $1.6m cut in federal funding and the cessation of VET infrastructure for the Indigenous people’s program at the end of 2012, reducing funding to the institute by a further $1.18m. Access to education, especially post-school education related to employment, is important. I look to the government to ensure revenue issues addressed through the Bachelor Institute are adequately supported for its important work.
In regard to higher education, the Auditor-General’s August report notes that CDU also had to deal with a decrease of $4.3m in funding for its VET component, another signal that support for vocational training is being slashed. This is a concern given the rhetoric of the opposite side of the House regarding their supposed support for jobs and training in the Northern Territory. In respect to CDU, I note the Auditor-General has included a review of the arrangement Charles Darwin University has with the Palmerston residential estate development as part of the Charles Darwin University business plan.
It is appropriate and comforting that such arrangements receive proper scrutiny. It is pleasing the Auditor-General found no concerns in that area.
I turn to an area that took up quite a bit of space in the Auditor-General’s report. It is a very important area because it goes to our culture, history and important artefacts. That is the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
There was extensive work done in relation to that with this Auditor-General’s report. The report found several issues that needed to be looked at: collections; management of items; staffing issues; and buildings. I have taken a few notes directly from the Auditor-General’s report. In the conclusions it said:
Within the key findings he stated:
I will go through a breakdown of those issues specifically identified by the Auditor-General. Under Staffing it says:
It goes on to discuss the budgetary constraints the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory was working under. After the change of government, we had many concerns about positions within the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. There were some concerns about security positions and positions of people who were there to create digital records of items. Staffing has been an ongoing issue, but we now see it so bluntly at the front and centre of the Auditor-General’s report. It is almost a year since this report was released. It would be good to get some assurances from government that work has been done about that.
I appreciate there is now a statutory board that runs the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. However, you would expect the government to have some concerns about the running of the museum, and would want to know the serious issues identified in the Auditor-General’s report are addressed.
The Auditor-General moved from staffing to look at the performance of data collection and reporting. One thing noted was:
Sorry, this is a tough word. I have not seen this before. The process of gaining items from the museum - their accessioning - I believe it is, something like that. I would have thought the Leader of Government Business would have ...
Mr Elferink: Acquisitioning, I would think it is.
Mr McCarthy: Accessioning.
Ms MANISON: Accessioning, that is it! Thank you very much, member for Barkly, former Arts Minister, and Leader of Government Business, who knows lots of words. I appreciate that.
Moving forward in the Auditor-General’s report, the physical care of collections was also an issue raised:
He went on to look at security and access issues, disaster and risk planning and the issue of ageing infrastructure at the facility. There have been concerns about the risk of water damage before. The Auditor-General said there needs to be some work done on that.
Then we go to the completeness, existence and validity of data. It goes to looking at what data is on the record at MAGNT and ensuring it is reliable and fulsome. Reading from the report it states:
It also says:
Clearly there needs to be more work done there. There were also issues raised about the care of digital collections.
There were some big issues raised with regard to what was happening at MAGNT. Staffing was identified as an issue, having the appropriate resources to do the work needs to be done. The Auditor-General also acknowledged financial constraints. It would be good to hear from the government about the work done to follow that up to ensure the management of MAGNT, the board, are on top of some of those concerns raised in August by the late Auditor-General.
Going to other matters raised in the report, the Land Development Corporation was discussed. There has been much debate in this Chamber with regard to the $1m payment to the Tiwi Land Council. I put on the record again that we support economic development and want to see people on the Tiwi Islands develop good business opportunities. We do not have any problems with plans for and work on economic development. However, questions were raised in this report about that payment. I will read what was found in the key findings on the Land Development Corporation by the Auditor-General at the time. Under the heading Accounting Treatment for a Land Payment of $1m to the Tiwi Land Council, it reads:
As I said, we are very supportive of economic development, but at that time there were serious questions from the Auditor-General on what the economic benefits would be from the $1m payment and how that was being accounted for. People expect to see good processes around how funding is used within government and how it is recorded. That is a very important job of the Auditor-General and it was a matter raised.
We are going back to August last year. There has been much debate since that time. I believe it is also an issue that was followed up the February Auditor-General’s report. It will be good to hear some more from government about what work has been done since those issues were raised.
I will turn to another matter raised in this report, which was agency fuel cards. It was a look at the use of fuel cards within government agencies, which is an important process to go through to see how things are going and ensure appropriate processes are being followed, that government is getting value for money, and operational demands of agencies can be met with the current procedures.
The Auditor-General looked at the Department of Arts and Museums, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, Tourism NT and the Department of Health. It was found that the probability of any fraudulent transactions occurring was low; however, some issues within the report went to issues like lack of information around things such as odometer readings, or problems when you have a diesel car but unleaded petrol has been used.
There were some anomalies detected and some fairly thorough audits were done to look at the use of fuel cards. It is important they have a good look to make sure the money and the fuel cards are being used appropriately. It also gives them an opportunity to make sure that if there are problems within the system, they are addressed. This is especially true when you have a huge agency like Health, which has many vehicles and works in some extremely remote parts of the Northern Territory. They require access to appropriate systems to ensure they can do their job, fuel their vehicles and ensure the system keeps working well.
We want them doing health checks, important primary healthcare and other important work with people who are sick. We do not want to see people tied up with paperwork just to keep their cars running. It was important to see what was happening within those agencies and demonstrate the role of the Auditor-General and the work that office does within government.
I will leave my comments there with regard to the Auditor-General’s report. There were some issues of concern raised; it will be interesting to hear from the government how those have been addressed.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on a number of my portfolios. The first one is Employment and Training. My first comment is in relation to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, or BIITE; what they do there can bite and they do a good job. They cut their teeth on a lot of different and innovative programs.
The Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit opinion on the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education for the year ending 31 December 2013. There were no adverse audit findings identified that required management action, which is quite an achievement. The institute reported an operating surplus of $720 000, which was a decline from the prior year’s surplus of $1.712m. Those listening would realise that the decline in the surplus was due mainly to the reduction in Australian government funding of $1.612m, and a reduction in funding provided by the Northern Territory, resulting in the cessation of the VET infrastructure for Indigenous people program at the end of 2012, which totalled $1.186m. A reduction in grant funding was offset by an increase in consultancy and contracts revenue.
They are to be congratulated not only for that, but their ongoing performance.
In relation to Charles Darwin University, the Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit opinion on the financial statements of the Charles Darwin University for the year ending 31 December 2013. Charles Darwin University provides both higher education and vocational education and training, or VET as it is better known. Higher education funding is provided to the university by the Commonwealth government through direct grants and the proceeds of student loans under the auspices of the HECS-HELP scheme. VET funding is provided by the Northern Territory government through monies appropriated by the Legislative Assembly to the Department of Education. The university also attracts research funding from a variety of sources and the financial performance of the university, as measured by its operating result, was $10.5m.
The higher education component of the university achieved a surplus of $14.8m for the year, which is offset by a $4.3m deficit on the part of the VET component.
Trust distributions increased from $2.4m in 2012 to $3.8m in 2013, with the distribution of the balance of $2.1m of the INPEX grant having a material effect.
I will now move to the Department of Corporate and Information Services.
The objective of the audit was to assess the design and implementation of key application and general IT controls relating to the Electronic Invoice Management System managed by the Department of Corporate and Information Services. I will comment further on this, but first I must congratulate the Department of Corporate and Information Services on the effective and efficient delivery of its services. It has made large savings, pulled the Asset Management System out of the jaws of defeat and has had a victory with the middleware it has put in.
Sadly, the cost of approximately $70m for the project started by the former government had to be written off. It did not work properly. It was only working somewhere at between 10% and 15% of capacity. It was an unmitigated disaster. People who work for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, DCIS, and people they partnered with in private industry saved the day with a figure well under $10m to fix the problem and get it functioning. It is reported that currently it is functioning very well.
Going back to the Electronic Invoice Management System, the application is used to provide automatic scanning of creditors’ invoices, together with approvals for payment of invoices. This system was implemented at the Department of Corporate and Information Services in 2011 and has been rolled out to most agencies across the Northern Territory government.
The focus of the audit was information security, that is, the applications, database and operating systems; user access management; change management; IT operations; and business continuity management and application controls, that being user access and workflow configuration. The Auditor-General determined that appropriate management controls had been applied over the Electronic Invoice Management System, but considered opportunities existed to strengthen user access.
Since then DCIS has come a long way in doing exactly what the Auditor-General suggested. DCIS has completed or substantially progressed all actions identified in the Auditor-General’s report, which included a number of various tasks: strengthening access security, including locking user accounts; conducting independent penetration testing of the Electronic Invoice Management System (EIMS) environment; implementing a biannual process for agency review of their user access privileges; implementing formal change management processes and a dedicated change management tool; documentation of procedures for interface monitoring, escalation and resolution processes; putting in place a business continuity management plan for EIMS; updating the EIMS disaster recovery plan, including workarounds during system interruptions; and implementation of a biannual review process to encourage agencies to regularly consider their user access levels.
I looked through the rest of the report and there were a couple of minor things I thought worth mentioning, but suffice to say these were the major points in relation to my portfolio responsibilities. Again, I congratulate the Batchelor Institute, Charles Darwin University and DCIS for the good work they have done in the past, are doing now and I assume will continue to do in the future.
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, MAGNT welcomes the findings of the August 2014 report to the Assembly that its current systems of managing its collection are adequate. The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Act has come into effect making MAGNT a more independent statutory authority with an independent and highly-skilled board. While welcoming the report’s overall conclusion, the board of MAGNT notes the report identifies a number of areas that can be improved, and is determined and committed to manage its collection not just adequately but with excellence, and embraces any opportunity to improve its systems and practices.
The board of MAGNT has an ongoing commitment to developing and strengthening its processes to better manage its collections. Many issues identified in the report are already being addressed. These include:
MAGNT already working to secure new income streams to support the growth of its collections, staffing requirements and long-term operational needs. The new governance structure is the first step in meeting that goal. In becoming a more independent statutory body, new funding has already been realised within the short term of the revised governance structure to support delivery of key projects of MAGNT.
a $5.3m investment towards a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, HVAC, provides for efficiencies in running costs and ensures stabilised environmental controls that optimise conditions for preservation of the collection.
implementing a new collection management database system; the migration of data into the new system will improve the cleansing, search, retrieval and reporting functions as well as supporting online access. A $60 000 pilot phase to this project is already complete. Pending further funding, the next phase of the project includes the development of a data model to integrate MAGNT collection records then customisation and installation of the new system. MAGNT holds one of the most diverse and important collections in Australia. This investment towards improved technology provides efficiencies in collection management operations and increased capacity for engagement with the collection in the digital environment.
MAGNT launched a new website that fosters community engagement and promotes an enlivened public program. The recent announcement of the Chan Building redevelopment will see the Chan developed into a world-class exhibition facility with improved capacity for back-of-house operations that support collection management functions.
The board of MAGNT is fully appraised of the issues raised in the report and is committed to working with the NT government to find solutions to them. A new director was appointed in May 2015 who will have a new full focus on improving operational practices and managing staffing levels to ensure MAGNT is run along best practices for museum delivery.
I thank the Auditor-General for his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do have a great deal to add to what the member for Wanguri said, but it was timely the minister for Arts popped in to give us a response to the Auditor-General’s report. A number of people in our community were very concerned about the future of the museum. There were people who had given particular items to the museum, people you might call friends of the museum, who were concerned about the way the museum was heading and the way collections were being cared for. That came out fairly strongly in the August report. I am pleased to hear the minister for Arts has given us a response to some of the issues raised by the Auditor-General. I note he said a new director has been appointed. It will be interesting to see whether the new director takes up all the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General commented on a range of issues. He commented on staffing and mentioned there was insufficient staff to manage its collections, and spoke about performance data collection and reporting. He said:
The Auditor-General also mentioned offsite storage and loans, completeness, existence and validity of data. He went on also to talk about digital presence and care of digital collections. Also there were financial considerations. It says here:
There was a number of issues. The minister spoke about these but perhaps it would be good for the minister to come back with a review which shows us in detail how his department has addressed many of these issues raised by the Auditor-General.
I also heard the Tiwi Islands mentioned. If we can develop an economy on the Tiwi Islands that is fantastic, but I have always been concerned about that $1m. It says here
My concern has always been why you are paying $1m as a consideration for the provision of long-term leases. If you said we were paying $1m for leases I could understand. That has never been made clear.
Mr Elferink: Are you aware of what consideration means in contract law?
Mr WOOD: I have heard a lot about contracts today, Attorney-General. The ones that come out of machines and the ones that do not.
You could respond to that, minister, during your summing up. It is one matter I found peculiar, especially when you are giving out government money.
There was also the issue of fuel cards, and I occasionally get a letter myself. We have made the fuel card system more complicated than it needs to be. I do not know what came out of some of those accusations about some members misusing the fuel card; it seemed to fizzle. We need to make sure we are using fuel according to the rules. We have made it complicated. If you have an odometer reading at the beginning and end of the month, and you have the amount of fuel you used, if that is consistent over the whole year for the same vehicle, it shows the fuel card is not being misused.
There are times when you will fill up with a small amount of fuel because you are going somewhere where there is no fuel. There are also times when you might top up a vehicle with a small amount simply to make sure you get home. For instance, I technically could go to Katherine and back on one tank, but I do not. I fill up when I am in Katherine and then come back again. It will show up as a relatively small amount, but there is a requirement to explain why.
All you need to do is take an odometer reading at the beginning of the month, a reading at the end of the month, and state how much fuel was used. You will know how much that vehicle used, litres per kilometre. That is a better way to track it. Some of the United service stations were not requiring an odometer reading. You say hello and they just hand you a receipt, or they just take your PIN number. There were cases where they did not ask for it. There are also cases where, by the time you get to the person at the checkout and they ask me about the weather, how things are in politics and who won the football, I have forgotten what the odometer reading was. There are other times when it is fed into the machine incorrectly as well, so it is an operator error.
When I look at the things required now, I am sure you can make that simpler just by keeping track of the monthly kilometres used versus the amount of fuel used. That way you will get a good indication of whether fuel has been syphoned off somewhere where it should not, without all those bits and pieces.
That is all I need to say. When I looked at this Daily Agenda – and I know I am the Independent, and I have no idea – today was a blank sheet. I knew there were some things coming up. I did not know I would be debating …
Mr Vowles: The car parking contracts.
Mr WOOD: The car parking contracts. There is a fair bit of thinking on your feet at times. After that, I had no idea whether there would be a statement, because they just come out of the blue now, or we would be discussing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2014 – that did not impress me at all – or the one for 27 November. If I know a little ahead, even a day ahead, that we are likely to start to knock a hole in some of these, I might be better prepared. Sometimes I get up here and people say, ‘You do not have to worry about that’, but I still feel that members should try to participate.
It is also good for members to participate to support the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General does an awful lot of work producing these reports and they are meant to come back to this parliament to be debated. I cannot remember what the Auditor-General did in February 2015 or August 2014. I need a little time, maybe a day, so I can look at the report, instead of trying to print it in a hurry and pick out some items that are valuable for us to discuss.
Maybe the government needs to say, ‘We might need to spend a little more time in parliament dealing with the recreational fishing in the Northern Territory statement. Why do we not run it through?’ or ‘We will come back to it tomorrow’. With statements now, it is a case of, ‘There you are, you have five minutes to think about that’. We did not go down this path before. With the previous government – I am not barracking for the other side here –many of the statements went through and were completed. We have got into a bad habit now.
We did not have a chance to speak on the report of the Committee on Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. We have different viewpoints on it, but I have to read it again now. It has disappeared into the ether, as they say.
There is a matter here which is really important. I do not know what is happening with it. I am not trying to be silly, but the referral of the members for Karama and Barkly to the Committee of Privileges is sitting on this paper. Is it sitting there for political reasons? Will it come forward or will it be taken off?
Mr Elferink: It is implicit in the terms of that motion.
Mr WOOD: Right, but it is …
Mr Elferink: I draw your attention to the last line.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I am picking through these in general, but statements are important. However, they are not important if they go back too far. Planning and building reforms I wanted to speak on – August 2014, it is probably still current. To go back, we have one for 15 May 2014 and 7 May 2014. I know that bill will be held off until the federal government – you have proposed amendments to standing orders on 20 February 2013. Lord knows what that is about.
Some of these things go back a long way and I hope the government could give us some warning of which ones they hope to bring through in the next sittings. I would like to give a better contribution than quickly trying to catch up with what was said some months ago. I encourage members also, especially with the Auditor-General’s report, to look at things carefully and ask questions, because it is important.
The Auditor-General’s report is probably one of the most important reports we have in this parliament. I have been on one Commonwealth parliamentary trip to the Cook Islands and we tried to emphasise to some of the smaller countries the importance of these parts of our parliament: the Ombudsman and Auditor-General. These people make sure government is kept honest, if you can put it that way. They keep an eye on what government does. When these reports come through, we should all take note of them and question the government when the Auditor-General says there are issues of concern.
I thank the government for bringing the report forward but I feel it gets a bit stale if left too long.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, my first comment is in relation to the last comment. We negotiate with the Labor Party every day when material is coming through. Just fire off a text to me about 8 pm and I will make sure that whatever the Labor Party is told, you will be brought into the loop as well. Just jog my memory because I confess sometimes I forget, and I apologise for that.
The second issue I wanted to touch on was use of the word ‘consideration’. I presume from the way you read that you think it is paying $1m for somebody to think about something?
Mr Wood: That is what it looks like.
Mr ELFERINK: That is what it looks like. Let me give you chapter and verse, Contract Law in Australia, Carter, Peden and Tolhurst, page 105. It is a short paragraph.
It is the price you pay to make the contract happen. When you bind another party to a contract, there has to be an exchange, and that is called consideration; it is the exchange of value. That $1m is the consideration that makes the contract binding. This is why we have peppercorn rents. Consideration has to be present. It does not necessarily have to be sufficient, but it has to be present. When they refer to consideration in a letter like that, they are not referring to, ‘If we give you $1m, you guys have to think about it’. If we give you consideration, it is because we are binding you to it. Perhaps that may clear up the confusion for you. It took me about three weeks to get my head around that when I did contract law at law school. It is a strange way …
Mrs Finocchiaro: Really.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, because I am dumb!
Mrs Finocchiaro: That is first year uni.
Mr ELFERINK: I was slow on the uptake. The way it is referred to is a legal term which is quite different to common usage of the word ‘consideration’. That $1m was basically to bind the other party.
Getting back to the August 2014 report, I note that on page 49 the Department of Correctional Services was selected as an agency for compliance audits. Audits were said to have been performed by the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services during the six months covered in the report – page 49 onwards. A number of key findings have resulted from the audits. None of the issues were raised attributed directly to the Northern Territory DCS. A comment on behalf of the Northern Territory DCS was not included in the report, despite other departments providing comment relative to issues highlighted and how they are applicable to the department.
I note the findings from the audit report tabled on the 13 May 2015 at the audit committee was as follows:
In relation to the AGD’s report there was a comment about the TACT database. The TACT database is a trust account operated by the Public Trustee, and the Auditor-General’s findings were as follows: The Audit Opinion was that:
The Auditor-General then made several recommendations. In response to those recommendations the Attorney-General and Justice department has increased the control and mitigation strategies to decrease the risk of fraud. Cards are now linked to a system which will send warning messages if they are used in an inappropriate fashion, for example, low frequency use or overuse. In addition, if cards are attempted to be used to purchase an amount of fuel in excess of the volume of the fuel tank of the car, the cards will not work.
We live in an age of miracles and wonders.
In relation to the Auditor-General’s report for Health, there were a number of issues raised. The Northern Territory Auditor-General’s office commissioned a yearly audit of the financial statements of the Central Australian and Top End Hospital Networks 2013, pursuant to the Financial Management Act. The audit was conducted in August 2014 and provided to the hospital networks on the 26 September 2014. The key finding of the audit report showed for both hospital networks that sufficient financial information for substantive transactions relating to individual projects or agreements was not provided. Actual receipts from such funding did not match the budgeted amount, and the full list of funding arrangements was not provided. Action has been taken to address these issues. The Department of Health acknowledges the improvements were required for the management of agreements with the Commonwealth.
In 2014 the department instigated a new process to coordinate the oversight management of all agreements by a single team. At the time of the audit the database of all agreements was in the early stages of development, but could not provide information to the auditing team at the time. The database has since been improved and is supporting better management of all agreements across the Health portfolio.
There generally will always be differences between actual receipts and budgeted amounts in relation to Commonwealth Own Purpose Expense, or COPE, funding, as the Commonwealth often provides unexpected funding in the last days of each financial year, and the Territory government budget processes do not allow for the revision of the budget for these additional receipts.
A further comment worth making is that procedures and guidelines are now much more mature on some of the issues that have caused the transition of programs in health services. Funding was being receipted to a clearing account and therefore not reflecting against appropriate agreements. Funding was also transferred from the Department of Health to Health Services and not always in a timely fashion. Reporting is now provided monthly, which enables much closer monitoring of the receipts against the expected budget. Copies of all agreements maintained both electronically and in hard copy are in a central location.
That is the response from across our part of government. I place on the record my thanks to the late, and dare I say great, Frank McGuiness for his work and services to the people of the Northern Territory. My condolences are extended to his family for the loss of Frank. The loss of Frank to the Northern Territory as a whole means the Territory is a slightly smaller place as a consequence.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 24 February 2015.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be debating the Auditor-General’s February 2015 report. Here we are in June. It is good to see the government is cleaning up the Notice Paper, but I am hoping we will see more timely debate as the August Auditor-General’s report is tabled, because it raises important issues. It is important to ensure ministers come into this Chamber when there are concerns raised about their agencies so they can give assurances they are following them up and can give Territorians assurances their agencies are being managed well.
I also note this is the first Auditor-General’s report of the new Auditor-General, Ms Julie Crisp. We welcome her on board. It has been wonderful working with her so far. I will get to the findings of that report.
The Leader of Government Business touched on this in the previous debate. To get it on the record, I raise the issues the Auditor-General found with the Top End and Central Australian Hospital Networks. They are new boards under the government’s legislation passed last year to establish the hospital boards. However, we have found there have been some issues within the Top End Hospital Network and the Central Australian Hospital Network.
The Auditor-General found:
It goes on to speak about not being able to quantify the balances of the unspent funds, and no associated liability was recorded in this regard. The auditors were provided information by the Department of Health that they were establishing a database to manage this; however, that work was ongoing.
It rang a few alarm bells in my mind when we had questions about agreed milestones on specific projects, particularly when we are talking about the Top End Hospital Network. As we all know, the Palmerston Regional Hospital is one project where there has been a lot of debate about project milestones and the implications of the Commonwealth funding that is tied to meeting those very important milestones. Although not specifically referenced by the Auditor-General, that was something that raised questions for me.
Similar issues were found with the Central Australian Hospital Network; however, the amount differed to what we saw with the Top End; it was funding of $1 782 162 greater than the budgeted amount of Commonwealth funding. There were some issues there. We just heard the Minister for Health referring to those issues in his response to the August report.
It shows why the Auditor-General plays such an important role in asking these questions about funding and expenditure, and placing them on the public record in this parliament so ministers can be accountable, and to ensure if there is a problem they are getting on top of it and their agencies are working to rectify it. That was raised there.
We see following the August 2014 report some follow up with regard to the concerns the previous Auditor-General raised about the Land Development Corporation and the $1m payment to the Tiwi Land Council.
Again, I stress that we support economic development on the Tiwi Islands; it is important. However, we need to ensure when government funds are handed over to organisations via government-type bodies, the money is properly accounted for, the proper process is followed, and taxpayers can see where that money is going and the value they are receiving for it.
Key findings raised by the previous Auditor-General in August:
The Auditor-General’s findings in the February 2015 report say:
In response to the Auditor-General’s report, the Land Development Corporation placed on the record:
There has been some follow on, confirming why it is important we see the Auditor-General reports in this parliament, and we see the work of the office of the Auditor-General to look at government expenditure to ensure money is being appropriately spent and accounted for.
It raises the question of how this payment and lease negotiation has gone, how repayments are going, and I expect this will the subject of future Auditor-General reports given there was still some work to be done. We welcome government updating us on what has happened, from the Land Development Corporation’s perspective, because there were many questions about it. It is another space we will be watching in future reports from the Auditor-General, and it is a shame we could not debate it or ask these questions sooner.
The Auditor-General looked at the state of play in the Power and Water Corporation. The Auditor-General noted that total revenue for the year increased from the prior year by $434.3m. This increase was attributed to the full year impact of higher tariffs that took effect at the commencement of the 2013 calendar year. Yes, we saw a huge jump in revenues at Power and Water Corporation as a result of this government’s tariff increases. Looking at when those tariffs were passed on in full – when we saw the 20%, the 5% and the 5% for power, on top of that we saw the 40% for water and I think it was 25% for sewerage. When you add all that up, for a family of four it equates to an extra $2000 a year in power bills. That is a lot of money for a family to find.
Looking at the performance of the Power and Water Corporation, they were looking at the net profit of the corporation before tax. One thing highlighted was the significant increase in revenue directly attributed to tariffs and the decision of the CLP government to increase tariffs. That is something I like to remind the government of because it had a huge impact on people across the Territory, not only in urban areas but remote communities; people living in the bush also felt the full impact and are still feeling it to this day.
Lastly, on the Auditor-General’s report, the Auditor-General looked at some materials referred to her with relation to the Public Information Act. Those materials related to a message from the Chief Minister about the Casuarina by-election. The Auditor-General found that four of the eight Chief Minister’s weekly messages on the Casuarina by-election contravened the Public Information Act. This is a reminder to everybody that there is the Public Information Act and governments need to be very mindful of it. We are going into some fairly busy times leading up to next August but we have somebody keeping an eye out to ensure funds are appropriately expended and are not used for political purposes and promotions. That is something the Public Information Act plays a very important role in.
The Auditor-General’s report is a very important report which we see twice a year. A lot of work goes into it and it assures people that government is working the way it should, and we are seeing value for money which is being accounted for correctly. They do a lot of hard work with the different agencies to check how things are running.
Yes, from time to time there are issues raised. In governments of the past, when the Auditor-General’s report came into this place, ministers took the report seriously. They would have a very good look at the contents of it to see if any of their agencies were mentioned. They would go through to see what exactly it was the Auditor-General had been examining, and what the findings were. It was something they took very seriously. People would wait with some anticipation for it because they always wanted to make sure things were running smoothly in their agency.
Sometimes people had to stand up in this place and have some tough debates on the floor of parliament about the performance of their agency, or of some of their projects, and some of the decisions they had made. But it was something they would never walk away from or ignore. They would look at the issues and make sure that could assure the public that when there are problems, they deal with them.
If the Auditor-General finds areas where improvements are needed, those improvements should be made. We have not seen that with this government and their practices with tabling the Auditor-General reports when they come into parliament. We are in June, fast heading into July, and today we finally debated the August 2014 Auditor-General’s report, and we are now debating the February 2015 Auditor-General’s report when we had time to do it before.
It is good that government is looking at the Notice Paper and asking where some of the important documents are which we need to get on top of and not yet addressed. I am hoping to see far more disciplined practices around the Auditor-General’s report in the future. August will be the test of what happens and how the government decides to treat that report.
The member for Nelson in the previous debate referred to the Notice Paper and some of the very important matters still sitting there. I also support him in what he said about the fact the FASD report has not been debated in this House yet. It is a very important report, and we would like to see all the hard work that went into looked at more closely by this parliament and debated. We need some assurances that government, no matter what side they are on in the future, but particularly this government, puts forward the vital investment and programs needed to tackle the issue of FASD. It has devastating consequences.
I thank the Auditor-General and her team for all the hard work they put into the February 2015 report. We understand they are busy working on the August 2015 report. Hopefully, we will see some swift debate when it becomes before this parliament.
Debate suspended.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) notes the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer
(b) supports the creation of an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory
(c) commends the Commissioner for Police on steps taken to establish a special references unit to investigate corruption, matters with potential sensitivities, serious conflicts of interest and other complex internal measures
(d) notes the response of the Commissioner of Police to the Ombudsman’s report.
Late on the Thursday following two weeks of estimates, the Chief Minister stood in this Assembly and placed on the record the investigation undertaken by the Ombudsman into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister failed to allow debate on this report and the very important recommendations and findings contained within it.
Today the opposition corrects that oversight. Along with a discussion of the issues arising from the report, I wish to make some commitments to the people of the Northern Territory. The first commitment is that a Labor government elected in 2016 will introduce an independent commission against corruption. We will begin that work from the day we are elected and we will work until the commission is in place and undertaking its duties to the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory.
There is no doubt that every idea has its day, and in the Northern Territory the idea of the establishment of an independent commission against corruption has been part of our policy for a couple of decades. This idea has been resisted on the grounds that the Northern Territory is a small place, and there is a higher level of accountability because of the familiarity. For years this was possibly true, but today this is no longer the case. Open and transparent government is not a slogan; it is a smart and modern way of governing. It is not only a demand by minority groups, it is an expectation of every citizen who believes, rightly in my view, that when they are paying for something they expect to know how their money is being spent, by whom and how efficiently, and that it is done in an open and transparent manner. This is the right way to govern in the 21st century. It provides reassurance to its citizens and its businesses.
It is the way I intend to conduct the Labor government I lead. Unfortunately, history shows the Territory, when governed by the CLP, has had to be pushed and shoved into accepting the basic architecture of openness and accountability. It took a decade of prodding by my Labor predecessors to get a Public Accounts Committee established by a very reluctant Perron CLP government. It then took the advent of the Martin Labor government for the next stage of accountability to be introduced.
Clare Martin, as Chief Minister, introduced a slew of legislation to back our commitment. She established the Territory’s first ever Estimates Committee and then its first independent Electoral Commission. She also introduced the Territory’s first freedom of information, and fiscal integrity legislation. These were important measures for openness and accountability. This was backed up by a Henderson government which introduced the Public Information Act and whistleblower’s legislation.
What remains to complete this architecture of integrity and transparency is the establishment and introduction of an anti-corruption commission. I do not expect this motion today will be supported by the government, and that is a pity. Their former leaders, Jodeen Carney and Terry Mills, are both on the record as supporting the concept. The member for Sanderson has also supported this concept. In August 2010, in debate in this House in relation to the establishment of an anti-corruption body he said:
Frankly, we could not agree more; we need an anti-corruption commission.
The Ombudsman’s report is focused on matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. Its recommendations and findings, however, have wider implications because of continuing concerns about the probity and misuse of public assets and resources by the CLP government. These issues will be considered in the contributions by my colleagues to the debate on this motion. There are a number of reasons why a commission of this type should be established.
A key reason for establishing an anti-corruption commission in the Territory is that there are currently no independent bodies with broad enough powers to investigate ministers and members of parliament. The Ombudsman confirms this in paragraph 118 and 119 of his report:
This is a ludicrous place to be in the 21st century. We have some important rights and privileges as members of parliament. We have the right to free debate and discussion of issues in this House. We have a greater right, in many ways, to freedom of expression than other Territorians so we can have important debates in this Chamber. That is a right and privilege a member of parliament enjoys.
I do not believe lack of oversight is a right or privilege, or something we should continue to cling to. It is something we need to fix. We cannot be left as the place in Australia that provides the least comprehensive oversight of its political process.
A second and compelling reason for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission goes to the interconnectedness of the Northern Territory as a society. The Ombudsman referred to the tightknit Territory community briefly in his report, and he has touched on a very important issue. He also referred, in paragraph 108, to a relatively small police force with a small group of senior managers who interact with each other on a regular basis. One of our great strengths as a society in the NT is our closeness. Our size has allowed us much greater flexibility and nimbleness in policy making, development, construction and so on. This is a great advantage; however, as we mature as a polity, it provides a challenge which could prove to be quite vexing, and that is the issue of corruption and preferment.
Corruption comes in many forms and has sizes. Anyone who remembers the revelations of the moonlight state under the Fitzgerald Commission in Queensland knows that corruption started with the acceptance of free handouts from shopkeepers and retailers, and ended in the Commissioner of Police building a mansion with money not legally obtained.
In the Northern Territory I do not believe such a situation exists, but that makes it more important than ever to have this anti-corruption commission in place now, to put this architecture in place now. While trust exists in our police force, let us the establish the commission.
Unfortunately, trust in politicians has long gone. The Chief Minister must accept responsibility for the woeful view the public has of his government. There is a trust deficit, but he can restore some of that faith by introducing this body and introducing it now.
The inter-connectedness of the Territory causes concern beyond corruption issues. It makes the establishment of independence very hard. When the former Commissioner of Police was to be investigated, the spectacle of people having to declare a potential conflict of interest was alarming. This cannot be allowed to continue. Someone in the Territory in these circumstances has to be established above the fray, without question of independence and impartiality. The independent commission against corruption can and needs to fill this role.
A third reason for establishing this commission is to place an influence on our bureaucracy and government. The mere existence of an independent commission against corruption will provide an influence of anti-corruption and integrity right across our system. It will provide a model and a place for referrals, and an outlet and venue for concerns.
The Ombudsman, in his report in paragraphs 50 to 55, refers to the ‘heroic belief’ that can develop from an individual’s ability to not engage in personal conflict. This is a very dangerous thing to rely on. It is dangerous in a system, and while it often comes from the best of intentions, and the Ombudsman acknowledges that, it is a very serious threat to compromising integrity and trust.
The existence of an independent corruption commission takes away that problem and allows all officers or bureaucrats to refer matters beyond themselves. As the Ombudsman says, we need to protect police and others from these situations. ICAC does this.
As the member for Port Darwin has said, you cannot have Caesar rule Caesar. It is very important that there is a capacity for problems to go beyond moving them up the chain, when moving them up the chain might be moving them to where the problem lies.
The existence of an ICAC would also provide a quick and clean avenue to refer matters. Members will recall that four separate overlapping enquiries have been established to investigate allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the two police officers. There were also potential conflicts of interest based on personal associations involving members of the investigating organisations. An independent anti-corruption commission may well have facilitated the single primary investigation into the relevant allegations, free from potential conflicts of interest.
It will create an independent place to go where we all know things can be managed properly and thoroughly. This is very important for Territorians, as we have seen the problems that can come from a small jurisdiction where everyone is connected, and when a problem goes to the top of the tree how that branches out and affects how investigations occur and their promptness.
How will we establish an ICAC? I have outlined our policy proposal and why we need it. Let me turn to the how. In establishing an ICAC we will not blindly follow the models established elsewhere. The principles that underlie interstate models are sound and are supported, but the Territory needs an ICAC that satisfies Territory conditions. One of the most dramatic differences between us and other jurisdictions is our size, so we need to facilitate one appropriate for the Territory. We need to take into account our unique Territory conditions, our size, our interconnectedness, and think it through.
To achieve our own Territory system, we will consult widely with the community on the function, powers and structure of the commission. My colleagues and I will seek input from Territorians on its shape and practice. We are not wedded to a particular model; we will not go into this with a closed mind. The final shape of the commission will be informed by consultation with the community, stakeholders and expert legal advice.
The key issues in our conversations with the community will include the objects set out in the act that establish the commission, and the function and scope of its powers. Objectives of an anti-corruption body could include matters such as promoting the integrity and accountability of public administration by constituting an independent anti-corruption commission as an accountable body; investigating, exposing and preventing corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials; educating public authorities, officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects to public administration, and the community; and conferring on the commission’s special powers to inquire into allegations of corruption.
As I said previously, we are not wedded at this stage to any particular model for an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory and will consult widely on matters such as the structure, objectives, function and powers of the commission so it suits Territory conditions. Discussion papers and a draft bill to establish the commission will be released for public consultation.
I want to acknowledge the police. Before I finish this discussion today I want to go to some of the other issues and recommendations of the Ombudsman. Labor has not determined its position on the issue of giving the Ombudsman power to compel witnesses to give evidence to him. It is a major point of discussion for an ICAC and a power which most ICACs have. In establishing an ICAC you would have, under most ICACs, that power to compel to give evidence so it could be taken care of at that spot. The question then is would the Ombudsman need to also have that power. Where that power can sit needs to be thought through. It is a power that normally sits with an ICAC.
The actions of the Chief Minister in his famous media conference in February provide support for the idea of compelling witnesses to provide information. In this conference the Chief Minister said he had evidence of collusion between members of parliament and senior police in a coup against his leadership. These are extremely serious allegations, and given the Chief Minister’s assertion of evidence an ICAC would have the capacity to compel him to reveal that evidence, especially after he backed off his promised judiciary inquiry as a result of that. There needs to be a capacity to ensure evidence, such as that claimed by the Chief Minister in his media conference in February, is provided to the correct authorities. That may require an ICAC which can compel people to supply evidence.
The Ombudsman made special reference to the point that he cannot compel someone to give him evidence and has asked for that power. The Ombudsman has recognised the deficiencies that exist in the current system: that the independent bodies in the Northern Territory have certain areas they cannot look at. That is a problem. There are certain powers they do not have, which is also a problem. One of those is to do with witnesses who have evidence and the independent body knows they have evidence but it cannot force them to give it.
I also want to acknowledge the prompt initial response by police to matters that arose during the Ombudsman’s investigation. It is also important that we never lose sight of the contribution of our police force to the safety and wellbeing of our community. Commissioner Kershaw has already announced and commenced the formation of a special references unit within the police professional standards command to investigate corruption, matters of political sensitivity, serious conflicts of interest and other complex internal matters. I commend the commissioner’s decision.
I also note the appointment of Superintendent Jamie O’Brien as head of the unit and his confirmation that the unit will be staffed by members selected on the basis of their analytical skills, integrity and impartiality.
Again, I express my appreciation and pay tribute to all the dedicated honest police who put their own safety on the line every day to serve and protect our community, as do firefighters and emergency service workers. The police have gone through difficult times recently. The absolute majority – 99% -- have been doing their job while things have swirled around them from the upper echelons that go nowhere near the day-to-day work of police. They have soldiered on in difficult circumstances and I say to them, you are valued by this parliament and the Territory community for your dedication and service.
More can be said about this issue, and we have other contributors to this debate today, which I appreciate. I think Jodeen Carney summed it up when she said:
The CLP may well choose to resist this idea today and may resist this idea for a while longer, but it cannot be resisted for ever. There will be an ICAC in the Northern Territory. At this stage it looks like it will take a Labor government to bring in an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. This is an idea whose time has come. I ask the CLP today, or its members and independent members of this parliament, to join us and adopt this motion. We would love to see an independent commission against corruption established in the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion the member for Fannie Bay has put forward for the creation of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
I have asked my esteemed opposition members if they would give me some latitude tonight in my speech. There is a transgression I would like to make and put on the public record this evening.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commission recommended the electorate of Araluen be scrapped in the 2015 electoral redistribution, announced yesterday, 16 June. Although this is not the final decision, it would seem highly likely the electorate of Araluen is history and will be merged into the three surrounding central Australian electorates of Braitling, Greatorex and the new electorate of Battarbee, formerly Stuart, from August 2016.
My time as the member for Araluen has been an absolute privilege. It has been a dream come true to represent a section of the Alice Springs population in the Northern Territory parliament. I am forever grateful to the people of Araluen for bestowing on me this incredible honour and responsibility, and I am very proud of the work I have done in Araluen.
Being a good local member is about being responsive to people’s concerns and problems. Through good policy, advocacy and promoting good government I believe I have improved the lives of the people in Araluen.
Some highlights for Araluen during my incumbency include crime being dramatically reduced in Alice Springs. This work started whilst we were in opposition. We knew we had to be bold and decisive about tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. We set high targets, and for the most part we have achieved those targets. We have dramatically reduced the level of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs and provided a broader range of alcohol treatment services. I have played an integral role in this reform.
The subdivision of Kilgariff, a new trophy suburb in Araluen, has been vigorously progressed under my watch. We can now see homes being built. The Alice Springs Hospital, which is also in my electorate in Alice Springs, has seen significant improvements. Through creative juggling of funding whilst I was Health minister, we will soon see a palliative care hospice at the Alice Springs Hospital. This service has been planned and waited on for many years.
The old government police flats in Allchurch Street in The Gap were left derelict for years. As soon as we came to government I ensured we moved quickly to resolve the future of this complex. It was sold last year and has since been renovated and sold, which is a great outcome for what was becoming a public eyesore.
My recent assistance in lobbying for improved netball facilities was successful in the recent budget; a $2m grant was announced. A sealed car park at Flynn Drive Oval was a significant win for local residents and me last year.
I have helped countless people with housing issues, immigration challenges, and problems with government, health, travel, childcare, education, providing information on any number of issues and improving local services, being there to help people in any way I can.
My work for the people of Araluen has been entirely satisfying and enjoyable; I have loved it.
The history of Araluen has spanned 32 years. For 32 years the people of Araluen have loyally supported the Country Liberal Party. I am the fourth Country Liberal Party member to represent the electorate.
Jim Robertson ran from 1983-86; he was the member for Gillen, which was the original name of the electorate. Eric Poole was the member for Araluen for 15 years, from 1986-2001. Jodeen Carney was the member for Araluen for nine years from 2001-10. Finally, I became the member for Araluen in 2010, and I intend to remain the member for Araluen until August next year at the next election, which will be a total of six years.
The Country Liberal Party has always relied on the electorate of Araluen being a stronghold for the party, one seat that could be relied on, but definitely not taken for granted. The party has been loyal to the electorate of Araluen and the people of Araluen have been loyal to the Country Liberal Party.
It saddens me that the Country Liberal Party government now presides over this tumultuous, reckless, political period in which the electorate of Araluen is likely to be scrapped at the next election. I am deeply concerned for the people of Araluen, the people of Alice Springs, and people living in all regional parts of the Northern Territory.
In 2012 the Country Liberal Party came to power. One of our key platforms was to give the bush and the regions a stronger voice in parliament. The Country Liberal Party came to parliament promising to move the emphasis away from the Labor Darwin-centric approach and balance it more evenly across the whole of the Northern Territory, with a particular commitment to giving a voice back to the regions and the bush.
The elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills, worked hard to win the confidence and respect of people throughout regional Northern Territory. People trusted Terry; they knew he would do the right thing. We promised to listen to the voice of the regions, to empower the regions and strongly represent people in the regions. To date, I believe the Country Liberal Party has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its promises to the bush and the regions. The news to scrap Araluen only reinforces my concerns.
In 2012 we promised the regions a greater voice in parliament, economic development opportunities, local government reform, better roads and infrastructure, and generally more resources. With only one year to go until the next election, I fear the Country Liberal Party is far from on track to fulfilling these promises.
Geographically Alice Springs is 1500 km from Darwin but we are light years away when it comes to the economic growth, regional development and prosperity enjoyed in the Top End at the moment. The loss of an electorate from the Centre deprives Alice Springs of another voice in the Northern Territory parliament and a link between the people and the decision-making process. This recommendation is a terrible outcome for the people of Araluen – the mums, dads, workers, business operators and the next generation of children in schools and childcare centres. It short-changes the people of Araluen and the people of Alice Springs. It brings into very sharp focus the failure of successive governments to bring out the best in our wonderful community.
Alice Springs is unique in this country; it is the outback icon. But under both Labor and the Country Liberals over the past 15 years or so, Alice Springs has failed to thrive. This has been the real tragedy of both sides of government. Alice Springs has not grown at a rate even close to that of Darwin and Palmerston. The town has a stagnant population despite government rhetoric to stimulate growth and economic interest. The enormous potential of Alice Springs has not been maximised.
The fact that the Top End gets an extra seat at the expense of Alice Springs says a lot about where we sit on the radar of our political leaders. This is an indictment of the Country Liberals and successive governments, and the worst possible outcome for Alice Springs. In opposition the Country Liberal Party objected to the closure of key government services in Alice Springs. Now, under our watch, it is happening at our democratic heart in the Northern Territory parliament. This disenfranchises the people of Alice Springs in a way I find totally unacceptable. All in Central Australia deserve much better than this.
Of course, I will challenge this decision. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s proposed boundaries are open for public comment for a month and I will be doing my very best over the next four weeks to have this decision reversed.
For the reasons I have outlined I will spend the remainder of my term on the cross benches as the Independent member for Araluen, where I will continue to fight for what is best for Araluen and the broader community. I have spoken before about the pervasive and real tensions that exist between me and the party’s leadership. Under the circumstances, I am best able to represent the electorate from the cross benches.
I was presented with a wonderful opportunity when I was elected to this parliament. But since the Country Liberals took government, it has been eroded by a lack of integrity within government. Proper process is ignored and the failure to honour pledges made from opposition, such as establishing a crime and corruption watchdog, an independent commission against corruption, reflects poorly on us all. I am extremely disappointed that it has come to this, but I am energised about the future. In the interests of providing the best service I can for the people of Araluen, the people who elected me to office in the first place, I know I am making the right decision.
I have become increasingly uncomfortable being part of the Country Liberal Party room over the past months. Although I maintain a good relationship with the majority of my Country Liberals colleagues, a few have made my life hell. I have never encountered anything like this in my life.
With the release of the report yesterday, I spoke to my husband and decided it was time to relieve myself of the pain the Country Liberal Party leadership has been causing me. I want to represent the people of Araluen well, and the people of Alice Springs in the same manner. With the electorate of Araluen gone, I could either battle the party and the Chief Minister to attain pre-selection for another seat, and inevitably fail, or I could just get on and be a good local member for Araluen and spend my time working for the people I care about: my constituents. I have chosen the latter.
My approach now to all matters in the parliament, including budget bills, procedural motions and motions of confidence, will be to treat each of them in turn. I will not be party to political game scoring. The Labor Party should not see my status as an independent member in any way endorsing them as a party. It is not. While the current Chief Minister, I think, will be treated by history as the worst ever, those opposite had little to no regard for Territory finances and shamefully neglected Alice Springs for years.
On a policy front, I will be actively seeking to have in place a truly independent anti-corruption commission, with wide-ranging powers, for the Territory. The Territory has been run too long like a secret boys’ club. While people bought into the idea that the Northern Territory was small and should be able to deal with any such matters, this relied on political leaders doing the right thing and being people of a scrupulous nature having respectable intent. Sadly, this appears not to be the case with some very senior members.
In saying this, I would like to support the motion put forward by the member for Fannie Bay. Thank you for giving me this latitude tonight, member for Fannie Bay. I one hundred per cent support the creation of an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory and I commend the member for Fannie Bay for this important motion.
Certain events that have transpired in Northern Territory politics and the Northern Territory public administration over the past six months clearly demonstrate a need for an independent – and I stress independent – commission against corruption, of some description, in the Northern Territory.
I do not believe the Northern Territory has the checks and balances to ensure strong, objective and independent investigation into the public administration of the Northern Territory. I intend to talk more on this topic over the coming months; however, at this point I will say that the objective and prejudiced determination made by a majority government and Chief Minister as to whether or not a matter of alleged corruption should or should not be investigated, that may or may not involve allegations against government ministers and staffers, is inadequate and far from independent.
Yes, without hesitation I support the member for Fannie Bay in his motion this evening that this parliament should create an ICAC, an independent commission against corruption, as soon as possible.
Returning to the announcement I made tonight concerning my move to the cross benches, my move to become the Independent member for Araluen, I would like to thank those people in the Country Liberal Party and outside who have been good friends and supporters over the years. I want you all to know that this was not part of my five-year plan in life. Never would I have thought in my wildest dreams I would be forced to resign from a party I have been philosophically aligned with all my life. Never would I have thought I would be subjected to the persecution, retribution and intimidation dished out by the Chief Minister and the Treasurer.
To any woman contemplating a future in politics with the Country Liberal Party, think carefully about your ability to endure what I can only describe as abuse. It seems I am in good company, and far from alone, in my divorce from the Country Liberal Party under the leadership of Adam Giles.
The former member for Araluen for nine years, Jodeen Carney, provided a ‘stinging rebuke of the CLP’s current leadership’ in a column in the Sunday Territorian just gone. ‘Jodeen Carney has called out the CLP for showing a “disregard of acceptable political standards”’. She said, ‘the absence of accountability and integrity in Territory politics is lamentable’. Jodeen worked as an adviser to Adam Giles when he first thrust himself into the position of Chief Minister. She was one of his most loyal confidantes. Jodeen Carney is now publically expressing her concerns about the lack of efficacy and accountability within the Giles government. Jodeen Carney resigned from the CLP in April this year.
Another eminent former CLP politician resigned from the party in February, citing similar concerns. Mrs Fay Miller, the former member for Katherine, tendered her resignation from the CLP at the last central council meeting in Katherine. Fay is now the mayor of Katherine.
Fay cited the lack of integrity of the Giles regime as her primary reason for quitting the party. I checked those comments with Fay this afternoon to make sure I was representing her fairly, and she said that was fine and accurate. Add Alison Anderson, the member for Namatjira, and Larisa Lee, the member for Arnhem, to the list of disenfranchised, disrespected and abused Country Liberal Party female politicians and the story becomes compelling.
It should also be noted that the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick, is also on the public record as being fed up with certain disingenuous and unethical practices within government. I have no doubt Kezia is considering her options.
It is no coincidence that three senior female Country Liberal Party members of parliament have resigned from the party in the past five months: Jodeen Carney; Fay Miller; and Robyn Lambley. I do not believe in coincidences in politics. Chief Minister, why do you think three highly-respected female Country Liberal Party MPs have resigned from the party in less than six months? Chief Minister, why do you think five female MPs have resigned from the party in less than two years?
It is also worth noting that the Country Liberal Party parliamentary wing has reduced from 16 people in August 2012 – six women and 10 men – to 13 people – three women and 10 men – in June 2015. That is a 20% reduction in the team and a 50% reduction in female representation in the Country Liberal Party.
There are also male Country Liberal Party members of parliament who have been eliminated and disenfranchised by the Chief Minister in recent times. Terry Mills, the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, was sacked by the current Chief Minister from his diplomatic position in Indonesia a few months ago. This had nothing to do with Terry’s performance. This was a blatant act of political retribution, a completion of the Giles assassination process.
Francis Xavier resigned from the CLP in 2013 and was enticed back into the fold months later. Giles claimed Francis was led astray, that he was influenced by Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee. Francis was welcomed back with open arms but Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee were demonised by Giles. He claimed at the time that he would never have them back in the party again.
On the day Giles dumped me from Cabinet, in February, he announced at the Alice Springs Country Liberal Party branch meeting that night that he would, ‘Never work with that woman again’, referring to me. There can be no doubt Adam Giles has driven me out of the party. This is the Chief Minister whose modus operandi is to eliminate, execute, annihilate, assassinate and who, of course, has no use for the truth.
The decision to leave the Country Liberal Party and become an Independent is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make; it has been a burden hanging over me. It is a decision I take with full awareness of its implications. I am not a quitter or a woman who gives up on her beliefs and her cause. I have been a natural Liberal and Country Liberal all my life. The truth is I am not leaving my party today; I am still standing where I always stood: the rational centre ground of politics. The truth is that my party has left me. The Northern Territory Country Liberals have been betrayed and taken over by a dark, unpleasant, amoral cabal.
In leaving the CLP today I am throwing down a challenge to the Chief Minister and his Treasurer. I know your ways from the inside of the parliamentary wing. I know who you are. I said before in parliament that the government should not be led by the comprised and fallen figures who now hold the reins of power and force their colleagues into compliance through patronage or by threats.
Across the Northern Territory I have watched aghast as the credibility and the electoral position of the Country Liberal Party has been damaged by the member for Braitling. We all know the polls show the government is in trouble. The most recent poll made public by News Ltd and The Australian in February showed a 16% swing away from the government. The Country Liberal Party is in serious trouble. The time has come to stake out an alternative position. I am not going anywhere. I fully intend to remain on the cross benches and will continue to be a strong voice for honesty and integrity in our politics.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, colleagues.
We cannot progress as a society if we do not know the truth about our economy, about the decisions our governments make, and the long-term prospects before us. We cannot progress if we have politicians who aim to divide not unify. This is a moral question. We have had almost three years of the politics of hate, discord and lies. The air is heavy with the weight of the misinformation and fantasies spewed out by the Chief Minister and his propaganda machine. Scandal has followed scandal and many of the key institutions of the Territory have been politicised.
We stand at a crossroads in the Territory. If we are unable to put our own House in order and create a healthier political culture, self-government will not endure. To my fellow Territorians, let us join together and make our voices heard. People of the Territory, I pledge to you that I will do all I can in the time ahead to ensure your government is returned to you.
I look forward to the future as the Independent member for Araluen. I will fight against the scrapping of the electorate of Araluen. I will fight against the diminishment of the voice of regional areas and of parliamentary democracy. I look forward to going home over the weekend and talking to the people of Araluen and Alice Springs about what they want for their community and their town.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to the member for Araluen, well done.
I recently went to northern Canada. I went there because the feeling I get from everyday Territorians at present is that they are disenchanted with this place and with parliamentarians, and they hate the system. They think we have failed them. I went to Canada - and I will give a report on it later - to look at two forms of government where there are no parties, and where they act as independents. But I will go into that later.
The basis of what we see in this motion from the member for Fannie Bay reflects exactly what the member for Araluen was talking about. People are totally disenchanted with the government and, to some extent, that spreads to all of us because of the way we behave. I support this motion; I support an ICAC for a number of reasons.
I was let down by the Chief Minister when this parliament moved a motion that there would be an inquiry into political donations, an inquiry that would have said to the people of the Territory that we support a transparent process of political donations. I was promised by the Chief Minister, and it was reported in the NT News two days before the Casuarina by-election, that the inquiry set up by this parliament would go ahead. That inquiry never went ahead.
If the Chief Minister had been honest, he would have told the NT News there would be an inquiry, but it would not be the same one that was agreed to by this parliament. That is exactly what he did at the first chance for this parliament to sit after the Casuarina by-election; he pulled the pin on what was the most important part of that inquiry so that his party and its political donations could not be examined. That is why it is important that we have an independent commission against corruption.
There was also the issue of what was happening in this parliament. On Wednesday 4 February in the NT News there was an article called ‘Giles claims police coup conspiracy’. It said:
The other thing that concerns me is that the government has many times condemned the previous government about the manner in which it dealt with the Stella Maris building. They funded an inquiry which came up with a large number of recommendations. The funny thing is that one of those recommendations was for an integrity commissioner, but the government decided it would not go ahead with that recommendation. Why would it not go ahead with that recommendation? If the government will not establish an integrity commissioner, how can you argue against a form of ICAC?
The Chief Minister ridiculed the idea of an ICAC saying it would cost $50m. I am not advocating that sort of expenditure, nor am I saying we must have a permanent ICAC. It could be something that brings people with certain skills in occasionally to deal with issues. It has been said that we could use another state’s ICAC. I am not sure that would work because we need to work within our own framework. However, it is important that if we do not have an integrity commissioner – and we have to ask the government why they would scrap it – then we need an ICAC.
The Ombudsman talked about an integrity commissioner, but we do not have one. I went all the way overseas to a little place called Nunavut with a population of about 31 000 and found they have an integrity commissioner. They lead us in some of these things. Mr Richard, who is the Integrity Commissioner for Nunavut, has a website where he says:
It goes on to say:
That is the role of an integrity commissioner in a small place in Canada. In some ways it is very similar to the Northern Territory, with remote communities and a large Aboriginal population. It has an integrity commissioner, yet we had a recommendation from the Stella Maris inquiry that we should have an integrity commissioner and what happened? The Chief Minister said no.
We have three things. We had an inquiry set up to look at political donations, especially from Foundation 51 and Nelson Holdings. The Chief Minister said no. The Chief Minister accused some of his fellow politicians and members of the police force of being in cahoots to assassinate him when that failed coup d’tat happened. There was nothing to support that. Then the Stella Maris inquiry said we should have an integrity commissioner. The government said no.
What impression does that give? Does that give you the impression of an honest, open and transparent government? It does not. That is why we need an independent commission into corruption in the Northern Territory. We need to sort these things out and find out why there has been a brick wall placed in the way of these proposals.
As the member for Araluen mentioned, Jodeen Carney, in last weekend’s NT News, asked for the same thing. It is not just coming from members on this side; it is also coming from former members of the CLP. If this parliament and government are to put faith back into what Territorians think about their process of government, they will have to do something dramatic.
I speak to many people, and quite a few of them are CLP supporters. My electorate is relatively conservative, but people are really disenchanted with what is happening in the Northern Territory at the moment.
I could go on for a long time about this because the motion talks about the Ombudsman’s report. It commends the Commissioner for Police on steps he has taken to establish a special references unit to investigate corruption, and it says to note the response from the Commissioner of Police to the Ombudsman’s report. They are all fine things, but the key here is the anti-corruption commission that has been put forward.
I had some police come and see me around the time the Chief Minister said there was a conspiracy. They were good police. They had been in the force for a long time, and felt they did not have someone they could talk to about the issues they saw within the force.
They were not saying the police force is corrupt. They just felt there were some concerns in the police force and they did not have confidence in anyone to talk to about it. They believed they needed an outside body they could discuss these matters with. That is why I asked for a broad inquiry at that time, but I think we are past that now.
We need this ICAC to clear up much of the stuff floating out there which is harming the government and leaving people feeling more depressed about the way things are. I was down south when all the trouble occurred and I know people in other states were bewildered about what was going on when they saw it on the television.
Somehow we have to start to put some statesmanship back into this parliament, not just leadership. Somehow we have to show we are more interested in the people of the Northern Territory than where our political parties are heading or where we are going as individuals.
I had a lot of things I would like to have spoken about, but the member for Araluen has given us something to think about today. I will read from the code of conduct of the Northwest Territories in Canada:
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, hold the front page as I suspect there will be a different front page tomorrow. I will be honest; I am saddened by the member for Araluen’s decision. I wish I had an opportunity to speak to her about it before she made that decision but that was not the case. The nature of this place is that we respect the capacity of people to make those decisions, and once elected to this House people are free to dispose themselves how they see fit in representing their people. Despite all that, I wish the member for Araluen well.
However, I want to get back to the points in relation to the matter we are debating.
I would like to think that despite what members think of other members in this House, I do my job as a fairly straight shooter. If I was to rely on my reputation publically, whilst I can be a little too strident in my opinions from time to time, I consider myself as always being fairly straight up and down with the people of the Northern Territory. Before entering parliament, as a police officer I always tried my hardest to be a straight shooter.
I have listened to the comments and the assertions made here today, and I have not yet heard a specific allegation of corruption. Parliamentary privileges are available to us all, and I have not yet heard somebody say, ‘That happened on such a date, and that occurred’. I suggest that is because, despite the nebulous noise you hear about this type of thing from time to time, and besides the conjecture and opinions, it distils to, ‘Where is the evidence? Show me the money’, but it does not come forth.
Issues have occurred in the Northern Territory in recent times where the integrity of senior public servants has been drawn into question. Whilst I understand an investigation is still on foot, the circumstances surrounding the departure of the Commissioner of Police developed in such a manner that it was clear it would not be too long before, in this small community, something of that nature would probably percolate to the surface. That appears to have occurred in this instance.
This is a tiny jurisdiction and many people spend a lot of time working on rumours. The rumour mill runs riot, but every time you drop the acid on something it proves to be untrue, ill-founded, a misunderstanding or a case of Chinese whispers gone wrong. We have a rumour mill, and the Leader of the Opposition would have us rely on the rumour mill to go down particular paths.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I would not be involved in a government that was corrupt, straight up and down. I would not be involved, and I am on the inside and see what happens on a daily basis. I see what happens in my office and in a number of the other offices, and my integrity would prevent me from getting involved in anything dubious. The assertion is always bandied around. The Leader of the Opposition has still not apologised to me for suggesting, over a year ago, without any form of evidence, that I took bribes. I have stridently demanded an apology on this from him. I still have not received that apology. I understand that the accusation may have been made in the heat of the debate, but he had nothing to base that allegation on.
You continue to feed the rumour mill. What concerns me is that I am still waiting for specific assertions to be made, not least of which are the comments made by Ms Carney recently. Once again there is a suggestion that something has to be looked into, but why? What is the exact thing that is of such concern?
When there was a specific thing that had evidence attached to it – namely, the Stella Maris matter – the matter was investigated by an inquiry, and that inquiry came down with certain findings. In spite of what people may have thought about that process, there was still no evidence of corruption. There was an absence of a definition as to what that was. There was an abandonment of process; that was clear. Even under the former government, there was no suggestion arising out of something like the Stella Maris inquiry. I would be all for a body of this nature if I genuinely believed that such a body in this jurisdiction was necessary.
There are also practical problems with such a body. Here is a good example; when the matter of the Police Commissioner came to the attention of government and the public, and we looked for someone to investigate the matter, because it is such a small community almost everyone was discounted by virtue of the fact they were, in one fashion or another, compromised through a relationship with someone inside the circle. This is a small population. If there are six degrees of separation around the world, it means that if you have been in the Northern Territory for more than 15 minutes, there are zero degrees of separation. Everybody knows everybody, so how long will an independent commission remain independent?
I know justices of the Supreme Court have to exclude themselves from many activities to maintain that rarefied position of independence. At least they have the succour of knowing they are in the good company of other justices of the Supreme Court.
The assertions consistently made by way of rumour never come to the surface in any fashion. We can look at other states like Western Australia and Queensland, which expect to spend somewhere in the order of $30m to $50m a year to run these sorts of commissions. That is a lot of money. It would, as the Chief Minister said today, place 460 teachers in schools. It would also add additional high schools, middle schools and primary schools, permanently employ about 290 additional police, double the hospital patient travel services for the Barkly and East Arnhem regions - I could go on. Is this good expenditure? Are the safeguards required in place? I believe they are.
There is the criminal justice system. If people make complaints to the police, those complaints are investigated independently of any influence of government. They are beyond the reach of government, and so they properly should be, as well as the other investigative bodies that exist.
You also have the Electoral Commission, which exists to do a job, and in spite of the suspicions I suspect the member for Araluen may harbour, I have no evidence or belief that the Electoral Commission has done anything other than act independently. I am concerned that from time to time if people do not get what they expect then they smell a rat, as they would care to express it, but I do not always agree.
The request brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is to note:
We can note those:
The commission is an established body which will require a large amount of expenditure to establish and will probably have to farm all of its work out if the commissioner was local for any period of time:
We commend the Commissioner of Police on that as well:
We can do all of that.
Supporting the creation of an anti-corruption commission is the only point of difference I harbour with the Leader of the Opposition. Whilst in opposition, I articulated my support for this idea. It has somewhat waned, particularly in relation to the way the ICAC in New South Wales conducted itself when rumours surrounding the head of the Director of Public Prosecutions circulated in relation to how she may or may not have involved herself in a car accident involving – I think it was – her son’s girlfriend; I am not entirely sure of all of the details of that matter. But the only place to go is to have something like the High Court restrain ICAC from its behaviour. If you read some of the other accounts, particularly in The Australian in relation to how the New South Wales ICAC and members of the ICAC seemed to relish dragging politicians and people to give evidence over the coals, then that begs the question, who polices the policeman?
There are all sorts of vehicles and structures today in which matters of corruption can be dealt with, not least of which are police investigations. I have yet to hear anything that causes me sufficient uncertainty to believe there is something untoward happening in government, in any of my colleagues’ offices, that requires the intervention of an organ of this nature. I would be very surprised to be proven wrong in any of that. People may not like the style or manners of members of parliament, and that is fair enough. We have elections so members of parliament can be either returned or removed by the public. But styles, mannerisms and those sorts of methodological processes do not equate to anything that an ICAC would be interested in.
If I in any thought that something untoward was happening in any of my colleagues’ offices, I would be raising it very quickly. If I did not get satisfaction from the Chief Minister I would seek to go beyond the Chief Minister to any number of those other places where these things could be effectively investigated. But I am confident nothing has occurred that would compromise my integrity. I am comfortable government is governing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
It is for that reason I can only be critical of paragraph (b) of the proposed motion regarding the creation of the anti-corruption commission of the Northern Territory. It is an expensive option which would cause the loss of opportunity in a number of ways which have been described by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Even if you look all the way back to things like the Mulholland Inquiry in the 1980s where they found shortcomings in process and issues with competence, but no entrenched corruption, that would be exactly the same finding today.
A jurisdiction of this size cannot have these sorts of things occurring that the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition allude to. To establish a perpetual Mulholland Inquiry in the Northern Territory would be expensive and, I suspect, would ultimately lead to limited outcomes.
However, the matter is now before the House to consider, and I am sure it will follow its usual processes to consider these matters in due course.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing this motion before the House.
I cannot go on without acknowledging the contribution the member for Araluen made to this debate. I suspect her colleagues were unaware it was coming. I acknowledge the courage she has displayed in the announcement she made tonight. Quite plainly, for her, working in a nest of vipers has not been easy, hence her decision to depart. I applaud her for her courage, her unshakeable beliefs and integrity and her well-developed sense of what is right.
Clearly she is a misfit within the ranks of too many of the CLP members. I am sure it has been uneasy for certain members on the other side, who no doubt feel greatly saddened by the news the member for Araluen is moving to the cross benches, perhaps wishing they could join her. That is a particularly difficult decision now, with the narrowest of margins; thirteen seats in this House for the CLP makes it all the more difficult for those who remain on that side. Perhaps they are rethinking what they would really like to do.
Rest assured, member for Araluen, we make no assumptions whatsoever about your political stripes and your liberal ideologies, but the opposition applauds you for choosing our leader’s motion to make your announcement this evening to not only leave the CLP for the cross benches, but to indicate publically your support for the motion of the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
It saddened and angered me to hear the member for Araluen’s statements about her treatment as a woman within the ranks of the CLP, and about the experiences of other women in the CLP, two of whom, her former colleagues, moved to the cross benches more than a year ago.
I can assure you, member for Araluen, you are not alone. Women on this side of the House are frequently the targets of bullying and harassment from the Chief Minster and certain other colleagues. It is more than a political strategy. We know we are all fair game on the floor of this House and the theatre that goes with it. I suggest your treatment and the treatment dished out to all women in this House is driven by what could only be described as misogyny.
The motion before us is an important one, on the back of the tabling of the Ombudsman’s report into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer.
It is not surprising this report was dropped late on a Thursday evening as parliament was concluding at the end of the estimates period, having passed the Appropriation bill, with no opportunity to debate or discuss the important findings. That is because the government and the Chief Minister are not interested in debate or answering serious questions raised about matters of integrity, police conduct and ethics, and, more broadly, about what the government can and should be doing to raise these issues and protect against future occurrences.
I acknowledge the important body of work the Ombudsman has undertaken in investigating serious allegations about police conduct. We know the serving men and women in the Northern Territory police force to be hard-working people who work on the front line day in, day out to protect Territorians and keep our families safe from harm. In recent months that job has become harder for them because they are so under resourced. The CLP election promise of an extra 120 police officers has not been realised almost three years into their term of government, and those positions are now needed more than ever because crime is spiralling out of control and people are not feeling safe on the streets or in their homes.
At lunchtime today I saw at the end of the Mall, in Raintree Park, in response to crime being out of control, an initiative launched by TIO supported by Neighbourhood Watch. It is about encouraging people in this current environment of spiralling crime to make themselves safe. There were messages about locking up belongings. This is a clear indication it is not just us and Territorians who know crime is out of control.
The allegations investigated in this report hurt and damage all those who serve in the Northern Territory Police Force. I place on the record my thanks and admiration for the work they do, and acknowledge how unfair it is that the actions of a few have no doubt tarnished our great police force’s reputation.
The CLP has failed Territorians in keeping them safe when the hard data of the government’s own crime statistics show, especially in Palmerston and Darwin, that crime is out of control, particularly with break-ins and vehicle thefts. The Attorney-General, during estimates, when I asked questions about the very important issue of domestic violence – one of the most important issues in the area of women’s policy – agreed that overall in the Territory domestic violence rates are on the rise. Yes, they are down in certain areas of the Territory, but across the Territory domestic violence is increasing.
This Ombudsman’s report also highlights the need for greater measures which can give Territorians confidence they have a government which can and should be held to account through processes with mechanisms which provide oversight and powers of investigation into matters of integrity or that have a whiff of wrongdoing, and allegations of corruption.
It is incredibly important, but we have heard the Attorney-General say we do not need this, it is not necessary. I am a bit disappointed in the Attorney-General. I know him to be a hard worker. He was a supporter in the coup in February and stood shoulder to shoulder with the member for Katherine as the then Chief Minister elect and the Attorney-General as his deputy. They were standing there side by side because they knew the CLP government is on the nose as led by the member for Braitling.
There is no doubt that independent statutory bodies like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, introduced under Labor, are important in providing mechanisms for conducting investigations. However, the reality is they do not have the powers of an ICAC-style entity. This is why the Ombudsman, in his report, makes recommendations, of which there are seven in total, but Recommendation 4 is the one I see as particularly important. Recommendation 4 states:
It is not surprising the CLP government will not adopt that recommendation it because it does not see a need for it
It would be really good this evening to see some members on that side of the House – you do not have to cross the floor, but you may want to take lessons from the member for Araluen and put your hand on your heart and say with all honesty you believe there needs to be an ICAC because you have seen firsthand some of the incredibly dodgy things that have happened within the ranks of your government.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the establishment of an ICAC is something we have already committed to in the Northern Territory. There are many compelling reasons why an anti-corruption body should be established, but it is clear that with the rule of the CLP government for almost three years, this move has become necessary.
I want to recap some of those key events – there have been many – which have necessitated the call for an ICAC, calls made not just by us, but by the Ombudsman, as well by the former CLP leader, Jodeen Carney, in her opinion piece in the newspaper over the weekend. It started from day one when the CLP came in, but things came to a head over the leadership on 3 February. This saw the CLP government and the parliamentary wing go into meltdown for a number of hours.
The leadership of the member for Braitling was challenged. Nine members of the party wing clearly did not support him, but four did. With his own vote, he was number five. It was not clear how having an overwhelming majority of nine people versus five would see that leadership tilted.
The Chief Minister that afternoon, whilst his leadership was still being challenged, held a media conference, which was broadcast nationally. I will quote some of the things he said on that day.
This was on Tuesday 3 February:
He is also on the record as saying:
There were pretty interesting revelations during that episode. The serious allegations made by the Chief Minister were welcome. It was surprisingly refreshing that he committed to a judicial inquiry, the same judicial inquiry, I should add, the member for Katherine called for during his 1 am press conference the evening before, following the midnight coup where he declared himself the Chief Minister apparent.
Strangely enough, after nine party wing members said no to Adam Giles as their leader, somehow five managed to have the upper hand over those nine and a few hours after the member for Braitling’s press conference, where he had committed to a judicial inquiry due to all of these allegations, he stepped out with the member for Katherine, who previously had challenged him, to confirm that the dynamic duo would be Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister.
Differences were cheerily reconciled so then there was no need for a judicial inquiry. In the space of a few hours, the need for a judicial inquiry into incredibly serious allegations simply evaporated, and the unpopular Chief Minister backpedalled as fast as he could to distance himself from his earlier commitment. He has form in this area.
The member for Araluen probably best summed it up on Wednesday 4 February, the day after the failed coup, which for her efforts in unseating the Chief Minister saw her dumped from Cabinet. Her assessment of the Chief Minister summed up what so many people knew when she said at the time:
It is this sort of debacle and circus which has seriously undermined Territorians’ faith and trust in the government, which has miserably failed the tests of scrutiny, openness, transparency, accountability and honesty. It is not just about the Chief Minister’s allegations about police and who knew what when and exactly what the evidence is that claims he had to substantiate his allegations. It is about other matters this government has handled which are clearly on the publics’ and taxpayers’ nose.
There was the issue of water licences. Water licences were issued willy-nilly, especially if you were a friend of the CLP or even a member of the CLP, all starting with Tina MacFarlane, the CLP candidate for the seat of Lingiari in the federal. A water licence was issued to former magistrate, Peter Maley, a known donor to the CLP and strong supporter of the Attorney-General.
Despite the appeals launched into the over-allocation of water licences by any number of stakeholders from AFANT, NAILSMA, the NLC and traditional owners who were impacted by these waterways, under the act that allows stakeholders to lodge objections and ask for a review, none of these reviews were successful. It is no small wonder that the Environmental Defenders Office of the Northern Territory represented the Environment Centre Northern Territory in the Supreme Court to challenge the minister for not doing his job, around the willy-nilly issuing and over-issuing of water licences, and the case was upheld. Clearly the minister was found to be in the wrong in failing to follow proper process on a review of the allocation of these water licences.
How about the extremely dodgy Foundation 51 and what are known to be very clear links between the CLP and that organisation, their election slush fund? Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you have benefitted from Foundation 51 with a loan of – I think it was about $10 000. Even Graeme Lewis said he was a friend of yours and, trying to duck and weave around this, said it was a personal loan from him, not from Foundation 51. He said he was a good friend of yours and you said you had never met him before, but you were pleased to receive that support and have repaid that loan. It is just dodgy. You only had to click on the link to Foundation 51 and it took you straight to the CLP’s government page, with a big, smiling photo of the Chief Minister staring at you from the screen.
The member for Nelson has spoken in this debate about the appalling action of the Chief Minister in overturning a motion of this parliament during a GBD just like this to investigate political donations. In its place the Chief Minister – thinking he was clever – put in place a much watered-down version which provides us with nothing extra.
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: What about travel rorts? What about the spending of taxpayer funds, millions of dollars, on ministerial travel to destinations far and wide, with so little information available about the purpose of the travel, what was gained from it, who was going, who was flying and what class?
We only had to look at the Chief Minister in estimates with his appalling performance. By not answering questions about where money was spent he showed he has something to hide.
What about the Education minister with his junket to China? He went to China to open doors on a trip paid for by the Education department rather than the Chief Minister’s department, which is where ministerial travel should come from. By taking a trip with the Education department at its expense, he took away money intended for students.
Then there was the question he was unable to answer yesterday and today about why he flew home via Perth when principals on that trip and the CE flew directly to Darwin from Singapore. For some bizarre reason which he cannot explain, the Education minister came home via Perth. There are still questions about the Education minister’s junket to China. In the fullness of time, I am sure we will get the answers.
What about our Women’s Policy minister being unable to answer questions about her travel to New York? It does not matter that it was a trip more than a year ago, as she protested today, as if we should forget it. We have not forgotten it and neither have Territorians.
As recently as today in Question Time she completely failed to answer questions about the senior staffer who travelled with her. There are Qantas booking records which demonstrate the seat booked for her senior adviser was business class, yet FOI reveals the e-tickets were booked for economy travel.
When asked today to table those documents in parliament, she declined to do so. She suggested I request it under FOI. She was not listening; she does not get the question; she does not understand her responsibilities as a minister of the Crown and does not understand the importance of honesty, integrity and being answerable to taxpayers about how their money is spent on extravagant overseas trips.
What about the entourage of people who headed to Greece? It read like a who’s who list of mates of the CLP. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you were on the junket as well, and I believe, recruited four people from Kalymnos. I am not sure it stacks up for the amount of money spent on that trip.
Under the heading of travel rorts, we have an ex-tourism minister who, with the Chief Minister’s former Chief of Staff, had a rollicking good time in a Tokyo bar, but at 4 am called on the CE for Tourism and instructed him to pay the $5000-plus bar tab with a government provided credit card, which is completely in breach of Treasury guidelines. Yes, he did re-pay it eventually via a payroll deduction over time, but that is not the point. Anyone else in any job would have been sacked for that.
My husband is a schoolteacher. When he got news of this he said it is like me going on a professional development trip to Darwin, kicking up my heels, realising I did not have the money to pay the bar bill and at 4 am phoning Ken Davies the CE, or my principal, to say, ‘Listen, I am in a spot of bother here. Can you send me your government credit card and authorise payment of my bar bill because I do not have the money to cover it and I do not want to put it on my credit card because I do not want my wife to see what I have been doing.’
It is unthinkable. Nobody in any other job would be rescued, unless you are a CLP minister, because they will do dodgy things and bend over backwards to look after their mates. They look after their mates, but not certain women within their ranks.
Jobs for the boys – I do not think I have enough time left in this debate to list all the names of those CLP buddies from the past who, from day one when the CLP came into government, came out of the woodwork and put their hands up for jobs, not just on the fifth floor, but for key roles in various government organisations and with good salaries attached. As recently as the estimates period, we saw the senior adviser to the Health minister given the plum job of Health Commissioner. It does not matter that his appointment is on the back of being a former Health minister. That he is a political appointee and a known member of a political party filling the role of a statutory independent office is entirely inappropriate.
This litany of dubious, questionable and complete wrongdoing of this government across so many facets of their almost three years into their term is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the opposition or the independents, and is clearly not acceptable to the member for Araluen who said there is no such thing as a coincidence in politics. Tonight she has chosen to announce her resignation from the Country Liberal Party to sit on the cross benches because she knows her former colleagues and the way they operate are entirely on the nose. It is no small wonder that she joins us, as do Territorians, in calling for an ICAC-style entity.
People have had a gutful of this. The fact the government continues to resist recognising the need for a ICAC-style entity only serves to make people think this government seriously has something to hide.
I commend this motion to the House. I acknowledge the leader for bringing it forward, and the good work Mr Peter Shoyer, as Ombudsman, has done in compiling this report. He recognises the shortcomings of his powers to not be able to investigate members of parliament. I support his recommendation about the need for openness, transparency and integrity, and that the government should establish an ICAC.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member who introduced this motion. I cannot recall who it was. I do not know if it was the member for Nelson or someone else.
As I said in Question Time today, the government does not support establishing an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory for many reasons. One is that we have full faith in the institutions within the Northern Territory, including but not limited to the Ombudsman; the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosure; the Commissioner for Public Employment; the Electoral Commission, which I understand has been called into question recently – he has my full support, as does everybody within the commission – the Auditor-General; the Australian Federal Police; the Northern Territory Police Force; and every minister of government, member of parliament and member of government, that being 20 000-plus public employees. That is the first reason.
The second is the amount it would cost to run an institution similar to that. I spoke earlier today about Western Australia’s Commission costing about $30m a year – $31m and change – and more than $50m a year to run a similar commission in Queensland. We know some of the findings have been brought into question in New South Wales as a result of some of the recent court decisions so I will not talk about that.
On the basis of the $50m budget in Western Australia, we have to balance that with our expenditure across a range of government services. We have a range of additional public institutions and figures, whether it is the Auditor-General or otherwise, who we place a high degree of faith in. When you balance out what $50m could do in the Northern Territory – my colleague, the Attorney-General, mentioned many of the options – you have to be careful.
An amount of $50m could permanently employ 460 teachers. Labor is proposing the removal of such teachers, or the expenditure thereof, to support such a commission when we have a body such as the Ombudsman who has the ability to look at these types of matters. An amount of $50m could provide staffing and operational costs of five high schools, 10 middle schools or 15 primary schools in the Northern Territory; that is the level of expenditure we are talking about. Looking at the police numbers in the Northern Territory, fewer than 1500, $50m is 290 police officers and their salaries.
It is quite a large amount of money to do this. The employment of 300 medical officers or 450 nurses, 50 hospital beds and 290 child protection workers - that is the level of expenditure we are talking about. When I see the operation of things like the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner – the recent work they have done is a good example – what the Ombudsman does - they are all institutions we have legitimately backed and should continue to do so.
For $50m you could get 70 km or 80 km of rural arterial roads, or 75 km of secondary roads, which is a very important investment in the Northern Territory. That is not to say that looking at matters of integrity and transparency are not important, but when you have these institutions and figures in place to manage the oversight of such matters, we should be backing them and not funding duplicated bodies.
I know Labor members have a policy of supporting an ICAC-style body. It suits them politically because they are not in government, so it is easy to call for that. They did not introduce an ICAC-style body when they were in government. They relied on the public institutions there now. They do not have a policy on perjury and are quite happy to support one of their own in a similar setting.
If there was such a body in the Northern Territory, one of the first things we would do is refer the members for Karama and Barkly. But there is no such body because there is a process, the process that is now being undertaken by the Privileges Committee, which is the right and just process we should be following. It has not featured during these parliamentary sittings. It will probably feature during the next parliamentary sittings for further debate. These are the processes set up within government and we fully back them.
The member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General, spoke about the very close nature of the Northern Territory - a small population - and how comments get around very easily, whether or not those comments are correct. These become rumour mills. Nearly every day that I deal with the media I am responding to a rumour that it is never substantiated.
The nature of the questions in Question Time today - the member for Nhulunbuy asked a question along the lines of, ‘Did her chief of staff sit next to her on a plane and did he fly business class?’ I have no idea what that question is about, or where he sat on the plane. We sat here in bewilderment wondering what that was all about because it is obviously some sort of rumour. I can inform this Assembly, after speaking with the minister, that he did fly business class. I am not sure what seat number it was, but he sat next to the minister on the plane.
This is just a very simple but prime example of how we respond to rumours on an everyday basis. I am sure tomorrow I will be asked about where the chief of staff sat on a plane. I am amazed about this chasing of rats up drain pipes that do not seem to be there - or rumours of this nature.
There is the process of estimates where questions can be asked. I said in estimates, and I have said since, that I thought Labor’s performance in estimates was deplorable. Information we provide every year, and Labor would provide to us in opposition - those questions were not even asked this year. Whether it is about travel or a range of other areas, estimates is one of the processes where you hold expenditure to account, through appropriation bills and so forth, but it was not done. That is the mechanism that can be utilised for accountability and transparency.
You may be a new Opposition Leader and inexperienced, but surely you have the ability to call on some wise heads to assist you.
I do not need to go through every step of the way of whether that is the Privileges Committee, the PAC, estimates, the Ombudsman, the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner, the Auditor-General, the general public, the media, the committee stage approach in parliament or the court of public opinion, which in the Northern Territory is quite often the pub. All of these bodies provide good oversight for the Territory.
When it comes down to balancing that level of oversight versus expenditure of up to $50m on a commission, I say we run with the level of oversight we have and continue to employ the 460 teachers; the 290 child protection workers; fund the five high schools, 10 middle schools or 15 primary schools; and those 290 police; that we continue listening to the community and being held to account as government, opposition and as Independents. We must also continue to provide our current level of transparency and accuracy.
On a final note, today in Question Time, questions about changes to the travel policy in the Northern Territory showed how looking at issues can lead to change, better processes and accountability. As I said in Question Time, when we came into government about $30m was spent on travel services each year in the Northern Territory by government at local travel agents. This was done without a value-for-money test, two or three quotes for travel, scrutiny for reconciliation or transparency about why one travel agent was being picked over another. This resulted in some travel agents being big winners and others not.
We brought about a new process, announced some time ago, for corporate travel, to see 100% corporate travel by 1 July, and a further process on corporate travel being advertised in September this year for commencement on 1 January next year. That is about following the processes of good government, and good parliamentary processes, adhering to issues and concerns, and improving processes.
We identified that in government ourselves. We have been running on a steady path going forward. If we were to bring in an ICAC, one of the things we may look at would be travel expenditure when Labor was in government, when approximately $30m was spent and there was not a clear process about how that money was expended. That resulted in a lot of money being expended and a lack of investment in government services.
There are some elements of the motion that could be supported, such as supporting the commissioner, the reports and noting the information, but we will not be supporting the elements setting up an independent commission, because we have faith in the institutions and processes we have now.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition in this very important motion he has brought before the House to note the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report, and to support the creation of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory, because it is needed. There is no doubt about that.
Tonight we have seen some remarkable scenes in this parliament, with the member for Araluen deciding to leave the Country Liberals and sit on the cross benches. I listened very carefully to what she said. Again she has proven she is a person of integrity and incredibly brave. I watched her for many years when she was in opposition, and I saw she is not a weak woman. She is a very tough and strong woman, and somebody who has always stood her ground and spoken her mind. She conducted herself that way in government, as well.
Hearing some of the reasons she feels she can no longer sit with the government, and has to move to the cross benches, makes you wonder what on earth goes on behind closed doors up on the fifth floor. To hear she felt the CLP had been taken over by a dark, unpleasant, amoral cabal and that they have had three years of hate, discord and lies was quite striking. They were very powerful words. It shows what is happening in this government behind closed doors can spill out into the public view for everybody to see.
We have seen it in the media; and heard some fairly serious allegations here in parliament. There is no doubt, particularly after the night of the failed attempt to overthrow the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, that there are some very serious divisions still running in the government.
When nine of your colleagues say they do not want you as leader and yet you stay and hold them to ransom, it shows there are some big problems. I cannot imagine what it is like to work in that type of environment where there is such division, dislike, bullying and threats.
To try to run the Northern Territory in a work environment like that – this is what Territorians are having to put up with. It is little wonder people continue to say this is the worst government and Chief Minister they have ever seen, and they want to see things change.
Here we are today – because of the performance of this government in the last three years – at a point where we, as the opposition, as well as the member of Araluen and other members, say there is little choice but to see the establishment of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. It is simply time.
Referring to the findings of the Ombudsman’s latest report into the matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former police commissioner and another police officer, we note the recommendations of this report and the findings around serious matters raised with a great deal of public attention. We acknowledge and commend the work of the new Commissioner of Police for the action he has taken to establish a special reference unit, and note his response to the Ombudsman’s report.
There is no doubt this has been a difficult period for police, but we see the new Police Commissioner and his senior officers – and all members of the police force – are committed to tackling serious allegations about government travel and conduct.
The police do an amazing job in the Territory. They are proud of the profession they work in, and know the importance of integrity in that role. I sympathise with the police officers who feel their integrity has been put into question. I have faith, though, that the police are doing everything they can to work through these issues. They want to get on with the business of doing their job as sworn police officers of the Northern Territory – to serve and protect. I acknowledge they have been under a lot of scrutiny and pressure of late with these serious allegations and events.
We have seen in recent times a period of troubling allegations around conduct. It goes back to the announcement in November last year, when it became apparent that a local travel agent was being investigated by police for allegations surrounding the misuse of the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. In January the former Police Commissioner was stood down by the member for Brennan while the Chief Minister was away. This was soon followed by the former Police Commissioner resigning. We also saw police launch an investigation into police, and the Northern Territory police have had to engage police from outside the Northern Territory, given the close relationships within a small police force which comes with living in a small jurisdiction.
There was also an investigation launched by the Information Commissioner. We also saw the need for the Information Commissioner to seek external assistance for the investigations due to known relationships with some of the parties in question and conflicts of interest.
It was already a remarkable situation due to the serious nature of the allegations. A police commissioner was stood down then resigned. We then had multiple investigations under way into the same matters, which presented clear conflicts due to relationships because of the small size of the Northern Territory and the fact we had serious questions over senior levels of police, and other senior positions around the Northern Territory.
It was also clear there was a need for a truly independent inquiry into matters as the areas investigated were murky, and there appeared to be conflicts and known relationships, making it difficult for this to occur.
It appeared the Chief Minister understood this too, as he raised serious concerns over questions about him. I do not think anyone will soon forget the now infamous day in Territory history when the Chief Minister refused to stand aside so the member for Katherine could take over because nine of his colleagues told him they had lost confidence in him. In a defiant media conference he dug in to tell his nine colleagues he would not stand aside as Chief Minister. He also made some very serious statements to the media. These included announcing that, as Chief Minister, he was establishing a judicial inquiry into questions about the former Police Commissioner, John McRoberts.
The Chief Minister raised serious concerns he had about conduct at the time. I quote:
Following these remarkable events and serious allegations the Chief Minister called off the judicial inquiry he called for on the day he wanted to save his job.
We are still nowhere near getting the answers Territorians want about travel and what has happened here. Now more questions have arisen, especially how the Chief Minister failed to answer very basic questions about travel at estimates. It seemed to be another act to bury the details of government travel.
I stress that the question about government travel is a question every opposition puts to Chief Ministers every year at estimates. It is never a surprise question. It was a question the Country Liberals, when they were in opposition, asked the Labor government. It is an area the Department of the Chief Minister prepares for every year going into estimates. They go through travel and make sure it is outlined for every minister. It was a question the opposition gave the government prior notice of coming into estimates, so there were no surprises.
The only surprise on the day was the Chief Minister’s response when he was asked the question, and then refused to table the information on hand, to the point where they had to put the question on notice and drag it out for another two months, not even within the specified time of estimates. It is now going into July. That is a significant amount of time for the opposition and the public to wait to see this information.
They are making us wait a hell of a lot longer for an answer to a question the government knew was coming, had prior notice of and is asked every year. It is a stock standard question. Opposition parties ask governments how much their ministers have been travelling, where they have been travelling to, and what it has cost the taxpayer. We want to ensure they are getting value for money.
When we see that type of behaviour, we ask some very serious questions. The government is failing to answer those questions on travel. It is little wonder we are left with no other position than to stress that it is time for an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
People simply want to get to the bottom to find out what the facts are, because government is failing to provide answers to Territorians. It is not that we do not have faith in our public officials; we have some incredibly hard-working, fantastic public officials. We have an Ombudsman’s report which had a great deal of hard work put into it. We have very hard-working and dedicated police doing their job as professionally as they can. We have an Information Commissioner, an organisation doing investigations and what not. We now have the Department of the Chief Minister conducting other investigations into police.
Very serious allegations have been made about the former Commissioner of Police. The Chief Minister asked serious questions about conduct and multiple reports and investigations have been written and carried out. With some of those investigations we have seen constraints these investigating officers have faced while trying to get the answers.
The Northern Territory is a very small jurisdiction. If you are a senior public servant, it is very likely you know many other senior public servants and police, and have had to deal with members of parliament often. To have a truly independent look into these serious allegations and the questions hanging over senior parts of the government, you need a body which is able to independently do that, so Territorians can have faith in what is happening. In the Ombudsman’s Report there are specific references to independent commissions against corruption.
Within the report, which the government swiftly moved through this parliament on the last day of estimates - and I welcome that the Leader of the Opposition has bought it back so we can debate it further - there are several important recommendations and options for reporting. I note Recommendation 4, which says:
Later in the report the Ombudsman writes in point 111:
We heard government members state that this body would cost between $30 to $50m. That is ridiculous. We have made very clear our commitment to Labor delivering an ICAC body in the Northern Territory, and one with the right model for here. To put it into perspective about what the government is trying to argue about the size and cost of an ICAC, they keep referring to Queensland and Western Australian. Queensland has a $50m ICAC, but you are looking at a population of 4.7 million people. Western Australia, with $30m for an ICAC, is a jurisdiction with a population of 2.5 million people. The Northern Territory is a much smaller place, so that is a ridiculous argument to run. It is trying to spin away from the fact that an ICAC is needed in the current environment. What we have seen further supports the vital reasons for an ICAC.
Beyond the travel concerns, there are other concerns people want investigated. People want water licences and political donations investigated, especially when in this Chamber the member for Nelson succeeded in getting an inquiry into political donations agreed to on a General Business Day, yet the government quashed it. They stopped it from happening in a spectacular form. The member for Nelson kept saying he felt as if he had been led up the garden path. It makes you wonder what on earth they are hiding, especially when such serious allegations about Foundation 51 have been passed on to police.
There are grave concerns about the integrity, accountability and conduct of this government. It is time for an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory. I support the Leader of the Opposition proposing this important motion. My colleagues and I stand united to found an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory because there are serious questions that remain unanswered. It is time, it is needed, and Territorians want it because they want to have trust and faith restored in their government. At the moment that is completely eroded. People do not trust this government because of its conduct.
The Assembly divided:
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly calls on the government to report on:
any plans it has to increase the participation rate of the Cash for Containers program
any plans it has to expand the number of Cash for Container depots in the Northern Territory
any negotiations it has had with the South Australian government to expand the type of containers covered by the scheme
any negotiations it has had with the New South Wales government, which intends to introduce a cash for containers scheme in 2017
any negotiations with the Queensland government, which promised to introduce a cash for containers scheme during the recent election
any plans to widen the scope of the scheme to cover other items such as chemical containers.
After the previous debate, this will be light weight, but it was always meant to be. The Cash for Containers scheme in the Northern Territory is an issue that has a fairly volatile history. It goes back at least 20 years.
I was on the Territory Anti-Litter Committee, which was called TALC. It was funded by the beverage industry. Part of the unwritten deal was that the Territory government would not introduce cash for containers schemes in the Northern Territory as long as they kept taking the money from the beverage industry.
That is what the government did. I would turn up for Territory Anti-Litter Committee meetings and I was not allowed to discuss cash for containers. We painted plenty of rubbish bins and did all sorts of things with that money, but we never got anywhere.
Lorna Woods was the champion pushing for Cash for Containers. She worked for Keep Australia Beautiful, which was not like some of the Keep Australia Beautiful organisations down south; it was not beholden to the beverage industry.
It was a long, hard haul and some of the issues we had introducing Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory are exactly what the New South Wales government had to put up with. There were threats, phone calls and claims the world would come apart if we had a cash for containers scheme.
We know from the history of Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory how difficult it is to introduce. I had people visiting me, wanting to talk to me about it. Other members of parliament would have had people from the beverage industry talking about it, trying to convince them it should not go ahead. The ultimate was when the beverage industry took the Northern Territory government to court to stop it. So it has been a long hard haul to get something I believe is important for the Northern Territory.
It has worked well in South Australia for many years. The South Australian model is not the same as the process we followed in the Northern Territory. We have led the way in breaking away from just one state having a cash for containers scheme. Now New South Wales is joining up and will introduce the scheme in 2017. Other states are taking about it, but I will get to that later.
I will go through the motion as it is. The Assembly is calling on the government to report on any plans it has to increase the participation rate. I will provide some numbers to give people an indication of how it has been increasing, even with its ups and downs. You will remember there was a court case and the government had to fund the scheme while that was ongoing. Even through all of that, when there were some doubts about the scheme’s viability, it has survived. The main products we recycle are aluminium; PET; HTPE, the various forms of plastic; glass; LPB, which is liquid paper, such as iced coffee cartons; and there are other containers.
In 2012 the average return rate to the CDS coordinators was around 28.6%. Aluminium, which is usually the most popular, was 30.8% in the first quarter of 2012, just when the scheme started. In the period July 2012 to June 2013, in that first year, returns for aluminium - 55% of cans sold were returned, PET 39%, HTPE 16%, glass 44% and liquid paper up to 28%.
Already you can see the scheme was catching on. The average then went from 28.6% in the first quarter of 2012 to 46% at the end of the financial year 2012-13. In the annual report for 2013-14, aluminium was steady at 55%, PET 29%, HTPE dropped a little to 49%, glass was 39% and LPB 24%. From memory, that was the time some of the companies took the Territory to court so there was a drop. The average participation rate was about 41%.
For the last quarter of 2014, which are the latest figures I have been able to get – I e-mailed the minister’s office today and they said the first quarter for this year will not be out until the end of June. I do not have the latest figures – it is still going up. Aluminium was 65%, PET 33.17%, HTPE 26%, glass 59%, and LPB 59.57%, an average from the previous year of 41% up to 53.85%.
I am comparing this with, to give an indication of why we have to keep the momentum going, the return rates in South Australia for 2013-14. in that financial year for us aluminium was a 65% return rate, in South Australia it was 84.3%; PET 33.17% in the Territory and in South Australia 70.5%; HTPE 26.43% in the Territory and in South Australia 56.4%; Glass in the Northern Territory 59.63% and in South Australia 84.3%. Liquid paper in the Northern Territory is 59.57%, nearly the same as South Australia, with liquid paper at 61.9%. Compared to South Australia we are down 19.2% on aluminium, 26% on PET, 30% on HTPE, 25% on glass, and the one we are closest to was the iced coffee cartons; we are 2% less than the South Australian return rates. People are picking up on the idea that liquid paper is quite a valuable product. You get money back for it, and you put it into recycling so it can be used for other products.
I ask the government, how can we increase the overall number of returns? Has the government looked at working with industry to expand the number of depots? In 2012 we had eight coordinators and now we have 10. We have increased the number.
When we first started off we had quite a few depots. Envirobank was the biggest at the time, which is at Pinelands. It also had depots at Katherine, Milingimbi and Parap. I am not sure where the mobile depot service was. I know it had one that could be taken around the place; I think it was at the Darwin Shoal Bay tip. There was one destined for Howard Springs and one for Charles Darwin University.
Veolia set up at Palmerston Shopping Centre. It had mobile depots at Karama, Berrimah, and Alice Springs. Nightcliff Shopping Centre had Revive Recycling, and Aputula set up a recycling depot. A company called NTRS Recycling set up at Yarrawonga, Berrimah and Shoal Bay; Bagnall Agencies at Elliott; MT Bins at Katherine; Territory Can Man at Winnellie, and Metal Traders in Tennant Creek.
There were quite a few other approvals given, even as far out as Mataranka, Kakadu, Nhulunbuy, Wagait Beach and Adelaide River. Unfortunately some of those did not come into existence. Then as things settled down we had changes even in Tennant Creek; Barkly Metal Traders was the company that continued there.
Merlyn Pty Ltd which was trading as Bagnall Agencies in Elliott, MT Bins in Katherine, Envirobank in Pinelands, Veolia in Berrimah, Aputula in Alice Springs, and Envirobank had some machines that you could put cans and, in some cases, bottles in. It depended on the machine. We also had the Can Man at Winnellie and NT Recycling.
There was a range of people staying in the business. Unfortunately at that time there was insecurity in the industry because of the Coca Cola issues, or the beverage industry taking the Territory to court. In some places they even closed down for a while as that was going on.
In 2013-14 most people continued. There was a new company in Tennant Creek, Darrin’s Rubbish Removal. It was probably in competition with the Barkly Metal Traders.
Mr McCarthy: Not anymore.
Mr WOOD: Not anymore; that is right. MT Bins still continued in Katherine. Envirobank started to thin out a bit. It has a depot in Alice Springs and one in Pinelands. The company in Alice Springs originally, which was under Veolia, gave it away.
There were problems with not enough money being in the system to pay for the handling fee. That was one of the big issues right at the beginning. That caused some people to pull the pin on the whole thing. They still had the reverse vending machine at Charles Darwin University and Milingimbi. There was one at Wagait Beach, Parap and Nightcliff, so it was going on steadily.
Now, in 2015, we have 10. We have two at Berrimah. Bevcon Recycling – I was there the other day – is a new company that has started and is very keen to promote its business. NT Recycling Solutions, which has been with us from the beginning pulled out. The ex-minister might remember the handling fee was the problem. They found it very difficult to make money with such a low handling fee. One of the difficulties was negotiating handling fees with the big companies. They were not interested in the whole thing operating, so why would they care whether the handling fee was good enough?
After the number of approaches by the beverage industry, saying, ‘Oh it will cost a fortune; it is terrible’, do you hear any complaints about the price of beverages today? No. They are about the same price as anywhere else. In South Australia those so-called price increases were easily covered by the amount of money the beverage industry has recovered from the non-returned product.
Envirobank at Pinelands has been the biggest one for most people; Charles Darwin University still has, I presume, a reverse vending machine; Winnellie has the Territory Can Man; Katherine has MT Bins; Elliott has Bagnell Agencies; Tennant Creek has Darren’s Rubbish Removal; Alice Springs has Envirobank Recycling and Milingimbi I think – I was struggling to get information – has a reverse vending machine.
Finke and Aputula have gone, which is sad. I am interested in whether the minister knows why they were not able to continue. They were one of the first ones up and running. They were keen to do it. There is a new player in the Darwin area called Bevcon and Northern Territory Recycling Solutions has come back to open for the public.
In my area there is a desperate need for some sort of depot. Could we get one of the existing companies to have a mobile depot? At transfer stations in the rural area – there are 20 000 people living in the rural area – you only have to look in some of those big bins to see how many cans and bottles are still thrown out because people cannot be bothered taking them to Pinelands. There is an opportunity for the government to have some positive discussions with these companies.
It is not just for the rural area. Milingimbi is the only remote community still operating some form of Cash for Containers machines. What is the government doing to get this into remote communities? One of the reasons we were pushing for Cash for Containers was to help clean up the rubbish in these communities. Quite a few communities are dirty and have rubbish all over the place. Quite a few are good, no doubt about it. It just depends where you are. One way to clean up some of them was to put a value on containers left lying around.
It also had a social benefit. Young kids knew that if they picked up 10 bottles they got a dollar. You started to give them entrepreneurial skills they might not have known they had. Could we get this out to at least some of the bigger communities? What about Nhulunbuy, Maningrida, Wadeye, Daly River, Yuendumu and Hermannsburg? Could we get the stores to become depots where people can get their money back, and then the store delivers containers to the recycling company, even if the return rate out bush was 5c, and the store collected the other 5c? Are there ways we could encourage more recycling in remote communities?
Some remote communities do not have full-year access by road. There was a lot of discussion earlier in this debate that companies like Perkins, which is not with us anymore, would deliver product back to Darwin for free, as backload. Many stores have a truck which comes out to their community to deliver stores. Why can some of these materials not be sent back on those empty trucks?
We must not just say we are doing all right. We need to look at what has happened in the past and see whether we can get up to the rates South Australia has. I am interested to know if the government is being proactive in that area.
We need to remember why the Northern Territory supports Cash for Containers. In South Australia it began as a litter program. Here we always pushed for three important concerns we had about rubbish: litter; landfill; and recycling. They were the three benefits from Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory. It was not just a single issue like litter. The beverage industry used to rubbish it – pardon the pun – because it was only about litter. It was never just about litter; it had other benefits. As I said, in the case of not only some of these communities – how many schools have can trailers? I have a list. I think nearly every school in the Northern Territory has a can trailer and they earn money from that.
How many sporting groups raise money through collecting cans? The Scouts collect cans. For small sporting clubs, this is a way of getting money for new equipment. So it has other benefits besides reduced rubbish landfill. It has social and community benefits.
I looked at containers while I was in Canada. Packaging had the message, ‘Collect the deposit where appropriate’. I have not had a chance to see which provinces or territories in Canada have a deposit scheme, but some do. It is not something that only the Northern Territory has.
I asked whether there have been negotiations with the South Australian government to expand the type of containers covered by the scheme. For me the one annoying thing is we discriminate between the type of containers you can collect money from.
You cannot get returns from wine bottles, milk, or pure fruit juice unless the size of the container is under one litre. For spirits you cannot get anything. An enormous amount of milk is drunk in the Territory, yet you can have a 600ml carton of milk made out of the same product as a 600ml carton of iced coffee, and one has a deposit and one does not. You can have a 2L container of fruit juice drink and you will get a deposit. If you have a 2L container of pure fruit juice, you do not get a deposit.
Why is wine not permitted to have a 10c deposit? What is wrong with putting 10 cents on the bottom of the label? I do not think it will spoil the look of the front. Everything else is on the label at the back: what is in the product, where it was made, the dangers for pregnant women drinking alcohol. I am sure the label at the back will not be ruined by having ‘10c deposit’ on it. I wonder whether some industries had more sway when the South Australian government did not allow wine bottles to have a 10c deposit on them.
Now that New South Wales is looking at this, it is an appropriate time for our government to be talking to the South Australian government and asking if we expand the number of beverage containers to make it better.
People must be getting confused. I take my milk bottles to the recycling depot. I will not get anything for them, but what is the difference between that and a carton of milk or iced coffee? Why do I have to separate them, because one does not have a deposit and the other does?
I think those things that were brought from the South Australian system – there were reasons South Australia did not take on some of these issues. One was because they looked at a beverage as something that was thrown away, so they did not expect a 2L bottle of juice or a large bottle of milk to be thrown out the window.
There was also pressure from certain industry groups that did not want, for instance, milk to have a deposit on it. The word I heard when I was in South Australia – I went there a couple of times to look at the system before we had it here – was that they were worried 10c extra cost on the container would break the family budget. Yet we all know you can get the 10c back. So there are historical reasons, but it would be interesting to see whether our government is taking a proactive approach in doing something about it.
The other question is, have there been any negotiations with the New South Wales government? I will read from a press release in the Sydney Morning Herald on February 21 this year:
Does it sound familiar?
There is also a private member’s bill being introduced in relation to this, but I thought this was the opportunity for our government to be proactive in meeting with and talking to New South Wales. One of the problems we will have, especially if we think we should have a national scheme, is if we all start to do our own thing. The Territory took the lead and made sure we were compatible with South Australia. New South Wales backs on to South Australia. In fact, I think Broken Hill is included in the South Australian cash for container scheme.
It would be good if a minister from South Australia and a minister from the Northern Territory made a combined effort to talk to New South Wales to make sure whatever process they develop is compatible with the Northern Territory’s. Otherwise we will have the problem of cans being refundable in New South Wales but not in South Australia and the Northern Territory. We have a scheme in this part of the world where containers can be interchanged between South Australia and the Northern Territory, and we use a deposit on exactly the same products.
Queensland was mentioned in the media release. I looked up the promises the new government made before the last election. Promise 5.101 was:
There is an opportunity for our government to talk to the Queensland government and say, ‘What are you intending to do? You back on to New South Wales, New South Wales backs on to South Australia and we back on to Queensland. We need to make sure the schemes are compatible otherwise we will end up with a disaster.’
The last point of the motion was: are there any plans to widen the scope of the scheme to cover chemical containers? I know we have drumMUSTER. I was talking to Greg Owens from NT Farmers today. DrumMUSTER is a successful program, except people pay a deposit, but they still have to get the product back themselves. I was talking about the possibility – this would have to be in negotiation with public governments – to include liquid soap containers, jam jars and that sort of thing. We have a lot of plastic for fruit, so you will see SPC or Goulburn Valley products in HTPE, the same product you get your milk in. Could we look at domestic chemical products? They end up in the tip, where we do not want them to be, or they will end up on a shelf when they should be recycled. There are opportunities to use the concept of container deposits even for things like tyres.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: There was a big clean-up campaign across the Nullarbor Plain, and one of the ideas to get some money from picking up old cars was to have a deposit on a new car. It might not be very much, but it would go into a fund that enabled old wrecks by the side of the road to be picked up and removed.
I saw an interesting ad on TV. People could take old cars they had sitting around to auctions and raise money for charity. People had vehicles sitting in their back yards which were no good and would never be fixed; they were just a good place for chooks to lay eggs. They could take them to auctions, get a few dollars for them and give them to charity. That was a good idea. It is not quite the same as cash for containers, but it is trying to recycle products and remove them from being a nuisance.
Minister, I not am expecting you to say the government will go down this path, but I believe the concept of cash for containers has the ability to work for other products. It is not simply beverage containers that end up in our landfill, lots of other products do too. You only have go to a supermarket and a look at what is on the shelves to see the number of plastic containers – anything from shampoos to lotions, all sorts of things you would hope could go back into a recycling system.
There are opportunities for our government to be on the front foot with getting more depots into remote communities, especially those communities which will benefit greatly by having a recycling system. Even if it means we have to work with the stores - after all, most of these products go to stores then get spread across the ground or thrown into landfill.
Surely if we are proactive we can work with stores and try to get a lot of these products back into the main centres. The depots are right up and down the track, so you would think that whether it was Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Darwin there would be a place in each one of those centres that could take those products. That is where we need to be more proactive.
As I said, try to work the South Australia government to add more products. Cover those items that have not been covered, like milk and wine. That would be good. I raise this issue with you knowing you might say it is not overly controversial, but General Business Days give us an opportunity to debate something. I say ‘debate’ in a friendly manner, not meaning it in an aggressive way.
It allows people to put forward ideas about how they think certain programs might be done better, and to get information from government as to which way they are going and whether they think some of those ideas are good. I will be happy to hear what other speakers have to say on this.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. When I first looked at the motion I tried to collect as much information as I could. Where I do not answer questions you added during your speech, I might try to answer those later.
When I was a kid we used to get all the soft drink bottles. There are probably three of us here tonight who can remember getting money back when we took bottles back. I also remember dad taking the long-neck beer bottles to the local Scouts. Much of that went by the wayside. We had steel cans for beer and they rusted away in the ground. The aluminium cans, when I first came to the Territory, replaced all the glass bottles. I do not think we do as much recycling of bottles; all the glass is crushed. Years ago they were just washed out, which is a different story, talking about iodine and the intelligence of people. That aside, I will work through this and hopefully I can piece a few bits together and help out a little.
The participation rate and resulting returns we have been getting have been gradually increasing since the scheme commenced in 2012. The member for Nelson has been through some of those figures. From the commencement of the scheme in January 2012 through to December 2014, a return rate of 42.86% was achieved. That represents the total percentage of container numbers returned to the CDS coordinators in relation to the number of containers sold in the Territory.
The quarterly return rates for the financial periods are as follows. I apologise to the member. We sent an e-mail saying that figures were not available, but there are figures for the July to September 2014 and October to December 2014. They are 50.03% and 53.65% ...
Mr Wood: I quoted those, yes.
Mr HIGGINS: In your speech you went up to the end of June 2014. The percentages were 42% at the beginning of 2012 up to 46%, but dropped to 36% in July 2013, and up to 48% at the end of June 2014. At the beginning of July 2014 it was 50.3% and at the end of December it was 53.65%. Those are the latest figures. We will not have any more figures until the end of June.
The other thing that has occurred since the introduction of the scheme is the number of collection depots that are currently open. There are five in Darwin, which includes one reverse vending machine; one in Katherine; one in Elliott; one in Tennant Creek; one in Alice Springs; and a reverse vending machine at Milingimbi.
The Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 was assented to on 2 June 2014. The majority of the amended act commenced on 30 June. The amended act created new requirements under the CDS to increase the ability for enforcement of the act, ensured collection depots are open to the public, ensured all CDS participants establish their own contractual arrangements and reduced the number of categories that containers are split into at the collection depot level. These amendments are being implemented over an 18-month period following the commencement of the act.
Once the final changes to the legislative reforms are complete, it is expected the simplified operating rules for collection depots will result in an increased number of depots across the Northern Territory, including in remote areas. It is hoped the changes will be fully implemented by October/November 2015.
Through the intergovernmental arrangement with the South Australian government, regular discussions on the two schemes take place. That agreement between South Australia and the Northern Territory was signed in December 2011 to promote uniformity between container deposit schemes being operated in the two jurisdictions. It includes requirements for common refund marketing text on labels and consistency in regulated containers. Since the commencement of the container deposit scheme (CDS) in the Northern Territory, representatives of the NT EPA and the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority have participated in regular meetings to progress the objectives of the intergovernmental agreement.
In February 2014 the NT EPA engaged Rawtec Pty Ltd to undertake a review of the containers regulated under the NT CDS. The review found the NT CDS covers the majority of beverage containers seen in the litter stream. The review recommended against regulating additional containers under the scheme at present, to maintain consistency with the intergovernmental agreement.
The review noted that if changes to the regulated containers were contemplated in the future, glass, wine and spirit containers, and larger juice and flavoured milk containers, should be considered. A copy of that report is available on the NT EPA’s website. If other jurisdictions intend to develop additional container deposit schemes, it would be expected both South Australia and the Northern Territory would instigate discussions to allow compatibility with those schemes. The NT EPA is implementing changes to the CDS in accordance with the legislative amendments undertaken in 2014.
I will read a couple of things from the executive summary of that report, even though it is available on the NT EPA’s site:
And the larger juice containers which I mentioned before.
The report provides more detail on the sort of things that should be considered.
Given that the containers covered across both schemes – South Australia and the Northern Territory – address one of the key objectives of litter reduction for containers drunk away from the home, at this stage there is no proposal to increase the type of containers in the scheme until we have fully implemented the changes.
No discussions have been held to date with the New South Wales government regarding the introduction of a container deposit scheme there. Recent discussions have focused on extending the Australian Packaging Covenant, of which the NT is not currently a signatory.
No discussions have been held to date with the Queensland government regarding the introduction of CDS in Queensland. Again, recent discussions focused on extending the Australian Packaging Covenant.
At this stage there are no plans to widen the scope of the scheme to other items such as chemical containers. I have a note here about drumMUSTER. I have had some experience with that, and while in some ways it works quite well, you pay a deposit when you get containers, and they occasionally come to the Territory and have collection points. You have to take them there and you do not get any money back.
I thought I would get my money back so I collected heaps and I went there and I did not get my money back. When you buy containers with chemicals, you pay the money for drumMUSTER – there is a round symbol on them – but it is not a deposit; it pays for the running of the scheme.
The current focus is on implementing the legislative reforms to improve the outcomes across beverage container recovery, public access and expansion of the scheme. The NT Environment Protection Authority continues to liaise with jurisdictional counterparts and industry representatives in relation to a range of product stewardship collection systems nationally, covering such things as TVs, computers, batteries, and tyres.
Discussions with operators have taken place in the past and contact details of existing CDS depot operators provided. Discussions could take place about whether CDS depots would be interested in being collection points for other material types. Product stewardship is an ongoing matter for Commonwealth, state and territory Environment ministers. Recent discussions have taken place at the officer level on used batteries, waste paint, impact on micro-plastics, TV and computer recycling and end-of-life tyres. I expect these will be discussed at the next meeting of the Environment ministers in July in Melbourne.
With regard to what we are doing at the moment, the CDS infrastructure grant program and depots only this week came out with their grants, and they amount to about $120 000. They are being provided to a range of organisations for infrastructure for a number of collection points to help raise much-needed funds for community organisations and schools, such as the Scouts. There was one infrastructure grant issued to provide infrastructure for a mobile collection depot that services remote communities in the Territory.
I will go through the grants for you. The Alice Springs Town Council got $12 650; Charles Darwin University $15 000; Darwin High School $4390; Durack School $4329; Envirobank NT mobile depot, which is to service MacDonnell Shire, Central Desert Shire, Alice Springs town and Yulara district, $14 000; Recycler Bill in Alice Springs $20 000; Thamarrurr Development Corporation, which is Wadeye and the Thamarrur region $15 000; the Scouts at Batchelor and Coomalie $10 000; the Scouts in Alice Springs $2000; and the Scouts in Katherine $10 000.
I hope I have been able to give you some information, member for Nelson. I am willing to go through some of the question. I have a list of the collection depots, and I think you were pretty spot on with those so I will not go back through them. I have a hard copy of the report if you like to look at it later.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the member for Nelson’s GBD motion because it is on the environment. If there is any member in this House who is a very good role model for pragmatic environmental projects, it is the member for Nelson. I remember being able to work with the previous Labor government and the member for Nelson in a coalition. One of the agenda items I had the privilege of working through in a Labor Cabinet was the Cash for Container scheme. I saw that as a brilliant innovation for the Northern Territory, and did it not cop some flak?
The opposition at the time, the CLP, tried to destabilise it. It was a purely political agenda. The big end of town – Coke, Lion Nathan and Schweppes – took the Territory on. Everybody threw every form of opposition at it that they could, but it has survived. The essence of this motion is supporting the government to kick it along and see what new innovations can be delivered, because Territorians have embraced it. In the community you can see the changes in consumer behaviour, the change in Territorians and their opportunities for recycling and being proactive at a grassroots level in addressing environmental issues.
It is good so far. The minister mentioned three of us of a similar age who can speak about this historically. My father and a group of good mates built a number of houses out of long-neck beer bottles at Era Beach, which is now part of the Royal National Park just south of Sydney. Those young fellas went there for their social time – for surfing and fishing. Era was about a 5 km walk – quite a challenging walk down through the valley to the beach. They took everything they needed, and part of that was long-neck bottles of Tooheys Pilsner. Rather than discarding that rubbish they used it to build a number of huts.
As a child I stayed in those huts. That led to the same guys carting down building materials and concrete. I believe one of those huts is preserved in the Royal National Park as a heritage piece for generations to ponder.
That was Bob McCarthy, Ron Shepherd, Norm Gore and Herb Ingham. I think Ian Horning might have been involved in that, as well as a host of other blokes. Those stories resonated loudly and clearly in our family and my heritage. It then generated into opportunities where as a constituent of the Barkly I got to celebrate a Labor government gazetting the Davenport Ranges National Park.
Circumstances changed and I was later in a privileged position to be part of a government that gazetted the Limmen River National Park and the Maria Island Marine Reserve. They are great stories to tell your children. You talk about Bob McCarthy and the beer bottle houses, then you can talk about his son who is part of a Territory parliament delivering macro-environmental outcomes. That is a great, privileged position to be in and I thank the constituents of Barkly for allowing me to be part of that.
The member for Nelson has copped a lot of flak over that journey with the Labor coalition. He maintained his independence right through it, but he had a proactive position in guiding government policy, and he had many great results for Territorians and the constituents of his seat. This represents a really good grassroots example of the work that can be done. If you go into Darwin supermarkets, if you come down through Tenant Creek or if you look at the regions you can see the change in behaviour of consumers. They have embraced it. It has taken time, but they have embraced it. It has come from the days of the gloom and doom where it would never work and was all going bad to now, where it has become part of people’s lives.
The second journey Bob McCarthy took us on was when he cleared some pristine forest on the south coast of New South Wales to build his house. He used explosives to blow up stumps, cut down trees, chain, rip and drag them. It was another experience in managing the environment. Those days have changed.
The little local shop in the village around the bay at a place called Bendalong banned plastic bags because of the pristine environment and, by managing consumers, was able to deliver positive environmental outcomes. They took it upon themselves to ban plastic bags. They heard the preaching of doom and gloom that nobody would shop there. Now everybody shops there. People take their own bags and use green bags. Their behaviour changed and they celebrate it.
All the tourists that rush in around Christmas and New Year go home with that story about a tiny village store that took on the giants of the world and changed the behaviour of people. People then go home to the cities with a green bag mentality. It does happen; it will happen and it is happening in the Territory. The member for Nelson needs to be applauded for bringing this to the House tonight and reassuring and supporting government in introducing some new ideas.
One point the member for Nelson mentioned was Aputula, which is Finke. I remember listening to a store manager at Finke interviewed on ABC radio. The journo was looking for any mischief he could make and the story was unfolding as, ‘How will cash for containers work in Finke? You are in a very remote area.’
The store manager said, ‘Well, it is very interesting because I am already seeing a lot of the cash for container products being collected. There is some serious environmental work going on in this community; there is a distinct lack of rubbish around the place, and people are using this opportunity not only to clean up the environment but make some money.’
The journo, being a bit of young townie, then took the common ground and said, ‘Well, I suppose all those kids are out there cleaning up those cans and bottles’. The store manager came back with, ‘No, they cannot get their hands on them because all the old ladies get them first’.
To me that resonated as a success story. However, I knew what the challenge would be. The challenge was transport, as it has been in all the remote places I have lived in. But the heavy vehicle industry in the Northern Territory experiences its own high costs of operation because the vast majority of freight is fully load going out and empty coming back. There are good opportunities for back-loading. That is something this government might like to have a look at.
I will pick up on some policy areas of the CLP. One is the tourism infrastructure fund where there is taxpayer money available for private businesses to access. An example would be the Wauchope Hotel and the $100 000 for accommodation. That is a policy position of the CLP. I would like to see a subsidy like that for Cash for Containers. It would be a good pragmatic opportunity to try a couple of those political subsidy-style platforms the CLP seems to be interested in.
Another one is regional passenger transport and the milk run we are about to see emerge in the Territory, as promised by the CLP. That will have to be subsidised, so that is another example of government policy that throws subsidies at services to get them up and running, and stabilised. Why not something similar for Cash for Containers? Let us target those regional and remote areas.
One of the common points is everybody accesses the heavy vehicle transport industry. If transport companies can be brought to the table and there can be government subsidies under CLP policies, then we could start seeing some back-loading into depots. That would make the depots more efficient, and would take the cultural change in people’s behaviour to the regional and remote areas. As the member for Nelson said, it would deliver many social outcomes as well as great outcomes for the environment.
What about it, Chief Minister? Have a think about it. It would be a good tick on your resume. Let us face it, after tonight you will need a few ticks. However, I digress.
What is important is sharing an initiative across the Territory. I saw those depots develop in Darwin and heard the stories of traffic jams and people getting sunburnt because they were waiting in line for so long to cash in their containers. I celebrated quietly, but I appreciated that was part of the teething problems. The great people of the city were cashing in on the opportunity but what about the regional and bush areas because it is a lot tougher out there?
I will give a good example. Father John Kennedy of Christ the King Parish in Tennant Creek issues a bulletin to his parishioners. On that bulletin every week is a tiny line which says, ‘Keep the containers coming in’. He has a stream of containers coming in each Saturday and Sunday, or during the week if people choose. He has his own sorting area. He works with Darrin’s Rubbish Removal. Darrin and Sam in Tennant Creek are great young community-minded business people. Father John Kennedy has a great relationship with Darrin and he sells those containers that are brought in from all over the place, not just by parishioners but people who know he is well-organised and wants support. He creates a lucrative income for Christ the King parish that he feeds into paying the bills. There is an example of what a community can do.
At the other end, Darrin and the depot struggle to make money. It is not so easy at that level. That is where we can ask the government for help to see if there is any more room.
One of the common calls I receive from the regional remote areas is if the Cash for Containers can be transported in a crushed form to maximise the efficiency of back-loading through heavy vehicles instead of having loose cans in bales, because they take up so much space. Everybody knows in the HV industry you are paying by the cubic metre. It is not about the weight so much, it is about the space taken up. If we can have any movement in that area of crushed glass, cans and PET bottles, that would maximise the efficiency and create better opportunities for the regional and remote areas to make money and get involved in a great scheme that is cleaning up the environment.
The Minister for Local Government and Community Services can play an important role here, because regional councils could be supported. If a government is into subsidised policies, let us look at local government, at what could be supplied to regional councils to support this. I have spoken with constituents about recycling bins in regional areas. At the moment, everything goes in one bin and is landfilled, which makes it very difficult to separate. If regional councils were supported to manage two rubbish bins, we would start to see more people recycling products.
This is not so much for the householder to get a return, but for a householder to participate in a very positive activity: showing care for the environment. That makes them a great role model for their children and other residents.
Those containers would then go to the regional waste management facility. An organisation in Tennant Creek, for instance, like the Barkly Work Camp, could be associated with the sorting and cashing of those containers. The money could go into the victims of crime levy, back to the Barkly Work Camp, or into other non-profit or charitable organisations. A regional town like Tennant Creek, with this opportunity to separate waste, would be able to create another industry. The Barkly Work Camp could partner with a private enterprise to create jobs and outcomes, and deliver rehabilitation and training-to-employment.
A government that is proactive in subsidies might consider supporting regional councils with recycling bins. It would be a simple and pragmatic way to address these issues. Let us look at a couple of pilot studies and take one step at a time. It would be well worth trialling, and then push that concept further out into the regions.
These are just a couple of examples; once again, a Territory opposition giving some positive reinforcement to government. It was a Labor Party initiative, heavily backed and almost orchestrated by the member for Nelson. Now it is in this House so let us kick it on. What will be new? Let us see what we can do for Territorians and the environment.
The previous Environment minister was concerned by the lack of movement in recyclable plastic bags. Anecdotally, he did not believe it was working. He believed the reusable bags from supermarkets were creating heavier, denser landfills, and it was not delivering what they thought it would.
I would like to test that. The government has the ability, because it has significant resources at its fingertips. When I come to the big end of town, when I come to Darwin to parliament, or if I am in the regional centres, I am starting to see more of a change in behaviour. I am seeing more people using green bags and recycling shopping bags.
At the other end of the scale, looking at the Tennant Creek supermarket for instance, they still use plastic bags but they are a biodegradable product. While not delivering the top-shelf outcome, it has been a move along that way. We need to take that community to the next step of recyclable bags so we are not using the massive volume of plastic bags that are single use. There is another area where we can make a huge difference.
In conclusion I will tell a quick story about when the Labor opposition went on a visit to Groote Eylandt recently and toured the ranger base. We spoke to the rangers and in came a Toyota tray-back with many ghost nets on the back of it. They were fishing nets that had been identified as being from as far as Asia. They had been collected around the pristine waters of Groote Eylandt. The rangers talked about the on-country work they did – that incredible opportunity we have to develop jobs on country in regional and remote areas. They also talked about the other by-products they created in their travels. Then we saw photos of rangers working on beaches and encouraging – some quite young – youth to clean up because they knew the immediate link to the damage to wildlife.
They were the first to witness the damage plastic bags, cans, bottles and other elements of our consumer society were having on native wildlife, particularly the marine animals, the turtles, the dugongs, to a degree the sharks, then the bottom feeders, the crustaceans and the shellfish. These Groote Eylandt people were very aware and could see that link and wanted to do something about it. They were showing government and Territorians what could be done and what they were doing. They were asking for support. Minister Scullion needs to take serious notice of that. I have talked about this before and will continue to lobby for on country support.
The Cash for Container scheme feeds into that behaviour-changing policy. That is what we are doing. Do not underestimate that. That is the incredible outcome that will now spiral and affect future generations because the kids growing up today are in that environment. They are not seeing the beer bottle house, they are not seeing Bob with the powder monkeys blowing up 40 m blue gums and showering the area with chips, they are seeing something new. We are responsible for it and we have opportunities to do more.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I love the Royal National Park. I did not realise the member for Barkly’s relations were blowing it up. I used to go there and legally collect native plants for my plant collection.
Mr McCarthy: They blew up freehold land.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Royal National Park and Ku-ring-gai national park are great examples of a city and national parks together, but I digress.
The thing I like about Cash for Containers is that it gets away from the feel-good side of the environment. That is not a bad thing to have, but if you want to make change, one way to do that is to affect the hip pocket. By putting a value on waste, people who might not have a great feel for the environment are helping the environment and do not know it. It is a great way of helping the environment without that fuzzy feeling necessarily going with it. I have been to Envirobank and love seeing what I presume is a station four-wheel drive come in and the back tray is full of empty cartons. I am not encouraging them to come into town to fill up again with grog, but the reality is there is a product that would have gone into landfill at that station that now helps pay for the diesel to get them into town. What a great thing.
I have seen Aboriginal people turn up to Envirobank at Pinelands. They have come from the 15 Mile and they realise by going around their community and picking up a few cans they make a few dollars. It is something we need to continue and expand on because the principle is more important than just talking about a beverage container scheme. That will be the danger, even in New South Wales. South Australia started off as a litter campaign and that is why they talk about beverage containers. The other states, like us, do not refer to beverage containers; we call it Cash for Containers. Those containers can be anything. They do not have to be drink containers, so there is an opportunity for us to expand or at least promote the expansion of this type of scheme. I also reinforce the fact the beverage industry, which so long has opposed it, makes money out of this scheme.
I was just looking at the 2013-14 figures – as I said, I do not have the latest – and the annual returns table, for instance, says that total containers sold - sometimes people have to realise this is little old Northern Territory - was 154 292 256. That is not exactly a small number. Imagine what it is like in the other states. Returns were 63 871 826, which is a difference of 91m containers where the company has kept the deposits and the handling fees.
My maths is not very good; I tried to do the .20, which is the 10c for the deposit and 10c for the handling fee, and I came up with about $1.8m. The beverage industry collects a nice little $1.8m. They might spend some of that on advertising or administrative costs, but when they complain about this costing Territorians money, they do not advertise the fact they make quite a bit of money themselves. Some of that money should go back into the system to either expand or reduce the cost of products they sell to the community.
I always remind people that those who make money out of this for doing bugger all are the beverage industry people. That is more reason to increase the number of containers returned. It means less money for those companies.
I listened to the minister and I thank him for his input into the debate today. There has to be a serious effort to get this system to remote communities. I listened carefully to what the member for Barkly said about the possibility of subsidies; we do subsidise many things, but maybe it just needs a subsidy to kick-start some of these schemes in the outback areas, especially when it comes to freight and encouraging stores. It could be a local council depot that takes this on. Our local council in the rural area could have mobile depots at transfer stations. A stack of bottles and cans go into landfill still, and that is disappointing.
The minister mentioned a report, and I am interested in reading it; I will pull it off the website. It mentions the Australian Packaging Covenant. I have never had any time for that. The Northern Territory did not sign up to it because we realised it was a load of baloney.
This Australian Packaging Covenant has been around for about 20 years. It was how the beverage industry continually avoided having a national cash for container scheme. I hope the Northern Territory government never signs up for it because it is run, pushed and promoted by a group that is against what we do in the Northern Territory and South Australia.
I need to emphasise that this system is not just about litter; that is what it was in South Australia, but we have moved on from there. I would not support changing over to just wine bottles, fruit juice and some other containers like spirits if we did not include milk containers. Why would you leave out milk containers? Go to a supermarket and see how much milk is sold. It would be silly not to include milk containers. People might say it is an important food, but so are bottles of water and fruit juice.
You do not want to complicate the scheme; include all the beverages and be done with it. As the minister said, it would remove - I am not sure if it was without milk containers - in the Northern Territory, 3000 T of land fill. That is a pretty good change. I heard recently from the Litchfield Council that Darwin City put its commercial rates up for waste to be delivered to the Shoal Bay landfill by $13, or 13%, which is an incredible amount that will have to be recovered from taxpayers. So the less we can take to the tip and bury, the less effect it will have on things like the rates. That is great as well.
There will always be an issue with things like computers and tyres. If there is a way we can handle those by having a deposit on them, so people get their deposit back when they are returned – they are areas we should be looking at.
We should be aiming for zero waste, as they do in South Australia. George Brown, the old Mayor of Darwin said, ‘We should be looking at and aiming to have no waste’. It is not that easy, as we do live in a disposable world where it is impractical to recycle some products, but he was looking at things like concrete and timber and many of those products that take up a lot space.
I will give you an example of some good recycling. Humpy Too tyre recyclers collects most of the tyres from Darwin, take them to their site on Spencely Road in Humpty Doo. They do two things with those tyres. They slice them up into donuts which you can use on the edge of roads, where you put chicken wire and rocks down, and they can be used as an overflow where there are floodways. They stabilise things and catch any dirt that goes across there.
I went to Jindare Station – I hope that is right; the member for Daly might make sure I am right – which is out from Pine Creek down the Umbrawarra Gorge Road. They were getting bales of tyres from the Humpty Doo recycling centre. That company squashes them in a big press, wraps them up in wire and makes one tonne bales. That cattle station was making cattle yards out of them. They just plonked them down, and all the old cow could do was go ‘boing’ into the side of a one-tonne bale of tyres. It did not do any harm to him or to the tyres. The only disadvantage was maybe there was not a lot of breeze, but you could always put a gap between them to allow some airflow through. My understanding was that they were not expensive because the company wanted to get rid of them. That was a cheap way of making some cattle yards, another method of recycling.
Another case of recycling tyres – tyres are a real burden on councils. DAC is a company in Darwin that started a big quarry for INPEX to the east of the Robertson Barracks front entrance. They had to make a road through there, because they were coming out on the Thorngate Road side, which went over some swampy land. They dug where the road was going and dropped one-tonne bales in there all across the wet country, covered it with gravel, worked the gravel down and drove trucks across it until all the gravel settled in the holes. You will not get bogged in there in a million years. They have a product made from recycled material.
We have to be innovative. We need to look at ways to increase the recycling. If we can get value for that recycling, you are more likely to get people to join in.
There was one big change that occurred which has helped – the minister mentioned it and the member for Barkly would remember it – which is the reduction in the number of separations. That was one of the reasons NT Recycling Solutions and the Can Man pulled out. They said it was too hard with too many separations. It did not need to take as long as it did. I reckon the beverage industry deliberately made sure the number of breakouts would hurt the companies and make them struggle. Yet it only needed a short time to work out what percentages of containers belonged to what product. South Australia has a pretty good idea what products belong to each company. All you needed to do was copy what South Australia is doing.
That is one of the reasons it struggled for a while. It was not only that; it was the handling fee, which was not sufficient. One of the faults with the legislation at the time was it let the companies off the hook in relation to having to negotiate in faith to get a reasonable return. I visited the recycling depot in Alice Springs and they said a couple of times they were really struggling because the handling fee was not sufficient.
I would love to hear more about the negotiations between our EPA and South Australia’s, and whether they are looking at trying to change the number of containers that will come into the system. That is a great thing.
It would be great to get a report on what is happening with the product after it is delivered. My understanding is the bottles are not recycled as bottles; they are crushed, as the member for Barkly mentioned. It would be good to find out.
People are hoping this product will be recycled in some form, yet I have been to Envirobank and I have seen mountains of crushed glass. I do not know what is happening to that crushed glass. I know it can be used in pavements, as paving stones and a range of products, but there is a lot crushed glass there.
People pay 10c in the product as a handling fee; the question is, is that handling fee being used to ship it out of town and get it recycled? What is happening? I would be interested if there is some report from the government on how much is being recycled, because that is the core of this whole thing. Perhaps you can get back to us on that issue.
After years of struggle to have Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory, I think it is successful. It will continue to be successful, but – and it is an old clich – we should not rest on our laurels; we should make sure it gets better.
I would love it to be much better in remote communities. That was one of the key reasons we pushed it, to make sure we had a product that would enable these places to be cleaner, and young people would get an idea that if they do some work they can earn some money. They might not realise it at the time, but it gives some of those entrepreneurial skills that encourage them to do something. ‘A little bit of work will get me a return.’ At the same time it puts some pride back into the community.
I should also thank Keep Australia Beautiful in the Territory. It struggles along with only a small grant these days. It does a great job. I know there have been some differences of opinion because it has been funded by the beverage industry, but I think the Territory KAB still does a pretty good job promoting litter reduction, so we should not forget them when we are talking about recycling.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, if the Attorney-General was not going to do that, I was.
I will quickly speak about a couple of, not constituents, but people who have some connection to portfolios or areas of mine. They were recipients of some of the honours in the last honours list.
The first one is Ray Menhinnitt, who received an OAM for service to the community, particularly through swimming and water safety programs.
Ray has been teaching swimming to kids for decade in Queensland and the Northern Territory, and he is known to most of his students as Stingray.
Ray has a different philosophy to teaching swimming to many others; he teaches people how to have fun but be safe in the water. He said he hopes this award will shed light on the idea that everyone can swim and have fun.
He is a trainer with the Royal Life Saving Society in the NT, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. The member for Nightcliff and I both attended that celebration and I am happy to say we were both given an award that night. She has had a lot to do with royal lifesaving over her life, and I just happen to have certificate 13 from New South Wales for royal lifesaving.
Ray is the pool manager at Doomadgee in Queensland, after being the pool manager at Wadeye for five years. He has led water safety programs in Indigenous communities in the NT and Queensland. He has taught countless kids key water safety lessons that will save their lives.
While at Wadeye he started programs for disadvantaged groups, the local aged care group, and made the pool available for everyone. He started the Mums and Bubs swimming program for new mothers and babies, to promote water safety. His commitment to promoting the water safety message has been incredibly strong, particularly among the young. Being recognised with a medal of the Order of Australia is definitely an appropriate way for the community to thank Ray for his efforts. I congratulate him.
The other person is Olga Radke, also an OAM, for service to the community of Alice Springs. Olga epitomises community service. She is a volunteer researcher at the Strehlow Research Centre, where she contributes to our combined understanding of Indigenous culture and history. The Strehlow Centre is one of Australia’s premier institutions, conducting research and preservation of Indigenous language, customs, cultural artefacts and ceremony.
In addition to her work there, she is also a member of the community Choral Society and numerous charities, and helps run a mental health support group.
Olga spent time living in Hermannsburg and has a strong affinity with the local Arrernte people. Olga is also a member of the old Lutheran Church’s history and archives team which seeks to preserve the early history of Alice Springs. The team works to preserve artefacts relating to the Alice Springs mission block, which was established in 1936 and has been a fixture of Alice Springs society. Her care extends to being a member of the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Association of Alice Springs, which provides support for prisoners once they have been released.
Service was part of the values taught to her by her parents. ‘You give to someone else more in need than yourself’, she said. This value is so important in today’s society and one which is sometimes lacking. However, we are very lucky in the Territory that we have people with Olga’s values who contribute so much to our community. Olga’s recognition with a medal of the Order of Australia is very well deserved and I pass on my congratulations to her and Ray.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a man who continues to play a big role in the Barkly and who is fondly remembered by many from his time in this House.
Elliot McAdam, former member for Barkly, was recognised in this month’s Queen’s Birthday Honours as a member of the Order of Australia. It is a fitting tribute to his work as a representative of the people of the Barkly and a dedicated member of our community.
Elliot came to politics after a successful career in South Australia and the Northern Territory. After graduating from the South Australian Institute of Technology he worked as field officer for the Aboriginal legal rights movement in South Australia and was director of Adelaide’s Aboriginal Community Centre.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Elliot worked in many varied roles throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory, including as a community adviser at the Pitjantjatjara community of Mimili in the north of South Australia, director of the Aboriginal Health Organisation of South Australia, assistant co-ordinator of the Tangentyere CDEP program in Alice Springs and later as a consultant to establish the CDEP program at Julalikari Council in Tennant Creek. Elliot also served as the general manager of Julalikari from 1997 to 1999.
Elliot worked as the electorate officer for Maggie Hickey, who was Labor member for the seat of Barkly. After Maggie’s retirement Elliot was preselected by Labor for the seat and was subsequently elected to parliament in August 2001. In his first term Elliot served as government whip and Chairman of Committees as well as chairing the Substance Abuse Select Committee. In 2004 he was appointed as chair to the Legal and Constitutional Committee with responsibility for progressing statehood. There is no way Elliot McAdam would ever have missed an opportunity to speak eloquently and passionately about the NT’s pursuit of statehood and Labor’s support for the process.
I will quote from a speech Elliot McAdam gave to a conference in July 2003 about statehood.
These principals are just as true today, now clearly articulated by the Labor opposition, members and Territorians.
In June 2005 Elliot McAdam was re-elected to the Legislative Assembly and subsequently appointed to Cabinet with the portfolios of Housing and Local Government, as well as minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous A ffairs.
As the Minister for Local Government, Elliot was responsible for the massive reforms instituted by the Labor government. He is still a supporter of the model, seeing it as having the best potential to bring equity to remote areas in jobs and training, economic development and resources. But it requires proper funding and support from NT and federal governments, which is something Elliot says is sadly not happening under current the NT and federal Liberal governments.
Elliot retired from parliament in 2008, but continues to play an active role in the Barkly as a board member of the Anyinginyi Health Congress and Charles Darwin University, as well as in his work for Group Training NT. Elliot is a quiet and considered person who loves a good joke. He is well known for being able to pull off a good phone prank on unsuspecting friends and colleagues. Elliot and his partner, Barb Shaw, Madam President of the Barkly Regional Council, are the type of people who act as positive role models whose work helps shape our remote regions and build our regional communities.
Congratulations Elliot McAdam AM - a well-deserved honour.
I also congratulate another Barkly resident who was named in the Queen’s Birthday honours; Philip Merry received the public service medal for his contribution to emergency services. Philip joined the NT Emergency Services in 1996 and became Deputy Unit Officer in 2006. He has played a strong role in the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit and worked tirelessly fundraising, supporting the cadet unit and undertaking all the roles of a Northern Territory Emergency Services officer.
Congratulations Philip Merry on this well-deserved recognition for your efforts.
I will conclude with a personal comment about Philip Merry, a great bloke. He is very skilled and knowledgeable in the geo survey and exploration field, and has put a lot of work into geological exploration around Tennant Creek and the Barkly over a quite a number of years, which is ensuring a future for our town and regional community. He is an incredible volunteer.
Phil’s work with the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit, in the role the Northern Territory Emergency Services plays, is exemplary. He is a wealth of knowledge. When you see Phil operating at community events and on the visits I have made to the unit base, you see he is very much acknowledged as a teacher, an instructor and a person who is willing to share that knowledge. We are continually on the hunt for new volunteers, and I can assure any prospective volunteers they are in very good hands if they are working side by side with Philip Merry in Northern Territory Emergency Services operations.
His experience, his cool, calm and collected approach, and his knowledge of the bush are skills available for people new to the Territory, especially teachers, nurses and professionals, or people who come to the community to get an understanding of the environment and learn how to operate safely. Philip Merry and those other great members of the Northern Territory Emergency Services, especially the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit, will deliver.
Great work, Elliot. Congratulations on that prestigious award, and congratulations to Philip Merry. I am sure the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit is celebrating the acknowledgement of one of its own, one who has put in countless hours of volunteer work and is an incredible role model in the community. Best wishes for the future and thanks for all the work you do in supporting community events and making Territorians safe.
People need to realise these community members are volunteers who work side by side with our police, fire and rescue services on the front line of saving lives. They do a lot of work in remote areas and often put their own lives at risk. So, well done. It is another great story out of a great region, that is, the Barkly region of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 5/6 classes at Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Jodie Houghton. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Pass Bill through all Stages – Private Car Parking Amendment Bill (Serial 131)
Pass Bill through all Stages – Private Car Parking Amendment Bill (Serial 131)
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the Motor Vehicles (Private Car Parking) Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 131) be considered on urgency and passed through all stages forthwith.
We realised late last week that there was an issue with Wilson Security requiring information from MVR records. It became evident that a process had been followed that would have led to information from MVR being passed to Wilson Security on the order of the Local Court in Darwin. I was very unhappy, as was the government, that private information was to be passed to a private security firm.
Territorians understand that government holds much of its information about them privately, and that should be respected. In this case the Local Court ordered MVR to pass over that information. I was not happy with the process and we spent considerable time and effort working out how we could prevent it.
We were soon to learn that more than 8500 pieces of private information would need to be passed over to Wilson Security. I do not have a problem with a private security company or someone from the private sector using a car park to make money when providing a car parking service, but I do have a concern with a third-party operator such as a private security company getting hold of this information.
Territorians expect their government to do what it can, and this government is doing that by introducing this bill today.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this urgency motion, but we believe it should never have reached this point in the first place. If passing a motion on urgency …
Mr Elferink: The legislation existed under the Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Ms FYLES: You introduced the car parking fees that turned out to be a debacle. If you want to talk about the car parking at RDH, you have picked the wrong person because I am very experienced with visiting RDH and having to guess how long I will be there.
That highlights the incompetence of this government. Whoever thought you could introduce parking fees at a hospital and ask people, when they are most likely going through a fairly anxious stage, to guess how long they will be at the hospital - it is a confusing system having to enter your car rego. You get two hours free and you then have to top it up in the foyer. I had an experience where I was charged three times for my top up, but I was refunded instantly. It has been a chaotic system from the start.
The fact that it has taken us to get to this point for anything to be done is disappointing. It was a huge issue when it first came in; it has never stopped being an issue. It is always on talkback radio; there are always heaps of letters to the paper. Even during the Casuarina by-election it was an issue.
If passing this urgency motion takes …
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member seems to be talking a lot about the bill and not about urgency.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down; it is not a point of order.
Ms FYLES: If passing an urgency motion is what it takes to fix your complete bungling of this matter, which has seen over 8000 Territorians’ government records released to a private company, of course we would support this motion.
Contrary to your words previously on this, you are passing an urgency motion to fix your mistake. Your government introduced this problem. You introduced a flawed car parking model to RDH. You did not get it right from the start. Whoever thought that parking and having to guess how long you would stay at the hospital was a good idea, clearly had no clue. Last year your minister at the time, or it may have been late the year before, said:
- The system is not the easiest to use.
There has been one red flag after another. It is only when Territorians’ face having their records released to a private company that we see any action. The members on this side have been calling continually, as has the community, for this system to be scrapped. This entire issue is of your making. You would happily have seen it drag on for months. I think only last week you said it would take months to fix and when we said we would introduce a bill, all of a sudden you are doing everything with urgency.
Both the minister and the Chief Minister are on record saying they would fix the issue in a couple of months. It was only when you learnt of my colleague, the member for Johnston’s plans to introduce a private members bill that you panicked and did this.
We on this side care about Territorians. It is clear that on the other side you do not. Meeting a new baby is generally the only positive time you go to RDH. It is an anxious time for people. You might be seeking medical treatment or visiting loved ones who are receiving medical treatment. To deal with this flawed parking system which requires you to guess how long you will be at the hospital can cause undue stress on staff. That is why we would support the urgency of this motion. We need to get this cleared up for Territorians.
As I have indicated, on this side of the House we support the urgency motion. My colleague, the member for Johnston, will talk in further detail. Although this bill is being passed urgently and we will see the matter of records cleared up today, we would like to see the government finally – minister after minister has commented about the parking system, as well as the Nursing Federation, hospital staff, members of the public and talkback radio. Surely you can finally listen and fix this flawed system at RDH so Territorians can at least visit the main hospital without worrying about parking fees and overstaying their time.
The company which has been engaged, from feedback I have received in my electorate office, is not overly helpful when dealing with issues. People visiting the Alan Walker centre are able to access a special pass that allows them to seek their treatment, and I have had to help constituents do that. By acknowledging this mistake of potentially releasing thousands of private details of Territorians to a private company, the government also needs to acknowledge the broader issue. We will support this urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting an urgency motion that says ‘forthwith’. I might consider it if it says tomorrow. I am surprised the Labor Party has decided to support something without even seeing the bill.
Standing Order 173(4) says:
- Except by leave of the Speaker, a member shall not give notice of intention to introduce a bill which has not been printed.
Do you expect me to say supporting something on urgency forthwith is a great idea? If there is such a panic for this, why can the Department of Health not say to Wilson, ‘You will not be collecting any fees for the time being until this is sorted out’. They have a contract with Wilson Security …
Mr Giles: It is against the law …
Mr WOOD: Against the law to break your contract? Against the law to have free parking for a couple of days? That is all I am saying.
I am not saying Wilson Parking is what people want. It is obvious people are upset about it. But you are introducing legislation you would like me to support without having any prior knowledge about it. Bring it on tomorrow if it is that urgent and give us a little time to check it against other people who may be in similar circumstances. Are there ramifications that have not been looked at that this bill might have?
It is silly to bring a bill on forthwith. It is a car parking and privacy issue. It is important, but it is a case of a stich in time saves nine. I am not sure we need to rush this as quickly as you want to. You might find that by rushing it, you might put something out that has ramifications you have not thought of. You might have thought of them all. You have experienced staff who deal with these issues, but parliament is the body which passes this legislation. We should have adequate time to make sure the legislation proposed does not have unforeseen ramifications.
I am not sure why the Minister for Health could not say to the department, ‘For the time being, we will not charge people for using the car park’. I am sure in the debate that is to follow there will be a lot of discussion as to whether the car park design or the method of charging people for parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital was the correct one. There was some debate about that at the time the previous Minister for Health mentioned there would be car parking charges at the hospital and gave reasons why that would occur. This discussion did not start yesterday in relation to the type of car parking controls at Royal Darwin Hospital; it has been occurring for quite a while.
The issue of Wilson Parking having the right to look at someone’s private address in relation to recovering a fee that has not been paid is important. All I am saying is leave it to tomorrow. I do not have the legislation in front of me because you have not yet produced it. Let us see what that the legislation says. If I need to get a briefing once I have read it and I think it is good, fair enough, I will support it. But if I have some questions about it, I do not have any time to ask anyone unless it goes to the Committee of a Whole.
This is a poor way of presenting legislation. I am surprised Labor is supporting this ‘forthwith’ because no matter what legislation it is, no matter what it is about, we should take each piece of legislation seriously. If we have to rush it through, then we should at least be given a little time so we can evaluate whether the legislation is good. What is the point in rushing it through forthwith if you can do it tomorrow and make sure there are no errors in it? I will not be supporting the urgency motion. I may have supported an urgency motion for tomorrow, which would make a lot more sense and treat this parliament as it should: as a place that debates legislation properly, carefully and ensures there are no unforeseen mistakes or ramifications.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for supporting the urgency motion, although I was disappointed in the speech because it went right off track and talked about the car parking initiative, the car parking system and so forth, but did not speak about what we are discussing today. This is to protect Territorians’ information. If that is where the focus of the debate had been, I would have welcomed it, but I thank you for your support.
Member for Nelson, I take on board what you said. Part of me agrees with what you are saying except it was important to make the decision on urgency based on the fact that Territorians want their government to act quickly to fix this anomaly that would allow a third-party company to access this information.
Moving the motion today on urgency was a decision I did not take lightly. It is the first motion in over seven years in this parliament that I have moved on urgency. I have moved it on urgency based on the fact that Territorians expect their information to be protected. That is the only reason, and that is why it needs to pass today, so we can ensure that Wilson Security and any other third-party private company, cannot access Territorians’ private information. If it makes any difference, member for Nelson, this will not prevent entities such as local councils accessing the information. They are competent statutory authorities that use the Traffic Act and the Australian Road Rules to enforce road restrictions in their municipalities.
This is quite different; we are talking about two different things. We are not talking about local competent authorities using the Australian Road Rules to enforce ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 113: relevance. I would love to have that debate with the minister but we are talking about urgency.
Mr Elferink: You just raised it, mate. You cannot sit there …
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it was raised and I wanted to ensure – if it makes it any easier, it will not prevent that from occurring in the future. This will prevent a private company getting that information. I stress that the government does provide information to local councils like the Darwin City Council, Palmerston council and Alice Springs council, and even to our Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have access to that information to enforce their parking restrictions using the Australian Road Rules. The difference between those competent authorities and a private company is that there are control mechanisms in place to ensure information is strictly used in accordance with the rules.
We have no guarantees. We may have a company saying it will use it strictly in accordance – do we have guarantees in place? I suspect the answer to that is no.
I thank the opposition for supporting this motion to move this legislation through all stages.
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR VEHICLES (PRIVATE CAR PARKING) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today seeks to prevent the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from being required by a court order discovery process to disclose personal information for the purpose of the recovery of private car park fees.
Private car park operators often utilise a pay and display arrangement, with the driver needing to obtain a ticket from a machine and display the ticket on the dashboard, even though the parking is free for the first two hours. If the driver does not comply with this requirement, or parks longer than the allowed free parking period, it is considered a breach of the terms of use of the car park and the private operator issues a breach notice requesting payment of a fee.
These notices are not parking fines under the Traffic Act; they are simply a notice of a breach of the agreed conditions displayed on the signs in the car park when parking your car. The notice will usually be left under the vehicle’s windscreen wiper and appears in a physical form that is similar to an official parking infringement, such as those issued by councils and other government agencies.
Where customers do not pay the amount specified in the breach notice, the car park operators are relying on what is known as preliminary discovery orders obtained through the courts to require vehicle registration authorities to release the names and addresses of registered vehicle owners/operators. This information is then used by the car park operator to send demand notices requiring payment of the original unpaid amount. These practices have raised significant concerns interstate and recently in the Territory, particularly with respect to the release of personal information.
It is a reasonable expectation that when a customer provides personal information to MVR the information should remain confidential and only be released in accordance with privacy principles contained in the Northern Territory Information Act. Unfortunately, the provisions utilised by private car park operators via the courts have enabled the release of this type of information interstate, and today I am introducing this bill which will prevent the release of personal information held by MVR to private car park operators.
The bill will apply retrospectively, thus also prohibiting the release of information as contained in a recent court order served on the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
This government is determined to take the necessary steps to ensure Territory motorists’ personal information remains confidential and is only released strictly in accordance with existing laws. The bill will amend the Motor Vehicles Act introducing a new section which will prevent a court preliminary discovery order being issued to gain access to personal information held by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the recovery of private car park fees.
The new section also defines ‘debts to private car park operators’ as meaning any amount payable under the terms and conditions of parking provisions in relation to the use of a car park, including an amount payable for breaching any such terms and conditions. However, it does not include an amount payable under the terms and conditions of a contract that is in writing and signed by all relevant parties.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, it defies belief that the NT government did not know that Wilson Parking was taking the government to court to access 8500 Territorians’ personal details. It is becoming common practice that this minister and this government, when it comes to taking any blame, wipe their hands of it and blame the departments. That is a disgrace.
We very rarely go to hospital other than if there is an emergency involving one of our loved ones. We go there to visit someone who is injured. You go to the hospital because you have to.
I am fully aware there are appointments some people keep to see specialists on certain days, but most Territorians go to hospital because it is an emergency. They either know somebody who is injured or they are visiting somebody who has been taken seriously ill. The last thing you want to think about is car parking, and that is the issue. Sometimes what is missing in this House is common sense.
The car park at the Royal Darwin Hospital has been a shambles for a long time now. As the local member, in one month about 15 people came to my office complaining about a $65 ticket they had received at the hospital. They wanted to know what I could do. We made inquiries. Wilson was not listening and said they had to pay the fine. This upset many people because they had been in circumstances where they were not able to go outside and update their parking details. Also many seniors go there for appointments which run over the allotted time. That is a serious concern because $65 might not seem much to us, but to a pensioner it is a lot of money out of their fortnightly payment.
It was absurd and bizarre yesterday because – and I will just put it out there, minister – it seemed you were very reactive to the interview I gave to the media yesterday morning, and what we have been working on to stand up for Territorians. NT Labor listened to the huge public outcry about the parking system at RDH and accessing 8500 people’s personal details.
We acted quickly over the weekend and worked out our own amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. We sent those amendments to your office, minister, highlighting the changes we proposed. We acted quickly because we stand up for Territorians and we make no apologies for that. We worked over the weekend on these amendments so we could introduce them into parliament and debate them, or at least get them on to the Notice Paper to be debated in August.
Introducing this on urgency, which we support, will stop the personal details of 8500 Territorians being accessed. If I was your media person, minister, I would have let people know immediately that the court decision did not allow people’s person information to be released. That story had every Territorian concerned that the details of the 8500 Territorians who had received these parking fines were being accessed. If I was your media adviser – and I am sure they are very good – I would have been running you out to the media saying, ‘They have not accessed any details yet. We have 30 days to act on that.’ I am not a media adviser. I have been an adviser, as your Chief Minister and government keep reminding me. But by hanging around media advisers, I know I would have rolled you out like a big bowling ball and said, ‘They have no information. They have not accessed anything. In 30 days they will get access. We will stand up for Territorians and stop this. We will make the amendments we have to.’
In an interview last week either the minister or the Chief Minister said, ‘We’ll sort it out in a couple of months’. Now we are dealing with a bill on urgency. We will pass the bill today because we are protecting Territorians’ personal details. We drafted amendments about making it illegal for private parking firms to access that information. I said in a media interview that I hope this government would support the amendments in August, because that would give enough time to go through it properly, so we would be protected. The amendments would make it illegal for private parking firms to access that information and, if they had that information, to use it.
We have supported this urgency motion because we want to protect and stand up for Territorians, which is exactly what you should have been doing from the start. You and your government should have been doing that when this came across your desk saying Wilson was taking the Northern Territory government to court.
I assume there is a breakdown in your office somewhere because I am sure there was a file or a ministerial briefing. I will always support departments and the great work they do. I am sure there would have been a ministerial direction about Wilson and what the government needed to do to stop this going to court. You probably buried it in your office somewhere and we are now dealing with it here.
Let us go back to the Royal Darwin Hospital car park. You are probably trying to forget her over there, but you had a minister named Robyn Lambley. I know many of you do not talk to her much, if at all. Minister Lambley, on 28 March said – I will read from an NT News of 28 March titled ‘Government to employ ‘meter maids and men’ to help visitors to Royal Darwin Hospital’.
- Territory taxpayers will fund ‘meter maids and men’ who randomly top up expired parking tickets at Royal Darwin Hospital to ease public anger over the convoluted parking system. The car parking liaison officers will only hold $50 to selectively top up tickets on their Monday to Friday eight-hour daily shift.
Did that happen? Did we have meter maids and men going around with $50 in bum bags or coins in their pockets?
Mr Elferink: I was thinking of slipping you into a bikini and rolling you out there like a bowling ball.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, member for Port Darwin? If you are answering that question, that is great.
Madam SPEAKER: Order. Member for Johnston, you have the call.
Mr VOWLES: I will go on:
- Since paid parking was introduced early this year there has been an overwhelming reaction, with visitors and RDH staff complaining that it is difficult to navigate and impossible to predetermine how long they will need to purchase a display ticket for. This is compounded by long waiting times at the hospital’s emergency department.
…
‘To make the transition smoother we will pilot parking liaison officers to inform Territorians about the new parking areas when they arrive at the hospital. In a sign of goodwill the parking officers will also selectively help top up some parking tickets in the time specified parking areas.’
If the minister could tell me if those meter maids and men were employed it would be great. A line in this article says:
- ‘Recruitment for our sun safe meter maids and meter men will commence shortly. ‘
Did it? I am not sure:
- Mrs Lambley said money raised from the system would go to improving car parks, including additional security and lighting.
I look forward to being updated on that, minister.
From the NT News on 11 September 2014, ‘Royal Darwin Hospital parking “mistake” ’.
- The CLP government has admitted mistakes in its controversial Royal Darwin Hospital paid parking scheme and has introduced million-dollar measures to improve the system. Health minister Robyn Lambley said complaints had been consistent since the paid parking system was introduced in February.
‘This system …isn’t the easiest to use. We’ve made a few mistakes …
‘We don’t want to be criticised as a government for a car park that people aren’t particularly happy with, so the sooner we can fix it up the better’.
Have you done that? That was September 2014.
- ‘It will mean people can pay when leaving instead of guessing how long they expect to be inside the hospital.’
…
Mrs Lambley refused to say how much the government had made from the hospital’s paid parking and said the system was chosen because parking ‘experts’ Wilsons recommended it.
- …
- What’s needed there now instead of this chaos …
Wait for it:
- … is a multi-storeyed car park where you’re close to the hospital and you’re safe and secure.
We have listened to Territorians, and if you had listened to us, you would know the Leader of Opposition, Michael Gunner, has proudly announced that we will build a free multi-storey car park for the hospital.
Mr Chandler: After thinking about it for a day.
Mr VOWLES: If the minister, the member for Brennan, would stop interjecting that we thought about this for a day – if the minister has any political experience and can think back to 2012, it was an election commitment from the Labor government. Before you throw accusations that we have thought about this multistorey car park for one day – we had a commitment in 2012 to build the multistorey car park. Member for Brennan, Minister for Transport, it would be built now; just like the hospital, it would have been built before you built it. That is what we do; when we say we will do something, we do it.
If we say we will build a multistorey car park at the hospital, it will be built. If we said we would build a Palmerston hospital, which we were on our way to doing, it would be built. We still do not have a date for the completion of Palmerston hospital, but that is a whole new discussion. I have about a thousand pieces of paper with all different opinions, but I will get back to that.
When we say we will do something, we do it. We say we will build it, we build it. You guys cannot even sort out when the hospital will be built. Is it late 2021 or 2022? We do not believe that; nobody believes it. Early 2018, mid-2018 – you say it is $150m, but now we are finding out you are telling porky pies around the extra $50m coming from the federal government. Peter Dutton, the federal minister, has not said a word about this. He does not want to talk to you guys about that.
Let us go back to parking. It has been a shambles from the start. I will give some credit to your government. The then Health minister was listening to Territorians and she tried to fix it. She was obviously hamstrung by a government that does not want to do things like listen to Territorians or fix things. Those articles are from March and September 2014, and here we are. The government is allowing a private car parking firm to access personal details, to go to court and win the court case.
The media reports are saying on the same day, in Victoria, the courts threw out the same application by the same company to access data and personal details of Victorian citizens. On the same day, according to media reports, the Territory government rolled over and stopped standing up for Territorians.
Sometimes you mob need to look at yourselves in the mirror and ask, ‘Why am I an elected member?’ You have been given the privilege of being a Minister of the Crown to stand up and make decisions. I respect and understand that you have to make hard decisions; sometimes you have to take a softer stance on something. I know personally some of you do not agree with the directions your government is taking, but with this you should always remember why we are elected, which is to stand up for Territorians and protect them.
If something goes wrong for the Territory at a federal level, we should be in Canberra smashing down the doors of our federal colleagues’ offices, regardless of what political party is in power. We should be beating on the door saying, ‘This is not right. This is what Territorians want. We will fight you on this.’ I do not see this government doing that.
We believe this is a serious issue, as do Territorians. I have said many times that we bring the concerns of Territorians here. Territorians are crapped off about this Royal Darwin Hospital parking fiasco. It is a disgrace.
We support this motion on urgency because something needs to be done. I thank the government for deciding to do this, but I believe we forced you into it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for eventually giving me the bill. I received an apology from the Chief Minister and I appreciate that. However, I did not have any documents before me to at least evaluate whether the urgency debate was reasonable or not. That is why I made the statement I did; I had nothing. Now I have two copies of it, so I get double trouble.
With a normal bill there would be a second reading where I could listen the minister’s speech. Sometimes I would have an explanatory note and would have time to look at the bill. Then I would assess whether I needed a briefing. I will ask the minister if he would mind that we use the Committee as a Whole as a substitute for the briefing and give us a little latitude with that. This is the only opportunity I have, and I need to clarify what is in the bill. I get the general gist of it, but there is a number of questions I would like to ask in relation to whether this has broader ramifications.
Speaking in general, I remember the debate that was held some time ago – I do not have the exact date – when the then minister, Hon Robyn Lambley, announced she would charge for car parking and she had reasons for that. One was to try to reduce the number of staff using that car parking area and another was to raise money to build other car parking facilities. That was my understanding of why they introduced car parking charges.
I presume the government put it out for tender and the tender would have allowed Wilson Parking to run the car park and charge accordingly. When the government or the department was doing that, I do not know whether they took a duty of care to find out whether having a private car parking company running a car park on government land filled all the requirements, or if it was checked out for its legality. That is a broader question I will be putting to the government.
We have many car parks. The airport has car parks on federal land. If I overstay there, I cannot get out. That is slightly different. But I do not know if I park in the wrong place whether I can be booked and the airport operators can get my registration number. If I park on the median strip before I get into the gated car park – if I can call it that – or I park in the area where I am only allowed to park for two minutes and I park for 10 minutes, does the airport have the right to take my Northern Territory licence plate number and find out who I am?
There is a range of other issues this raises. That is why rushing this through is not the way to go. We have supermarket car parks and some of them are free, but many of them, even when free, have disabled car parking. Who has access to the registration number of people parked in the disabled car park? Does this have any ramifications in relation to that?
I rang three councils this morning advising them this bill was going through, a bill I did not have any paperwork on. I said, ‘I’m not sure what is in this bill. I will get back to you if I think there are any ramifications in relation to councils.’ Darwin City Council, for some time, operated the waterfront car park. That was a government car park basically because the government owned the waterfront. The council took on a contract, I presume through the Local Government Act, which allowed them, with permission from the minister, to collect car parking fees. Section 14 of the Local government Act says:
- (1) A council may provide services outside its own area but cannot exercise its regulatory powers outside its own area except:
- (a) by mutual agreement with the council in whose area the powers are to be exercised; or
(b) if the powers are to be exercised outside council areas – with the Minister’s consent.
I have not found where they get the regulatory powers that enable them to take the registration number and get the information from MVR. All three councils receive information about car parking registration from the MVR. Obviously they are not private, they are government, and they can say. ‘Trust me, I am government’. I know they have processes.
For instance, Alice Springs has only two people who have access to that information. If people continue not paying they go to the Fine Recovery Unit, which is a government body, and chase that up and charge an extra fee. In fact, I wondered why Wilsons did not send all the information on infringements to the Fines Recovery Unit because I presume that unit, being part of government, has the power to see who owns a vehicle and what their address is.
I wonder if there are other solutions that have not yet been investigated. That is why we should have left this until tomorrow to enable me to go through the legislation and ask for a briefing. Some of my ideas might have meant you had to bring in an amendment. That would have been good.
It worries me that we are doing it this way. We are not being attacked by another country and need conscription today because we do not have enough soldiers. We are talking about a car park issue and a privacy issue which has been around for some time. It is a serious issue and concerns many Territorians, but we have to make sure the bill solves the problem and does not create other problems in the process.
The government, after all this, needs to look again at the car parking issue at Royal Darwin Hospital. I remember the argument against having a car park system similar to the airport’s was that it might not stop staff – I am not knocking staff, but that was one of the issues initially – from using the facility because you pay when you go out the gate. No one is fined for not paying because you cannot get out the gate until you put money in the machine.
That discussion should come from this to see how the hospital car park operates. There are other hospital car parks around Australia. I am not sure how they work, they might use Wilson Parking, but Royal Darwin Hospital is not the same as a shopping centre. It is a place where people go to see the birth of a child, visit someone who is sick, or speak to someone who is dying. People go there with lots of feelings. They are not just parking to get a cup of chips at the cafeteria. It is not your normal shopping centre-type car park. Even though that might sound silly, there needs to be some indication that when government is doing something like this, it understands it must be sensitive and knows who the customers are. The customers are people, in many cases relatives and friends, who are going to see someone in hospital.
We could have the debate another day about whether there should be a review of the hospital car parking. That would be good. At the moment, I gather the government is simply trying to – I have my legal dictionary just to understand the word – abrogate, which just means it will get rid of it. I get the gist of it the bill but I would like to go through it clause by clause. There are really only two clauses, inserted sections 137D and 140. I ask that this could go to the committee stage so I can ask the minister specific questions.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments, largely on the back of what the member for Nelson had to say, because he takes these debates seriously.
The member for Johnston was ill-prepared because his speech had not been written for him. He stumbled awkwardly through the issues without being able to effectively articulate the matters before the House. But, in deference to the member for Nelson’s genuine approach to what is going on in the House today, I will attend to his matters with earnestness.
In relation to how this system works, and the member for Nelson touched on it very briefly, there are several nexus which are operational in this space. The first nexus is between the public and private arrangements. Wilsons is a private company, it builds a business model, it suggests to government its business model and how it can make money. The government of the day and the former Health minister said they would like to secure the car parks around the hospital so people who are there for a short time do not require a cut lunch to walk across five car parks to get to the hospital, especially for the reasons people visit a hospital in the first instance.
It was a way of disbursing the demand on car parks close to the hospital. That is the rationale and you can understand why people wanted to go down that path at the time.
Then it comes down to how the business model works. You can either do it on a debt recovery basis or on a restraint basis. I will give you an example of the debt recovery basis, that is, the example we are dealing with now. You enter your information into the car park booth, you get a ticket, the ticket expires, and you get an infringement for failing to comply with the boundaries of that ticket. It is effectively a form of contract between you and the private provider. I will not bore the member for Nelson with the detail of the ticket cases in the law of contract, but they are voluminous and have gone to the High Court of this country in relation to the contractual arrangements of offer and acceptance around tickets.
It then has the effect of an infringement being applied, and because there is no boom gate, no physical restraint, you can drive off and ignore the infringement. There is then a debt between you and the provider issuing the infringement. That is a civil debt for a breach of contract.
The restraint system is the one you described – the boom gate. You drive in, grab your ticket from the boom gate and validate it before you leave. We recognise this far more commonly. The airport is a good example. What happens in that instance is the vehicle is restrained until such time as the terms of the contract are met. If there is a breach of contract, that is, you do not pay the ticket, you do not get out of the car park unless you …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Exactly right. I pick up on the gestured interjection of the member for Nelson. … commit a criminal offence, which is drive through the boom gate. That is a different kettle of fish altogether because that is criminal damage.
If there is a dispute between you and the provider of the car parking space as to whether or not you are in breach of contract, your process for recovery would be the damages process because you would still, in the real world, pay the extra money which you resent having to pay. Then you would pursue the private car company for the losses you had incurred because you felt it had not held up its side of the contract.
However, that is not the system used by Wilson. Wilson uses a system by which they go through a debt recovery process. What information do they have about the people who have parked in the car parks? The registration number of the car – as I understand it, you have to type that number into the car parking machine when you collect the ticket, so they have that information. But a registration number I know nothing about and you know nothing about, until such time as you go to the person who owns that list of information that says, this registration number belongs to that human being.
You still then have all of the other challenges of proving that is the person who you had the contract with, but we will set aside that process. The process to recover a civil debt in this jurisdiction is through the Local Court Act, generally speaking, and the Local Court Rules. That is what Wilsons has done. The issue has arisen because the keeper of the information is the Northern Territory government, and people give information to the Northern Territory government – names, addresses, those sorts of things – under the expectation that information will be kept private.
Similar circumstances have occurred in New South Wales and Victoria. Their response was to legislate against the use of that government information for the purposes of recovering a civil debt. That is what we are doing today. It is not a complex bill.
I understand a phone call was made to you this morning, but perhaps because you were talking to the councils or other people your phone was engaged. We apologise for the lateness of the bill coming before you. This process is hurried and we will go through the committee stages so you can cross-examine government, if you like, on all the specific details. That is what has occurred and what we are attempting to remedy here today.
I draw honourable members’ attention to a couple of clauses in the bill. It is a mercifully short bill by standards of this House. The discovery process I just described is the one which will now be attended to. Sections 137D(1), (2) and (3) deal with the structure of the discovery for the purposes of recovery of debts under car parking contracts. That is exactly what I described before; you have this car parking contract – one of the variant forms of a ticket case – and we have now structured a description of what that is.
It then goes on to say there is a transitional matter – and this is the core of the issue – that any existing preliminary discovery order is taken to have never been made. We, as a parliament, are creating a legal artifice which says that if you have a process for discovery in relation to a car parking-related matter on foot at the moment, it does not exist.
The second component of it is:
- existing preliminary discovery order means a preliminary discovery order in relation to the recovery of a car parking debt (as defined in section 137D(3)) that was made:
(a) on or after 1 June 2015; but
(b) before the day in which the Administrator’s assent to the Motor Vehicles (Private Car Parking) Amendment Act 2015 is declared.
It basically closes the door on these applications and nullifies the court order made in relation to the Wilson application.
I pause briefly on that because the member for Johnston made an unusual and surprising statement in the House. He said he would have interfered, and he may well have. I remind the member for Johnston that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is beyond the order of government. It is an independent statutory office and a Registrar of Motor Vehicles should not be subject to government directions per se unless it comes through a legislative process through this House and the public domain.
Of course, boundaries and probity are not things which particularly concern the Northern Territory Labor Party. They are more than happy to …
Mr Vowles: You can just walk into any department, you have, keys, and you’re talking about us.
Mr ELFERINK: ... sidestep probity on every occasion and announce, even in this place, that they are prepared to act unlawfully. That is essentially what the member for Johnston …
Mr Vowles: I’ll have some tea with that fruitcake.
Mr ELFERINK: .... said he was prepared to do. The member for Johnston was quite wrong …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. It is difficult to hear the member for Port Darwin over the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Johnston was wrong, and I suspect is mischievous in intent, when he said the statutory officer was unrepresented. I understand the statutory officer was represented in court and that the Solicitor for the Northern Territory provided a legal presence. For some reason, best known to the statutory officer, the statutory officer chose not to inform the department and, through the department, the minister, of what was on foot. That decision is up to the statutory officer to deal with as an independent statutory officer. It then led to the unfortunate circumstance we saw the other day. The minister’s response was the appropriate one, ‘We will fix it’. Shock, horror.
Mr Vowles: In a couple of months.
Mr ELFERINK: I just heard, ‘in a couple of months’. The members opposite are seeking to introduce a bill – and the member for Johnston worked very hard over the weekend. That must have been the first weekend he has worked in a long time. They were planning to introduce a bill to fix these things by August. They were going to instantly fix this by August. By that stage Wilson would have been in possession of the private records of 8500 Territorians, something this minister is working very hard to stop. He had no interest in protecting those private records. There was no suggestion yesterday when the member for Johnston gave notice that he was preparing some form of urgency motion to ensure the information did not get across to Wilson. He was not interested in that. He was just interested in saying he would introduce a bill.
Will the bill be effective is the first question? The second one is, why not do it on urgency when the provisions for urgency under standing orders are specifically targeted at hardship? The government feels – and I think the opposition has finally figured out – there is potential hardship when we do not protect the information of Territorians in a sensible and sober fashion when it comes to contractual ticket cases between private companies and Territory residents who give their information to the Northern Territory government, as they are required to do by law.
By August they would have introduced a bill into the House, after the horse had well and truly bolted. Of course, it behoves us for a moment to look at what was to be suggested by the member opposite.
________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Wulagi Primary School. Welcome to Parliament House, I hope you enjoy your time here.
________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Here are some interesting things, because they were planning to say the registrar must not provide an abstract, a form or a copy of an entry contained under section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If memory serves me correctly, section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to keep certain types of information about licences and other things on a register. If memory serves me, section 2 says that information should be protected and only passed out under certain limited circumstances.
The legislation then talks about car parks and the creation of a car parking fee and defining that. Then it says a person is not entitled to be furnished with information or particulars relating to registration, if the purpose for requesting information is for recovery of a required car parking fee, as mentioned in section 118 of the act.
That sounds good; you are not supposed to give the information out. It then goes on to create offences, ’A person must not request an extract from or a copy of or an entry contained in records kept in accordance with section 118 of the act knowing that the purpose for the request is in relation to the recovery of a private car park fee’.
We will now make a criminal of a person asking for the information. How would that have dealt with the existing court order Wilsons has in relation to the car park? Does that place them in a difficult situation? The court has said, ‘You get access to something’, and this legislation says, ‘You cannot ask’. By the way, if you ask you are a criminal. I have a court order and you are a criminal.
The second component says a person must not use an extract or copy of an entry contained in the records kept in accordance with section 118 for the purposes of recovery car park fees mentioned in that section.
Bearing in mind this would have passed in August. The information would have already been provided and what you would have said was, ‘We will create a crime’ so Wilsons could not use it to recover.
Rather than dealing with a contractual issue, we will make Wilsons a criminal for even asking for the information in August. That was a clumsy way to go about it. Thank goodness, the minister, with a much more sober mind, has managed to deal with this issue in a more effective way. I have sympathy for the position taken by the member for Nelson, but the minister has explained his reasons for wanting to pursue the matter on urgency forthwith. I extend my apologies to the member for Nelson for the lateness of the bill getting to him. I understand attempts were made this morning but …
Mr Wood: I was ringing the councils.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine and I am not being horrible. I also want to address some of the other issues you raised in relation to disabled car parks and those types of things.
My understanding of how these things operate is that the question arises as to who generates the fine. As I described before, you have a private contract between two people; that is an object of the civil law. Even if it is a private car park, there are requirements under the motor vehicles arrangements nationally that such car parks be provided. When such a car park is provided, if a person parks in it who is not disabled they are required by law not to do so. There is a criminal component.
This is a component of the criminal law, albeit a regulatory offence, which says you do not park in them. If the ticket is issued by an authorised officer, such as a council worker, which is a form of government as it is a product of an election process, or a police officer, who also is able to issue such an infringement notice, the infringement notice is a product of the criminal law system.
Regulatory offences, low-level criminal laws – recovery for those fines is a matter of a criminal process. It is not a ticketed agreement or contract between me and another party. If the infringement issued was, for argument’s sake, issued by the private owner of the car park - and the infringement was something like a note saying you should not park here so you owe $50 - that is a contractual dispute between you and the person who owns the vehicle. The process of recovery is then quite different. This is your civil debt between you and the person who owns the car.
This issue is not who owns the car park. The issue in those circumstances is whether an offence has been committed against the criminal law, albeit a low-level and regulatory offence. If the answer is yes, then the ticket is issued by a government authority. Government authorities have a capacity to collect on fines through a system which is quite different to a civil debt recovery. It is a process pursued through the criminal justice system, and ultimately leads to fines recovery, which is why we have the Fines Recovery Unit.
The Fines Recovery Unit does not recover civil debts. It recovers debts that are the product of government-issued fines, and debts owed to the Northern Territory by way of costs orders imposed by courts, so there is some judicial or legal oversight which is quite outside the law of contract. That is the difference between those two systems.
This legislation attends to the simple concept that the law of contract will continue to operate, and Wilson will continue to engage in contracts with every person who purchases a ticket in the car park at the Royal Darwin Hospital. That is how the contract will work. The only thing this bill does is say that if you are in that contractual environment with Wilson, then the enforcement process will have to be something other than getting the information from the government database. That is essentially how the system is designed to work.
Wilson can still step down the path of debt recovery, but it will have to find a different way in which to bill its contract, or, alternatively, find a different way in which it enforces its contract. We will not be allowing Wilson to use government-stored information to achieve that outcome.
That is essentially what is happening today. Fortunately it is not technical or difficult, but reasonably straightforward.
To that end, I fulsomely support the minister and the government in its response to this situation. It is timely. It will be effective and will prevent Wilson from exercising the right it had extended to it in the court. It will enable Territory residents to have their public information protected, at least inasmuch as the enforcement of private contracts in relation to car parking arrangements.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak to this debate in my capacity as shadow minister for Health.
Let us face it, we are debating this bill today because of a complete and utter debacle and mishandling by the government of this issue. We are debating this on urgency as a direct result of the opposition’s member for Johnston giving notice of the introduction of a private member’s bill to put through very similar legislation to resolve this debacle.
That was the trigger for the CLP government and for the minister, who said last week on the record that he would fix this issue in a couple of months, which is not good enough. It is only because the opposition gave notice yesterday of introduction of private member’s bill this afternoon that the CLP government was spurred into action.
As I said, this is a complete and utter debacle. Parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital from day one under the CLP government has been a debacle. There have been endless complaints which have fallen on deaf ears on that side until finally we had former the Health minister, the member for Araluen, step up in September last year to say, ‘We made mistakes. We know people are not happy. The complaints have been consistent.’ As the minister said, ‘The system is not the easiest to use. We have made a few mistakes.’ Well, my oh my, is that not an understatement about the debacle this government has created.
Why do we have this debacle? Everybody knows this is a government in constant chaos. We have had four, maybe five, Health ministers as a result of 14 Cabinet reshuffles, so small wonder that issues in Health, as well as other agencies, about what should be simple things like car parks have not been addressed. It is because of the revolving door of Cabinet and who is in what portfolio.
If the CLP cannot even organise a functioning car park that meets the needs of people who utilise that car park at Royal Darwin Hospital, how on earth can they build Palmerston Regional Hospital? If it had proceeded down the path Labor had committed to, it would have been completed by the end of this year. Time frames for delivery of Palmerston Regional Hospital have blown out to 2018 and we still do not know what the opening date will be. The Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the Health minister are all at odds with one another as to exactly when it will be opened.
Maybe Palmerston Regional Hospital has been delayed because they are trying to work out how to run the car park there. I am waiting to see which minister is about to put their hand up to go on an expensive first-class, taxpayer-funded trip overseas to examine functioning car parks at major hospitals and maybe examine privacy legislation to see how to fix it. That is how this government operates. This government could not organise a chook raffle at my local pub. They are absolutely useless.
The issue we are debating is a direct result of the failures of your government in introducing a flawed car parking model from day one. You have not got it right. It sits with you, minister, not your staff. You can give the public wrist slap that you are angry with your agency, but it sits with you and the buck stops with you. No one believes there was not a hot issue brief sitting on your desk advising this matter was about to go court. This has seen private information relating to Territorians being handed over to Wilson parking. It is unbelievable. Shame on you!
Nobody on that side ever wants to step up and accept responsibility for the debacles you have created. It is a car park that does not work and has been on the receiving end of endless complaints.
I utilise that car park on occasions. I visit constituents who have to be admitted to Royal Darwin Hospital for whatever treatment needs or health issues they might have. I used it when a member of my family was in there. I remember in February sitting in the day surgery unit at Royal Darwin Hospital and being very grateful for the service we were receiving for my teenage son. He was awaiting day surgery and a woman in her seventies was sitting there. We were chatting with her and the first thing she wanted to talk to me about was how hopeless the car parking system was at Royal Darwin Hospital. Because of conditions she has, she is a regular user of Royal Darwin Hospital and as she said, ‘You never know how long you will be there’. There can be delays while you are waiting to be seen by a doctor at outpatients. In her seventies she had received a parking fine she could not afford and any appeal she made fell on deaf ears. It was, ‘Too bad, sorry, you have to pay it’.
It is inherently unfair the way that car parking system operates. I am advised there are people who have been booked for not having a ticket on the dash of their car whilst they have been at the machine trying to obtain the ticket required. That is unforgivable. I find the system confusing every time I use it. I have to read through the instructions again and double check them. Luckily the registration vehicle of my hire car is in my hand on the key tag.
One day I assisted the person behind me, who was struggling to work out how to use the parking system. Even though it has been in place for a couple of years, it is not getting any easier to use. People hate it. It is unworkable and costly, and this government is failing to act on it.
I have also been advised that people who return to their vehicle just over their time limit by a couple of minutes because they have been delayed in a clinic, the X-ray unit or consultation with a doctor, are booked by the Wilson inspectors - who are forever lurking in the car park - with no consideration of why they were delayed. This is absolutely inhuman. It is unforgiveable.
The AMA has raised objections to this parking system. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation of the Northern Territory has raised concerns. The ANMFNT has advised me that through its union it has had productive meetings with the Department of Health and management at the Royal Darwin Hospital regarding the car parking issue. I have been advised that RDH management has been receptive and responsive to the demands put forward in those discussions, and I acknowledge the bureaucracy for that.
Clearly the obstacle is the minister, who is not listening to staff or what the issues are with this debacle of a system. People have other questions about this Wilson Parking debacle, including from the estimates process; how much revenue is being raised through this system and what assurances do we have that the money is being put back into the health system for the benefit of Territorians?
We do not know how much money is being raised by Wilson Parking at the Royal Darwin Hospital car park because it is commercial-in-confidence. You can ask the question in estimates, but the answer you will get is, ‘Sorry, it is commercial-in-confidence. We cannot tell you.’ That is no surprise from these government members given they hate accountability and transparency. They do not want to tell Territorians what is really happening. This is the hallmark of how they operate, not only across Health, but every portfolio they operate.
Let us be very clear, we are here to debate a bill which has come about because of the incompetence of the CLP government.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I rise as the local member for Casuarina where the Royal Darwin Hospital is situated. This issue about car parking continues to be raised as a concern. I am really glad we are debating this today because the issue of details provided to the government to be handed over to a third party is simply outrageous. Territorians do not provide their details to government agencies so they can be provided to third parties.
I am very glad we seem to have agreement in this House on that point, because Territorians have been waiting for the government to stand up for them on this issue. I am glad about actions taken by the member for Johnston, who was working very hard on this to ensure we were listening. I am glad about the actions brought on by the opposition to ensure this issue is dealt with in a timely manner, in response to what has been raised to us consistently by constituents. I am glad the minister has also brought on actions to amend the bill because that is what is expected by the Territorians we represent.
This week I doorknocked two people within doors of each other who had received fines through the parking system at Royal Darwin Hospital in the last few weeks. One of them told me they were issued the fine as they were at the parking meter topping up. They explained this to the parking warden, but unfortunately they did not get a reprieve. This is how fines are being issued at the Royal Darwin Hospital. The parking issues are huge around this fining system.
Regarding the privacy issue, which is a breach of trust, and we all agree on that, there are deeper issues about how on earth the Minister for Transport did not know this was occurring. Yesterday we heard from the Chief Minister that he had learnt about it through the NT News. We are expected to believe the government learnt about the fact the department had been taken to court and that Wilson had won the right to access Territorians’ private details through the media?
That is a pretty big issue. I hope it is being rectified within the government. As a Territorian, that does not make me feel confident about the security of my details. I know the wider Territory community feels that way. There was no representation from the department present when this went through the court. Again, that is concerning, and nobody was there even whispering ‘No’ or making representations on behalf of Territorians’ rights to have their details protected.
Nevertheless, I am glad this has been introduced on urgency and we are dealing with this issue now. I hope this is not blamed on public servants because the members who have spoken so far are correct: the minister and the government must take some responsibility for this.
I encourage the government to heed the member for Johnston’s advice that Territorians have not received information about whether any exchange of details has occurred in the interim or what this process means. They are very concerned about what level of access to their private details has already been provided. I encourage the government to talk to Territorians about the security of their details.
Going more broadly to the circumstances that have brought about such an action, Territorians continue to pay in a myriad of ways for a system that remains chaotic. It is an issue that has been raised in this House consistently for well over a year, and the government has been promising to fix it. I will refer to an NT News article written in March 2014 about meter maids and men, which has been already referenced, that talked about the anger over the convoluted parking system.
In March last year there were promises to fix this parking system. There were promises in the October Casuarina by-election to fix the Royal Darwin Hospital parking system. Of course, it has not happened. The former minister, the member for Araluen, stated that complaints had been consistent:
- We have made a few mistakes.
She also went on to say:
- We do not want to be criticised as a government for a car park that people are not particularly happy with, so the sooner we fix it up, the better.
That was September 2014, during the Casuarina by-election. Let us think about that, ‘We do not want to be criticised as a government for a car park people are not particularly happy about’. Here we are in 2015, the middle of the year, and you are still being criticised as a government for a car park people are not happy about.
As local member, I see regularly the impacts of the convoluted parking system at the Royal Darwin Hospital, particularly down Rocklands Drive. There is a whole lane of the road outside the hospital taken up by parked cars. It is an ongoing issue. It happens because people are trying to avoid what parking at Royal Darwin Hospital entails. It is happening in areas around the hospital identified as Casuarina Coastal Reserve, which is also presenting problems for local residents. But most importantly, the car parking along Rocklands Drive is blocking the visibility for cars, pedestrians and ambulances coming in and out of the hospital. If you have ever stood there – which many members opposite will have done, particularly the Minister for Health, I am sure – there are cars and ambulances going in and out of the hospital constantly, around the clock. Their visibility is hampered by a lane of cars parked on Rocklands Drive.
Within my electorate I have many people who work at the hospital, many who live close to it because they need consistent access, and others a bit further away who go to it regularly by car. This is raised with me every time I go doorknocking or hold a mobile office. People want to talk about this problem and have wanted to raise privacy issues.
This has really been brought home to me because when this issue came up last week I was having to visiting the hospital regularly. I was in and out for three days over the weekend under not very pleasant circumstances. When you get a phone call to tell you something has gone wrong with somebody in hospital and you have to make the mad dash there and are driving around trying to stay calm while looking for a park, it is distressing. I know that has been raised by a number of people. It has been raised by the public through the media, but it was an odd moment for me to be on the media trying to stand up for Territorians on the privacy and car parking issues while, at the same time, heading in and out of the car park myself.
I saw drivers nearly having accidents around the Royal Darwin Hospital car park. I suppose there is easy access to the hospital if it happens, but there were many near misses. I saw signs across the entire main strip of Royal Darwin Hospital saying work would commence soon. They have been around for quite a long time – since late last year. I saw many signs that said, ‘Do not park here’ – big yellow ones that seem new. There were many signs to say a car park was closed and to head another way. The markings on the road were not very clear and there was chaos, and that was before I even got to a car parking meter.
As I sat in the room with a family member who had just had surgery, I looked out over the car park and saw they were slapping fines on cars of people who were stuck in hospital and people who were there with sick family members and had not remembered to top up the parking meter; those who thought they may stay there for two or four hours and happened to be there for 12. That was raised with me this week and also raised with the Minister for Health because we both received correspondence from local residents who were in the hospital for 12 hours. How can you possibly prepare for that? How do you know that will happen? You do not.
It has been brought home to me this week. I knew it was a massive issue for my local constituents, who want to see the car parking chaos finish. They want a resolution, and they want to know their private details are valued and protected by the government. I am glad to have spoken in this debate today to make sure their details are protected.
I am proud to be part of an opposition that will continue to see that parking issues are resolved and this unfair system is fixed. We are committed to that because we recognise the importance of access to quality healthcare and this is a part of accessing our important hospital system. I implore the government to use this opportunity to truly work on car parking issues at Royal Darwin Hospital immediately so we are not here again debating this issue, or other issues relating to a system that has already been identified by the CLP government as a mistake.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments today. I will make a few comments based on what has been said. Sadly, this debate was taken away from what we are trying to achieve as a government, and that is simply to protect Territorians’ information.
Much of the rhetoric from the opposition – although I believe they support the intent of the legislation – was on the rights, wrongs and philosophies about whether or not we have paid car parking in hospitals, whether it is RDH or elsewhere. One of the biggest pieces of rhetoric must have been from the member for Nhulunbuy, who stormed in here and tried to rewrite history. To say things like this government’s hand was forced because of the member for Johnston coming forward with his own legislation - member for Nhulunbuy, you can try to rewrite history, but that is not the way it happened.
I only learnt of the member for Johnston’s bill yesterday. In fact, we had been working on a solution from the moment it was made known to us that there was a court order which would release some 8500 pieces of information to Wilson Security. I have said publicly before, I was angry about the process, but rather than focus on that anger and dwell on the past, we focused on motivating a team to get behind us and find a solution.
The moment we learnt of this information was when the work started to find a solution, not because someone’s hand has been forced by the member for Johnston, who walked in here yesterday and tabled some clumsily written legislation.
Unfortunately the debate has focused on private car parking philosophies. I do not know how you used to govern, but we do not try to micromanage our departments. We have trust in our public servants to do the right thing. Does that mean everything will be perfect? Absolutely not, but when things go wrong, it is responsible to fix it and find a solution.
The member for Nhulunbuy said we cannot blame the public servants. I said I was angry with the process, but no one is blaming public servants. She also said, ‘You have to take responsibility’. Hello, what are we here for today? Why are we moving this legislation on urgency if we are not taking responsibility for fixing a problem which, if it not fixed, would see 8500 pieces of information handed over to a private security company? Rather than dwell on the past and the frustration, we have been focusing on a solution.
The member for Johnston said he had been working on this and would solve it all, yet you can see that the legislation proposed, if you read it closely, is clumsy. It does not provide a solution. There was no motion of urgency to move on this quickly, so there was no understanding whatsoever that we had 30 days to give this information to Wilson. We knew we had that time to find a solution, and the solution is here today. Member for Johnston, you had no solution in your legislation and there was no way you would make this on urgency. There was also no mention of it being retrospective.
It was as if you would come here and allow legislation to sit on the Notice Paper until the August or September sittings before it could be debated, with no understanding that the government was given 30 days to respond to Wilson. That time would have well and truly passed. You had no regard whatsoever for the 8500 Territorians whose information would have been given to this private company.
If you had put some thought into this rather than just play politics you would have done this retrospectively, but you had not thought about that either. How about we stop playing politics and try to do the right thing, which is to protect the information, as Territorians expect of their government.
Member for Nhulunbuy, is someone taking responsibility for it? You are damn right. I am taking responsibility for it. That is why we are here to move this legislation on urgency.
The facts are, on learning about the court order we focused on how we can protect Territorians. We have worked day and night to find a solution to this problem, not due to some bill being introduced by the member for Johnston, a clumsy bill with no retrospective consideration and no regard for the 8500 Territorians at risk if we do not fix this today. Let there be no politics in thus; let us pass this legislation, let us protect the information of Territorians and move through this as soon as we possibly can. Let us put aside the debate about the philosophies of car parks for another day. Today is about fixing, adding to and strengthening our legislation to ensure third-party private companies cannot access personal information.
There will always be, as I said earlier in the debate to the member for Nelson, a reason to pass on personal information to competent authorities, but there are control mechanisms in place to ensure that information is only used for specific purposes. Have we those same guarantees with private companies? I do not know, but I do not want to take the risk. Hence, this legislation needs to go through today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I know we will get onto the clauses in a minute. I have some general questions, minister. Could you say who is allowed access presently to information from number plates? Which bodies are allowed to take it presently?
Mr CHANDLER: I am seeking some further advice, but my understanding at the moment is local government such as Darwin City Council, Palmerston City Council, Katherine Town Council, Alice Springs Town Council and Parks and Wildlife. I believe also the Waterfront Corporation, but it does its car parking through a contract with Darwin city, so it would be done through its system as well.
Mr WOOD: What about Commonwealth bodies, for instance, as I mentioned, the airport? Does the Airport Corporation have power to get that information?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it does. I believe the contract has been in place since about 1998 that allows it to do that through the Commonwealth. That was reviewed again in 2003 under the former Labor government and that access is still there.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, this about the RDH parking, not the airport. Please contain your comments to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Whoa! Mr Chair, this is an important issue in relation to …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Let me finish!
Mr CHAIR: No. Member for Nelson, resume your seat!
Mr WOOD: Let me finish.
Mr CHAIR: Resume your seat! This is the Motor Vehicles (Private Car Parking) Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 131). Okay? It has nothing to do with airport parking. I ask you …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr CHAIR: … to contain your … Member for Nelson, please resume your seat!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Chair! I dissent from your ruling and I will put it in writing.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you are quite entitled to dissent. Put that in writing. I assume, therefore, that you have concluded your comments.
Mr WOOD: No, I have not. I am asking for a ruling from the Speaker.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, if you feel confident your dissent motion will be upheld, then we can proceed. If you feel you may not gain the support of the House with regard to a dissent motion, then I am prepared to allow the minister to continue with those remarks and, potentially, answer your question if the minister feels he would like …
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, please … the minister then may be able to offer an explanation.
When the Chair is speaking, the Chair expects to be heard. Member for Nelson, you have been a Chair of Committees and Deputy Speaker yourself and I am sure you know and appreciate the position. You have been in this House for a long time.
Nevertheless, if the minister is prepared to answer the question with regard to airport parking and its relationship to this bill, I will leave that in the purview of the minister. First, member for Nelson, I need to know your intent. Do you wish to proceed with the dissent or will you withdraw it?
Mr WOOD: Thank you for those comments, Mr Chair. Yes, I have been Chair of Committees for a long period of time. The committee stage allows …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, please …
Mr WOOD: No, you made the comment. You asked me the question …
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I asked a simple question. Will you proceed …
Mr WOOD: I am trying …
Mr CHAIR: Will you withdraw …
Mr WOOD: No, let me answer. You are obstructing me. You asked for an answer and I am giving you an answer. I will withdraw the dissent if you at least give me a chance to explain why my questioning is going down this path and what relevance it has to this bill.
If you do not understand that I cannot help it. I am asking the minister this question to make sure this bill does not have ramifications for other bodies, because the bill is not specific to Wilson. This bill just talks about ‘a person’. I am making sure it is not picking up people who unintentionally should not be picked up by this bill, and that is why I am going down that path. If you do not believe I can do that then I will take it to dissent. Otherwise, I am happy to withdraw it.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, have you withdrawn or not?
Mr WOOD: I have withdrawn, as long as I can continue my questioning.
Mr CHAIR: I said that is now at the discretion of the minister. Minister, are you prepared to take the questions?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I am.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I will it explain again. The reason I am asking that question is because this bill is not specific to Wilson Parking. You have introduced something that could cover a range of people who have access to number plate information, and that is what I am getting at. For the airport, could this bill – not necessarily cars in restricted car parks, but say someone parks on an area in the car parking area – it might be the light aircraft area or somewhere else that does not have those restrictions but they have gone over their limit – has that Commonwealth – I do not know if it is a Commonwealth body. I think the airport is private …
Mr ELFERINK: Commonwealth owned, statutory or corporation, I think.
Mr WOOD: Will they come under the scope of this legislation?
Member for Nelson, that is a really good question. Airports, such as Alice Springs and Darwin, have access to data for infringement purposes. The 8500 records we are talking about protecting have come through a discovery notice, where Wilson Security took the government to court, and through a discovery notice they stand to get access to that information. This legislation only precludes companies following that process in the future, whether it is Wilson Security or any other private security company.
Those arrangements are already in place, they are contractual arrangements between the government and other bodies, such as the airports corporation. They remain in force and will continue to do so. This legislation protects that as well.
Mr WOOD: I know the Attorney-General mentioned this. Some councils have authority to collect fees on private car parks. That is different to collecting money from the waterfront. It is a private car park; are they entitled to do that for a private car park?
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps I can give some guidance; this is why during the second reading debate I was so careful to differentiate between the criminal and civil components of what is occurring here.
Any fine issued as a result of law that creates an offence to park in a certain place or to do any other thing, but for the sake of this conversation parking, means that is enforceable through the process of pursuing the criminal law. Even if it is a private car park, for arguments sake, the disabled car park at Coles …
Mr WOOD: Just say it is not the disabled car park because I understand …
Mr ELFERINK: If there is an offence that says you cannot park in a private car park for more than two hours, whether it is in Yulara or an airport, the offence is pursued, not the car park. The law has been created for a reason, through an elected body, which then allows that offence to be pursued even on private land. If the issuing of the fine is in accordance with the law in relation to a breach of the law, it falls under the recovery processes in criminal law.
If we are talking about a civil contract, which is the contractual arrangement between, in this case, Wilsons and the person who parks in the car park at the hospital, then the recovery process is such that you have to recover as you would any civil debt. This bill is designed to do one thing, which is to say we will not use Territory publically held records for the recovery of the civil debt between two parties when no criminal law has been broken. It is a very important distinction to make.
The question you need to ask is not whether the car park is private or public, or a disabled park or otherwise. The question is, what is the nature of the fine issued? A fine is an allegation you have done something wrong and when you pay the fine you are effectively pleading guilty. If you read carefully the back of a fine, it describes that if you dispute it, there are processes which you go through to have the matter heard in a court of law as a criminal matter.
In the case of an arrangement between the Northern Territory government and the Federal Airports Corporation, the offence would be some civil offence, or there is some contractual arrangement pre-existing with the Federal Airports Corporation. Nothing in this prevents the government from honouring that contractual arrangement if it is a private car park. What it does is prevent people seeking discovery of information held by government. You can no longer go into the Local Court and say, ‘There is a breach of contract between me and somebody who parked in my car park. I want to know who they are. I have their registration number and I need a court order to get that information.’
The court order is the only way a person can compulsorily acquire that information from the government. The enforcement of a contractual arrangement between government and something like the Federal Airports Corporation is a matter for that form of contract, which is pre-existing, so there is no court order in place. In this instance, government is resistant. They will lose under the current arrangements and that is what we are trying to change. So you have that criminal component.
The other thing I will say in a practical sense about the airports is that they run on a boom gate model, if I am not mistaken, unless you are parking right out the front. The contract is resolved before you drive out of the boom gate. I suspect you will find Victoria, New South Wales, us and other jurisdictions will now start doing the same about their information. Boom gates will be the way of the future because these contractual arrangements will be unsatisfactory in the public mind as a general principle.
Mr WOOD: Minister, if Darwin City Council ran the hospital car park, going by what you said, there would be no problem finding out who did not pay their fine? Correct?
Mr ELFERINK: No, not correct. Do not look at who the authority is. What is being enforced is the question.
Let us say we created a regulatory environment that said at the Royal Darwin Hospital there was a by-law to say you could only park in certain hours, and then we got the council to enforce that, no worries. It would recover that in the same way it recovers a fine off the street. At the waterfront there is a series of by-laws, and they have their own local government authority, for lack of a better term. It has the capacity to issue fines so the nature of the fine you have is of a criminal nature. You receive the fine and on the back of the ticket is written, ‘If you dispute what is in this, fight it in court as a criminal offence. You have been alleged to have broken this simple law.
A contract is completely different. A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two parties. When you walk up to the machine in the hospital car park, type in your details and get your ticket, and then you overstay for whatever reason, then there is a contractual arrangement. There is no fine, there is no by-law that says you cannot do that, it is just contractual. ‘I will agree to pay you X number of dollars for parking in that car park for such a time.’ One of the default clauses in that contract is if you overstay your welcome, extra money will be demanded of you. It is $65 for overstaying your time.
Mr WOOD: If you replace Wilson with the Darwin city council using the same process …
Mr ELFERINK: No, is the answer.
Mr WOOD: … where they give you a ticket ...
Mr ELFERINK: If there is the same contractual arrangement between you and council, which is not enforced by a by-law, then it is a contractual arrangement and it is not enforceable in the same fashion. What makes a council, government or a police officer’s fine enforceable is that it creates an offence which is then breached – criminal law. An agreement between two people – I will pay you $4 to park my car in your car park for two hours – is a civil agreement between two parties. It does not matter who the enforcing body is, what matters is the nature of the agreement.
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the clock has just struck 12 noon. Ordinarily we would suspend for lunch. What are your intentions, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I move that the Chair do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the committee will resume after Question Time.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Lookrukin Indigenous Women’s Leadership Development Program participants accompanied by Camille Lew Fatt. I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Petition No 43
Petition No 43
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 43 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 43
Stop Eradication Program and Save our Banana Plants
Date presented: 19 February 2015
Presented by: Ms Purick
Referred to: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Date response due: 17 June 2015
Date response received: 16 June 2015
Date response presented: 17 June 2015
Response:
The National Banana Freckle Eradication Program (the program) is working to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Top End and Australia. This nationally important program has been approved and funded by all Australian states and Territories, and the banana and nursery industries of Australia.
The program, worth more than $20m, is the largest response to a plant pest in Australia. The Northern Territory is at the forefront of a nationally important program that confirms its strong commitment to biosecurity. The NT and Australia have a strong history for eradicating pests and diseases and protecting our primary industries and the environment.
The eradication of the new strain of banana freckle from the NT and Australia ensures the banana growers of Australia continue to be highly productive and produce wholesome bananas. Overseas experience has shown the impacts this strain of banana freckle can have. The eradication will support the continued growth of the banana industry in the NT.
The first of three phases of the program is coming to an end. The main activities of the first phase have been restrictions on movements for banana plants and frit across the NT and in six declared quarantine zones across the Top End, and destruction of all banana plants in each of the six zones. Any banana plant in any one of the six zones is a potential host for banana freckle, and their removal is the only way to ensure Australia is banana freckle free.
The community has shown good support for the program. With the great understanding and support from householders, surveillance of more than 41 500 addresses has identified almost 9500 addresses with banana plants. Householders have shown great patience as field staff returned many times to validate information.
Banana plants have been destroyed at the 9500 addresses with householders and commercial growers completing destruction of their own plants at more than 2000 of the 9500 addresses. That is more than 23% of addresses where householders destroyed their own plants. What a great effort!
I thank the community for their great support for the program. Further, I acknowledge that the destruction of banana plants for some in the community has been a difficult decision. I thank those who have made those difficult decisions.
Bananas continue to be readily available for sale across the Top End.
People of the Top End in the declared quarantine zones will be able to replant bananas 12 months from now. After the 12 month sentinel period from May 2016 to May 2017, the planting of banana plants across the Top End will return to normal. Householders and growers will be able to source banana plants from their usual suppliers who will be able to provide the varieties wanted.
MOTOR VEHICLES (PRIVATE CAR PARKING) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 131)
In committee:(Serial 131)
Mr VOWLES: We worked quite hard over the weekend as you know, and we sent our amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act to you. With regard to Part 3, section 18, we amended it to read, the registrar must not provide an extract from or a copy of an entry contained in the record for the purpose of the recovery of private car parking fees’.
Was that considered in the changes?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Johnston, you said you worked hard on a bill over the weekend, and no doubt you did. Did you take up the offer to speak with the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant, about your bill and did he give you any advice on your proposed bill?
Mr VOWLES: Have you answered my question, first? I will speak to the Solicitor-General because we are supporting this coming through; it was simply a question to ask you, as the minister, about our changes in a collaborative approach.
Mr CHANDLER: I could go into further detail, but my advice is when you speak to the Solicitor-General it will become very clear why that portion of the act you are suggesting we put in would not be a good idea.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, minister. Can you give me that advice here, please, if you know it?
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is that it would not address the issue we are faced with. If we did what you are suggesting it would not prevent any person in the future applying to the courts and getting a discovery order, or the government being left in the same position as it is now.
Mr VOWLES: Part 3, section 4 of our amendments says a private car park does not include an area under the control of an agency, a government owned corporation or a local government council. Did you consider those amendments?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I did, but we can clear up two things because a question was asked earlier by the member for Nelson. You have to remember that in private car parks – let us say, a shopping centre, which is where the member for Nelson was going earlier – councils have contracts with the owners of those centres. A car park used by the general public is covered under the Traffic Act, which comes under the Australian Road Rules. If it is open to and used by the public it is a public car park, therefore the road rules legislation is enforced in those areas.
This legislation will not amend any of those contracts in place with local councils and shopping centres. We do not want to get confused, and the Attorney-General spoke very clearly on this earlier. We do not want to confuse the difference between contracts in place with local councils and specific shopping centres using the Traffic Act where a competent authority is writing infringement notices, compared to, in this case, a private security company not writing infringement notices. They are essentially writing contracts with their tickets. People are entering into those contracts by parking in those areas. This is not covered under the Australian Road Rules or the NT Traffic Act.
Mr VOWLES: Has any confidential information been given to Wilson?
Mr CHANDLER: I can categorically deny any information has passed from MVR, from the government, to Wilson. The order stipulated around 30 days that we had to provide that information and no information has passed over.
Mr VOWLES: Will all of the outstanding parking fines still have to be paid?
Mr ELFERINK: This is what I was trying to explain before lunch; these things are not fines. Fines are a product of a statutory body – generally an elected body, a parliament, a council – being empowered by the people who elect them to determine what is criminal and what is not.
In the case of Wilson car parking at the hospital you are engaging in a contractual arrangement between two private people – in this case a private citizen and a company – which is outside the domain of fines. A person is bound to pay or adhere to the terms of this contract, the terms of which, without having paid a great deal of attention to them myself, will be on a signpost somewhere in the car park. You see this in car parks all the time. There are any number of cases called the ticket cases that deal with the arrangement and enforceability of those terms of contract – a civil arrangement.
In the arrangement with Wilson you contract with a machine, effectively, to purchase a ticket to stay there for a particular period of time. If you then depart that environment within that period of time, the contract has been completed by both sides and no consequence follows from it. If, however, because of some delay inside the hospital, you extend yourself beyond that period of time which is the time agreed to in the contract, then a damage, if you like, will flow to Wilson under the terms of that contract. In …
Mr VOWLES: That is a yes?
Mr ELFERINK: Well, do not …
Mr VOWLES: Is that a yes, minister?
Mr ELFERINK: Do not use the words incorrectly. Mr Chair, I have the call, I understand.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Johnston, please, you have asked a question and the Attorney-General is answering it.
Mr ELFERINK: If you are going to say ‘fine’, know what a fine is!
Mr VOWLES: I know what a contract is. I do not need a lecture from you.
Mr ELFERINK: It is like trying to explain algebra to a garden slug.
Mr CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is the problem we have. It is not a fine.
Mr VOWLES: Fine, contract: whatever. I am asking the minister, not you. Sit down.
Mr ELFERINK: Then speak English, sir.
Mr CHAIR: Order! Member for Johnston.
Mr ELFERINK: Understand what you are talking about. Your ineptitude is apparent to all, which is why I am standing here with a crayon and sheet of butcher’s paper trying to explain it to you. He is not interested, clearly.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General.
Mr VOWLES: I have my answer.
Mr CHANDLER: If I may, for the member for Johnston’s information, there is still an alleged debt between Wilson and the drivers of those vehicles who used the car park. That allegation of the debt owed to Wilson would still be there. This legislation will prevent them from using government-held information to recover the debt.
All we are trying to do is prevent Territorians’ private information which is held by the government being passed on to a third party, in this case Wilson Security.
Mr WOOD: I thank the minister for his offer of a briefing during lunch; I appreciate that. I said I would repeat some of those questions as they need to be on record.
You mentioned a competent authority, and I received an explanation of what a competent authority is. But could Wilson Parking apply to be a competent authority to get around this clause?
Mr CHANDLER: Technically they could become a competent authority, but that would mean changes to the existing contracts and would depend on whether Health wanted Wilson to be involved. But it would revert back then to using the Australian Road Rules, the NT Traffic Act and doing it just like a council does today. Technically they could, but it would have to be through an arrangement with Health.
Mr ELFERINK: Then you would be enforcing a fine.
Mr WOOD: Then you would end up with the issue you have today. They would have knowledge of people’s registration numbers.
Mr CHANDLER: I will answer that. This is the important part. These competent authorities have frameworks built around them that very much control how that information is used. My concern is – and I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling – that when you pass on information to a private company there are no guarantees that information could not be used again. I am not saying it would be, but it could be.
I will give you an example. Let us say we give Wilson security your registration number because you parked at Royal Darwin Hospital and stayed longer than you said you would. Wilson then alleges you owe X amount of dollars for parking there. If, for instance, your information is passed to Wilson and it is to be used in accordance with the court order – once, to follow up on that debt – what happens in six months’ time if you are caught again overstaying your welcome?
What guarantees do we have that Wilson will not use that information again? What are the guarantees? I do not think there is a way of guaranteeing that like we can with a competent authority, such as a council, that would have to access the information again. In the case of a private company, what guarantees do you have that they would not keep that information or even on-sell that information to somebody else. That is my, and I think Territorians’, worry. This legislation will prevent that from occurring.
Mr WOOD: I am worried too because I heard today that when you have a debt, you have to ring a Perth number, which means our information could have gone interstate. I do not want to harp on this because I have other questions, but theoretically the airport corporation is the competent authority over airport parking, but the airport authority is really a private company. There is nothing stopping Wilson parking, except perhaps the contract saying, ‘Next time we apply for this we will apply for it as a competent authority. We can then get the registration number information we cannot get at the present.’ Will this legislation still protect people?
Mr ELFERINK: It will probably not be a problem in relation to this. In regard to a competent authority acting on behalf of a democratically-elected organ that has the power to issue by-laws, laws and those things, the information is still owned by the government. The government can put rules around what you do with that information. That is to say, if you execute any outstanding matters that arise out of our ownership of this information you can only use it for those purposes. That is the arrangement as I understand it. I could stand corrected, but those are the arrangements you can have where a private provider will enforce tickets so government can ultimately sell the debt owed to it by other businesses. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem with the arrangement in the Wilson environment is that the information then finds its way to Wilson and it is theirs to dispose of as it sees fit. That is the difference.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, that is good. It is worth clarifying because it is an important area. It leads me to the question about the Wilson contract with the Department of Health. If the Wilson contract was made at a time when they could do what this act is trying to overturn, is the contract void because we have brought in legislation which does not allow them to do something they could do when they signed the contract?
Mr ELFERINK: There are several elements that apply to the contractual environment. The first question is: is this an acquisition of property rights? Do they possess a right that we are now taking away? The advice I received from my Solicitor-General was quite certain on this point. No, it is not an acquisition of property rights. If we were taking something they possessed away from them then that would be an acquisition of property rights. That would render the Territory liable for compensation on just terms. That is slightly different to what you are asking. You are asking about the effect on the contractual environment. Like any contract, nothing prevents Wilson from pursuing these matters in the future.
They are still able to pursue everybody they determine to be a debtor who owes them money through such processes as they may have. This then comes down to a question of their business model. If their business model was predicated on the assumption only that they would go down this path of finding out who owned the cars, it is a pretty weak business model. I will tell you why.
Simply being able to match a registration number to a person does not mean that is the person you entered the contract with. My wife is driving my car around town at the moment because hers is in the workshop. If she goes to the hospital, and I am unaware of it, and she breaches a contract with Wilson Parking, they can knock on my door and I would say, ‘It is not my contract. I do not know what you are talking about.’
Wilson then has to go through a whole bunch of other evidentiary steps to link the person they are pursuing to the actual contract they have. There are a number of contract cases on common law that deal with all of these issues; they are called the ticket cases. In truth, if that is there business model, that is something they should have thought about before they negotiated with the Northern Territory government.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said, ‘If we bring in this legislation, Wilson will have to find another way to collect fines’. I do not want to give them any hints, but if they cannot get the payment for the contracts that were not agreed to then, unless they have licence numbers and the addresses to go with them, they have no way of collecting that money. Would that be fair enough to say? And that would be their fault.
Mr ELFERINK: I cannot speak for Wilson’s business model. That is their choice. They have a system in place; they have contractual terms on a sign and I am sure it is on the back of the ticket. I have not seen the ticket, but I guess it is. I have used the car park at the hospital. I have never read the back of the ticket; who does? But it would have contractually obliged me to meet my terms of the contract. All we are saying as a government is if you enforce your contractual terms, that is fine, but do not expect to do it with government-held information. If that is a flaw in your business model, then that is a matter for you.
Mr CHANDLER: I have seen the contract but I cannot say I have read every page in it. I could not find anything in there that obliges the Northern Territory government to help Wilson in any way to recover debts.
To me this whole thing has uncovered a flaw in their business model. Now they are expecting government, through the passage of that information to them, to fix their business model, which we are trying to prevent here today.
Mr ELFERINK: Considering the events of New South Wales and Victoria, I would be very surprised if they were unaware of the reality of this sort of thing.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, ministers. I do not think I have any more questions unless something comes out from further discussion. Thank you, once again, for the briefing.
Mr VOWLES: Minister Chandler, you just said you could not find anything in the contract, so we do not have to pay any cost to Wilson because of the court case and them recovering their fines – the government is not accountable or liable for any cost to help recover that?
Mr CHANDLER: Exactly. I know I cannot mention that you were not in the Chamber, but that is exactly what minister Elferink just described to the member for Nelson.
Mr VOWLES: I am very thankful.
Mr ELFERINK: A court might rule otherwise, but the legal advice we had is the answer is no.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 42 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act, which pertains to domestic violence orders issued by police, known as police DVOs. This amendment will ensure that whilst an authorised officer defined as senior sergeant or above is authorised to make a police DVO, they do not need to physically note the matters on the police DVO and can authorise a junior officer to do so.
Section 41 of the Domestic Violence Act gives authorised officers the powers to issue a police DVO in circumstances where the authorised officer is satisfied that the police DVO is necessary to ensure a person’s safety because of urgent circumstances or because it is not otherwise practicable in those circumstances to obtain a DVO by filing an application in the Local Court, and a Local Court DVO might reasonably have been made had it been practicable to apply for one. A police DVO may be made even if the defendant has not been given an opportunity to answer any allegation made in relation to the making of a police DVO.
Section 42 sets out the particulars that must be recorded on a police DVO – being the reasons for making it and the time and place for its return to the local court – and states that the authorised police officer must record those particulars on the police DVO.
Recently an increasing number of respondents are arguing that the police DVO that has the particulars recorded by an officer who is not an authorised officer is invalid. The interpretation has not been widely adopted by the courts. However, in the interests of safety of victims of domestic violence, this amendment is being made to put the matter beyond doubt.
Police DVOs are often issued in the immediate aftermath of an alleged domestic and family violence incident, and are usually served upon the defendant forthwith. In circumstances where the defendant is not taken into custody, this offers immediate protection to the protected person. The police DVO has immediate effect in that any breach of the DVO between the time of service and the first return date to the local court will result in a charge of a breach of a DVO. The police DVO also acts as a summons for the defendant to appear in the Local Court where they may seek to contest the police DVO, or alternatively it may be confirmed for a period of time determined by the Local Court.
From an operational perspective, the police officer in the field contacts the authorised police officer, often by telephone, to seek authorisation to issue a police DVO. The police officer will then record the particulars as dictated by the authorised officer on the police DVO. The order can then be immediately served, thus providing immediate protection to the protected person. If the authorised officer has to personally record the details on the police DVO, the officer in the field will have to physically seek out the nearest authorised officer, which will often result in significant delays, thus endangering the protected person. The delay may also result in the police having difficulty in locating the parties to which the order applies.
The amendment clarifies that the authorised police officer may cause the relevant particulars to be recorded on the police DVO by another officer, and it is not necessary for the authorised officer to record the particulars in person or be physically present when the particulars are recorded on the police DVO.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
FINES AND PENALTIES (RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
(Serial 129)
Bill represented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the recovery of debts, strengthen debt management processes and streamline the debt payment processes in the Northern Territory, which is timely considering the debate we have just completed.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act establishes the Fines Recovery Unit, the Territory’s debt collection agency which is given the powers under the act to enforce court fines and penalties imposed by way of infringement notices. As of 18 March 2015 over 63 000 individual fine defaulters owed in excess of $58m. Given the amount of debt outstanding, it is clear the current measures are insufficient and are failing to encourage people to pay their debts and outstanding fines.
This government is committed to responsible fiscal management through a more proactive approach to pursuing the Territory’s debt. It is important that sanctions are pursued against fine defaulters so they are encouraged to pay and be held accountable for their actions.
In order to improve the effectiveness of the Fines Recovery Unit and provide other mechanisms for enforcement, the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Amendment Bill will implement the following new enforcement measures:
1. publication of the Northern Territory’s top fine defaulters on a website
2. immobilisation of motor vehicles owned or used by fine defaulters who continue to evade the Fines Recovery Unit, and
3. extension of cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform any functions in relation to fine defaulters.
The new enforcement measures will be aimed at those high-end defaulters owing $10 000 or more who blatantly disregard their obligation to pay despite being more than capable to do so. It will not be targeted at those members of the community who take responsibility for their actions and pay their fines, or those suffering financial hardship. However, those people who commit offences and refuse to pay will face increasingly harsh enforcement measures.
Although this government will be taking a hard-line approach with fine defaulters, we accept that for many reasons there may be individuals who are unable to pay their fines by the due date. If this is the case there are alternate options available, with the Fines Recovery Unit regularly implementing flexible payment plans for those who are unable to pay their fines in full. Given this option is available there is no excuse for defaulters to refuse to cooperate.
The Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Amendment Bill 2015 inserts new Division 7A into Part 5 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, which will provide the Fines Recovery Unit with the power to immobilise a fine defaulter’s vehicle. Similar to other enforcement sanctions under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act, the immobilisation of a defaulter’s vehicle will be at the discretion of the Fines Recovery Unit, although it should be noted the targets for wheel clamping will be repeat high-end defaulters who owe more than $10 000.
Division 7A has been drafted to allow for the immobilisation of fine defaulters’ vehicles to be outsourced for the task to be carried out by an immobilisation officer, being a bailiff, Director or Deputy Director of the Fines Recovery Unit or another person approved by the director. If the task is outsourced, then the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit will retain discretion and make any decision regarding the appropriateness of the immobilisation.
New section 66C will provide for the immobilisation of a fine defaulter’s vehicle for a period not exceeding seven days through the attachment of a device, such as a wheel clamp, or by any other means approved by the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit. Although the provisions will initially be enforced through wheel clamping, the provisions have been redrafted to ensure they remain technologically neutral and will be applicable even if the technology of wheel clamping is superseded by other means of vehicle immobilisation. Upon the application of an immobilisation device, section 66C(3) will require a notice to be affixed to the vehicle advising of the immobilisation and outlining how the defaulter can seek to have the removal of the immobilisation.
New section 66G provides the person authorised to apply or remove an immobilisation device with the power to enter any premises for the purposes of applying or removing an immobilisation. However, the provision will only allow entry to residential premises occupied by the fine defaulter by a bailiff without consent. Only then will the bailiff be able to enter those parts of the premises that are not a residential building, for example, a bailiff will be authorised to access driveways or carports for the purposes of applying and removing an immobilisation device.
If the immobilisation officer is not a bailiff they may not enter residential premises without consent, and if the premises is only occupied by a person other than a fine defaulter, then an immobilisation officer, whether a bailiff or otherwise, may not enter without consent. This application of the provision means that if a fine defaulter lives in a share house or unit which shares common property, a bailiff will not be authorised to enter the part of the premises which is solely occupied by other persons without consent, but will be able to access areas of common property.
New section 66K will also provide the immobilisation officer with protection from criminal or civil liability for an act done in good faith in the exercise of power, or performance of a function as an immobilisation officer.
In order to ensure the safety of the defaulter and any other person, new section 66D will provide that the vehicle must not be immobilised if:
(a) the vehicle could be a safety or traffic hazard
(b) the safety of the driver or other occupants may be at risk, for example, at an isolated location; or
(c) it is otherwise inappropriate.
In accordance with new sections 66F and 95(7)(c), the immobilisation will be released if:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full
(b) the defaulter enters into a payment plan; the immobilisation will cause undue inconvenience to a person other than the fine defaulter, for example
(c) if the vehicle is the only available means of transporting the debtor’s children to and from school; or otherwise
In order to deter interference with an immobilised vehicle, new sections 66H and 66J will create offences for moving or tampering with an immobilise vehicle or immobilisation device, which will carry a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units. Due to the operation of section 43BE of the Criminal Code Act the offences will not apply to a person authorised under any other act to move a vehicle, for example, a police officer acting in accordance with Part 5 of the Traffic Regulations.
The bill also inserts new Division 7B into Part 5 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to provide the Fines Recovery Unit with the power to name and shame fine defaulters who owe more than $10 000 by publishing their full name, suburb of residence and amount owing on a publicly accessible website. In order to ensure the safety of the community, the names of fine defaulters who are children, protected persons for whom a domestic violence order is sought or in force, and any other person whose safety would be endangered will not be published on the website. The bill will also consequently amend the Anti-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis that a person has been listed as a fine defaulter under the new naming and shaming provisions.
New sections 66N and 95(7)(d) will require the Fines Recovery Unit to remove the defaulters name from the website if:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full;
(c) at the discretion of the Fines Recovery Unit.
The bill will also amend section 62 of the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to extend cessation of the business orders to individuals. Under section 62 the Registrar of Motor Vehicles may, at the request of the Fines Recovery Unit, cease all business of the body corporate which is a fine defaulter.
In order to encourage fine defaulters to pay their debts, cessation of business will be extended to individuals and will provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform one or more of the following functions in relation to a fine defaulter:
(a) issue or renew a licence to drive
(b) test the defaulter for the purpose of issuing a licence to drive
(c) register, renew or transfer the registration of a vehicle
(d) grant or renew a motor vehicle trader’s licence
(e) grant a temporary licence under section 137 of the Motor Vehicle’s Act
(f) grant or renew a pastoral vehicle permit;
(g) issue a number plate; or
(h) a function described by regulation.
Similarly to new ‘naming and shaming’ and immobilisation provisions, a cessation of business order will be lifted as soon as:
(a) the defaulter pays the outstanding amount in full or
Prior to 2012, a cessation of business order could be applied to individuals; however, the provision was amended by the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 to apply solely to bodies corporate. At the time the amendment addressed concerns that:
(a) the application of the provision to individuals would negatively impact on families who shared vehicles; and
The bill will also make a number of other minor amendments to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act to provide:
1. for bailiff costs to be paid in relation to Community Work Orders; and
2. for Community Work Orders to be served by a bailiff or the Director or Deputy Director of the Fines Recovery Unit.
The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Regulations to prescribe:
(a) enforcement fees for the new sanctions;
(b) an enforcement fee for bailiff costs incurred when serving Community Work Orders; and
(c) the threshold amount for the application of the immobilisation and ‘naming and shaming’.
The bill also converts all offences in the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act so they will comply with the principles of criminal responsibilities and Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
Transitional provisions are provided in the bill so that all amendments, excluding those relating to offences, apply retrospectively to any outstanding debt, whether incurred prior to or after commencement. The principles of criminal responsibility of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act are only applicable to offences committed after commencement.
The community expects that those who commit offences are punished and the imposition of sanctions under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act ensures the integrity of monetary penalties as effective sanctions for minor offences. The proposed amendments and new enforcement measures will ensure fine defaulters are aware of the consequences for failing to pay their fine debt, and are encouraged to pay and be held accountable for their actions.
I commend the bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE TO
INTRODUCE A BILL
INTRODUCE A BILL
Mr VOWLES (Johnston)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I notify the Assembly that I withdraw the Notice of Motion of General Business Notice No 1 pursuant to Standing Order 173(5).
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report
Continued from 30 October 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to see government cleaning up the Notice Paper. Over the course of the Assembly a few things have been become backed up on it. This is one of them, and it is good to see it come on.
For the benefit of people listening, this annual report was tabled in October last year. It relates to the financial year 2013-14. We have just finished debating the 2015-16 budget, and many of the issues covered in this report are now history. We covered much of the economic debate during the 2015-16 budget debate.
In the report this period covers the Territory still owned the Territory Insurance Office and the Territory was not talking about a plan to sell or lease the port, so there is a range of issues where time has moved on since this report was tabled. Fundamentally, this report covers a time no longer relevant to the current economic debate and we are having after this, I note, a debate on the mid-year report, which covers the 2014-15 financial year.
I went through the notes from the Treasurer at the time, Mr Giles, and the financial report it. It is important to note that at that time the Treasurer was the Chief Minister. His remarks were short. He thanked the members for Araluen and Fong Lim as former Treasurers. Time has passed on. One is no longer the former Treasurer and one will probably no longer be thanked.
It is significant to note that one of the key factors to an improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget was the revised timing of the handover of the $521m Darwin Correctional Precinct.
As the then Treasurer explained in his contribution:
- In relation to the revised timing of the handover of the Darwin Correctional Precinct as foreshadowed in the May 2014 budget, this results in the recognition of the facility now being included in the 2014-15 financial year.
To summarise, the effect of the new prison sliding from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and coming on the books then is a significant improvement to the 2013-14 bottom line. I would not call it a magic trick or a card trick, but I also would not call it a miracle of economic management. It is a shift from one financial year to the next.
The former Treasurer also notes in his Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report the possibility of a 2017-18 surplus. We have seen that projected in the 2015-16 budget, and we gave in our debate on the 2015-16 budget several reasons why we believe that surplus is in danger. The current Treasurer has the forward estimates for Palmerston Regional Hospital coming on in 2018-19 while the Health minister says it will be built in the 2017-18 financial year. There is obviously a big financial difference about when Palmerston Regional Hospital will be available, running and costing money.
The Commonwealth Treasury predicted much lower GST revenues in 2017-18 than the NT Treasury. The CLP said the 2017-18 surplus will be built on cuts to the current infrastructure budget at a time when we know we will be in the post-INPEX construction stage. They are three things that put the 2017-18 surplus in considerable doubt. These are all things we debated in the 2015-16 budget and are not really relevant to the 2013-14 economic debate as time has moved on. This is a debate from 2013-14 that saw things slide into 2014-15. We have the mid-year report coming on next which is about 2014-15, and after the last sittings we finished the 2015-16 debate on the financial report.
I thank the Treasurer for bringing this TAFR back on. My remarks are about the same length as those of the previous Treasurer at the time.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2014-15
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2014-15
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
The Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2014-15 makes for interesting reading. Let me turn to two datasets.
In the mid-year economic forecast, the Treasurer and the Treasury made some forecasts about population and economic growth and other key economic indicators. The same table of data was repeated in Budget Paper No 2 of the 2015-16 budget. This was effectively delivered some six months after the mid-year review. What does it show? It looks at population growth and it has four charts for 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. It shows that only six months ago Treasury was much more optimistic about population growth than it is today.
In 2014-15 the population growth figure was overly optimistic by almost 100%. It has now being revised from 1.6% growth to 0.9% growth, which is a significant revision. Clearly, Treasury has also predicted a significant rise in population this coming financial year to coincide with the final stage of construction of the INPEX project.
They put it at 2.6% initially, but have now revised that downwards in the budget by almost 40% to 1.8%, and are now predicting a reduction to 1%. That 1% figure comes along where the budget was, so the first two years were out of sync and were overly optimistic projections of population trends.
The Treasurer and I had an extensive discussion at the estimates about population, so he knows my view. I believe we need an increasing population, as characterised by net and state migration being as close to positive as possible. I had that conversation with the Treasurer about page 7 of the Economic Review, and the graph which shows those net interstate migration figures heading south at quite an alarming rate.
It shows net and state migration, even at the height of the INPEX construction phase, is falling through the floor, negative to the extent of about 3500 people in 2014. Natural increase is flat lining and the minor upward trend of overseas arrivals is plummeting. In other words, population figures are in some trouble.
If you look at what Treasury has done and how it has revised the two figures for those financial years, we need question marks around the two financial years after that. We need to think about planning for our population, not just growing it, but retaining our Territorians and having policies and plans for that. That will probably form a large number of our conversations between now and the next election.
I asked the Treasurer about population growth during our estimates contribution. I look forward to the briefing he promised me. He wanted to be there as well so we could talk about population. We received some interesting answers, during the estimates debate, from Treasury.
I am very optimistic about the long-term future of the Territory, but I believe we have some short-term challenges which we need to plan for, and one of them goes to population. When you look at the mid-year report and compare it to Budget 2015-16, once again we see a revision around a series of predictions in the mid-year economic statement, compared to what we have seen in Budget 2015-16. One of the critical areas is employment growth. We have seen a revision down from the mid-year projections or predictions, from 3.5% in 2014-15 to 1.5% in 2015-16 for employment growth, and 2.1% down to 1.5% for 2015-16. We are concerned about the growth of employment in the Territory as we see it struggle.
It is still growing and we recognise that, but we are concerned about how employment is travelling in the Territory and the direction it is taking. Employment growth is obviously critical for the Territory. People move to the Territory to work; not many people move to the Territory to retire. That is something we would like to improve. We want people to choose to retire in the Territory.
Employment growth is critical. We have often sold the Territory around jobs, so it is concerning. The government talks about boom and bust. You could very well argue that we should be in a middle of a boom with INPEX. In the middle of the boom we are seeing the employment growth predictions in the mid-year report being scaled back in the budget.
We have some concerns about how we are attracting and keeping our population. The budget report identified the mobility of people currently working in the Territory, which I think is a good way of talking about the fly-in fly-out workers. We have a highly mobile workforce and we need to think about how we will keep them.
We should be a major attraction, especially for young mobile people who want to come to the Territory and work, but we need to convince them while they are here to settle down for a while. When you think about the unemployment problems down south, we have a way of selling the Territory. We have to recognise the early warning signs with our employment growth going backwards.
Over the last couple of weeks we have seen a couple of key economic reports published. They have shown there is growing cause for concern about Territory jobs. The ANZ job advertisement series showed a 21% decline in the year to May 2015, and the Manpower Employment Outlook Survey of Australia showed a significant decline in the hiring intentions of Territory employers by 13% over the quarter and 18% over the year. This comes at the start of the Dry Season, which is traditionally a time for optimism.
There are some early warning signs, and the latest labour force figures show fewer jobs in the year to May 2015 compared with the previous year to May 2014. All this adds up to something we need to plan for and be aware of. These are early warning signs for this government regarding how we plan for the economy.
We also should note that the mid-year economic review had predicted unemployment at this stage would be about 4.2% but it is 4.5% at the moment and heading upwards. We need to be careful, recognise the early warning signs and plan. I believe in a growing Territory, in investing in infrastructure and creating jobs. We recognise infrastructure is one of the best ways to create jobs. The Territory is still growing. We still have strong demands, especially compared to other jurisdictions around the country which are often, in many ways, mature, established cities. We still have many growing demands on us and have to meet the expectations of Territorians.
A growing Territory means more people coming and staying here. More people means more houses, schools, retail outlets and stronger transport links. We want to grow the Territory’s population. We need to recognise the problems around the net state migration loss. We need to work out how we can keep those Territorians here and stem the flow to keep that highly mobile workforce coming to the Territory. For the Territory to have many of the services it needs and wants, we need to have a growing population so we can afford that.
As the Treasurer knows, much of our GST is predicated on our population and we have to be very aware of demands on us. At the moment the population is growing through the natural birth rate. We welcome new Territorians – the newborns – but they are not the workers on the job sites around town, nor are they spending money. We need to think about how we can keep workers in the Territory.
Investing in infrastructure is something that governments and the private sector both need to do. It is crucial to creating jobs in the Territory and how we manage the population growth we want to see in the Territory. I am a big believer in big infrastructure budgets. I will not be shy about that; big infrastructure budgets are good for the Territory. The size of the infrastructure budget this year is good. It is unfortunate it was on the back of the sale of TIO, but it got the infrastructure budget back up to about where it was under the Martin and Henderson governments.
We still need to invest in infrastructure in the Territory. I still refuse to believe that the CLP’s planning for the post-INPEX construction stage is as it is in the budget books, which is to cut infrastructure spending. We will be watching that space with interest to see how the government plans around post-INPEX, but I cannot see how it will be done by cutting the infrastructure budget. It will be interesting to see. Government cannot sell TIO again; maybe there is another rabbit in the hat we will see. Realistically, when we go into that post-INPEX phase, there will be spending on infrastructure in the Northern Territory.
Part of the role of government when it spends on infrastructure is to enable businesses to conduct their business. It is great when government can put the conditions in place that create private sector investment. You can often do that through how you invest in infrastructure. You can also do that by how you approach and work with business. Clare Martin and Paul Henderson did that in approaching and working with INPEX to deliver it to the Territory. They backed it up with their Marine Supply Base. It is important for government to work with the private sector. That is how you get investment levels that spur infrastructure growth and create jobs in the Territory. They were two important achievements, one backed up by the other. The Marine Supply Base came off the back of INPEX coming. We saw two projects that were important to the future of the Territory.
When you tease through the 2015-16 budget you will see they will be able to deliver a surplus in 2017-18 by cutting into the Infrastructure budget. They are saying outright on page 11 of Budget Paper No 2 that achieving the 2017-18 surplus will be on the back of reducing their infrastructure spending. I do not see how that will marry with having a plan for the post-INPEX construction stage.
Another key element the budget that has unravelled is that prediction of the $9m surplus in 2017-18. I touched upon it briefly in talking to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, but there are several factors that put in doubt the ability to deliver a surplus in 2017-18. The first is the fact that the CLP is saying outright it will come on the back of reducing the infrastructure budget. We find it hard to believe that you will cut the infrastructure budget. Secondly – and Treasury warns about this throughout the budget – any new or additional spending puts that surplus at risk. The Treasurer acknowledged that.
However, at the heart of the fight between the Treasurer and the Health minister’s $100 bet they have about the delivery date for the Palmerston hospital is the Health minister saying it will come on in 2017-18. The Treasurer is saying it will be 2018-19, and the forward estimates have spending for the Palmerston hospital in the third quarter of the 2018-19 financial year. The Health minister says he will be able to deliver it in 2017-18 – much earlier. If you shift that spend from coming on in …
A member: A couple of months.
Mr GUNNER: It is an important couple of months – it is a very slim $9m surplus – if you bring that spending for Palmerston hospital into the 2017-18 financial year. You do not employ the nurses for the Palmerston hospital the day the hospital opens. They have to be on board and working before that as they get the hospital up to speed and ready.
The Treasurer also said it will cost about $25m to run Palmerston hospital in the 2018-19 financial year, and that is what is in the forward estimates. I find it hard to believe the $25m per annum figure will be the total operating cost for Palmerston hospital if you are running a 116-bed hospital with an emergency department. From the work I have done talking to people in health around the country trying to get a handle on this, there is no convenient bed price but you are probably looking at $50m-plus, as a conservative estimate, to run the hospital. We will keep working on getting estimates for that. Looking at how you break that up in the 2017-18 financial year, the surplus goes away in the 2017-18 year. On top of that, you have the difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Treasury and the NT Treasury around GST predictions in the 2017-18 financial year.
Three things put that surplus for 2017-18 in doubt: the Palmerston hospital and when the expansion will occur; the GST figures and the difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Treasury and the Territory Treasury; and the fact the CLP is saying outright it will cut infrastructure spending in the post-INPEX year. Because of those three things I am not convinced they will deliver a surplus in 2017-18, but we will be keeping a close eye on this. I am sure there will be many economic debates between now and then about the CLP promise of a surplus and how they will deliver that. Those three things stand out as to why I have question marks about the ability to deliver the 2017-18 surplus.
Why do we think we are facing this situation? From our side we believe the government has dropped the ball. We do not believe they have a plan beyond INPEX that stacks up. We believe there has been too much infighting on their side. We have had two Chief Ministers and a brief minister, and 14 reshuffles. As I said in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the then Treasurer was the Chief Minister and he thanked the former Treasurers, the members for Fong Lim and Araluen. Time has moved on and one is no longer the former Treasurer and the other one will no longer be thanked. We have seen a change and 14 reshuffles.
We do not believe the government consults properly with industry. In addition, too often the government is guilty of 180 degree politics where they scrap things simply because the Labor Party did them.
We do not think they have had a plan over the last three years as a result of the infighting, and they are trying to cobble one together before the next election. We support some of the work done by the Deputy Chief Minister in diversifying the economy. There has been some good work done and we support the work of the Developing the North team. We have some question marks around what they have been doing, though.
The mid-year is an outdated document to be banging out. They have already done the 2015-16 book, but it gives us a chance to look back at some of their predictions and compare them to the 2015-16 budget now that we have them.
I take this opportunity to place on the record that we support the work the government has been doing on the gas pipeline. We support the venture and think it can be an important element for the economic future of the Northern Territory and the regions, but we also have questions about it. We will keep exploring that with government to make sure there is no risk to the taxpayer and the CLP can get the project up and running with buyers and sellers involved in that pipeline.
There is work to be done there, and we will keep testing the government on it because that is an important role for opposition. We support the efforts of economic diversification, but this is an old story not a new one. Diversification is not new. Every government since self-government has looked at supporting the diversification of Territory industry and niche industries. We have concerns about selling the port and whether that places niche industries at risk in getting their material to and out of the port.
In conclusion, the data provided in the mid-year review, when compared to the data in the budget, makes for interesting reading. It shows an alarming result about population and employment growth, and shows early warning signs we need a plan for. There is work that needs to be done to manage the short-term challenges for the Territory economy because we are very optimistic about the future of the Northern Territory and where it is heading overall. But it is always important to recognise early warning signs, to react and respond to them in a considered way and consult with industry, and to have a proper jobs plan post INPEX, as well as for the Territory at large.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, what a great privilege it was to listen to the Opposition Leader bang on about the mid-year report. I say that genuinely. It has been a pleasure to listen to him because I am glad he did not talk about the mid-year report that this statement is on, because it is somewhat dated and he did a great job of pulling the present together with the past. It was worth listening to. I do not agree with many things he said, but it was interesting to listen to.
The concerns the Opposition Leader raised about population are somewhat of a red herring. The opposition has been working diligently to find something in the last budget they did not like or could attack. I might be a bit big-headed here, but I do not believe there was a hell of a lot they could find to attack.
I think the Opposition Leader has seized on population figures simply because they are the weak spot. I was quite up front when delivering the budget in saying we had to focus on population because whilst we are a fast-growing economy and our population is growing, which it is - if people listen to the Opposition Leader they would get the impression everybody is leaving and this is not a good place to be. The reality is the population is growing strongly. It is probably not growing as strongly as the Opposition Leader or I would like to see, but in any case it is a growing population.
It was an interesting time in estimates; I admit I learnt a couple of things about our population turnover in the Territory. It was interesting to learn that on average 600 Territorians leave every year, and those 600 are predominantly seniors who leave the workforce and go south to retire, and school leavers who go interstate to university. When you put it in those terms, you can understand why they are leaving. It is nothing to do with the Territory’s economy, cost of living or those things. People go interstate, and have done for decades, to retire or study at university; there are no surprises there. The population is being sustained by the Territory’s birth rate and other things, as well as overseas migration.
Whilst population is a concern, it is not a crisis. We are doing everything we can as a government to attract workers to the Northern Territory: working with the Commonwealth on the Designated Area Migration Agreement; running job shows interstate - my colleague, the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Business, has also been running job expos around the country and our region, trying to drum up people to come here and work.
The Opposition Leader has raised some interesting concerns. He takes a doom and gloom approach. I made a point in Question Time today that he likes to talk down the economy and the Territory, which might be seen as good politics from the opposition’s view but, from an economic point of view, it saps confidence; it gives people the wrong impression, especially when you are talking about using cherry-picked statistics that do not form the correct part of the Territory story.
In the mid-year report we are debating now, which was tabled in December last year, we talk about the operating surplus of $130m in 2014-15. That was the first good sign.
Something else I noticed that was quite interesting was talking about a small deficit of $25m in 2017-18. Of course, the last budget showed a $9m surplus. Net debt was projected to be $3.7bn in 2017-18 at the last budget. We are now projecting net debt to be about $2.6bn. The ratio of debt to revenue was predicted to be 58% in 2017-18 when the mid-year report was tabled in December last year. During the budget I was able to update those numbers and we have seen a net debt to revenue ratio of about 35%, levelling off at nearly 40% by the end of the forward estimates.
We have made some incredible inroads, and I appeal to the Opposition Leader to show some faith. The remarkable turnaround is no accident. These things do not just happen. As a government we are actively working to fix the fiscal and financial problems left to us by the previous government. The opposition does not understand them as financial problems, they think that is just the nature of government, but things are turning around quite rapidly and the economy is growing strongly.
The opposition members seem to be almost totally driven by what happens after the INPEX construction phase. They are certain we are going over a cliff. But as I said in the budget debate, government is working hard to diversify the economy. We do not want to be a one-trick pony as far as the economy is concerned, or a one-business economy. We are very keen to diversify our economy and have a range of business opportunities and industries operating in the Northern Territory, which we are keen to support. In fact, government has been working hard to do that.
The Opposition Leader mentioned infrastructure investment and how he sees, after the INPEX construction phase, government spending on infrastructure will be reduced. He cannot understand that. That signals to me I have to do a bit of work with the member for Fannie Bay, the Opposition Leader, because it is something I am very keen for him and the opposition to understand.
After the INPEX construction phase and the focus on north Australian development, we want to see more private sector investment in infrastructure. The government, whilst not many people have taken note, is working to set up an infrastructure development fund for the Northern Territory. In fact, $200m of the proceeds of the TIO sale will go into that infrastructure development fund as seed funding to attract more private institutional money.
The intention is that the fund will then partner up with other businesses, industries, sectors and governments to start to deliver infrastructure. In fact, in the last federal budget Joe Hockey delivered, he announced the $5bn debt facility where private enterprise will be able to access debt at the same rates as governments. When you toggle those two vehicles together – the infrastructure development fund and an infrastructure debt facility – we can see projects being funded. We have seen, since the announcement of Joe Hockey about that $5bn debt facility, much interest in private infrastructure development in the Northern Territory. I am pretty upbeat about the whole thing.
The reason I am very keen to talk to the Opposition Leader and the opposition about this is when we are attracting private sector infrastructure investment it is highly important that as a government we approach this – if we can – in a bipartisan manner. Companies that invest money in infrastructure do so on a long-term basis. Infrastructure investments tend to pay small amounts of money over a long period of time. Generally, superannuation funds and other institutional investors take a very long-range view when they are investing in infrastructure projects.
The stability of governments and bipartisan support for private infrastructure investments are highly important if those investments are to be delivered. For that reason I am genuinely saying to the Opposition Leader and members of the opposition that I am seeking bipartisan support on the infrastructure investment fund we are setting up and on the projects that fund will invest in. I look forward to working with the Opposition Leader and the opposition to see if we can get a bipartisan approach to private infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory because ultimately – and I think the Opposition Leader acknowledges this – you cannot have growth and development if you do not have strong investment in infrastructure and those job-creating infrastructure projects.
I do not want to speak at length on this mid-year report. Obviously it is part of the government’s story about where we have come from and where we are going. It is worth noting what our projections were just six months ago and how we have delivered on those projections. Again, it demonstrates the projections Treasury and I produce are generally very conservative, particularly when you get further out into the forward estimates, they become much more conservative.
It was interesting to listen to the Opposition Leader’s concern about Palmerston Regional Hospital and how operations would be funded, saying $25m would not be enough in 2017-18 to get the hospital operating. That is really a matter for the Health minister to advise me on, but in my limited view I understand money and effort will go to where demand is. Once Palmerston hospital is built, demand will reduce at RDH as one would expect, and the resources will go to where the demand will increase, that is, Palmerston hospital. There will be additional costs, hence the allocation of additional money. As that project nears completion and the operational aspects are worked on by the Health minister, I am sure we will come to a much more realistic figure of what it will cost.
In my view, $25m is a significant increase to the Health budget. An additional hospital does not necessarily mean there will be a range of additional services. It will simply mean some services will be performed at another place in the Territory and will not come with additional costs.
I thank all members for speaking on this mid-year report and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2014 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2014 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 19 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Auditor-General performs a very important role in the Northern Territory of keeping a close eye on the books of government agencies, and how they are performing. It has been some time since this report came to this Chamber. As the Leader of the Opposition stated earlier in a previous debate, the government seems to be going about cleaning up the Notice Paper. I am glad those members have given some priority to the Auditor-General’s report in cleaning up the Notice Paper, given they are extremely important reports.
So far the government has come into this House and let us know the Auditor-General reports are there, but there was no debate at the time. Here we are almost a year later getting down to the report of the Auditor-General’s findings. I hope the government cleans up that process by making sure when the Auditor-General’s reports come forward - the next one will be in August this year - we have timely debates about the findings of the Auditor-General. Territorians have a very clear expectation of that.
I realise with deep sadness this was the last Auditor-General’s report of the late Frank McGuiness. I was on the Public Accounts Committee. I had the good fortune to meet Frank and have a few briefings with him, ask him some questions and hear from my colleagues the high esteem they held him in. Our deepest condolences go to his family. He would have wanted to see us debating the findings of his report.
A range of agencies were looked at in this Auditor-General’s report. The first one I will turn to is the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, where the Auditor-General noted declining revenue underpinning the work of the institute. Batchelor Institute is an important post-school education asset, providing a range of vocationally orientated courses for Indigenous students. There was a $1.6m cut in federal funding and the cessation of VET infrastructure for the Indigenous people’s program at the end of 2012, reducing funding to the institute by a further $1.18m. Access to education, especially post-school education related to employment, is important. I look to the government to ensure revenue issues addressed through the Bachelor Institute are adequately supported for its important work.
In regard to higher education, the Auditor-General’s August report notes that CDU also had to deal with a decrease of $4.3m in funding for its VET component, another signal that support for vocational training is being slashed. This is a concern given the rhetoric of the opposite side of the House regarding their supposed support for jobs and training in the Northern Territory. In respect to CDU, I note the Auditor-General has included a review of the arrangement Charles Darwin University has with the Palmerston residential estate development as part of the Charles Darwin University business plan.
It is appropriate and comforting that such arrangements receive proper scrutiny. It is pleasing the Auditor-General found no concerns in that area.
I turn to an area that took up quite a bit of space in the Auditor-General’s report. It is a very important area because it goes to our culture, history and important artefacts. That is the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
There was extensive work done in relation to that with this Auditor-General’s report. The report found several issues that needed to be looked at: collections; management of items; staffing issues; and buildings. I have taken a few notes directly from the Auditor-General’s report. In the conclusions it said:
- However, there were several issues I believe require attention to ensure the ongoing safeguarding of collections. I consider most of the issues raised may require additional resources to address them successfully. This may prove difficult to achieve in the prevailing budgetary climate.
Within the key findings he stated:
- Seven key issues were identified, with an underlying theme relating to staffing. Timeliness, physical care of the collections and challenges of managing collections data – both collection records and digital presence, are affected by these staffing issue. These findings are detailed later in the report.
I will go through a breakdown of those issues specifically identified by the Auditor-General. Under Staffing it says:
- An organisation such as MAGNT is unlikely to fulfil its obligations if it lacks efficient staff to manage its collections – from preserving, safeguarding and caring for the physical items, to ensuring they are housed in facilities that are fit for purpose.
It goes on to discuss the budgetary constraints the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory was working under. After the change of government, we had many concerns about positions within the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. There were some concerns about security positions and positions of people who were there to create digital records of items. Staffing has been an ongoing issue, but we now see it so bluntly at the front and centre of the Auditor-General’s report. It is almost a year since this report was released. It would be good to get some assurances from government that work has been done about that.
I appreciate there is now a statutory board that runs the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. However, you would expect the government to have some concerns about the running of the museum, and would want to know the serious issues identified in the Auditor-General’s report are addressed.
The Auditor-General moved from staffing to look at the performance of data collection and reporting. One thing noted was:
- Data were either not generated, unable to be generated, or not focused on areas that would allow MAGNT to identify if it was doing things efficiently, effectively or with economy.
- It was noted during the review that certain activities appeared to take an inordinate amount of time to complete. For example, completing the accessioning process …
Sorry, this is a tough word. I have not seen this before. The process of gaining items from the museum - their accessioning - I believe it is, something like that. I would have thought the Leader of Government Business would have ...
Mr Elferink: Acquisitioning, I would think it is.
Mr McCarthy: Accessioning.
Ms MANISON: Accessioning, that is it! Thank you very much, member for Barkly, former Arts Minister, and Leader of Government Business, who knows lots of words. I appreciate that.
Moving forward in the Auditor-General’s report, the physical care of collections was also an issue raised:
- The physical care of collection items lies at the heart of effectiveness of an institution such as MAGNT. Staff displayed a keen awareness about the importance of safeguarding the collections, but several findings suggest some scope for improvement in this area.
He went on to look at security and access issues, disaster and risk planning and the issue of ageing infrastructure at the facility. There have been concerns about the risk of water damage before. The Auditor-General said there needs to be some work done on that.
Then we go to the completeness, existence and validity of data. It goes to looking at what data is on the record at MAGNT and ensuring it is reliable and fulsome. Reading from the report it states:
- The database system provides the primary record for MAGNT collections and considerable reliance is placed upon the data held in the system. The software product is no longer supported by the Northern Territory government and there is no local support available. It was noted that there was no approved timetable for replacing this system at the time of this review.
It also says:
- An examination of the data extracted from the collection databases revealed the existence of a large number of blank fields, including records of items with no collection number recorded and other instances where no current location was recorded.
Clearly there needs to be more work done there. There were also issues raised about the care of digital collections.
There were some big issues raised with regard to what was happening at MAGNT. Staffing was identified as an issue, having the appropriate resources to do the work needs to be done. The Auditor-General also acknowledged financial constraints. It would be good to hear from the government about the work done to follow that up to ensure the management of MAGNT, the board, are on top of some of those concerns raised in August by the late Auditor-General.
Going to other matters raised in the report, the Land Development Corporation was discussed. There has been much debate in this Chamber with regard to the $1m payment to the Tiwi Land Council. I put on the record again that we support economic development and want to see people on the Tiwi Islands develop good business opportunities. We do not have any problems with plans for and work on economic development. However, questions were raised in this report about that payment. I will read what was found in the key findings on the Land Development Corporation by the Auditor-General at the time. Under the heading Accounting Treatment for a Land Payment of $1m to the Tiwi Land Council, it reads:
- During the financial year the Land Development Corporation paid an amount of $1m to the Tiwi Land Council as consideration for the provision of long-term leases on the Tiwi Islands. As at the date of the audit, the parcel of land that is to be leased had not been identified and it was unclear what future economic benefits would flow to the corporation.
As I said, we are very supportive of economic development, but at that time there were serious questions from the Auditor-General on what the economic benefits would be from the $1m payment and how that was being accounted for. People expect to see good processes around how funding is used within government and how it is recorded. That is a very important job of the Auditor-General and it was a matter raised.
We are going back to August last year. There has been much debate since that time. I believe it is also an issue that was followed up the February Auditor-General’s report. It will be good to hear some more from government about what work has been done since those issues were raised.
I will turn to another matter raised in this report, which was agency fuel cards. It was a look at the use of fuel cards within government agencies, which is an important process to go through to see how things are going and ensure appropriate processes are being followed, that government is getting value for money, and operational demands of agencies can be met with the current procedures.
The Auditor-General looked at the Department of Arts and Museums, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, Tourism NT and the Department of Health. It was found that the probability of any fraudulent transactions occurring was low; however, some issues within the report went to issues like lack of information around things such as odometer readings, or problems when you have a diesel car but unleaded petrol has been used.
There were some anomalies detected and some fairly thorough audits were done to look at the use of fuel cards. It is important they have a good look to make sure the money and the fuel cards are being used appropriately. It also gives them an opportunity to make sure that if there are problems within the system, they are addressed. This is especially true when you have a huge agency like Health, which has many vehicles and works in some extremely remote parts of the Northern Territory. They require access to appropriate systems to ensure they can do their job, fuel their vehicles and ensure the system keeps working well.
We want them doing health checks, important primary healthcare and other important work with people who are sick. We do not want to see people tied up with paperwork just to keep their cars running. It was important to see what was happening within those agencies and demonstrate the role of the Auditor-General and the work that office does within government.
I will leave my comments there with regard to the Auditor-General’s report. There were some issues of concern raised; it will be interesting to hear from the government how those have been addressed.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on a number of my portfolios. The first one is Employment and Training. My first comment is in relation to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, or BIITE; what they do there can bite and they do a good job. They cut their teeth on a lot of different and innovative programs.
The Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit opinion on the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education for the year ending 31 December 2013. There were no adverse audit findings identified that required management action, which is quite an achievement. The institute reported an operating surplus of $720 000, which was a decline from the prior year’s surplus of $1.712m. Those listening would realise that the decline in the surplus was due mainly to the reduction in Australian government funding of $1.612m, and a reduction in funding provided by the Northern Territory, resulting in the cessation of the VET infrastructure for Indigenous people program at the end of 2012, which totalled $1.186m. A reduction in grant funding was offset by an increase in consultancy and contracts revenue.
They are to be congratulated not only for that, but their ongoing performance.
In relation to Charles Darwin University, the Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit opinion on the financial statements of the Charles Darwin University for the year ending 31 December 2013. Charles Darwin University provides both higher education and vocational education and training, or VET as it is better known. Higher education funding is provided to the university by the Commonwealth government through direct grants and the proceeds of student loans under the auspices of the HECS-HELP scheme. VET funding is provided by the Northern Territory government through monies appropriated by the Legislative Assembly to the Department of Education. The university also attracts research funding from a variety of sources and the financial performance of the university, as measured by its operating result, was $10.5m.
The higher education component of the university achieved a surplus of $14.8m for the year, which is offset by a $4.3m deficit on the part of the VET component.
Trust distributions increased from $2.4m in 2012 to $3.8m in 2013, with the distribution of the balance of $2.1m of the INPEX grant having a material effect.
I will now move to the Department of Corporate and Information Services.
The objective of the audit was to assess the design and implementation of key application and general IT controls relating to the Electronic Invoice Management System managed by the Department of Corporate and Information Services. I will comment further on this, but first I must congratulate the Department of Corporate and Information Services on the effective and efficient delivery of its services. It has made large savings, pulled the Asset Management System out of the jaws of defeat and has had a victory with the middleware it has put in.
Sadly, the cost of approximately $70m for the project started by the former government had to be written off. It did not work properly. It was only working somewhere at between 10% and 15% of capacity. It was an unmitigated disaster. People who work for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, DCIS, and people they partnered with in private industry saved the day with a figure well under $10m to fix the problem and get it functioning. It is reported that currently it is functioning very well.
Going back to the Electronic Invoice Management System, the application is used to provide automatic scanning of creditors’ invoices, together with approvals for payment of invoices. This system was implemented at the Department of Corporate and Information Services in 2011 and has been rolled out to most agencies across the Northern Territory government.
The focus of the audit was information security, that is, the applications, database and operating systems; user access management; change management; IT operations; and business continuity management and application controls, that being user access and workflow configuration. The Auditor-General determined that appropriate management controls had been applied over the Electronic Invoice Management System, but considered opportunities existed to strengthen user access.
Since then DCIS has come a long way in doing exactly what the Auditor-General suggested. DCIS has completed or substantially progressed all actions identified in the Auditor-General’s report, which included a number of various tasks: strengthening access security, including locking user accounts; conducting independent penetration testing of the Electronic Invoice Management System (EIMS) environment; implementing a biannual process for agency review of their user access privileges; implementing formal change management processes and a dedicated change management tool; documentation of procedures for interface monitoring, escalation and resolution processes; putting in place a business continuity management plan for EIMS; updating the EIMS disaster recovery plan, including workarounds during system interruptions; and implementation of a biannual review process to encourage agencies to regularly consider their user access levels.
I looked through the rest of the report and there were a couple of minor things I thought worth mentioning, but suffice to say these were the major points in relation to my portfolio responsibilities. Again, I congratulate the Batchelor Institute, Charles Darwin University and DCIS for the good work they have done in the past, are doing now and I assume will continue to do in the future.
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, MAGNT welcomes the findings of the August 2014 report to the Assembly that its current systems of managing its collection are adequate. The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Act has come into effect making MAGNT a more independent statutory authority with an independent and highly-skilled board. While welcoming the report’s overall conclusion, the board of MAGNT notes the report identifies a number of areas that can be improved, and is determined and committed to manage its collection not just adequately but with excellence, and embraces any opportunity to improve its systems and practices.
The board of MAGNT has an ongoing commitment to developing and strengthening its processes to better manage its collections. Many issues identified in the report are already being addressed. These include:
MAGNT already working to secure new income streams to support the growth of its collections, staffing requirements and long-term operational needs. The new governance structure is the first step in meeting that goal. In becoming a more independent statutory body, new funding has already been realised within the short term of the revised governance structure to support delivery of key projects of MAGNT.
a $5.3m investment towards a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, HVAC, provides for efficiencies in running costs and ensures stabilised environmental controls that optimise conditions for preservation of the collection.
implementing a new collection management database system; the migration of data into the new system will improve the cleansing, search, retrieval and reporting functions as well as supporting online access. A $60 000 pilot phase to this project is already complete. Pending further funding, the next phase of the project includes the development of a data model to integrate MAGNT collection records then customisation and installation of the new system. MAGNT holds one of the most diverse and important collections in Australia. This investment towards improved technology provides efficiencies in collection management operations and increased capacity for engagement with the collection in the digital environment.
MAGNT launched a new website that fosters community engagement and promotes an enlivened public program. The recent announcement of the Chan Building redevelopment will see the Chan developed into a world-class exhibition facility with improved capacity for back-of-house operations that support collection management functions.
The board of MAGNT is fully appraised of the issues raised in the report and is committed to working with the NT government to find solutions to them. A new director was appointed in May 2015 who will have a new full focus on improving operational practices and managing staffing levels to ensure MAGNT is run along best practices for museum delivery.
I thank the Auditor-General for his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do have a great deal to add to what the member for Wanguri said, but it was timely the minister for Arts popped in to give us a response to the Auditor-General’s report. A number of people in our community were very concerned about the future of the museum. There were people who had given particular items to the museum, people you might call friends of the museum, who were concerned about the way the museum was heading and the way collections were being cared for. That came out fairly strongly in the August report. I am pleased to hear the minister for Arts has given us a response to some of the issues raised by the Auditor-General. I note he said a new director has been appointed. It will be interesting to see whether the new director takes up all the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General commented on a range of issues. He commented on staffing and mentioned there was insufficient staff to manage its collections, and spoke about performance data collection and reporting. He said:
- Capturing, reporting and monitoring performance data is one technique that can be used to determine if the collections are being managed appropriately and whether adequate resources have been allocated to that task. Data were either not generated, unable to be generated or not focused on areas that would allow MAGNT to identify if it was doing these things efficiently, effectively, or with economy.
The Auditor-General also mentioned offsite storage and loans, completeness, existence and validity of data. He went on also to talk about digital presence and care of digital collections. Also there were financial considerations. It says here:
- Through discussions with Collections Management, Curatorial and Finance staff it was identified that MAGNT is not capturing all the revenue that it might.
There was a number of issues. The minister spoke about these but perhaps it would be good for the minister to come back with a review which shows us in detail how his department has addressed many of these issues raised by the Auditor-General.
I also heard the Tiwi Islands mentioned. If we can develop an economy on the Tiwi Islands that is fantastic, but I have always been concerned about that $1m. It says here
- During the financial year the Land Development Corporation paid an amount of $1 million to the Tiwi Land Council as consideration for the provision of long-term leases on the Tiwi Islands. As at the date of the audit, the parcel of land that is to be leased had not been identified and it was unclear what future economic benefits will flow to the Corporation.
My concern has always been why you are paying $1m as a consideration for the provision of long-term leases. If you said we were paying $1m for leases I could understand. That has never been made clear.
Mr Elferink: Are you aware of what consideration means in contract law?
Mr WOOD: I have heard a lot about contracts today, Attorney-General. The ones that come out of machines and the ones that do not.
You could respond to that, minister, during your summing up. It is one matter I found peculiar, especially when you are giving out government money.
There was also the issue of fuel cards, and I occasionally get a letter myself. We have made the fuel card system more complicated than it needs to be. I do not know what came out of some of those accusations about some members misusing the fuel card; it seemed to fizzle. We need to make sure we are using fuel according to the rules. We have made it complicated. If you have an odometer reading at the beginning and end of the month, and you have the amount of fuel you used, if that is consistent over the whole year for the same vehicle, it shows the fuel card is not being misused.
There are times when you will fill up with a small amount of fuel because you are going somewhere where there is no fuel. There are also times when you might top up a vehicle with a small amount simply to make sure you get home. For instance, I technically could go to Katherine and back on one tank, but I do not. I fill up when I am in Katherine and then come back again. It will show up as a relatively small amount, but there is a requirement to explain why.
All you need to do is take an odometer reading at the beginning of the month, a reading at the end of the month, and state how much fuel was used. You will know how much that vehicle used, litres per kilometre. That is a better way to track it. Some of the United service stations were not requiring an odometer reading. You say hello and they just hand you a receipt, or they just take your PIN number. There were cases where they did not ask for it. There are also cases where, by the time you get to the person at the checkout and they ask me about the weather, how things are in politics and who won the football, I have forgotten what the odometer reading was. There are other times when it is fed into the machine incorrectly as well, so it is an operator error.
When I look at the things required now, I am sure you can make that simpler just by keeping track of the monthly kilometres used versus the amount of fuel used. That way you will get a good indication of whether fuel has been syphoned off somewhere where it should not, without all those bits and pieces.
That is all I need to say. When I looked at this Daily Agenda – and I know I am the Independent, and I have no idea – today was a blank sheet. I knew there were some things coming up. I did not know I would be debating …
Mr Vowles: The car parking contracts.
Mr WOOD: The car parking contracts. There is a fair bit of thinking on your feet at times. After that, I had no idea whether there would be a statement, because they just come out of the blue now, or we would be discussing the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2014 – that did not impress me at all – or the one for 27 November. If I know a little ahead, even a day ahead, that we are likely to start to knock a hole in some of these, I might be better prepared. Sometimes I get up here and people say, ‘You do not have to worry about that’, but I still feel that members should try to participate.
It is also good for members to participate to support the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General does an awful lot of work producing these reports and they are meant to come back to this parliament to be debated. I cannot remember what the Auditor-General did in February 2015 or August 2014. I need a little time, maybe a day, so I can look at the report, instead of trying to print it in a hurry and pick out some items that are valuable for us to discuss.
Maybe the government needs to say, ‘We might need to spend a little more time in parliament dealing with the recreational fishing in the Northern Territory statement. Why do we not run it through?’ or ‘We will come back to it tomorrow’. With statements now, it is a case of, ‘There you are, you have five minutes to think about that’. We did not go down this path before. With the previous government – I am not barracking for the other side here –many of the statements went through and were completed. We have got into a bad habit now.
We did not have a chance to speak on the report of the Committee on Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. We have different viewpoints on it, but I have to read it again now. It has disappeared into the ether, as they say.
There is a matter here which is really important. I do not know what is happening with it. I am not trying to be silly, but the referral of the members for Karama and Barkly to the Committee of Privileges is sitting on this paper. Is it sitting there for political reasons? Will it come forward or will it be taken off?
Mr Elferink: It is implicit in the terms of that motion.
Mr WOOD: Right, but it is …
Mr Elferink: I draw your attention to the last line.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I am picking through these in general, but statements are important. However, they are not important if they go back too far. Planning and building reforms I wanted to speak on – August 2014, it is probably still current. To go back, we have one for 15 May 2014 and 7 May 2014. I know that bill will be held off until the federal government – you have proposed amendments to standing orders on 20 February 2013. Lord knows what that is about.
Some of these things go back a long way and I hope the government could give us some warning of which ones they hope to bring through in the next sittings. I would like to give a better contribution than quickly trying to catch up with what was said some months ago. I encourage members also, especially with the Auditor-General’s report, to look at things carefully and ask questions, because it is important.
The Auditor-General’s report is probably one of the most important reports we have in this parliament. I have been on one Commonwealth parliamentary trip to the Cook Islands and we tried to emphasise to some of the smaller countries the importance of these parts of our parliament: the Ombudsman and Auditor-General. These people make sure government is kept honest, if you can put it that way. They keep an eye on what government does. When these reports come through, we should all take note of them and question the government when the Auditor-General says there are issues of concern.
I thank the government for bringing the report forward but I feel it gets a bit stale if left too long.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, my first comment is in relation to the last comment. We negotiate with the Labor Party every day when material is coming through. Just fire off a text to me about 8 pm and I will make sure that whatever the Labor Party is told, you will be brought into the loop as well. Just jog my memory because I confess sometimes I forget, and I apologise for that.
The second issue I wanted to touch on was use of the word ‘consideration’. I presume from the way you read that you think it is paying $1m for somebody to think about something?
Mr Wood: That is what it looks like.
Mr ELFERINK: That is what it looks like. Let me give you chapter and verse, Contract Law in Australia, Carter, Peden and Tolhurst, page 105. It is a short paragraph.
- Consideration required for a legally-binding promise. The proposition that consideration is an essential element of a contract is most easily understood if conceived of as being concerned with the essential elements of a legal binding promise or undertaking. A person is bound to perform a promise only if consideration was given for it.
It is the price you pay to make the contract happen. When you bind another party to a contract, there has to be an exchange, and that is called consideration; it is the exchange of value. That $1m is the consideration that makes the contract binding. This is why we have peppercorn rents. Consideration has to be present. It does not necessarily have to be sufficient, but it has to be present. When they refer to consideration in a letter like that, they are not referring to, ‘If we give you $1m, you guys have to think about it’. If we give you consideration, it is because we are binding you to it. Perhaps that may clear up the confusion for you. It took me about three weeks to get my head around that when I did contract law at law school. It is a strange way …
Mrs Finocchiaro: Really.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, because I am dumb!
Mrs Finocchiaro: That is first year uni.
Mr ELFERINK: I was slow on the uptake. The way it is referred to is a legal term which is quite different to common usage of the word ‘consideration’. That $1m was basically to bind the other party.
Getting back to the August 2014 report, I note that on page 49 the Department of Correctional Services was selected as an agency for compliance audits. Audits were said to have been performed by the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services during the six months covered in the report – page 49 onwards. A number of key findings have resulted from the audits. None of the issues were raised attributed directly to the Northern Territory DCS. A comment on behalf of the Northern Territory DCS was not included in the report, despite other departments providing comment relative to issues highlighted and how they are applicable to the department.
I note the findings from the audit report tabled on the 13 May 2015 at the audit committee was as follows:
- The Auditor-General for the Northern Territory 2014-15 agency compliance audit was conducted by the Deloittes. The audit examined selected aspects of the systems within the use of the Northern Territory DCS as required by the particular Treasurer’s Direction, Part 3, section 1 and procurement directions, with the objective of attaining reasonable assurance that those selected requirements were being achieved.
The following issues were identified: firstly, that the effectiveness of the audit committee and internal auditor function could be improved; secondly, that instances of non-compliance to the Treasurer’s Directions and agencies accounting property manual were noted, with respect to official travelling and hospitality and entertainment expenses; and thirdly, instances of non-compliances with Treasurer’s Directions and agency accounting property manual were noted with respect to accounts payable and procurement. The agency has taken actions to address each of these findings.
In relation to the AGD’s report there was a comment about the TACT database. The TACT database is a trust account operated by the Public Trustee, and the Auditor-General’s findings were as follows: The Audit Opinion was that:
- the IT general computer controls over TACT are not considered to be satisfactory
…
control weaknesses were noted in the area of login password controls, and reviews of user access.
I also was noted that the agreement between the department and the TACT application service provider for the development of system changes and maintenance was executed in 1999 and had not been reviewed or updated since then.
- The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has acknowledged the key findings of the audit in line with the audits key recommendations and is identifying and evaluating procedural and system enhancement options for addressing identified user access internal control deficiencies. An assessment of system development and maintenance arrangements is currently under way to ensure that the appropriate service agreement is in place, and is monitored and reviewed in line with the Northern Territory government’s procurement requirements.
- Since that time the Office of the Public Trustee has continued to work on options to address the identified issues. The system is old and making changes involves some cost. One option is to replace the entire system, which is likely to be very costly.
In relation to fuel cards, the AGD’s and other departments’ fuel cards were assessed. The Auditor-General’s overall assessment was that based on the assessment undertaken by the Auditor-General’s office, and discussions with staff representing the Departments of Arts and Museums, Attorney-General and Justice, and Tourism, the probability of significant fraudulent transactions having occurred this period was assessed as very low. Nevertheless, anomalies were found in the accuracy involving fuel usage and particularly odometer readings.
The Auditor-General then made several recommendations. In response to those recommendations the Attorney-General and Justice department has increased the control and mitigation strategies to decrease the risk of fraud. Cards are now linked to a system which will send warning messages if they are used in an inappropriate fashion, for example, low frequency use or overuse. In addition, if cards are attempted to be used to purchase an amount of fuel in excess of the volume of the fuel tank of the car, the cards will not work.
We live in an age of miracles and wonders.
In relation to the Auditor-General’s report for Health, there were a number of issues raised. The Northern Territory Auditor-General’s office commissioned a yearly audit of the financial statements of the Central Australian and Top End Hospital Networks 2013, pursuant to the Financial Management Act. The audit was conducted in August 2014 and provided to the hospital networks on the 26 September 2014. The key finding of the audit report showed for both hospital networks that sufficient financial information for substantive transactions relating to individual projects or agreements was not provided. Actual receipts from such funding did not match the budgeted amount, and the full list of funding arrangements was not provided. Action has been taken to address these issues. The Department of Health acknowledges the improvements were required for the management of agreements with the Commonwealth.
In 2014 the department instigated a new process to coordinate the oversight management of all agreements by a single team. At the time of the audit the database of all agreements was in the early stages of development, but could not provide information to the auditing team at the time. The database has since been improved and is supporting better management of all agreements across the Health portfolio.
There generally will always be differences between actual receipts and budgeted amounts in relation to Commonwealth Own Purpose Expense, or COPE, funding, as the Commonwealth often provides unexpected funding in the last days of each financial year, and the Territory government budget processes do not allow for the revision of the budget for these additional receipts.
A further comment worth making is that procedures and guidelines are now much more mature on some of the issues that have caused the transition of programs in health services. Funding was being receipted to a clearing account and therefore not reflecting against appropriate agreements. Funding was also transferred from the Department of Health to Health Services and not always in a timely fashion. Reporting is now provided monthly, which enables much closer monitoring of the receipts against the expected budget. Copies of all agreements maintained both electronically and in hard copy are in a central location.
That is the response from across our part of government. I place on the record my thanks to the late, and dare I say great, Frank McGuiness for his work and services to the people of the Northern Territory. My condolences are extended to his family for the loss of Frank. The loss of Frank to the Northern Territory as a whole means the Territory is a slightly smaller place as a consequence.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 24 February 2015.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be debating the Auditor-General’s February 2015 report. Here we are in June. It is good to see the government is cleaning up the Notice Paper, but I am hoping we will see more timely debate as the August Auditor-General’s report is tabled, because it raises important issues. It is important to ensure ministers come into this Chamber when there are concerns raised about their agencies so they can give assurances they are following them up and can give Territorians assurances their agencies are being managed well.
I also note this is the first Auditor-General’s report of the new Auditor-General, Ms Julie Crisp. We welcome her on board. It has been wonderful working with her so far. I will get to the findings of that report.
The Leader of Government Business touched on this in the previous debate. To get it on the record, I raise the issues the Auditor-General found with the Top End and Central Australian Hospital Networks. They are new boards under the government’s legislation passed last year to establish the hospital boards. However, we have found there have been some issues within the Top End Hospital Network and the Central Australian Hospital Network.
The Auditor-General found:
- During the review of funding revenue, my Authorised Auditors were not provided with sufficient financial information to substantiate transactions relating to individual projects/agreements. My Authorised Auditors were not able to confirm the actual receipts from funding against the individual agreements and budget whilst undertaking substantive testing for a sample of funding agreements.
It was also noted that there was a variance of $2 459 358 between the budgeted amount of Commonwealth funding and the actual receipt of the funding. I understand that this variance is a result of the entity not meeting the agreed milestones on specific projects, however management was unable to provide a detailed breakdown of variances for individual projects.
It goes on to speak about not being able to quantify the balances of the unspent funds, and no associated liability was recorded in this regard. The auditors were provided information by the Department of Health that they were establishing a database to manage this; however, that work was ongoing.
It rang a few alarm bells in my mind when we had questions about agreed milestones on specific projects, particularly when we are talking about the Top End Hospital Network. As we all know, the Palmerston Regional Hospital is one project where there has been a lot of debate about project milestones and the implications of the Commonwealth funding that is tied to meeting those very important milestones. Although not specifically referenced by the Auditor-General, that was something that raised questions for me.
Similar issues were found with the Central Australian Hospital Network; however, the amount differed to what we saw with the Top End; it was funding of $1 782 162 greater than the budgeted amount of Commonwealth funding. There were some issues there. We just heard the Minister for Health referring to those issues in his response to the August report.
It shows why the Auditor-General plays such an important role in asking these questions about funding and expenditure, and placing them on the public record in this parliament so ministers can be accountable, and to ensure if there is a problem they are getting on top of it and their agencies are working to rectify it. That was raised there.
We see following the August 2014 report some follow up with regard to the concerns the previous Auditor-General raised about the Land Development Corporation and the $1m payment to the Tiwi Land Council.
Again, I stress that we support economic development on the Tiwi Islands; it is important. However, we need to ensure when government funds are handed over to organisations via government-type bodies, the money is properly accounted for, the proper process is followed, and taxpayers can see where that money is going and the value they are receiving for it.
Key findings raised by the previous Auditor-General in August:
- Accounting treatment for a payment of $1m to the Tiwi Land Council: During the financial year the Land Development Corporation paid an amount of $1m to the Tiwi Land Council as consideration for the provision of long-term leases on the Tiwi Islands. As at the date of the audit, the parcel of land that is to be leased had not been identified and it was unclear what future economic benefits will flow on to the corporation.
The Auditor-General’s findings in the February 2015 report say:
- During the final visit to conclude the conduct of the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2014, the corporation ascertained that the payment related to the Tiwi Islands did not meet the asset recognition criteria, and consequently management has reclassified this transaction as ‘infrastructure related expenses’. Therefore there is no asset, either land or loan receivable, recorded in the books of the corporation as of 30 June 2014.
In response to the Auditor-General’s report, the Land Development Corporation placed on the record:
- At the time of the audit, this agreement was still under negotiation and as such the corporation had taken a conservative accounting treatment of the payment related to the Tiwi Islands. The agreement now reached provides for the repayment of this and other pre-leasing costs incurred by the corporation in the facilitation and management of new investment opportunities on the Tiwi Islands.
There has been some follow on, confirming why it is important we see the Auditor-General reports in this parliament, and we see the work of the office of the Auditor-General to look at government expenditure to ensure money is being appropriately spent and accounted for.
It raises the question of how this payment and lease negotiation has gone, how repayments are going, and I expect this will the subject of future Auditor-General reports given there was still some work to be done. We welcome government updating us on what has happened, from the Land Development Corporation’s perspective, because there were many questions about it. It is another space we will be watching in future reports from the Auditor-General, and it is a shame we could not debate it or ask these questions sooner.
The Auditor-General looked at the state of play in the Power and Water Corporation. The Auditor-General noted that total revenue for the year increased from the prior year by $434.3m. This increase was attributed to the full year impact of higher tariffs that took effect at the commencement of the 2013 calendar year. Yes, we saw a huge jump in revenues at Power and Water Corporation as a result of this government’s tariff increases. Looking at when those tariffs were passed on in full – when we saw the 20%, the 5% and the 5% for power, on top of that we saw the 40% for water and I think it was 25% for sewerage. When you add all that up, for a family of four it equates to an extra $2000 a year in power bills. That is a lot of money for a family to find.
Looking at the performance of the Power and Water Corporation, they were looking at the net profit of the corporation before tax. One thing highlighted was the significant increase in revenue directly attributed to tariffs and the decision of the CLP government to increase tariffs. That is something I like to remind the government of because it had a huge impact on people across the Territory, not only in urban areas but remote communities; people living in the bush also felt the full impact and are still feeling it to this day.
Lastly, on the Auditor-General’s report, the Auditor-General looked at some materials referred to her with relation to the Public Information Act. Those materials related to a message from the Chief Minister about the Casuarina by-election. The Auditor-General found that four of the eight Chief Minister’s weekly messages on the Casuarina by-election contravened the Public Information Act. This is a reminder to everybody that there is the Public Information Act and governments need to be very mindful of it. We are going into some fairly busy times leading up to next August but we have somebody keeping an eye out to ensure funds are appropriately expended and are not used for political purposes and promotions. That is something the Public Information Act plays a very important role in.
The Auditor-General’s report is a very important report which we see twice a year. A lot of work goes into it and it assures people that government is working the way it should, and we are seeing value for money which is being accounted for correctly. They do a lot of hard work with the different agencies to check how things are running.
Yes, from time to time there are issues raised. In governments of the past, when the Auditor-General’s report came into this place, ministers took the report seriously. They would have a very good look at the contents of it to see if any of their agencies were mentioned. They would go through to see what exactly it was the Auditor-General had been examining, and what the findings were. It was something they took very seriously. People would wait with some anticipation for it because they always wanted to make sure things were running smoothly in their agency.
Sometimes people had to stand up in this place and have some tough debates on the floor of parliament about the performance of their agency, or of some of their projects, and some of the decisions they had made. But it was something they would never walk away from or ignore. They would look at the issues and make sure that could assure the public that when there are problems, they deal with them.
If the Auditor-General finds areas where improvements are needed, those improvements should be made. We have not seen that with this government and their practices with tabling the Auditor-General reports when they come into parliament. We are in June, fast heading into July, and today we finally debated the August 2014 Auditor-General’s report, and we are now debating the February 2015 Auditor-General’s report when we had time to do it before.
It is good that government is looking at the Notice Paper and asking where some of the important documents are which we need to get on top of and not yet addressed. I am hoping to see far more disciplined practices around the Auditor-General’s report in the future. August will be the test of what happens and how the government decides to treat that report.
The member for Nelson in the previous debate referred to the Notice Paper and some of the very important matters still sitting there. I also support him in what he said about the fact the FASD report has not been debated in this House yet. It is a very important report, and we would like to see all the hard work that went into looked at more closely by this parliament and debated. We need some assurances that government, no matter what side they are on in the future, but particularly this government, puts forward the vital investment and programs needed to tackle the issue of FASD. It has devastating consequences.
I thank the Auditor-General and her team for all the hard work they put into the February 2015 report. We understand they are busy working on the August 2015 report. Hopefully, we will see some swift debate when it becomes before this parliament.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Ombudsman NT Investigation Report
Ombudsman NT Investigation Report
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) notes the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer
(b) supports the creation of an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory
(c) commends the Commissioner for Police on steps taken to establish a special references unit to investigate corruption, matters with potential sensitivities, serious conflicts of interest and other complex internal measures
(d) notes the response of the Commissioner of Police to the Ombudsman’s report.
Late on the Thursday following two weeks of estimates, the Chief Minister stood in this Assembly and placed on the record the investigation undertaken by the Ombudsman into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister failed to allow debate on this report and the very important recommendations and findings contained within it.
Today the opposition corrects that oversight. Along with a discussion of the issues arising from the report, I wish to make some commitments to the people of the Northern Territory. The first commitment is that a Labor government elected in 2016 will introduce an independent commission against corruption. We will begin that work from the day we are elected and we will work until the commission is in place and undertaking its duties to the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory.
There is no doubt that every idea has its day, and in the Northern Territory the idea of the establishment of an independent commission against corruption has been part of our policy for a couple of decades. This idea has been resisted on the grounds that the Northern Territory is a small place, and there is a higher level of accountability because of the familiarity. For years this was possibly true, but today this is no longer the case. Open and transparent government is not a slogan; it is a smart and modern way of governing. It is not only a demand by minority groups, it is an expectation of every citizen who believes, rightly in my view, that when they are paying for something they expect to know how their money is being spent, by whom and how efficiently, and that it is done in an open and transparent manner. This is the right way to govern in the 21st century. It provides reassurance to its citizens and its businesses.
It is the way I intend to conduct the Labor government I lead. Unfortunately, history shows the Territory, when governed by the CLP, has had to be pushed and shoved into accepting the basic architecture of openness and accountability. It took a decade of prodding by my Labor predecessors to get a Public Accounts Committee established by a very reluctant Perron CLP government. It then took the advent of the Martin Labor government for the next stage of accountability to be introduced.
Clare Martin, as Chief Minister, introduced a slew of legislation to back our commitment. She established the Territory’s first ever Estimates Committee and then its first independent Electoral Commission. She also introduced the Territory’s first freedom of information, and fiscal integrity legislation. These were important measures for openness and accountability. This was backed up by a Henderson government which introduced the Public Information Act and whistleblower’s legislation.
What remains to complete this architecture of integrity and transparency is the establishment and introduction of an anti-corruption commission. I do not expect this motion today will be supported by the government, and that is a pity. Their former leaders, Jodeen Carney and Terry Mills, are both on the record as supporting the concept. The member for Sanderson has also supported this concept. In August 2010, in debate in this House in relation to the establishment of an anti-corruption body he said:
- Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to support this motion and the intent we want to make the Territory a better place and to keep it that way. People who want to be involved in corruption and criminal activities will not come here because we have a solid anti-corruption watchdog, properly resourced, with the ability to quickly investigate matters. Those people return to where they came from and we keep the Territory safe and a good place to do business, to live and to enjoy life.
Frankly, we could not agree more; we need an anti-corruption commission.
The Ombudsman’s report is focused on matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. Its recommendations and findings, however, have wider implications because of continuing concerns about the probity and misuse of public assets and resources by the CLP government. These issues will be considered in the contributions by my colleagues to the debate on this motion. There are a number of reasons why a commission of this type should be established.
A key reason for establishing an anti-corruption commission in the Territory is that there are currently no independent bodies with broad enough powers to investigate ministers and members of parliament. The Ombudsman confirms this in paragraph 118 and 119 of his report:
- … I acknowledge the anti-corruption bodies in other jurisdictions have powers to investigate the conduct, not merely of police and public servants, but also of members of parliament and ministers.
- There is currently no standing independent review body in the Northern Territory with such powers. The OCPID can investigate MLAs but only on a referral, at the discretion of the Speaker …
This is a ludicrous place to be in the 21st century. We have some important rights and privileges as members of parliament. We have the right to free debate and discussion of issues in this House. We have a greater right, in many ways, to freedom of expression than other Territorians so we can have important debates in this Chamber. That is a right and privilege a member of parliament enjoys.
I do not believe lack of oversight is a right or privilege, or something we should continue to cling to. It is something we need to fix. We cannot be left as the place in Australia that provides the least comprehensive oversight of its political process.
A second and compelling reason for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission goes to the interconnectedness of the Northern Territory as a society. The Ombudsman referred to the tightknit Territory community briefly in his report, and he has touched on a very important issue. He also referred, in paragraph 108, to a relatively small police force with a small group of senior managers who interact with each other on a regular basis. One of our great strengths as a society in the NT is our closeness. Our size has allowed us much greater flexibility and nimbleness in policy making, development, construction and so on. This is a great advantage; however, as we mature as a polity, it provides a challenge which could prove to be quite vexing, and that is the issue of corruption and preferment.
Corruption comes in many forms and has sizes. Anyone who remembers the revelations of the moonlight state under the Fitzgerald Commission in Queensland knows that corruption started with the acceptance of free handouts from shopkeepers and retailers, and ended in the Commissioner of Police building a mansion with money not legally obtained.
In the Northern Territory I do not believe such a situation exists, but that makes it more important than ever to have this anti-corruption commission in place now, to put this architecture in place now. While trust exists in our police force, let us the establish the commission.
Unfortunately, trust in politicians has long gone. The Chief Minister must accept responsibility for the woeful view the public has of his government. There is a trust deficit, but he can restore some of that faith by introducing this body and introducing it now.
The inter-connectedness of the Territory causes concern beyond corruption issues. It makes the establishment of independence very hard. When the former Commissioner of Police was to be investigated, the spectacle of people having to declare a potential conflict of interest was alarming. This cannot be allowed to continue. Someone in the Territory in these circumstances has to be established above the fray, without question of independence and impartiality. The independent commission against corruption can and needs to fill this role.
A third reason for establishing this commission is to place an influence on our bureaucracy and government. The mere existence of an independent commission against corruption will provide an influence of anti-corruption and integrity right across our system. It will provide a model and a place for referrals, and an outlet and venue for concerns.
The Ombudsman, in his report in paragraphs 50 to 55, refers to the ‘heroic belief’ that can develop from an individual’s ability to not engage in personal conflict. This is a very dangerous thing to rely on. It is dangerous in a system, and while it often comes from the best of intentions, and the Ombudsman acknowledges that, it is a very serious threat to compromising integrity and trust.
The existence of an independent corruption commission takes away that problem and allows all officers or bureaucrats to refer matters beyond themselves. As the Ombudsman says, we need to protect police and others from these situations. ICAC does this.
As the member for Port Darwin has said, you cannot have Caesar rule Caesar. It is very important that there is a capacity for problems to go beyond moving them up the chain, when moving them up the chain might be moving them to where the problem lies.
The existence of an ICAC would also provide a quick and clean avenue to refer matters. Members will recall that four separate overlapping enquiries have been established to investigate allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the two police officers. There were also potential conflicts of interest based on personal associations involving members of the investigating organisations. An independent anti-corruption commission may well have facilitated the single primary investigation into the relevant allegations, free from potential conflicts of interest.
It will create an independent place to go where we all know things can be managed properly and thoroughly. This is very important for Territorians, as we have seen the problems that can come from a small jurisdiction where everyone is connected, and when a problem goes to the top of the tree how that branches out and affects how investigations occur and their promptness.
How will we establish an ICAC? I have outlined our policy proposal and why we need it. Let me turn to the how. In establishing an ICAC we will not blindly follow the models established elsewhere. The principles that underlie interstate models are sound and are supported, but the Territory needs an ICAC that satisfies Territory conditions. One of the most dramatic differences between us and other jurisdictions is our size, so we need to facilitate one appropriate for the Territory. We need to take into account our unique Territory conditions, our size, our interconnectedness, and think it through.
To achieve our own Territory system, we will consult widely with the community on the function, powers and structure of the commission. My colleagues and I will seek input from Territorians on its shape and practice. We are not wedded to a particular model; we will not go into this with a closed mind. The final shape of the commission will be informed by consultation with the community, stakeholders and expert legal advice.
The key issues in our conversations with the community will include the objects set out in the act that establish the commission, and the function and scope of its powers. Objectives of an anti-corruption body could include matters such as promoting the integrity and accountability of public administration by constituting an independent anti-corruption commission as an accountable body; investigating, exposing and preventing corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials; educating public authorities, officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects to public administration, and the community; and conferring on the commission’s special powers to inquire into allegations of corruption.
As I said previously, we are not wedded at this stage to any particular model for an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory and will consult widely on matters such as the structure, objectives, function and powers of the commission so it suits Territory conditions. Discussion papers and a draft bill to establish the commission will be released for public consultation.
I want to acknowledge the police. Before I finish this discussion today I want to go to some of the other issues and recommendations of the Ombudsman. Labor has not determined its position on the issue of giving the Ombudsman power to compel witnesses to give evidence to him. It is a major point of discussion for an ICAC and a power which most ICACs have. In establishing an ICAC you would have, under most ICACs, that power to compel to give evidence so it could be taken care of at that spot. The question then is would the Ombudsman need to also have that power. Where that power can sit needs to be thought through. It is a power that normally sits with an ICAC.
The actions of the Chief Minister in his famous media conference in February provide support for the idea of compelling witnesses to provide information. In this conference the Chief Minister said he had evidence of collusion between members of parliament and senior police in a coup against his leadership. These are extremely serious allegations, and given the Chief Minister’s assertion of evidence an ICAC would have the capacity to compel him to reveal that evidence, especially after he backed off his promised judiciary inquiry as a result of that. There needs to be a capacity to ensure evidence, such as that claimed by the Chief Minister in his media conference in February, is provided to the correct authorities. That may require an ICAC which can compel people to supply evidence.
The Ombudsman made special reference to the point that he cannot compel someone to give him evidence and has asked for that power. The Ombudsman has recognised the deficiencies that exist in the current system: that the independent bodies in the Northern Territory have certain areas they cannot look at. That is a problem. There are certain powers they do not have, which is also a problem. One of those is to do with witnesses who have evidence and the independent body knows they have evidence but it cannot force them to give it.
I also want to acknowledge the prompt initial response by police to matters that arose during the Ombudsman’s investigation. It is also important that we never lose sight of the contribution of our police force to the safety and wellbeing of our community. Commissioner Kershaw has already announced and commenced the formation of a special references unit within the police professional standards command to investigate corruption, matters of political sensitivity, serious conflicts of interest and other complex internal matters. I commend the commissioner’s decision.
I also note the appointment of Superintendent Jamie O’Brien as head of the unit and his confirmation that the unit will be staffed by members selected on the basis of their analytical skills, integrity and impartiality.
Again, I express my appreciation and pay tribute to all the dedicated honest police who put their own safety on the line every day to serve and protect our community, as do firefighters and emergency service workers. The police have gone through difficult times recently. The absolute majority – 99% -- have been doing their job while things have swirled around them from the upper echelons that go nowhere near the day-to-day work of police. They have soldiered on in difficult circumstances and I say to them, you are valued by this parliament and the Territory community for your dedication and service.
More can be said about this issue, and we have other contributors to this debate today, which I appreciate. I think Jodeen Carney summed it up when she said:
- It is hard to see how the establishment of an independent commission against corruption can sensibly be resisted.
The CLP may well choose to resist this idea today and may resist this idea for a while longer, but it cannot be resisted for ever. There will be an ICAC in the Northern Territory. At this stage it looks like it will take a Labor government to bring in an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. This is an idea whose time has come. I ask the CLP today, or its members and independent members of this parliament, to join us and adopt this motion. We would love to see an independent commission against corruption established in the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion the member for Fannie Bay has put forward for the creation of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
I have asked my esteemed opposition members if they would give me some latitude tonight in my speech. There is a transgression I would like to make and put on the public record this evening.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commission recommended the electorate of Araluen be scrapped in the 2015 electoral redistribution, announced yesterday, 16 June. Although this is not the final decision, it would seem highly likely the electorate of Araluen is history and will be merged into the three surrounding central Australian electorates of Braitling, Greatorex and the new electorate of Battarbee, formerly Stuart, from August 2016.
My time as the member for Araluen has been an absolute privilege. It has been a dream come true to represent a section of the Alice Springs population in the Northern Territory parliament. I am forever grateful to the people of Araluen for bestowing on me this incredible honour and responsibility, and I am very proud of the work I have done in Araluen.
Being a good local member is about being responsive to people’s concerns and problems. Through good policy, advocacy and promoting good government I believe I have improved the lives of the people in Araluen.
Some highlights for Araluen during my incumbency include crime being dramatically reduced in Alice Springs. This work started whilst we were in opposition. We knew we had to be bold and decisive about tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. We set high targets, and for the most part we have achieved those targets. We have dramatically reduced the level of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs and provided a broader range of alcohol treatment services. I have played an integral role in this reform.
The subdivision of Kilgariff, a new trophy suburb in Araluen, has been vigorously progressed under my watch. We can now see homes being built. The Alice Springs Hospital, which is also in my electorate in Alice Springs, has seen significant improvements. Through creative juggling of funding whilst I was Health minister, we will soon see a palliative care hospice at the Alice Springs Hospital. This service has been planned and waited on for many years.
The old government police flats in Allchurch Street in The Gap were left derelict for years. As soon as we came to government I ensured we moved quickly to resolve the future of this complex. It was sold last year and has since been renovated and sold, which is a great outcome for what was becoming a public eyesore.
My recent assistance in lobbying for improved netball facilities was successful in the recent budget; a $2m grant was announced. A sealed car park at Flynn Drive Oval was a significant win for local residents and me last year.
I have helped countless people with housing issues, immigration challenges, and problems with government, health, travel, childcare, education, providing information on any number of issues and improving local services, being there to help people in any way I can.
My work for the people of Araluen has been entirely satisfying and enjoyable; I have loved it.
The history of Araluen has spanned 32 years. For 32 years the people of Araluen have loyally supported the Country Liberal Party. I am the fourth Country Liberal Party member to represent the electorate.
Jim Robertson ran from 1983-86; he was the member for Gillen, which was the original name of the electorate. Eric Poole was the member for Araluen for 15 years, from 1986-2001. Jodeen Carney was the member for Araluen for nine years from 2001-10. Finally, I became the member for Araluen in 2010, and I intend to remain the member for Araluen until August next year at the next election, which will be a total of six years.
The Country Liberal Party has always relied on the electorate of Araluen being a stronghold for the party, one seat that could be relied on, but definitely not taken for granted. The party has been loyal to the electorate of Araluen and the people of Araluen have been loyal to the Country Liberal Party.
It saddens me that the Country Liberal Party government now presides over this tumultuous, reckless, political period in which the electorate of Araluen is likely to be scrapped at the next election. I am deeply concerned for the people of Araluen, the people of Alice Springs, and people living in all regional parts of the Northern Territory.
In 2012 the Country Liberal Party came to power. One of our key platforms was to give the bush and the regions a stronger voice in parliament. The Country Liberal Party came to parliament promising to move the emphasis away from the Labor Darwin-centric approach and balance it more evenly across the whole of the Northern Territory, with a particular commitment to giving a voice back to the regions and the bush.
The elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills, worked hard to win the confidence and respect of people throughout regional Northern Territory. People trusted Terry; they knew he would do the right thing. We promised to listen to the voice of the regions, to empower the regions and strongly represent people in the regions. To date, I believe the Country Liberal Party has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its promises to the bush and the regions. The news to scrap Araluen only reinforces my concerns.
In 2012 we promised the regions a greater voice in parliament, economic development opportunities, local government reform, better roads and infrastructure, and generally more resources. With only one year to go until the next election, I fear the Country Liberal Party is far from on track to fulfilling these promises.
Geographically Alice Springs is 1500 km from Darwin but we are light years away when it comes to the economic growth, regional development and prosperity enjoyed in the Top End at the moment. The loss of an electorate from the Centre deprives Alice Springs of another voice in the Northern Territory parliament and a link between the people and the decision-making process. This recommendation is a terrible outcome for the people of Araluen – the mums, dads, workers, business operators and the next generation of children in schools and childcare centres. It short-changes the people of Araluen and the people of Alice Springs. It brings into very sharp focus the failure of successive governments to bring out the best in our wonderful community.
Alice Springs is unique in this country; it is the outback icon. But under both Labor and the Country Liberals over the past 15 years or so, Alice Springs has failed to thrive. This has been the real tragedy of both sides of government. Alice Springs has not grown at a rate even close to that of Darwin and Palmerston. The town has a stagnant population despite government rhetoric to stimulate growth and economic interest. The enormous potential of Alice Springs has not been maximised.
The fact that the Top End gets an extra seat at the expense of Alice Springs says a lot about where we sit on the radar of our political leaders. This is an indictment of the Country Liberals and successive governments, and the worst possible outcome for Alice Springs. In opposition the Country Liberal Party objected to the closure of key government services in Alice Springs. Now, under our watch, it is happening at our democratic heart in the Northern Territory parliament. This disenfranchises the people of Alice Springs in a way I find totally unacceptable. All in Central Australia deserve much better than this.
Of course, I will challenge this decision. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s proposed boundaries are open for public comment for a month and I will be doing my very best over the next four weeks to have this decision reversed.
For the reasons I have outlined I will spend the remainder of my term on the cross benches as the Independent member for Araluen, where I will continue to fight for what is best for Araluen and the broader community. I have spoken before about the pervasive and real tensions that exist between me and the party’s leadership. Under the circumstances, I am best able to represent the electorate from the cross benches.
I was presented with a wonderful opportunity when I was elected to this parliament. But since the Country Liberals took government, it has been eroded by a lack of integrity within government. Proper process is ignored and the failure to honour pledges made from opposition, such as establishing a crime and corruption watchdog, an independent commission against corruption, reflects poorly on us all. I am extremely disappointed that it has come to this, but I am energised about the future. In the interests of providing the best service I can for the people of Araluen, the people who elected me to office in the first place, I know I am making the right decision.
I have become increasingly uncomfortable being part of the Country Liberal Party room over the past months. Although I maintain a good relationship with the majority of my Country Liberals colleagues, a few have made my life hell. I have never encountered anything like this in my life.
With the release of the report yesterday, I spoke to my husband and decided it was time to relieve myself of the pain the Country Liberal Party leadership has been causing me. I want to represent the people of Araluen well, and the people of Alice Springs in the same manner. With the electorate of Araluen gone, I could either battle the party and the Chief Minister to attain pre-selection for another seat, and inevitably fail, or I could just get on and be a good local member for Araluen and spend my time working for the people I care about: my constituents. I have chosen the latter.
My approach now to all matters in the parliament, including budget bills, procedural motions and motions of confidence, will be to treat each of them in turn. I will not be party to political game scoring. The Labor Party should not see my status as an independent member in any way endorsing them as a party. It is not. While the current Chief Minister, I think, will be treated by history as the worst ever, those opposite had little to no regard for Territory finances and shamefully neglected Alice Springs for years.
On a policy front, I will be actively seeking to have in place a truly independent anti-corruption commission, with wide-ranging powers, for the Territory. The Territory has been run too long like a secret boys’ club. While people bought into the idea that the Northern Territory was small and should be able to deal with any such matters, this relied on political leaders doing the right thing and being people of a scrupulous nature having respectable intent. Sadly, this appears not to be the case with some very senior members.
In saying this, I would like to support the motion put forward by the member for Fannie Bay. Thank you for giving me this latitude tonight, member for Fannie Bay. I one hundred per cent support the creation of an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory and I commend the member for Fannie Bay for this important motion.
Certain events that have transpired in Northern Territory politics and the Northern Territory public administration over the past six months clearly demonstrate a need for an independent – and I stress independent – commission against corruption, of some description, in the Northern Territory.
I do not believe the Northern Territory has the checks and balances to ensure strong, objective and independent investigation into the public administration of the Northern Territory. I intend to talk more on this topic over the coming months; however, at this point I will say that the objective and prejudiced determination made by a majority government and Chief Minister as to whether or not a matter of alleged corruption should or should not be investigated, that may or may not involve allegations against government ministers and staffers, is inadequate and far from independent.
Yes, without hesitation I support the member for Fannie Bay in his motion this evening that this parliament should create an ICAC, an independent commission against corruption, as soon as possible.
Returning to the announcement I made tonight concerning my move to the cross benches, my move to become the Independent member for Araluen, I would like to thank those people in the Country Liberal Party and outside who have been good friends and supporters over the years. I want you all to know that this was not part of my five-year plan in life. Never would I have thought in my wildest dreams I would be forced to resign from a party I have been philosophically aligned with all my life. Never would I have thought I would be subjected to the persecution, retribution and intimidation dished out by the Chief Minister and the Treasurer.
To any woman contemplating a future in politics with the Country Liberal Party, think carefully about your ability to endure what I can only describe as abuse. It seems I am in good company, and far from alone, in my divorce from the Country Liberal Party under the leadership of Adam Giles.
The former member for Araluen for nine years, Jodeen Carney, provided a ‘stinging rebuke of the CLP’s current leadership’ in a column in the Sunday Territorian just gone. ‘Jodeen Carney has called out the CLP for showing a “disregard of acceptable political standards”’. She said, ‘the absence of accountability and integrity in Territory politics is lamentable’. Jodeen worked as an adviser to Adam Giles when he first thrust himself into the position of Chief Minister. She was one of his most loyal confidantes. Jodeen Carney is now publically expressing her concerns about the lack of efficacy and accountability within the Giles government. Jodeen Carney resigned from the CLP in April this year.
Another eminent former CLP politician resigned from the party in February, citing similar concerns. Mrs Fay Miller, the former member for Katherine, tendered her resignation from the CLP at the last central council meeting in Katherine. Fay is now the mayor of Katherine.
Fay cited the lack of integrity of the Giles regime as her primary reason for quitting the party. I checked those comments with Fay this afternoon to make sure I was representing her fairly, and she said that was fine and accurate. Add Alison Anderson, the member for Namatjira, and Larisa Lee, the member for Arnhem, to the list of disenfranchised, disrespected and abused Country Liberal Party female politicians and the story becomes compelling.
It should also be noted that the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick, is also on the public record as being fed up with certain disingenuous and unethical practices within government. I have no doubt Kezia is considering her options.
It is no coincidence that three senior female Country Liberal Party members of parliament have resigned from the party in the past five months: Jodeen Carney; Fay Miller; and Robyn Lambley. I do not believe in coincidences in politics. Chief Minister, why do you think three highly-respected female Country Liberal Party MPs have resigned from the party in less than six months? Chief Minister, why do you think five female MPs have resigned from the party in less than two years?
It is also worth noting that the Country Liberal Party parliamentary wing has reduced from 16 people in August 2012 – six women and 10 men – to 13 people – three women and 10 men – in June 2015. That is a 20% reduction in the team and a 50% reduction in female representation in the Country Liberal Party.
There are also male Country Liberal Party members of parliament who have been eliminated and disenfranchised by the Chief Minister in recent times. Terry Mills, the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, was sacked by the current Chief Minister from his diplomatic position in Indonesia a few months ago. This had nothing to do with Terry’s performance. This was a blatant act of political retribution, a completion of the Giles assassination process.
Francis Xavier resigned from the CLP in 2013 and was enticed back into the fold months later. Giles claimed Francis was led astray, that he was influenced by Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee. Francis was welcomed back with open arms but Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee were demonised by Giles. He claimed at the time that he would never have them back in the party again.
On the day Giles dumped me from Cabinet, in February, he announced at the Alice Springs Country Liberal Party branch meeting that night that he would, ‘Never work with that woman again’, referring to me. There can be no doubt Adam Giles has driven me out of the party. This is the Chief Minister whose modus operandi is to eliminate, execute, annihilate, assassinate and who, of course, has no use for the truth.
The decision to leave the Country Liberal Party and become an Independent is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make; it has been a burden hanging over me. It is a decision I take with full awareness of its implications. I am not a quitter or a woman who gives up on her beliefs and her cause. I have been a natural Liberal and Country Liberal all my life. The truth is I am not leaving my party today; I am still standing where I always stood: the rational centre ground of politics. The truth is that my party has left me. The Northern Territory Country Liberals have been betrayed and taken over by a dark, unpleasant, amoral cabal.
In leaving the CLP today I am throwing down a challenge to the Chief Minister and his Treasurer. I know your ways from the inside of the parliamentary wing. I know who you are. I said before in parliament that the government should not be led by the comprised and fallen figures who now hold the reins of power and force their colleagues into compliance through patronage or by threats.
Across the Northern Territory I have watched aghast as the credibility and the electoral position of the Country Liberal Party has been damaged by the member for Braitling. We all know the polls show the government is in trouble. The most recent poll made public by News Ltd and The Australian in February showed a 16% swing away from the government. The Country Liberal Party is in serious trouble. The time has come to stake out an alternative position. I am not going anywhere. I fully intend to remain on the cross benches and will continue to be a strong voice for honesty and integrity in our politics.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, colleagues.
We cannot progress as a society if we do not know the truth about our economy, about the decisions our governments make, and the long-term prospects before us. We cannot progress if we have politicians who aim to divide not unify. This is a moral question. We have had almost three years of the politics of hate, discord and lies. The air is heavy with the weight of the misinformation and fantasies spewed out by the Chief Minister and his propaganda machine. Scandal has followed scandal and many of the key institutions of the Territory have been politicised.
We stand at a crossroads in the Territory. If we are unable to put our own House in order and create a healthier political culture, self-government will not endure. To my fellow Territorians, let us join together and make our voices heard. People of the Territory, I pledge to you that I will do all I can in the time ahead to ensure your government is returned to you.
I look forward to the future as the Independent member for Araluen. I will fight against the scrapping of the electorate of Araluen. I will fight against the diminishment of the voice of regional areas and of parliamentary democracy. I look forward to going home over the weekend and talking to the people of Araluen and Alice Springs about what they want for their community and their town.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to the member for Araluen, well done.
I recently went to northern Canada. I went there because the feeling I get from everyday Territorians at present is that they are disenchanted with this place and with parliamentarians, and they hate the system. They think we have failed them. I went to Canada - and I will give a report on it later - to look at two forms of government where there are no parties, and where they act as independents. But I will go into that later.
The basis of what we see in this motion from the member for Fannie Bay reflects exactly what the member for Araluen was talking about. People are totally disenchanted with the government and, to some extent, that spreads to all of us because of the way we behave. I support this motion; I support an ICAC for a number of reasons.
I was let down by the Chief Minister when this parliament moved a motion that there would be an inquiry into political donations, an inquiry that would have said to the people of the Territory that we support a transparent process of political donations. I was promised by the Chief Minister, and it was reported in the NT News two days before the Casuarina by-election, that the inquiry set up by this parliament would go ahead. That inquiry never went ahead.
If the Chief Minister had been honest, he would have told the NT News there would be an inquiry, but it would not be the same one that was agreed to by this parliament. That is exactly what he did at the first chance for this parliament to sit after the Casuarina by-election; he pulled the pin on what was the most important part of that inquiry so that his party and its political donations could not be examined. That is why it is important that we have an independent commission against corruption.
There was also the issue of what was happening in this parliament. On Wednesday 4 February in the NT News there was an article called ‘Giles claims police coup conspiracy’. It said:
… as he entered the CLP party wing meeting that would determine his political fate, Mr Giles also accused an unnamed parliamentary colleague of working with the upper echelon of the force to bring him down. ‘The allegations that have been coming out about senior members of the police force actively running a coup, or a campaign, in cahoots with some alleged politicians is a significant problem,’ he said.
The other thing that concerns me is that the government has many times condemned the previous government about the manner in which it dealt with the Stella Maris building. They funded an inquiry which came up with a large number of recommendations. The funny thing is that one of those recommendations was for an integrity commissioner, but the government decided it would not go ahead with that recommendation. Why would it not go ahead with that recommendation? If the government will not establish an integrity commissioner, how can you argue against a form of ICAC?
The Chief Minister ridiculed the idea of an ICAC saying it would cost $50m. I am not advocating that sort of expenditure, nor am I saying we must have a permanent ICAC. It could be something that brings people with certain skills in occasionally to deal with issues. It has been said that we could use another state’s ICAC. I am not sure that would work because we need to work within our own framework. However, it is important that if we do not have an integrity commissioner – and we have to ask the government why they would scrap it – then we need an ICAC.
The Ombudsman talked about an integrity commissioner, but we do not have one. I went all the way overseas to a little place called Nunavut with a population of about 31 000 and found they have an integrity commissioner. They lead us in some of these things. Mr Richard, who is the Integrity Commissioner for Nunavut, has a website where he says:
- The main role of the Integrity Commissioner is to assist MLAs in fulfilling their commitments to act with integrity and in compliance with the Integrity Act. In this role the Integrity Commissioner is a resource for the MLAs. Any MLA can at any time consult with the Integrity Commissioner to obtain advice on his or her obligations under the Integrity Act. The consultations, and the advice given whether verbal or in writing, are confidential, subject to a few specific exceptions.
In addition to the main ‘advisory’ role that the Integrity Commissioner has with respect to MLAs, the Integrity Commissioner also has an investigative role under the Integrity Act, i.e., to determine whether an MLA has contravened the act.
Allegations of an MLA’s misconduct (i.e. a contravention of provision of the Integrity Act) are received by the Integrity Commissioner and investigated …
It goes on to say:
- Any member of the public, including another MLA, can request that the Integrity Commissioner review an alleged contravention of the Integrity Act by an MLA.
That is the role of an integrity commissioner in a small place in Canada. In some ways it is very similar to the Northern Territory, with remote communities and a large Aboriginal population. It has an integrity commissioner, yet we had a recommendation from the Stella Maris inquiry that we should have an integrity commissioner and what happened? The Chief Minister said no.
We have three things. We had an inquiry set up to look at political donations, especially from Foundation 51 and Nelson Holdings. The Chief Minister said no. The Chief Minister accused some of his fellow politicians and members of the police force of being in cahoots to assassinate him when that failed coup d’tat happened. There was nothing to support that. Then the Stella Maris inquiry said we should have an integrity commissioner. The government said no.
What impression does that give? Does that give you the impression of an honest, open and transparent government? It does not. That is why we need an independent commission into corruption in the Northern Territory. We need to sort these things out and find out why there has been a brick wall placed in the way of these proposals.
As the member for Araluen mentioned, Jodeen Carney, in last weekend’s NT News, asked for the same thing. It is not just coming from members on this side; it is also coming from former members of the CLP. If this parliament and government are to put faith back into what Territorians think about their process of government, they will have to do something dramatic.
I speak to many people, and quite a few of them are CLP supporters. My electorate is relatively conservative, but people are really disenchanted with what is happening in the Northern Territory at the moment.
I could go on for a long time about this because the motion talks about the Ombudsman’s report. It commends the Commissioner for Police on steps he has taken to establish a special references unit to investigate corruption, and it says to note the response from the Commissioner of Police to the Ombudsman’s report. They are all fine things, but the key here is the anti-corruption commission that has been put forward.
I had some police come and see me around the time the Chief Minister said there was a conspiracy. They were good police. They had been in the force for a long time, and felt they did not have someone they could talk to about the issues they saw within the force.
They were not saying the police force is corrupt. They just felt there were some concerns in the police force and they did not have confidence in anyone to talk to about it. They believed they needed an outside body they could discuss these matters with. That is why I asked for a broad inquiry at that time, but I think we are past that now.
We need this ICAC to clear up much of the stuff floating out there which is harming the government and leaving people feeling more depressed about the way things are. I was down south when all the trouble occurred and I know people in other states were bewildered about what was going on when they saw it on the television.
Somehow we have to start to put some statesmanship back into this parliament, not just leadership. Somehow we have to show we are more interested in the people of the Northern Territory than where our political parties are heading or where we are going as individuals.
I had a lot of things I would like to have spoken about, but the member for Araluen has given us something to think about today. I will read from the code of conduct of the Northwest Territories in Canada:
- As a member elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, I acknowledge that I have accepted a responsibility to serve the people of the Northwest Territories. I seek wisdom, strength, courage, honesty, and caring from the people of the north, both from those who have built our past and from those who are shaping our future.
As a legislator elected to govern the Northwest Territories, I will serve to do my utmost to: hear the voices of all our people; preserve our traditions and bridge them with new ways to build our future; provide legislation, policies and services for the good of the people as individuals, families and communities; promote the equality of all our people; distribute resources fairly and justly; and respect and honour our land and all its inhabitants.
As a legislator, I will do my best to fulfil my duties to the legislature, the public, my constituents and my colleagues with integrity and honour.
To my constituents, I owe my best efforts at effective representation as well as accountability, honesty, fairness and courtesy.
To the legislature, I owe respect, as well as dedication to my role in ensuring the integrity of our government and in earning, through my actions, the confidence of the people.
To the public, I owe a responsibility to work for the wellbeing of all residents of the Northwest Territories.
To my colleagues, I owe fairness and respect for our differences and the duty to work together with goodwill for the common good.
I acknowledge human vulnerabilities and I will strive to bring honour to my role as a representative of our people.
I will not act, nor condone others in acting, in ways which exploit, slander or discriminate against others, I will not act, nor condone others in acting, in ways which are dishonest or which exploit positions of privilege for personal gain.
As a legislator, I acknowledge a vision and a responsibility to improve the life of our people and I will strive to act in creative ways to overcome the hardships which destroy life and hope, and the human frailties which fall upon us.
So long as I am a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I will be true to these obligations, and will work to preserve the greatness of our land and our people.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, hold the front page as I suspect there will be a different front page tomorrow. I will be honest; I am saddened by the member for Araluen’s decision. I wish I had an opportunity to speak to her about it before she made that decision but that was not the case. The nature of this place is that we respect the capacity of people to make those decisions, and once elected to this House people are free to dispose themselves how they see fit in representing their people. Despite all that, I wish the member for Araluen well.
However, I want to get back to the points in relation to the matter we are debating.
I would like to think that despite what members think of other members in this House, I do my job as a fairly straight shooter. If I was to rely on my reputation publically, whilst I can be a little too strident in my opinions from time to time, I consider myself as always being fairly straight up and down with the people of the Northern Territory. Before entering parliament, as a police officer I always tried my hardest to be a straight shooter.
I have listened to the comments and the assertions made here today, and I have not yet heard a specific allegation of corruption. Parliamentary privileges are available to us all, and I have not yet heard somebody say, ‘That happened on such a date, and that occurred’. I suggest that is because, despite the nebulous noise you hear about this type of thing from time to time, and besides the conjecture and opinions, it distils to, ‘Where is the evidence? Show me the money’, but it does not come forth.
Issues have occurred in the Northern Territory in recent times where the integrity of senior public servants has been drawn into question. Whilst I understand an investigation is still on foot, the circumstances surrounding the departure of the Commissioner of Police developed in such a manner that it was clear it would not be too long before, in this small community, something of that nature would probably percolate to the surface. That appears to have occurred in this instance.
This is a tiny jurisdiction and many people spend a lot of time working on rumours. The rumour mill runs riot, but every time you drop the acid on something it proves to be untrue, ill-founded, a misunderstanding or a case of Chinese whispers gone wrong. We have a rumour mill, and the Leader of the Opposition would have us rely on the rumour mill to go down particular paths.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I would not be involved in a government that was corrupt, straight up and down. I would not be involved, and I am on the inside and see what happens on a daily basis. I see what happens in my office and in a number of the other offices, and my integrity would prevent me from getting involved in anything dubious. The assertion is always bandied around. The Leader of the Opposition has still not apologised to me for suggesting, over a year ago, without any form of evidence, that I took bribes. I have stridently demanded an apology on this from him. I still have not received that apology. I understand that the accusation may have been made in the heat of the debate, but he had nothing to base that allegation on.
You continue to feed the rumour mill. What concerns me is that I am still waiting for specific assertions to be made, not least of which are the comments made by Ms Carney recently. Once again there is a suggestion that something has to be looked into, but why? What is the exact thing that is of such concern?
When there was a specific thing that had evidence attached to it – namely, the Stella Maris matter – the matter was investigated by an inquiry, and that inquiry came down with certain findings. In spite of what people may have thought about that process, there was still no evidence of corruption. There was an absence of a definition as to what that was. There was an abandonment of process; that was clear. Even under the former government, there was no suggestion arising out of something like the Stella Maris inquiry. I would be all for a body of this nature if I genuinely believed that such a body in this jurisdiction was necessary.
There are also practical problems with such a body. Here is a good example; when the matter of the Police Commissioner came to the attention of government and the public, and we looked for someone to investigate the matter, because it is such a small community almost everyone was discounted by virtue of the fact they were, in one fashion or another, compromised through a relationship with someone inside the circle. This is a small population. If there are six degrees of separation around the world, it means that if you have been in the Northern Territory for more than 15 minutes, there are zero degrees of separation. Everybody knows everybody, so how long will an independent commission remain independent?
I know justices of the Supreme Court have to exclude themselves from many activities to maintain that rarefied position of independence. At least they have the succour of knowing they are in the good company of other justices of the Supreme Court.
The assertions consistently made by way of rumour never come to the surface in any fashion. We can look at other states like Western Australia and Queensland, which expect to spend somewhere in the order of $30m to $50m a year to run these sorts of commissions. That is a lot of money. It would, as the Chief Minister said today, place 460 teachers in schools. It would also add additional high schools, middle schools and primary schools, permanently employ about 290 additional police, double the hospital patient travel services for the Barkly and East Arnhem regions - I could go on. Is this good expenditure? Are the safeguards required in place? I believe they are.
There is the criminal justice system. If people make complaints to the police, those complaints are investigated independently of any influence of government. They are beyond the reach of government, and so they properly should be, as well as the other investigative bodies that exist.
You also have the Electoral Commission, which exists to do a job, and in spite of the suspicions I suspect the member for Araluen may harbour, I have no evidence or belief that the Electoral Commission has done anything other than act independently. I am concerned that from time to time if people do not get what they expect then they smell a rat, as they would care to express it, but I do not always agree.
The request brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is to note:
- … the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Report into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and other police officers.
We can note those:
- … supports the creation of an anti-corruption Commission in the Northern Territory.
The commission is an established body which will require a large amount of expenditure to establish and will probably have to farm all of its work out if the commissioner was local for any period of time:
- … commends the Commissioner for Police on steps taken to establish a special reference unit to investigate corruption, matters with potential sensitivities, serious conflicts of interests and other complex internal measures …
We commend the Commissioner of Police on that as well:
- … notes the response of the Commissioner for Police to the Ombudsman’s Report.
We can do all of that.
Supporting the creation of an anti-corruption commission is the only point of difference I harbour with the Leader of the Opposition. Whilst in opposition, I articulated my support for this idea. It has somewhat waned, particularly in relation to the way the ICAC in New South Wales conducted itself when rumours surrounding the head of the Director of Public Prosecutions circulated in relation to how she may or may not have involved herself in a car accident involving – I think it was – her son’s girlfriend; I am not entirely sure of all of the details of that matter. But the only place to go is to have something like the High Court restrain ICAC from its behaviour. If you read some of the other accounts, particularly in The Australian in relation to how the New South Wales ICAC and members of the ICAC seemed to relish dragging politicians and people to give evidence over the coals, then that begs the question, who polices the policeman?
There are all sorts of vehicles and structures today in which matters of corruption can be dealt with, not least of which are police investigations. I have yet to hear anything that causes me sufficient uncertainty to believe there is something untoward happening in government, in any of my colleagues’ offices, that requires the intervention of an organ of this nature. I would be very surprised to be proven wrong in any of that. People may not like the style or manners of members of parliament, and that is fair enough. We have elections so members of parliament can be either returned or removed by the public. But styles, mannerisms and those sorts of methodological processes do not equate to anything that an ICAC would be interested in.
If I in any thought that something untoward was happening in any of my colleagues’ offices, I would be raising it very quickly. If I did not get satisfaction from the Chief Minister I would seek to go beyond the Chief Minister to any number of those other places where these things could be effectively investigated. But I am confident nothing has occurred that would compromise my integrity. I am comfortable government is governing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
It is for that reason I can only be critical of paragraph (b) of the proposed motion regarding the creation of the anti-corruption commission of the Northern Territory. It is an expensive option which would cause the loss of opportunity in a number of ways which have been described by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Even if you look all the way back to things like the Mulholland Inquiry in the 1980s where they found shortcomings in process and issues with competence, but no entrenched corruption, that would be exactly the same finding today.
A jurisdiction of this size cannot have these sorts of things occurring that the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition allude to. To establish a perpetual Mulholland Inquiry in the Northern Territory would be expensive and, I suspect, would ultimately lead to limited outcomes.
However, the matter is now before the House to consider, and I am sure it will follow its usual processes to consider these matters in due course.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing this motion before the House.
I cannot go on without acknowledging the contribution the member for Araluen made to this debate. I suspect her colleagues were unaware it was coming. I acknowledge the courage she has displayed in the announcement she made tonight. Quite plainly, for her, working in a nest of vipers has not been easy, hence her decision to depart. I applaud her for her courage, her unshakeable beliefs and integrity and her well-developed sense of what is right.
Clearly she is a misfit within the ranks of too many of the CLP members. I am sure it has been uneasy for certain members on the other side, who no doubt feel greatly saddened by the news the member for Araluen is moving to the cross benches, perhaps wishing they could join her. That is a particularly difficult decision now, with the narrowest of margins; thirteen seats in this House for the CLP makes it all the more difficult for those who remain on that side. Perhaps they are rethinking what they would really like to do.
Rest assured, member for Araluen, we make no assumptions whatsoever about your political stripes and your liberal ideologies, but the opposition applauds you for choosing our leader’s motion to make your announcement this evening to not only leave the CLP for the cross benches, but to indicate publically your support for the motion of the establishment of an ICAC in the Northern Territory.
It saddened and angered me to hear the member for Araluen’s statements about her treatment as a woman within the ranks of the CLP, and about the experiences of other women in the CLP, two of whom, her former colleagues, moved to the cross benches more than a year ago.
I can assure you, member for Araluen, you are not alone. Women on this side of the House are frequently the targets of bullying and harassment from the Chief Minster and certain other colleagues. It is more than a political strategy. We know we are all fair game on the floor of this House and the theatre that goes with it. I suggest your treatment and the treatment dished out to all women in this House is driven by what could only be described as misogyny.
The motion before us is an important one, on the back of the tabling of the Ombudsman’s report into matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former Commissioner of Police and another police officer.
It is not surprising this report was dropped late on a Thursday evening as parliament was concluding at the end of the estimates period, having passed the Appropriation bill, with no opportunity to debate or discuss the important findings. That is because the government and the Chief Minister are not interested in debate or answering serious questions raised about matters of integrity, police conduct and ethics, and, more broadly, about what the government can and should be doing to raise these issues and protect against future occurrences.
I acknowledge the important body of work the Ombudsman has undertaken in investigating serious allegations about police conduct. We know the serving men and women in the Northern Territory police force to be hard-working people who work on the front line day in, day out to protect Territorians and keep our families safe from harm. In recent months that job has become harder for them because they are so under resourced. The CLP election promise of an extra 120 police officers has not been realised almost three years into their term of government, and those positions are now needed more than ever because crime is spiralling out of control and people are not feeling safe on the streets or in their homes.
At lunchtime today I saw at the end of the Mall, in Raintree Park, in response to crime being out of control, an initiative launched by TIO supported by Neighbourhood Watch. It is about encouraging people in this current environment of spiralling crime to make themselves safe. There were messages about locking up belongings. This is a clear indication it is not just us and Territorians who know crime is out of control.
The allegations investigated in this report hurt and damage all those who serve in the Northern Territory Police Force. I place on the record my thanks and admiration for the work they do, and acknowledge how unfair it is that the actions of a few have no doubt tarnished our great police force’s reputation.
The CLP has failed Territorians in keeping them safe when the hard data of the government’s own crime statistics show, especially in Palmerston and Darwin, that crime is out of control, particularly with break-ins and vehicle thefts. The Attorney-General, during estimates, when I asked questions about the very important issue of domestic violence – one of the most important issues in the area of women’s policy – agreed that overall in the Territory domestic violence rates are on the rise. Yes, they are down in certain areas of the Territory, but across the Territory domestic violence is increasing.
This Ombudsman’s report also highlights the need for greater measures which can give Territorians confidence they have a government which can and should be held to account through processes with mechanisms which provide oversight and powers of investigation into matters of integrity or that have a whiff of wrongdoing, and allegations of corruption.
It is incredibly important, but we have heard the Attorney-General say we do not need this, it is not necessary. I am a bit disappointed in the Attorney-General. I know him to be a hard worker. He was a supporter in the coup in February and stood shoulder to shoulder with the member for Katherine as the then Chief Minister elect and the Attorney-General as his deputy. They were standing there side by side because they knew the CLP government is on the nose as led by the member for Braitling.
There is no doubt that independent statutory bodies like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Commissioner for Public Information Disclosures, introduced under Labor, are important in providing mechanisms for conducting investigations. However, the reality is they do not have the powers of an ICAC-style entity. This is why the Ombudsman, in his report, makes recommendations, of which there are seven in total, but Recommendation 4 is the one I see as particularly important. Recommendation 4 states:
- The NT government consider the need for, and benefits of, alternative options for reporting, investigating and seeking advice on integrity issues.
It is not surprising the CLP government will not adopt that recommendation it because it does not see a need for it
It would be really good this evening to see some members on that side of the House – you do not have to cross the floor, but you may want to take lessons from the member for Araluen and put your hand on your heart and say with all honesty you believe there needs to be an ICAC because you have seen firsthand some of the incredibly dodgy things that have happened within the ranks of your government.
- 118. … I acknowledge that anti-corruption bodies in other jurisdictions have powers to investigate the conduct of not merely police and public servants but also of members of parliament and ministers.
119. There is currently no standing independent review body in the Northern Territory with such powers. OCPID can investigate MLAs but only on a referral at the discretion of the Speaker …
120. Whether a stand-alone body should be established, or an existing body conferred with broader jurisdiction, in order to address such cases is a broader issue which is beyond the scope of this investigation
As the Leader of the Opposition said, the establishment of an ICAC is something we have already committed to in the Northern Territory. There are many compelling reasons why an anti-corruption body should be established, but it is clear that with the rule of the CLP government for almost three years, this move has become necessary.
I want to recap some of those key events – there have been many – which have necessitated the call for an ICAC, calls made not just by us, but by the Ombudsman, as well by the former CLP leader, Jodeen Carney, in her opinion piece in the newspaper over the weekend. It started from day one when the CLP came in, but things came to a head over the leadership on 3 February. This saw the CLP government and the parliamentary wing go into meltdown for a number of hours.
The leadership of the member for Braitling was challenged. Nine members of the party wing clearly did not support him, but four did. With his own vote, he was number five. It was not clear how having an overwhelming majority of nine people versus five would see that leadership tilted.
The Chief Minister that afternoon, whilst his leadership was still being challenged, held a media conference, which was broadcast nationally. I will quote some of the things he said on that day.
This was on Tuesday 3 February:
- There is no doubt the Country Liberals have been divided for many, many, many years on a range of different areas, policy and structural, and personalities … What we have seen as a result of last night is a party completely disintegrate in terms of different factions, warring factions … It is no good for stability.
…
This is at a time when there are rumours being spread about myself to try to destabilise me, spreading them through the political circles, the chattering class, through upper echelons of police force, making allegations about me in regards to that police investigation. Well the judicial inquiry will go and have a look at that and get to the bottom of some of those things.
…
The circumstances around the undermining process, spreading rumours about myself by one parliamentary member in particular and upper echelons of the police, I think is very bad and signifies a significant problem within police, hence the judicial inquiry that I have just announced we will be proceeding with.
…
The allegations that have been coming out about senior members of the police force actively running a coup or a campaign in cahoots with some alleged politicians is a significant problem. That is spreading to the point of the Police Commissioner being removed, albeit it under a cloud of allegations and also this challenge today.
He is also on the record as saying:
- I’ve got evidence that this involved an orchestrated, planned coup to get rid of the Police minister.
There were pretty interesting revelations during that episode. The serious allegations made by the Chief Minister were welcome. It was surprisingly refreshing that he committed to a judicial inquiry, the same judicial inquiry, I should add, the member for Katherine called for during his 1 am press conference the evening before, following the midnight coup where he declared himself the Chief Minister apparent.
Strangely enough, after nine party wing members said no to Adam Giles as their leader, somehow five managed to have the upper hand over those nine and a few hours after the member for Braitling’s press conference, where he had committed to a judicial inquiry due to all of these allegations, he stepped out with the member for Katherine, who previously had challenged him, to confirm that the dynamic duo would be Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister.
Differences were cheerily reconciled so then there was no need for a judicial inquiry. In the space of a few hours, the need for a judicial inquiry into incredibly serious allegations simply evaporated, and the unpopular Chief Minister backpedalled as fast as he could to distance himself from his earlier commitment. He has form in this area.
The member for Araluen probably best summed it up on Wednesday 4 February, the day after the failed coup, which for her efforts in unseating the Chief Minister saw her dumped from Cabinet. Her assessment of the Chief Minister summed up what so many people knew when she said at the time:
- There are a number of values that I hold very, very dearly: honesty, integrity and respect, and those three things I do not see in the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He lacks honesty, he lacks respect and he lacks integrity.
It is this sort of debacle and circus which has seriously undermined Territorians’ faith and trust in the government, which has miserably failed the tests of scrutiny, openness, transparency, accountability and honesty. It is not just about the Chief Minister’s allegations about police and who knew what when and exactly what the evidence is that claims he had to substantiate his allegations. It is about other matters this government has handled which are clearly on the publics’ and taxpayers’ nose.
There was the issue of water licences. Water licences were issued willy-nilly, especially if you were a friend of the CLP or even a member of the CLP, all starting with Tina MacFarlane, the CLP candidate for the seat of Lingiari in the federal. A water licence was issued to former magistrate, Peter Maley, a known donor to the CLP and strong supporter of the Attorney-General.
Despite the appeals launched into the over-allocation of water licences by any number of stakeholders from AFANT, NAILSMA, the NLC and traditional owners who were impacted by these waterways, under the act that allows stakeholders to lodge objections and ask for a review, none of these reviews were successful. It is no small wonder that the Environmental Defenders Office of the Northern Territory represented the Environment Centre Northern Territory in the Supreme Court to challenge the minister for not doing his job, around the willy-nilly issuing and over-issuing of water licences, and the case was upheld. Clearly the minister was found to be in the wrong in failing to follow proper process on a review of the allocation of these water licences.
How about the extremely dodgy Foundation 51 and what are known to be very clear links between the CLP and that organisation, their election slush fund? Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you have benefitted from Foundation 51 with a loan of – I think it was about $10 000. Even Graeme Lewis said he was a friend of yours and, trying to duck and weave around this, said it was a personal loan from him, not from Foundation 51. He said he was a good friend of yours and you said you had never met him before, but you were pleased to receive that support and have repaid that loan. It is just dodgy. You only had to click on the link to Foundation 51 and it took you straight to the CLP’s government page, with a big, smiling photo of the Chief Minister staring at you from the screen.
The member for Nelson has spoken in this debate about the appalling action of the Chief Minister in overturning a motion of this parliament during a GBD just like this to investigate political donations. In its place the Chief Minister – thinking he was clever – put in place a much watered-down version which provides us with nothing extra.
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: What about travel rorts? What about the spending of taxpayer funds, millions of dollars, on ministerial travel to destinations far and wide, with so little information available about the purpose of the travel, what was gained from it, who was going, who was flying and what class?
We only had to look at the Chief Minister in estimates with his appalling performance. By not answering questions about where money was spent he showed he has something to hide.
What about the Education minister with his junket to China? He went to China to open doors on a trip paid for by the Education department rather than the Chief Minister’s department, which is where ministerial travel should come from. By taking a trip with the Education department at its expense, he took away money intended for students.
Then there was the question he was unable to answer yesterday and today about why he flew home via Perth when principals on that trip and the CE flew directly to Darwin from Singapore. For some bizarre reason which he cannot explain, the Education minister came home via Perth. There are still questions about the Education minister’s junket to China. In the fullness of time, I am sure we will get the answers.
What about our Women’s Policy minister being unable to answer questions about her travel to New York? It does not matter that it was a trip more than a year ago, as she protested today, as if we should forget it. We have not forgotten it and neither have Territorians.
As recently as today in Question Time she completely failed to answer questions about the senior staffer who travelled with her. There are Qantas booking records which demonstrate the seat booked for her senior adviser was business class, yet FOI reveals the e-tickets were booked for economy travel.
When asked today to table those documents in parliament, she declined to do so. She suggested I request it under FOI. She was not listening; she does not get the question; she does not understand her responsibilities as a minister of the Crown and does not understand the importance of honesty, integrity and being answerable to taxpayers about how their money is spent on extravagant overseas trips.
What about the entourage of people who headed to Greece? It read like a who’s who list of mates of the CLP. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you were on the junket as well, and I believe, recruited four people from Kalymnos. I am not sure it stacks up for the amount of money spent on that trip.
Under the heading of travel rorts, we have an ex-tourism minister who, with the Chief Minister’s former Chief of Staff, had a rollicking good time in a Tokyo bar, but at 4 am called on the CE for Tourism and instructed him to pay the $5000-plus bar tab with a government provided credit card, which is completely in breach of Treasury guidelines. Yes, he did re-pay it eventually via a payroll deduction over time, but that is not the point. Anyone else in any job would have been sacked for that.
My husband is a schoolteacher. When he got news of this he said it is like me going on a professional development trip to Darwin, kicking up my heels, realising I did not have the money to pay the bar bill and at 4 am phoning Ken Davies the CE, or my principal, to say, ‘Listen, I am in a spot of bother here. Can you send me your government credit card and authorise payment of my bar bill because I do not have the money to cover it and I do not want to put it on my credit card because I do not want my wife to see what I have been doing.’
It is unthinkable. Nobody in any other job would be rescued, unless you are a CLP minister, because they will do dodgy things and bend over backwards to look after their mates. They look after their mates, but not certain women within their ranks.
Jobs for the boys – I do not think I have enough time left in this debate to list all the names of those CLP buddies from the past who, from day one when the CLP came into government, came out of the woodwork and put their hands up for jobs, not just on the fifth floor, but for key roles in various government organisations and with good salaries attached. As recently as the estimates period, we saw the senior adviser to the Health minister given the plum job of Health Commissioner. It does not matter that his appointment is on the back of being a former Health minister. That he is a political appointee and a known member of a political party filling the role of a statutory independent office is entirely inappropriate.
This litany of dubious, questionable and complete wrongdoing of this government across so many facets of their almost three years into their term is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the opposition or the independents, and is clearly not acceptable to the member for Araluen who said there is no such thing as a coincidence in politics. Tonight she has chosen to announce her resignation from the Country Liberal Party to sit on the cross benches because she knows her former colleagues and the way they operate are entirely on the nose. It is no small wonder that she joins us, as do Territorians, in calling for an ICAC-style entity.
People have had a gutful of this. The fact the government continues to resist recognising the need for a ICAC-style entity only serves to make people think this government seriously has something to hide.
I commend this motion to the House. I acknowledge the leader for bringing it forward, and the good work Mr Peter Shoyer, as Ombudsman, has done in compiling this report. He recognises the shortcomings of his powers to not be able to investigate members of parliament. I support his recommendation about the need for openness, transparency and integrity, and that the government should establish an ICAC.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member who introduced this motion. I cannot recall who it was. I do not know if it was the member for Nelson or someone else.
As I said in Question Time today, the government does not support establishing an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory for many reasons. One is that we have full faith in the institutions within the Northern Territory, including but not limited to the Ombudsman; the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosure; the Commissioner for Public Employment; the Electoral Commission, which I understand has been called into question recently – he has my full support, as does everybody within the commission – the Auditor-General; the Australian Federal Police; the Northern Territory Police Force; and every minister of government, member of parliament and member of government, that being 20 000-plus public employees. That is the first reason.
The second is the amount it would cost to run an institution similar to that. I spoke earlier today about Western Australia’s Commission costing about $30m a year – $31m and change – and more than $50m a year to run a similar commission in Queensland. We know some of the findings have been brought into question in New South Wales as a result of some of the recent court decisions so I will not talk about that.
On the basis of the $50m budget in Western Australia, we have to balance that with our expenditure across a range of government services. We have a range of additional public institutions and figures, whether it is the Auditor-General or otherwise, who we place a high degree of faith in. When you balance out what $50m could do in the Northern Territory – my colleague, the Attorney-General, mentioned many of the options – you have to be careful.
An amount of $50m could permanently employ 460 teachers. Labor is proposing the removal of such teachers, or the expenditure thereof, to support such a commission when we have a body such as the Ombudsman who has the ability to look at these types of matters. An amount of $50m could provide staffing and operational costs of five high schools, 10 middle schools or 15 primary schools in the Northern Territory; that is the level of expenditure we are talking about. Looking at the police numbers in the Northern Territory, fewer than 1500, $50m is 290 police officers and their salaries.
It is quite a large amount of money to do this. The employment of 300 medical officers or 450 nurses, 50 hospital beds and 290 child protection workers - that is the level of expenditure we are talking about. When I see the operation of things like the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner – the recent work they have done is a good example – what the Ombudsman does - they are all institutions we have legitimately backed and should continue to do so.
For $50m you could get 70 km or 80 km of rural arterial roads, or 75 km of secondary roads, which is a very important investment in the Northern Territory. That is not to say that looking at matters of integrity and transparency are not important, but when you have these institutions and figures in place to manage the oversight of such matters, we should be backing them and not funding duplicated bodies.
I know Labor members have a policy of supporting an ICAC-style body. It suits them politically because they are not in government, so it is easy to call for that. They did not introduce an ICAC-style body when they were in government. They relied on the public institutions there now. They do not have a policy on perjury and are quite happy to support one of their own in a similar setting.
If there was such a body in the Northern Territory, one of the first things we would do is refer the members for Karama and Barkly. But there is no such body because there is a process, the process that is now being undertaken by the Privileges Committee, which is the right and just process we should be following. It has not featured during these parliamentary sittings. It will probably feature during the next parliamentary sittings for further debate. These are the processes set up within government and we fully back them.
The member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General, spoke about the very close nature of the Northern Territory - a small population - and how comments get around very easily, whether or not those comments are correct. These become rumour mills. Nearly every day that I deal with the media I am responding to a rumour that it is never substantiated.
The nature of the questions in Question Time today - the member for Nhulunbuy asked a question along the lines of, ‘Did her chief of staff sit next to her on a plane and did he fly business class?’ I have no idea what that question is about, or where he sat on the plane. We sat here in bewilderment wondering what that was all about because it is obviously some sort of rumour. I can inform this Assembly, after speaking with the minister, that he did fly business class. I am not sure what seat number it was, but he sat next to the minister on the plane.
This is just a very simple but prime example of how we respond to rumours on an everyday basis. I am sure tomorrow I will be asked about where the chief of staff sat on a plane. I am amazed about this chasing of rats up drain pipes that do not seem to be there - or rumours of this nature.
There is the process of estimates where questions can be asked. I said in estimates, and I have said since, that I thought Labor’s performance in estimates was deplorable. Information we provide every year, and Labor would provide to us in opposition - those questions were not even asked this year. Whether it is about travel or a range of other areas, estimates is one of the processes where you hold expenditure to account, through appropriation bills and so forth, but it was not done. That is the mechanism that can be utilised for accountability and transparency.
You may be a new Opposition Leader and inexperienced, but surely you have the ability to call on some wise heads to assist you.
I do not need to go through every step of the way of whether that is the Privileges Committee, the PAC, estimates, the Ombudsman, the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner, the Auditor-General, the general public, the media, the committee stage approach in parliament or the court of public opinion, which in the Northern Territory is quite often the pub. All of these bodies provide good oversight for the Territory.
When it comes down to balancing that level of oversight versus expenditure of up to $50m on a commission, I say we run with the level of oversight we have and continue to employ the 460 teachers; the 290 child protection workers; fund the five high schools, 10 middle schools or 15 primary schools; and those 290 police; that we continue listening to the community and being held to account as government, opposition and as Independents. We must also continue to provide our current level of transparency and accuracy.
On a final note, today in Question Time, questions about changes to the travel policy in the Northern Territory showed how looking at issues can lead to change, better processes and accountability. As I said in Question Time, when we came into government about $30m was spent on travel services each year in the Northern Territory by government at local travel agents. This was done without a value-for-money test, two or three quotes for travel, scrutiny for reconciliation or transparency about why one travel agent was being picked over another. This resulted in some travel agents being big winners and others not.
We brought about a new process, announced some time ago, for corporate travel, to see 100% corporate travel by 1 July, and a further process on corporate travel being advertised in September this year for commencement on 1 January next year. That is about following the processes of good government, and good parliamentary processes, adhering to issues and concerns, and improving processes.
We identified that in government ourselves. We have been running on a steady path going forward. If we were to bring in an ICAC, one of the things we may look at would be travel expenditure when Labor was in government, when approximately $30m was spent and there was not a clear process about how that money was expended. That resulted in a lot of money being expended and a lack of investment in government services.
There are some elements of the motion that could be supported, such as supporting the commissioner, the reports and noting the information, but we will not be supporting the elements setting up an independent commission, because we have faith in the institutions and processes we have now.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition in this very important motion he has brought before the House to note the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report, and to support the creation of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory, because it is needed. There is no doubt about that.
Tonight we have seen some remarkable scenes in this parliament, with the member for Araluen deciding to leave the Country Liberals and sit on the cross benches. I listened very carefully to what she said. Again she has proven she is a person of integrity and incredibly brave. I watched her for many years when she was in opposition, and I saw she is not a weak woman. She is a very tough and strong woman, and somebody who has always stood her ground and spoken her mind. She conducted herself that way in government, as well.
Hearing some of the reasons she feels she can no longer sit with the government, and has to move to the cross benches, makes you wonder what on earth goes on behind closed doors up on the fifth floor. To hear she felt the CLP had been taken over by a dark, unpleasant, amoral cabal and that they have had three years of hate, discord and lies was quite striking. They were very powerful words. It shows what is happening in this government behind closed doors can spill out into the public view for everybody to see.
We have seen it in the media; and heard some fairly serious allegations here in parliament. There is no doubt, particularly after the night of the failed attempt to overthrow the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, that there are some very serious divisions still running in the government.
When nine of your colleagues say they do not want you as leader and yet you stay and hold them to ransom, it shows there are some big problems. I cannot imagine what it is like to work in that type of environment where there is such division, dislike, bullying and threats.
To try to run the Northern Territory in a work environment like that – this is what Territorians are having to put up with. It is little wonder people continue to say this is the worst government and Chief Minister they have ever seen, and they want to see things change.
Here we are today – because of the performance of this government in the last three years – at a point where we, as the opposition, as well as the member of Araluen and other members, say there is little choice but to see the establishment of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. It is simply time.
Referring to the findings of the Ombudsman’s latest report into the matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by a former police commissioner and another police officer, we note the recommendations of this report and the findings around serious matters raised with a great deal of public attention. We acknowledge and commend the work of the new Commissioner of Police for the action he has taken to establish a special reference unit, and note his response to the Ombudsman’s report.
There is no doubt this has been a difficult period for police, but we see the new Police Commissioner and his senior officers – and all members of the police force – are committed to tackling serious allegations about government travel and conduct.
The police do an amazing job in the Territory. They are proud of the profession they work in, and know the importance of integrity in that role. I sympathise with the police officers who feel their integrity has been put into question. I have faith, though, that the police are doing everything they can to work through these issues. They want to get on with the business of doing their job as sworn police officers of the Northern Territory – to serve and protect. I acknowledge they have been under a lot of scrutiny and pressure of late with these serious allegations and events.
We have seen in recent times a period of troubling allegations around conduct. It goes back to the announcement in November last year, when it became apparent that a local travel agent was being investigated by police for allegations surrounding the misuse of the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. In January the former Police Commissioner was stood down by the member for Brennan while the Chief Minister was away. This was soon followed by the former Police Commissioner resigning. We also saw police launch an investigation into police, and the Northern Territory police have had to engage police from outside the Northern Territory, given the close relationships within a small police force which comes with living in a small jurisdiction.
There was also an investigation launched by the Information Commissioner. We also saw the need for the Information Commissioner to seek external assistance for the investigations due to known relationships with some of the parties in question and conflicts of interest.
It was already a remarkable situation due to the serious nature of the allegations. A police commissioner was stood down then resigned. We then had multiple investigations under way into the same matters, which presented clear conflicts due to relationships because of the small size of the Northern Territory and the fact we had serious questions over senior levels of police, and other senior positions around the Northern Territory.
It was also clear there was a need for a truly independent inquiry into matters as the areas investigated were murky, and there appeared to be conflicts and known relationships, making it difficult for this to occur.
It appeared the Chief Minister understood this too, as he raised serious concerns over questions about him. I do not think anyone will soon forget the now infamous day in Territory history when the Chief Minister refused to stand aside so the member for Katherine could take over because nine of his colleagues told him they had lost confidence in him. In a defiant media conference he dug in to tell his nine colleagues he would not stand aside as Chief Minister. He also made some very serious statements to the media. These included announcing that, as Chief Minister, he was establishing a judicial inquiry into questions about the former Police Commissioner, John McRoberts.
The Chief Minister raised serious concerns he had about conduct at the time. I quote:
- There have been a series of allegations and rumours made today, particularly in relation to some senior police and members of the political fraternity on the Country Liberal Party side … There are rumours being spread about myself to destabilise me, spreading them through the political circles, the chattering class, the upper echelons of the police force, making allegations about me in regard to that police investigation …
The circumstances around the undermining process, spreading rumours about myself by one parliamentary member in particular and upper echelons of police, I think is very bad and signifies a significant problem within police, hence the judicial inquiry I just announced we will be proceeding with.
…
The allegations that have been coming out about senior members of the police force actively running a coup or a campaign in cahoots with some alleged politicians is a significant problem.
Following these remarkable events and serious allegations the Chief Minister called off the judicial inquiry he called for on the day he wanted to save his job.
We are still nowhere near getting the answers Territorians want about travel and what has happened here. Now more questions have arisen, especially how the Chief Minister failed to answer very basic questions about travel at estimates. It seemed to be another act to bury the details of government travel.
I stress that the question about government travel is a question every opposition puts to Chief Ministers every year at estimates. It is never a surprise question. It was a question the Country Liberals, when they were in opposition, asked the Labor government. It is an area the Department of the Chief Minister prepares for every year going into estimates. They go through travel and make sure it is outlined for every minister. It was a question the opposition gave the government prior notice of coming into estimates, so there were no surprises.
The only surprise on the day was the Chief Minister’s response when he was asked the question, and then refused to table the information on hand, to the point where they had to put the question on notice and drag it out for another two months, not even within the specified time of estimates. It is now going into July. That is a significant amount of time for the opposition and the public to wait to see this information.
They are making us wait a hell of a lot longer for an answer to a question the government knew was coming, had prior notice of and is asked every year. It is a stock standard question. Opposition parties ask governments how much their ministers have been travelling, where they have been travelling to, and what it has cost the taxpayer. We want to ensure they are getting value for money.
When we see that type of behaviour, we ask some very serious questions. The government is failing to answer those questions on travel. It is little wonder we are left with no other position than to stress that it is time for an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory.
People simply want to get to the bottom to find out what the facts are, because government is failing to provide answers to Territorians. It is not that we do not have faith in our public officials; we have some incredibly hard-working, fantastic public officials. We have an Ombudsman’s report which had a great deal of hard work put into it. We have very hard-working and dedicated police doing their job as professionally as they can. We have an Information Commissioner, an organisation doing investigations and what not. We now have the Department of the Chief Minister conducting other investigations into police.
Very serious allegations have been made about the former Commissioner of Police. The Chief Minister asked serious questions about conduct and multiple reports and investigations have been written and carried out. With some of those investigations we have seen constraints these investigating officers have faced while trying to get the answers.
The Northern Territory is a very small jurisdiction. If you are a senior public servant, it is very likely you know many other senior public servants and police, and have had to deal with members of parliament often. To have a truly independent look into these serious allegations and the questions hanging over senior parts of the government, you need a body which is able to independently do that, so Territorians can have faith in what is happening. In the Ombudsman’s Report there are specific references to independent commissions against corruption.
Within the report, which the government swiftly moved through this parliament on the last day of estimates - and I welcome that the Leader of the Opposition has bought it back so we can debate it further - there are several important recommendations and options for reporting. I note Recommendation 4, which says:
- The NT government consider the need for, and benefits of, alternative options for reporting, investigating and seeking advice on integrity issues.
Later in the report the Ombudsman writes in point 111:
- One possible option is establishment of an anti-corruption commission. Standing commissions of this nature exist in other Australian jurisdictions under various guises, for example, the Independent Commission against Corruption in New South Wales, the Independent Commission against Corruption in South Australia, the Crime and Corruption Commission in Queensland, the Corruption and Crime Commission in Western Australia, and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in Victoria.
We heard government members state that this body would cost between $30 to $50m. That is ridiculous. We have made very clear our commitment to Labor delivering an ICAC body in the Northern Territory, and one with the right model for here. To put it into perspective about what the government is trying to argue about the size and cost of an ICAC, they keep referring to Queensland and Western Australian. Queensland has a $50m ICAC, but you are looking at a population of 4.7 million people. Western Australia, with $30m for an ICAC, is a jurisdiction with a population of 2.5 million people. The Northern Territory is a much smaller place, so that is a ridiculous argument to run. It is trying to spin away from the fact that an ICAC is needed in the current environment. What we have seen further supports the vital reasons for an ICAC.
Beyond the travel concerns, there are other concerns people want investigated. People want water licences and political donations investigated, especially when in this Chamber the member for Nelson succeeded in getting an inquiry into political donations agreed to on a General Business Day, yet the government quashed it. They stopped it from happening in a spectacular form. The member for Nelson kept saying he felt as if he had been led up the garden path. It makes you wonder what on earth they are hiding, especially when such serious allegations about Foundation 51 have been passed on to police.
There are grave concerns about the integrity, accountability and conduct of this government. It is time for an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory. I support the Leader of the Opposition proposing this important motion. My colleagues and I stand united to found an ICAC-style body in the Northern Territory because there are serious questions that remain unanswered. It is time, it is needed, and Territorians want it because they want to have trust and faith restored in their government. At the moment that is completely eroded. People do not trust this government because of its conduct.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Lee Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Higgins
Ms Manison Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Moss Mrs Price
Mr Vowles Mr Styles
Ms Walker Mr Tollner
Mr Wood Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Cash for Containers Program
Cash for Containers Program
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly calls on the government to report on:
any plans it has to increase the participation rate of the Cash for Containers program
any plans it has to expand the number of Cash for Container depots in the Northern Territory
any negotiations it has had with the South Australian government to expand the type of containers covered by the scheme
any negotiations it has had with the New South Wales government, which intends to introduce a cash for containers scheme in 2017
any negotiations with the Queensland government, which promised to introduce a cash for containers scheme during the recent election
any plans to widen the scope of the scheme to cover other items such as chemical containers.
After the previous debate, this will be light weight, but it was always meant to be. The Cash for Containers scheme in the Northern Territory is an issue that has a fairly volatile history. It goes back at least 20 years.
I was on the Territory Anti-Litter Committee, which was called TALC. It was funded by the beverage industry. Part of the unwritten deal was that the Territory government would not introduce cash for containers schemes in the Northern Territory as long as they kept taking the money from the beverage industry.
That is what the government did. I would turn up for Territory Anti-Litter Committee meetings and I was not allowed to discuss cash for containers. We painted plenty of rubbish bins and did all sorts of things with that money, but we never got anywhere.
Lorna Woods was the champion pushing for Cash for Containers. She worked for Keep Australia Beautiful, which was not like some of the Keep Australia Beautiful organisations down south; it was not beholden to the beverage industry.
It was a long, hard haul and some of the issues we had introducing Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory are exactly what the New South Wales government had to put up with. There were threats, phone calls and claims the world would come apart if we had a cash for containers scheme.
We know from the history of Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory how difficult it is to introduce. I had people visiting me, wanting to talk to me about it. Other members of parliament would have had people from the beverage industry talking about it, trying to convince them it should not go ahead. The ultimate was when the beverage industry took the Northern Territory government to court to stop it. So it has been a long hard haul to get something I believe is important for the Northern Territory.
It has worked well in South Australia for many years. The South Australian model is not the same as the process we followed in the Northern Territory. We have led the way in breaking away from just one state having a cash for containers scheme. Now New South Wales is joining up and will introduce the scheme in 2017. Other states are taking about it, but I will get to that later.
I will go through the motion as it is. The Assembly is calling on the government to report on any plans it has to increase the participation rate. I will provide some numbers to give people an indication of how it has been increasing, even with its ups and downs. You will remember there was a court case and the government had to fund the scheme while that was ongoing. Even through all of that, when there were some doubts about the scheme’s viability, it has survived. The main products we recycle are aluminium; PET; HTPE, the various forms of plastic; glass; LPB, which is liquid paper, such as iced coffee cartons; and there are other containers.
In 2012 the average return rate to the CDS coordinators was around 28.6%. Aluminium, which is usually the most popular, was 30.8% in the first quarter of 2012, just when the scheme started. In the period July 2012 to June 2013, in that first year, returns for aluminium - 55% of cans sold were returned, PET 39%, HTPE 16%, glass 44% and liquid paper up to 28%.
Already you can see the scheme was catching on. The average then went from 28.6% in the first quarter of 2012 to 46% at the end of the financial year 2012-13. In the annual report for 2013-14, aluminium was steady at 55%, PET 29%, HTPE dropped a little to 49%, glass was 39% and LPB 24%. From memory, that was the time some of the companies took the Territory to court so there was a drop. The average participation rate was about 41%.
For the last quarter of 2014, which are the latest figures I have been able to get – I e-mailed the minister’s office today and they said the first quarter for this year will not be out until the end of June. I do not have the latest figures – it is still going up. Aluminium was 65%, PET 33.17%, HTPE 26%, glass 59%, and LPB 59.57%, an average from the previous year of 41% up to 53.85%.
I am comparing this with, to give an indication of why we have to keep the momentum going, the return rates in South Australia for 2013-14. in that financial year for us aluminium was a 65% return rate, in South Australia it was 84.3%; PET 33.17% in the Territory and in South Australia 70.5%; HTPE 26.43% in the Territory and in South Australia 56.4%; Glass in the Northern Territory 59.63% and in South Australia 84.3%. Liquid paper in the Northern Territory is 59.57%, nearly the same as South Australia, with liquid paper at 61.9%. Compared to South Australia we are down 19.2% on aluminium, 26% on PET, 30% on HTPE, 25% on glass, and the one we are closest to was the iced coffee cartons; we are 2% less than the South Australian return rates. People are picking up on the idea that liquid paper is quite a valuable product. You get money back for it, and you put it into recycling so it can be used for other products.
I ask the government, how can we increase the overall number of returns? Has the government looked at working with industry to expand the number of depots? In 2012 we had eight coordinators and now we have 10. We have increased the number.
When we first started off we had quite a few depots. Envirobank was the biggest at the time, which is at Pinelands. It also had depots at Katherine, Milingimbi and Parap. I am not sure where the mobile depot service was. I know it had one that could be taken around the place; I think it was at the Darwin Shoal Bay tip. There was one destined for Howard Springs and one for Charles Darwin University.
Veolia set up at Palmerston Shopping Centre. It had mobile depots at Karama, Berrimah, and Alice Springs. Nightcliff Shopping Centre had Revive Recycling, and Aputula set up a recycling depot. A company called NTRS Recycling set up at Yarrawonga, Berrimah and Shoal Bay; Bagnall Agencies at Elliott; MT Bins at Katherine; Territory Can Man at Winnellie, and Metal Traders in Tennant Creek.
There were quite a few other approvals given, even as far out as Mataranka, Kakadu, Nhulunbuy, Wagait Beach and Adelaide River. Unfortunately some of those did not come into existence. Then as things settled down we had changes even in Tennant Creek; Barkly Metal Traders was the company that continued there.
Merlyn Pty Ltd which was trading as Bagnall Agencies in Elliott, MT Bins in Katherine, Envirobank in Pinelands, Veolia in Berrimah, Aputula in Alice Springs, and Envirobank had some machines that you could put cans and, in some cases, bottles in. It depended on the machine. We also had the Can Man at Winnellie and NT Recycling.
There was a range of people staying in the business. Unfortunately at that time there was insecurity in the industry because of the Coca Cola issues, or the beverage industry taking the Territory to court. In some places they even closed down for a while as that was going on.
In 2013-14 most people continued. There was a new company in Tennant Creek, Darrin’s Rubbish Removal. It was probably in competition with the Barkly Metal Traders.
Mr McCarthy: Not anymore.
Mr WOOD: Not anymore; that is right. MT Bins still continued in Katherine. Envirobank started to thin out a bit. It has a depot in Alice Springs and one in Pinelands. The company in Alice Springs originally, which was under Veolia, gave it away.
There were problems with not enough money being in the system to pay for the handling fee. That was one of the big issues right at the beginning. That caused some people to pull the pin on the whole thing. They still had the reverse vending machine at Charles Darwin University and Milingimbi. There was one at Wagait Beach, Parap and Nightcliff, so it was going on steadily.
Now, in 2015, we have 10. We have two at Berrimah. Bevcon Recycling – I was there the other day – is a new company that has started and is very keen to promote its business. NT Recycling Solutions, which has been with us from the beginning pulled out. The ex-minister might remember the handling fee was the problem. They found it very difficult to make money with such a low handling fee. One of the difficulties was negotiating handling fees with the big companies. They were not interested in the whole thing operating, so why would they care whether the handling fee was good enough?
After the number of approaches by the beverage industry, saying, ‘Oh it will cost a fortune; it is terrible’, do you hear any complaints about the price of beverages today? No. They are about the same price as anywhere else. In South Australia those so-called price increases were easily covered by the amount of money the beverage industry has recovered from the non-returned product.
Envirobank at Pinelands has been the biggest one for most people; Charles Darwin University still has, I presume, a reverse vending machine; Winnellie has the Territory Can Man; Katherine has MT Bins; Elliott has Bagnell Agencies; Tennant Creek has Darren’s Rubbish Removal; Alice Springs has Envirobank Recycling and Milingimbi I think – I was struggling to get information – has a reverse vending machine.
Finke and Aputula have gone, which is sad. I am interested in whether the minister knows why they were not able to continue. They were one of the first ones up and running. They were keen to do it. There is a new player in the Darwin area called Bevcon and Northern Territory Recycling Solutions has come back to open for the public.
In my area there is a desperate need for some sort of depot. Could we get one of the existing companies to have a mobile depot? At transfer stations in the rural area – there are 20 000 people living in the rural area – you only have to look in some of those big bins to see how many cans and bottles are still thrown out because people cannot be bothered taking them to Pinelands. There is an opportunity for the government to have some positive discussions with these companies.
It is not just for the rural area. Milingimbi is the only remote community still operating some form of Cash for Containers machines. What is the government doing to get this into remote communities? One of the reasons we were pushing for Cash for Containers was to help clean up the rubbish in these communities. Quite a few communities are dirty and have rubbish all over the place. Quite a few are good, no doubt about it. It just depends where you are. One way to clean up some of them was to put a value on containers left lying around.
It also had a social benefit. Young kids knew that if they picked up 10 bottles they got a dollar. You started to give them entrepreneurial skills they might not have known they had. Could we get this out to at least some of the bigger communities? What about Nhulunbuy, Maningrida, Wadeye, Daly River, Yuendumu and Hermannsburg? Could we get the stores to become depots where people can get their money back, and then the store delivers containers to the recycling company, even if the return rate out bush was 5c, and the store collected the other 5c? Are there ways we could encourage more recycling in remote communities?
Some remote communities do not have full-year access by road. There was a lot of discussion earlier in this debate that companies like Perkins, which is not with us anymore, would deliver product back to Darwin for free, as backload. Many stores have a truck which comes out to their community to deliver stores. Why can some of these materials not be sent back on those empty trucks?
We must not just say we are doing all right. We need to look at what has happened in the past and see whether we can get up to the rates South Australia has. I am interested to know if the government is being proactive in that area.
We need to remember why the Northern Territory supports Cash for Containers. In South Australia it began as a litter program. Here we always pushed for three important concerns we had about rubbish: litter; landfill; and recycling. They were the three benefits from Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory. It was not just a single issue like litter. The beverage industry used to rubbish it – pardon the pun – because it was only about litter. It was never just about litter; it had other benefits. As I said, in the case of not only some of these communities – how many schools have can trailers? I have a list. I think nearly every school in the Northern Territory has a can trailer and they earn money from that.
How many sporting groups raise money through collecting cans? The Scouts collect cans. For small sporting clubs, this is a way of getting money for new equipment. So it has other benefits besides reduced rubbish landfill. It has social and community benefits.
I looked at containers while I was in Canada. Packaging had the message, ‘Collect the deposit where appropriate’. I have not had a chance to see which provinces or territories in Canada have a deposit scheme, but some do. It is not something that only the Northern Territory has.
I asked whether there have been negotiations with the South Australian government to expand the type of containers covered by the scheme. For me the one annoying thing is we discriminate between the type of containers you can collect money from.
You cannot get returns from wine bottles, milk, or pure fruit juice unless the size of the container is under one litre. For spirits you cannot get anything. An enormous amount of milk is drunk in the Territory, yet you can have a 600ml carton of milk made out of the same product as a 600ml carton of iced coffee, and one has a deposit and one does not. You can have a 2L container of fruit juice drink and you will get a deposit. If you have a 2L container of pure fruit juice, you do not get a deposit.
Why is wine not permitted to have a 10c deposit? What is wrong with putting 10 cents on the bottom of the label? I do not think it will spoil the look of the front. Everything else is on the label at the back: what is in the product, where it was made, the dangers for pregnant women drinking alcohol. I am sure the label at the back will not be ruined by having ‘10c deposit’ on it. I wonder whether some industries had more sway when the South Australian government did not allow wine bottles to have a 10c deposit on them.
Now that New South Wales is looking at this, it is an appropriate time for our government to be talking to the South Australian government and asking if we expand the number of beverage containers to make it better.
People must be getting confused. I take my milk bottles to the recycling depot. I will not get anything for them, but what is the difference between that and a carton of milk or iced coffee? Why do I have to separate them, because one does not have a deposit and the other does?
I think those things that were brought from the South Australian system – there were reasons South Australia did not take on some of these issues. One was because they looked at a beverage as something that was thrown away, so they did not expect a 2L bottle of juice or a large bottle of milk to be thrown out the window.
There was also pressure from certain industry groups that did not want, for instance, milk to have a deposit on it. The word I heard when I was in South Australia – I went there a couple of times to look at the system before we had it here – was that they were worried 10c extra cost on the container would break the family budget. Yet we all know you can get the 10c back. So there are historical reasons, but it would be interesting to see whether our government is taking a proactive approach in doing something about it.
The other question is, have there been any negotiations with the New South Wales government? I will read from a press release in the Sydney Morning Herald on February 21 this year:
- New South Wales residents will be rewarded for collecting and returning bottles and cans to hundreds of reverse vending machines across NSW from July 2017, Premier Mike Baird will announce on Saturday. The container deposit scheme is likely to generate $65m a year for charities, schools and sporting groups, the Total Environment Centre projects.
Environment minister Rob Stokes said it was a ‘historic decision’ to move ahead with a scheme that has been put into the ‘too hard basket’ by successive governments.
‘This is about creating an incentive to deal with our litter problem, and empowering people to do something about it, when so many environmental problems can seem disempowering’, said Mr Stokes.
Polling shows 90% support among New South Wales consumers for such a scheme. But Mr Baird had stared down fierce resistance from the beverage industry which Fairfax Media revealed earlier this month had colluded in a fierce campaign against a container deposit policy.
Rival executives from Lion Nathan, Coca-Cola and Carlton and United Breweries held conference calls, shared e-mails and reported back on meetings with federal and state politicians, while the beverages council threatened attack advertising during the election, after Mr Stokes took the proposal to Cabinet in December.
Does it sound familiar?
- The Boomerang Alliance national convenor, Jeff Angel, said the decision by the Baird government to proceed, made by Cabinet on Monday, was ‘groundbreaking’, because the recycling scheme had been debated for more than a decade. The alliance represents 30 environmental groups.
Queensland is likely to follow NSW, with the new Labor government in Queensland promising support for a national container deposit scheme or a state level scheme at last month’s election’, he said. The design of the NSW scheme will be finalised in 2016, after a community and industry consultation. The government favoured a small financial incentive for each container returned, but said it was open to other ideas. Mr Stokes said the scheme would complement, not compete with, kerbside recycling.
Mr Angel said the 2017 start date was reasonable. ‘The decision will take about two years to implement through consultation, design, passage of law and installation of infrastructure’, he said. Mr Stokes said people hate litter and the experience in South Australia and the Northern Territory had shown container deposit schemes worked, and could create lifelong habits among young people. ‘There is a lot of passion and support for container deposits. People remember the opportunity they had to make pocket money when they were kids’, he said.
The Baird government will need to obtain an exemption from Commonwealth law, as the Northern Territory has done, to protect the container deposit scheme from legal challenge by the beverages companies.
Coogee Liberal MP Bruce Notley-Smith, who created an online petition last year in favour of the scheme, said the government had listened to strong community concern about litter.
There is also a private member’s bill being introduced in relation to this, but I thought this was the opportunity for our government to be proactive in meeting with and talking to New South Wales. One of the problems we will have, especially if we think we should have a national scheme, is if we all start to do our own thing. The Territory took the lead and made sure we were compatible with South Australia. New South Wales backs on to South Australia. In fact, I think Broken Hill is included in the South Australian cash for container scheme.
It would be good if a minister from South Australia and a minister from the Northern Territory made a combined effort to talk to New South Wales to make sure whatever process they develop is compatible with the Northern Territory’s. Otherwise we will have the problem of cans being refundable in New South Wales but not in South Australia and the Northern Territory. We have a scheme in this part of the world where containers can be interchanged between South Australia and the Northern Territory, and we use a deposit on exactly the same products.
Queensland was mentioned in the media release. I looked up the promises the new government made before the last election. Promise 5.101 was:
- Labor will actively pursue model legislation across all states that establishes a national container deposit scheme, and investigate the establishment of a state-based container deposit scheme.
There is an opportunity for our government to talk to the Queensland government and say, ‘What are you intending to do? You back on to New South Wales, New South Wales backs on to South Australia and we back on to Queensland. We need to make sure the schemes are compatible otherwise we will end up with a disaster.’
The last point of the motion was: are there any plans to widen the scope of the scheme to cover chemical containers? I know we have drumMUSTER. I was talking to Greg Owens from NT Farmers today. DrumMUSTER is a successful program, except people pay a deposit, but they still have to get the product back themselves. I was talking about the possibility – this would have to be in negotiation with public governments – to include liquid soap containers, jam jars and that sort of thing. We have a lot of plastic for fruit, so you will see SPC or Goulburn Valley products in HTPE, the same product you get your milk in. Could we look at domestic chemical products? They end up in the tip, where we do not want them to be, or they will end up on a shelf when they should be recycled. There are opportunities to use the concept of container deposits even for things like tyres.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: There was a big clean-up campaign across the Nullarbor Plain, and one of the ideas to get some money from picking up old cars was to have a deposit on a new car. It might not be very much, but it would go into a fund that enabled old wrecks by the side of the road to be picked up and removed.
I saw an interesting ad on TV. People could take old cars they had sitting around to auctions and raise money for charity. People had vehicles sitting in their back yards which were no good and would never be fixed; they were just a good place for chooks to lay eggs. They could take them to auctions, get a few dollars for them and give them to charity. That was a good idea. It is not quite the same as cash for containers, but it is trying to recycle products and remove them from being a nuisance.
Minister, I not am expecting you to say the government will go down this path, but I believe the concept of cash for containers has the ability to work for other products. It is not simply beverage containers that end up in our landfill, lots of other products do too. You only have go to a supermarket and a look at what is on the shelves to see the number of plastic containers – anything from shampoos to lotions, all sorts of things you would hope could go back into a recycling system.
There are opportunities for our government to be on the front foot with getting more depots into remote communities, especially those communities which will benefit greatly by having a recycling system. Even if it means we have to work with the stores - after all, most of these products go to stores then get spread across the ground or thrown into landfill.
Surely if we are proactive we can work with stores and try to get a lot of these products back into the main centres. The depots are right up and down the track, so you would think that whether it was Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Darwin there would be a place in each one of those centres that could take those products. That is where we need to be more proactive.
As I said, try to work the South Australia government to add more products. Cover those items that have not been covered, like milk and wine. That would be good. I raise this issue with you knowing you might say it is not overly controversial, but General Business Days give us an opportunity to debate something. I say ‘debate’ in a friendly manner, not meaning it in an aggressive way.
It allows people to put forward ideas about how they think certain programs might be done better, and to get information from government as to which way they are going and whether they think some of those ideas are good. I will be happy to hear what other speakers have to say on this.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. When I first looked at the motion I tried to collect as much information as I could. Where I do not answer questions you added during your speech, I might try to answer those later.
When I was a kid we used to get all the soft drink bottles. There are probably three of us here tonight who can remember getting money back when we took bottles back. I also remember dad taking the long-neck beer bottles to the local Scouts. Much of that went by the wayside. We had steel cans for beer and they rusted away in the ground. The aluminium cans, when I first came to the Territory, replaced all the glass bottles. I do not think we do as much recycling of bottles; all the glass is crushed. Years ago they were just washed out, which is a different story, talking about iodine and the intelligence of people. That aside, I will work through this and hopefully I can piece a few bits together and help out a little.
The participation rate and resulting returns we have been getting have been gradually increasing since the scheme commenced in 2012. The member for Nelson has been through some of those figures. From the commencement of the scheme in January 2012 through to December 2014, a return rate of 42.86% was achieved. That represents the total percentage of container numbers returned to the CDS coordinators in relation to the number of containers sold in the Territory.
The quarterly return rates for the financial periods are as follows. I apologise to the member. We sent an e-mail saying that figures were not available, but there are figures for the July to September 2014 and October to December 2014. They are 50.03% and 53.65% ...
Mr Wood: I quoted those, yes.
Mr HIGGINS: In your speech you went up to the end of June 2014. The percentages were 42% at the beginning of 2012 up to 46%, but dropped to 36% in July 2013, and up to 48% at the end of June 2014. At the beginning of July 2014 it was 50.3% and at the end of December it was 53.65%. Those are the latest figures. We will not have any more figures until the end of June.
The other thing that has occurred since the introduction of the scheme is the number of collection depots that are currently open. There are five in Darwin, which includes one reverse vending machine; one in Katherine; one in Elliott; one in Tennant Creek; one in Alice Springs; and a reverse vending machine at Milingimbi.
The Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 was assented to on 2 June 2014. The majority of the amended act commenced on 30 June. The amended act created new requirements under the CDS to increase the ability for enforcement of the act, ensured collection depots are open to the public, ensured all CDS participants establish their own contractual arrangements and reduced the number of categories that containers are split into at the collection depot level. These amendments are being implemented over an 18-month period following the commencement of the act.
Once the final changes to the legislative reforms are complete, it is expected the simplified operating rules for collection depots will result in an increased number of depots across the Northern Territory, including in remote areas. It is hoped the changes will be fully implemented by October/November 2015.
Through the intergovernmental arrangement with the South Australian government, regular discussions on the two schemes take place. That agreement between South Australia and the Northern Territory was signed in December 2011 to promote uniformity between container deposit schemes being operated in the two jurisdictions. It includes requirements for common refund marketing text on labels and consistency in regulated containers. Since the commencement of the container deposit scheme (CDS) in the Northern Territory, representatives of the NT EPA and the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority have participated in regular meetings to progress the objectives of the intergovernmental agreement.
In February 2014 the NT EPA engaged Rawtec Pty Ltd to undertake a review of the containers regulated under the NT CDS. The review found the NT CDS covers the majority of beverage containers seen in the litter stream. The review recommended against regulating additional containers under the scheme at present, to maintain consistency with the intergovernmental agreement.
The review noted that if changes to the regulated containers were contemplated in the future, glass, wine and spirit containers, and larger juice and flavoured milk containers, should be considered. A copy of that report is available on the NT EPA’s website. If other jurisdictions intend to develop additional container deposit schemes, it would be expected both South Australia and the Northern Territory would instigate discussions to allow compatibility with those schemes. The NT EPA is implementing changes to the CDS in accordance with the legislative amendments undertaken in 2014.
I will read a couple of things from the executive summary of that report, even though it is available on the NT EPA’s site:
- … Once the scheme matures, it could achieve return rates of up to 80% and capture between 50 and 60 million containers each year for resource recovery in the NT.
- An additional 15-20 million containers could potentially be captured by expanding the NT CDS to include (all) currently exempt (or non CDS) containers.
- o This could potentially increase diversion of waste from landfill disposal to resource recovery in the NT by up to 3000 tonnes per year.
- o It should also contribute to a further reduction in container littering rates.
- If such a change were to be contemplated, we recommend that the following exempt containers are initially considered for addition to the NT CDS:
- o Glass, wine and spirit bottles
And the larger juice containers which I mentioned before.
The report provides more detail on the sort of things that should be considered.
Given that the containers covered across both schemes – South Australia and the Northern Territory – address one of the key objectives of litter reduction for containers drunk away from the home, at this stage there is no proposal to increase the type of containers in the scheme until we have fully implemented the changes.
No discussions have been held to date with the New South Wales government regarding the introduction of a container deposit scheme there. Recent discussions have focused on extending the Australian Packaging Covenant, of which the NT is not currently a signatory.
No discussions have been held to date with the Queensland government regarding the introduction of CDS in Queensland. Again, recent discussions focused on extending the Australian Packaging Covenant.
At this stage there are no plans to widen the scope of the scheme to other items such as chemical containers. I have a note here about drumMUSTER. I have had some experience with that, and while in some ways it works quite well, you pay a deposit when you get containers, and they occasionally come to the Territory and have collection points. You have to take them there and you do not get any money back.
I thought I would get my money back so I collected heaps and I went there and I did not get my money back. When you buy containers with chemicals, you pay the money for drumMUSTER – there is a round symbol on them – but it is not a deposit; it pays for the running of the scheme.
The current focus is on implementing the legislative reforms to improve the outcomes across beverage container recovery, public access and expansion of the scheme. The NT Environment Protection Authority continues to liaise with jurisdictional counterparts and industry representatives in relation to a range of product stewardship collection systems nationally, covering such things as TVs, computers, batteries, and tyres.
Discussions with operators have taken place in the past and contact details of existing CDS depot operators provided. Discussions could take place about whether CDS depots would be interested in being collection points for other material types. Product stewardship is an ongoing matter for Commonwealth, state and territory Environment ministers. Recent discussions have taken place at the officer level on used batteries, waste paint, impact on micro-plastics, TV and computer recycling and end-of-life tyres. I expect these will be discussed at the next meeting of the Environment ministers in July in Melbourne.
With regard to what we are doing at the moment, the CDS infrastructure grant program and depots only this week came out with their grants, and they amount to about $120 000. They are being provided to a range of organisations for infrastructure for a number of collection points to help raise much-needed funds for community organisations and schools, such as the Scouts. There was one infrastructure grant issued to provide infrastructure for a mobile collection depot that services remote communities in the Territory.
I will go through the grants for you. The Alice Springs Town Council got $12 650; Charles Darwin University $15 000; Darwin High School $4390; Durack School $4329; Envirobank NT mobile depot, which is to service MacDonnell Shire, Central Desert Shire, Alice Springs town and Yulara district, $14 000; Recycler Bill in Alice Springs $20 000; Thamarrurr Development Corporation, which is Wadeye and the Thamarrur region $15 000; the Scouts at Batchelor and Coomalie $10 000; the Scouts in Alice Springs $2000; and the Scouts in Katherine $10 000.
I hope I have been able to give you some information, member for Nelson. I am willing to go through some of the question. I have a list of the collection depots, and I think you were pretty spot on with those so I will not go back through them. I have a hard copy of the report if you like to look at it later.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the member for Nelson’s GBD motion because it is on the environment. If there is any member in this House who is a very good role model for pragmatic environmental projects, it is the member for Nelson. I remember being able to work with the previous Labor government and the member for Nelson in a coalition. One of the agenda items I had the privilege of working through in a Labor Cabinet was the Cash for Container scheme. I saw that as a brilliant innovation for the Northern Territory, and did it not cop some flak?
The opposition at the time, the CLP, tried to destabilise it. It was a purely political agenda. The big end of town – Coke, Lion Nathan and Schweppes – took the Territory on. Everybody threw every form of opposition at it that they could, but it has survived. The essence of this motion is supporting the government to kick it along and see what new innovations can be delivered, because Territorians have embraced it. In the community you can see the changes in consumer behaviour, the change in Territorians and their opportunities for recycling and being proactive at a grassroots level in addressing environmental issues.
It is good so far. The minister mentioned three of us of a similar age who can speak about this historically. My father and a group of good mates built a number of houses out of long-neck beer bottles at Era Beach, which is now part of the Royal National Park just south of Sydney. Those young fellas went there for their social time – for surfing and fishing. Era was about a 5 km walk – quite a challenging walk down through the valley to the beach. They took everything they needed, and part of that was long-neck bottles of Tooheys Pilsner. Rather than discarding that rubbish they used it to build a number of huts.
As a child I stayed in those huts. That led to the same guys carting down building materials and concrete. I believe one of those huts is preserved in the Royal National Park as a heritage piece for generations to ponder.
That was Bob McCarthy, Ron Shepherd, Norm Gore and Herb Ingham. I think Ian Horning might have been involved in that, as well as a host of other blokes. Those stories resonated loudly and clearly in our family and my heritage. It then generated into opportunities where as a constituent of the Barkly I got to celebrate a Labor government gazetting the Davenport Ranges National Park.
Circumstances changed and I was later in a privileged position to be part of a government that gazetted the Limmen River National Park and the Maria Island Marine Reserve. They are great stories to tell your children. You talk about Bob McCarthy and the beer bottle houses, then you can talk about his son who is part of a Territory parliament delivering macro-environmental outcomes. That is a great, privileged position to be in and I thank the constituents of Barkly for allowing me to be part of that.
The member for Nelson has copped a lot of flak over that journey with the Labor coalition. He maintained his independence right through it, but he had a proactive position in guiding government policy, and he had many great results for Territorians and the constituents of his seat. This represents a really good grassroots example of the work that can be done. If you go into Darwin supermarkets, if you come down through Tenant Creek or if you look at the regions you can see the change in behaviour of consumers. They have embraced it. It has taken time, but they have embraced it. It has come from the days of the gloom and doom where it would never work and was all going bad to now, where it has become part of people’s lives.
The second journey Bob McCarthy took us on was when he cleared some pristine forest on the south coast of New South Wales to build his house. He used explosives to blow up stumps, cut down trees, chain, rip and drag them. It was another experience in managing the environment. Those days have changed.
The little local shop in the village around the bay at a place called Bendalong banned plastic bags because of the pristine environment and, by managing consumers, was able to deliver positive environmental outcomes. They took it upon themselves to ban plastic bags. They heard the preaching of doom and gloom that nobody would shop there. Now everybody shops there. People take their own bags and use green bags. Their behaviour changed and they celebrate it.
All the tourists that rush in around Christmas and New Year go home with that story about a tiny village store that took on the giants of the world and changed the behaviour of people. People then go home to the cities with a green bag mentality. It does happen; it will happen and it is happening in the Territory. The member for Nelson needs to be applauded for bringing this to the House tonight and reassuring and supporting government in introducing some new ideas.
One point the member for Nelson mentioned was Aputula, which is Finke. I remember listening to a store manager at Finke interviewed on ABC radio. The journo was looking for any mischief he could make and the story was unfolding as, ‘How will cash for containers work in Finke? You are in a very remote area.’
The store manager said, ‘Well, it is very interesting because I am already seeing a lot of the cash for container products being collected. There is some serious environmental work going on in this community; there is a distinct lack of rubbish around the place, and people are using this opportunity not only to clean up the environment but make some money.’
The journo, being a bit of young townie, then took the common ground and said, ‘Well, I suppose all those kids are out there cleaning up those cans and bottles’. The store manager came back with, ‘No, they cannot get their hands on them because all the old ladies get them first’.
To me that resonated as a success story. However, I knew what the challenge would be. The challenge was transport, as it has been in all the remote places I have lived in. But the heavy vehicle industry in the Northern Territory experiences its own high costs of operation because the vast majority of freight is fully load going out and empty coming back. There are good opportunities for back-loading. That is something this government might like to have a look at.
I will pick up on some policy areas of the CLP. One is the tourism infrastructure fund where there is taxpayer money available for private businesses to access. An example would be the Wauchope Hotel and the $100 000 for accommodation. That is a policy position of the CLP. I would like to see a subsidy like that for Cash for Containers. It would be a good pragmatic opportunity to try a couple of those political subsidy-style platforms the CLP seems to be interested in.
Another one is regional passenger transport and the milk run we are about to see emerge in the Territory, as promised by the CLP. That will have to be subsidised, so that is another example of government policy that throws subsidies at services to get them up and running, and stabilised. Why not something similar for Cash for Containers? Let us target those regional and remote areas.
One of the common points is everybody accesses the heavy vehicle transport industry. If transport companies can be brought to the table and there can be government subsidies under CLP policies, then we could start seeing some back-loading into depots. That would make the depots more efficient, and would take the cultural change in people’s behaviour to the regional and remote areas. As the member for Nelson said, it would deliver many social outcomes as well as great outcomes for the environment.
What about it, Chief Minister? Have a think about it. It would be a good tick on your resume. Let us face it, after tonight you will need a few ticks. However, I digress.
What is important is sharing an initiative across the Territory. I saw those depots develop in Darwin and heard the stories of traffic jams and people getting sunburnt because they were waiting in line for so long to cash in their containers. I celebrated quietly, but I appreciated that was part of the teething problems. The great people of the city were cashing in on the opportunity but what about the regional and bush areas because it is a lot tougher out there?
I will give a good example. Father John Kennedy of Christ the King Parish in Tennant Creek issues a bulletin to his parishioners. On that bulletin every week is a tiny line which says, ‘Keep the containers coming in’. He has a stream of containers coming in each Saturday and Sunday, or during the week if people choose. He has his own sorting area. He works with Darrin’s Rubbish Removal. Darrin and Sam in Tennant Creek are great young community-minded business people. Father John Kennedy has a great relationship with Darrin and he sells those containers that are brought in from all over the place, not just by parishioners but people who know he is well-organised and wants support. He creates a lucrative income for Christ the King parish that he feeds into paying the bills. There is an example of what a community can do.
At the other end, Darrin and the depot struggle to make money. It is not so easy at that level. That is where we can ask the government for help to see if there is any more room.
One of the common calls I receive from the regional remote areas is if the Cash for Containers can be transported in a crushed form to maximise the efficiency of back-loading through heavy vehicles instead of having loose cans in bales, because they take up so much space. Everybody knows in the HV industry you are paying by the cubic metre. It is not about the weight so much, it is about the space taken up. If we can have any movement in that area of crushed glass, cans and PET bottles, that would maximise the efficiency and create better opportunities for the regional and remote areas to make money and get involved in a great scheme that is cleaning up the environment.
The Minister for Local Government and Community Services can play an important role here, because regional councils could be supported. If a government is into subsidised policies, let us look at local government, at what could be supplied to regional councils to support this. I have spoken with constituents about recycling bins in regional areas. At the moment, everything goes in one bin and is landfilled, which makes it very difficult to separate. If regional councils were supported to manage two rubbish bins, we would start to see more people recycling products.
This is not so much for the householder to get a return, but for a householder to participate in a very positive activity: showing care for the environment. That makes them a great role model for their children and other residents.
Those containers would then go to the regional waste management facility. An organisation in Tennant Creek, for instance, like the Barkly Work Camp, could be associated with the sorting and cashing of those containers. The money could go into the victims of crime levy, back to the Barkly Work Camp, or into other non-profit or charitable organisations. A regional town like Tennant Creek, with this opportunity to separate waste, would be able to create another industry. The Barkly Work Camp could partner with a private enterprise to create jobs and outcomes, and deliver rehabilitation and training-to-employment.
A government that is proactive in subsidies might consider supporting regional councils with recycling bins. It would be a simple and pragmatic way to address these issues. Let us look at a couple of pilot studies and take one step at a time. It would be well worth trialling, and then push that concept further out into the regions.
These are just a couple of examples; once again, a Territory opposition giving some positive reinforcement to government. It was a Labor Party initiative, heavily backed and almost orchestrated by the member for Nelson. Now it is in this House so let us kick it on. What will be new? Let us see what we can do for Territorians and the environment.
The previous Environment minister was concerned by the lack of movement in recyclable plastic bags. Anecdotally, he did not believe it was working. He believed the reusable bags from supermarkets were creating heavier, denser landfills, and it was not delivering what they thought it would.
I would like to test that. The government has the ability, because it has significant resources at its fingertips. When I come to the big end of town, when I come to Darwin to parliament, or if I am in the regional centres, I am starting to see more of a change in behaviour. I am seeing more people using green bags and recycling shopping bags.
At the other end of the scale, looking at the Tennant Creek supermarket for instance, they still use plastic bags but they are a biodegradable product. While not delivering the top-shelf outcome, it has been a move along that way. We need to take that community to the next step of recyclable bags so we are not using the massive volume of plastic bags that are single use. There is another area where we can make a huge difference.
In conclusion I will tell a quick story about when the Labor opposition went on a visit to Groote Eylandt recently and toured the ranger base. We spoke to the rangers and in came a Toyota tray-back with many ghost nets on the back of it. They were fishing nets that had been identified as being from as far as Asia. They had been collected around the pristine waters of Groote Eylandt. The rangers talked about the on-country work they did – that incredible opportunity we have to develop jobs on country in regional and remote areas. They also talked about the other by-products they created in their travels. Then we saw photos of rangers working on beaches and encouraging – some quite young – youth to clean up because they knew the immediate link to the damage to wildlife.
They were the first to witness the damage plastic bags, cans, bottles and other elements of our consumer society were having on native wildlife, particularly the marine animals, the turtles, the dugongs, to a degree the sharks, then the bottom feeders, the crustaceans and the shellfish. These Groote Eylandt people were very aware and could see that link and wanted to do something about it. They were showing government and Territorians what could be done and what they were doing. They were asking for support. Minister Scullion needs to take serious notice of that. I have talked about this before and will continue to lobby for on country support.
The Cash for Container scheme feeds into that behaviour-changing policy. That is what we are doing. Do not underestimate that. That is the incredible outcome that will now spiral and affect future generations because the kids growing up today are in that environment. They are not seeing the beer bottle house, they are not seeing Bob with the powder monkeys blowing up 40 m blue gums and showering the area with chips, they are seeing something new. We are responsible for it and we have opportunities to do more.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I love the Royal National Park. I did not realise the member for Barkly’s relations were blowing it up. I used to go there and legally collect native plants for my plant collection.
Mr McCarthy: They blew up freehold land.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Royal National Park and Ku-ring-gai national park are great examples of a city and national parks together, but I digress.
The thing I like about Cash for Containers is that it gets away from the feel-good side of the environment. That is not a bad thing to have, but if you want to make change, one way to do that is to affect the hip pocket. By putting a value on waste, people who might not have a great feel for the environment are helping the environment and do not know it. It is a great way of helping the environment without that fuzzy feeling necessarily going with it. I have been to Envirobank and love seeing what I presume is a station four-wheel drive come in and the back tray is full of empty cartons. I am not encouraging them to come into town to fill up again with grog, but the reality is there is a product that would have gone into landfill at that station that now helps pay for the diesel to get them into town. What a great thing.
I have seen Aboriginal people turn up to Envirobank at Pinelands. They have come from the 15 Mile and they realise by going around their community and picking up a few cans they make a few dollars. It is something we need to continue and expand on because the principle is more important than just talking about a beverage container scheme. That will be the danger, even in New South Wales. South Australia started off as a litter campaign and that is why they talk about beverage containers. The other states, like us, do not refer to beverage containers; we call it Cash for Containers. Those containers can be anything. They do not have to be drink containers, so there is an opportunity for us to expand or at least promote the expansion of this type of scheme. I also reinforce the fact the beverage industry, which so long has opposed it, makes money out of this scheme.
I was just looking at the 2013-14 figures – as I said, I do not have the latest – and the annual returns table, for instance, says that total containers sold - sometimes people have to realise this is little old Northern Territory - was 154 292 256. That is not exactly a small number. Imagine what it is like in the other states. Returns were 63 871 826, which is a difference of 91m containers where the company has kept the deposits and the handling fees.
My maths is not very good; I tried to do the .20, which is the 10c for the deposit and 10c for the handling fee, and I came up with about $1.8m. The beverage industry collects a nice little $1.8m. They might spend some of that on advertising or administrative costs, but when they complain about this costing Territorians money, they do not advertise the fact they make quite a bit of money themselves. Some of that money should go back into the system to either expand or reduce the cost of products they sell to the community.
I always remind people that those who make money out of this for doing bugger all are the beverage industry people. That is more reason to increase the number of containers returned. It means less money for those companies.
I listened to the minister and I thank him for his input into the debate today. There has to be a serious effort to get this system to remote communities. I listened carefully to what the member for Barkly said about the possibility of subsidies; we do subsidise many things, but maybe it just needs a subsidy to kick-start some of these schemes in the outback areas, especially when it comes to freight and encouraging stores. It could be a local council depot that takes this on. Our local council in the rural area could have mobile depots at transfer stations. A stack of bottles and cans go into landfill still, and that is disappointing.
The minister mentioned a report, and I am interested in reading it; I will pull it off the website. It mentions the Australian Packaging Covenant. I have never had any time for that. The Northern Territory did not sign up to it because we realised it was a load of baloney.
This Australian Packaging Covenant has been around for about 20 years. It was how the beverage industry continually avoided having a national cash for container scheme. I hope the Northern Territory government never signs up for it because it is run, pushed and promoted by a group that is against what we do in the Northern Territory and South Australia.
I need to emphasise that this system is not just about litter; that is what it was in South Australia, but we have moved on from there. I would not support changing over to just wine bottles, fruit juice and some other containers like spirits if we did not include milk containers. Why would you leave out milk containers? Go to a supermarket and see how much milk is sold. It would be silly not to include milk containers. People might say it is an important food, but so are bottles of water and fruit juice.
You do not want to complicate the scheme; include all the beverages and be done with it. As the minister said, it would remove - I am not sure if it was without milk containers - in the Northern Territory, 3000 T of land fill. That is a pretty good change. I heard recently from the Litchfield Council that Darwin City put its commercial rates up for waste to be delivered to the Shoal Bay landfill by $13, or 13%, which is an incredible amount that will have to be recovered from taxpayers. So the less we can take to the tip and bury, the less effect it will have on things like the rates. That is great as well.
There will always be an issue with things like computers and tyres. If there is a way we can handle those by having a deposit on them, so people get their deposit back when they are returned – they are areas we should be looking at.
We should be aiming for zero waste, as they do in South Australia. George Brown, the old Mayor of Darwin said, ‘We should be looking at and aiming to have no waste’. It is not that easy, as we do live in a disposable world where it is impractical to recycle some products, but he was looking at things like concrete and timber and many of those products that take up a lot space.
I will give you an example of some good recycling. Humpy Too tyre recyclers collects most of the tyres from Darwin, take them to their site on Spencely Road in Humpty Doo. They do two things with those tyres. They slice them up into donuts which you can use on the edge of roads, where you put chicken wire and rocks down, and they can be used as an overflow where there are floodways. They stabilise things and catch any dirt that goes across there.
I went to Jindare Station – I hope that is right; the member for Daly might make sure I am right – which is out from Pine Creek down the Umbrawarra Gorge Road. They were getting bales of tyres from the Humpty Doo recycling centre. That company squashes them in a big press, wraps them up in wire and makes one tonne bales. That cattle station was making cattle yards out of them. They just plonked them down, and all the old cow could do was go ‘boing’ into the side of a one-tonne bale of tyres. It did not do any harm to him or to the tyres. The only disadvantage was maybe there was not a lot of breeze, but you could always put a gap between them to allow some airflow through. My understanding was that they were not expensive because the company wanted to get rid of them. That was a cheap way of making some cattle yards, another method of recycling.
Another case of recycling tyres – tyres are a real burden on councils. DAC is a company in Darwin that started a big quarry for INPEX to the east of the Robertson Barracks front entrance. They had to make a road through there, because they were coming out on the Thorngate Road side, which went over some swampy land. They dug where the road was going and dropped one-tonne bales in there all across the wet country, covered it with gravel, worked the gravel down and drove trucks across it until all the gravel settled in the holes. You will not get bogged in there in a million years. They have a product made from recycled material.
We have to be innovative. We need to look at ways to increase the recycling. If we can get value for that recycling, you are more likely to get people to join in.
There was one big change that occurred which has helped – the minister mentioned it and the member for Barkly would remember it – which is the reduction in the number of separations. That was one of the reasons NT Recycling Solutions and the Can Man pulled out. They said it was too hard with too many separations. It did not need to take as long as it did. I reckon the beverage industry deliberately made sure the number of breakouts would hurt the companies and make them struggle. Yet it only needed a short time to work out what percentages of containers belonged to what product. South Australia has a pretty good idea what products belong to each company. All you needed to do was copy what South Australia is doing.
That is one of the reasons it struggled for a while. It was not only that; it was the handling fee, which was not sufficient. One of the faults with the legislation at the time was it let the companies off the hook in relation to having to negotiate in faith to get a reasonable return. I visited the recycling depot in Alice Springs and they said a couple of times they were really struggling because the handling fee was not sufficient.
I would love to hear more about the negotiations between our EPA and South Australia’s, and whether they are looking at trying to change the number of containers that will come into the system. That is a great thing.
It would be great to get a report on what is happening with the product after it is delivered. My understanding is the bottles are not recycled as bottles; they are crushed, as the member for Barkly mentioned. It would be good to find out.
People are hoping this product will be recycled in some form, yet I have been to Envirobank and I have seen mountains of crushed glass. I do not know what is happening to that crushed glass. I know it can be used in pavements, as paving stones and a range of products, but there is a lot crushed glass there.
People pay 10c in the product as a handling fee; the question is, is that handling fee being used to ship it out of town and get it recycled? What is happening? I would be interested if there is some report from the government on how much is being recycled, because that is the core of this whole thing. Perhaps you can get back to us on that issue.
After years of struggle to have Cash for Containers in the Northern Territory, I think it is successful. It will continue to be successful, but – and it is an old clich – we should not rest on our laurels; we should make sure it gets better.
I would love it to be much better in remote communities. That was one of the key reasons we pushed it, to make sure we had a product that would enable these places to be cleaner, and young people would get an idea that if they do some work they can earn some money. They might not realise it at the time, but it gives some of those entrepreneurial skills that encourage them to do something. ‘A little bit of work will get me a return.’ At the same time it puts some pride back into the community.
I should also thank Keep Australia Beautiful in the Territory. It struggles along with only a small grant these days. It does a great job. I know there have been some differences of opinion because it has been funded by the beverage industry, but I think the Territory KAB still does a pretty good job promoting litter reduction, so we should not forget them when we are talking about recycling.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, if the Attorney-General was not going to do that, I was.
I will quickly speak about a couple of, not constituents, but people who have some connection to portfolios or areas of mine. They were recipients of some of the honours in the last honours list.
The first one is Ray Menhinnitt, who received an OAM for service to the community, particularly through swimming and water safety programs.
Ray has been teaching swimming to kids for decade in Queensland and the Northern Territory, and he is known to most of his students as Stingray.
Ray has a different philosophy to teaching swimming to many others; he teaches people how to have fun but be safe in the water. He said he hopes this award will shed light on the idea that everyone can swim and have fun.
He is a trainer with the Royal Life Saving Society in the NT, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. The member for Nightcliff and I both attended that celebration and I am happy to say we were both given an award that night. She has had a lot to do with royal lifesaving over her life, and I just happen to have certificate 13 from New South Wales for royal lifesaving.
Ray is the pool manager at Doomadgee in Queensland, after being the pool manager at Wadeye for five years. He has led water safety programs in Indigenous communities in the NT and Queensland. He has taught countless kids key water safety lessons that will save their lives.
While at Wadeye he started programs for disadvantaged groups, the local aged care group, and made the pool available for everyone. He started the Mums and Bubs swimming program for new mothers and babies, to promote water safety. His commitment to promoting the water safety message has been incredibly strong, particularly among the young. Being recognised with a medal of the Order of Australia is definitely an appropriate way for the community to thank Ray for his efforts. I congratulate him.
The other person is Olga Radke, also an OAM, for service to the community of Alice Springs. Olga epitomises community service. She is a volunteer researcher at the Strehlow Research Centre, where she contributes to our combined understanding of Indigenous culture and history. The Strehlow Centre is one of Australia’s premier institutions, conducting research and preservation of Indigenous language, customs, cultural artefacts and ceremony.
In addition to her work there, she is also a member of the community Choral Society and numerous charities, and helps run a mental health support group.
Olga spent time living in Hermannsburg and has a strong affinity with the local Arrernte people. Olga is also a member of the old Lutheran Church’s history and archives team which seeks to preserve the early history of Alice Springs. The team works to preserve artefacts relating to the Alice Springs mission block, which was established in 1936 and has been a fixture of Alice Springs society. Her care extends to being a member of the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Association of Alice Springs, which provides support for prisoners once they have been released.
Service was part of the values taught to her by her parents. ‘You give to someone else more in need than yourself’, she said. This value is so important in today’s society and one which is sometimes lacking. However, we are very lucky in the Territory that we have people with Olga’s values who contribute so much to our community. Olga’s recognition with a medal of the Order of Australia is very well deserved and I pass on my congratulations to her and Ray.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a man who continues to play a big role in the Barkly and who is fondly remembered by many from his time in this House.
Elliot McAdam, former member for Barkly, was recognised in this month’s Queen’s Birthday Honours as a member of the Order of Australia. It is a fitting tribute to his work as a representative of the people of the Barkly and a dedicated member of our community.
Elliot came to politics after a successful career in South Australia and the Northern Territory. After graduating from the South Australian Institute of Technology he worked as field officer for the Aboriginal legal rights movement in South Australia and was director of Adelaide’s Aboriginal Community Centre.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Elliot worked in many varied roles throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory, including as a community adviser at the Pitjantjatjara community of Mimili in the north of South Australia, director of the Aboriginal Health Organisation of South Australia, assistant co-ordinator of the Tangentyere CDEP program in Alice Springs and later as a consultant to establish the CDEP program at Julalikari Council in Tennant Creek. Elliot also served as the general manager of Julalikari from 1997 to 1999.
Elliot worked as the electorate officer for Maggie Hickey, who was Labor member for the seat of Barkly. After Maggie’s retirement Elliot was preselected by Labor for the seat and was subsequently elected to parliament in August 2001. In his first term Elliot served as government whip and Chairman of Committees as well as chairing the Substance Abuse Select Committee. In 2004 he was appointed as chair to the Legal and Constitutional Committee with responsibility for progressing statehood. There is no way Elliot McAdam would ever have missed an opportunity to speak eloquently and passionately about the NT’s pursuit of statehood and Labor’s support for the process.
I will quote from a speech Elliot McAdam gave to a conference in July 2003 about statehood.
- Social justice and issues such as land rights and cultural protection must be incorporated into any future constitutional developments in the Northern Territory, including progress towards statehood.
These principals are just as true today, now clearly articulated by the Labor opposition, members and Territorians.
In June 2005 Elliot McAdam was re-elected to the Legislative Assembly and subsequently appointed to Cabinet with the portfolios of Housing and Local Government, as well as minister assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous A ffairs.
As the Minister for Local Government, Elliot was responsible for the massive reforms instituted by the Labor government. He is still a supporter of the model, seeing it as having the best potential to bring equity to remote areas in jobs and training, economic development and resources. But it requires proper funding and support from NT and federal governments, which is something Elliot says is sadly not happening under current the NT and federal Liberal governments.
Elliot retired from parliament in 2008, but continues to play an active role in the Barkly as a board member of the Anyinginyi Health Congress and Charles Darwin University, as well as in his work for Group Training NT. Elliot is a quiet and considered person who loves a good joke. He is well known for being able to pull off a good phone prank on unsuspecting friends and colleagues. Elliot and his partner, Barb Shaw, Madam President of the Barkly Regional Council, are the type of people who act as positive role models whose work helps shape our remote regions and build our regional communities.
Congratulations Elliot McAdam AM - a well-deserved honour.
I also congratulate another Barkly resident who was named in the Queen’s Birthday honours; Philip Merry received the public service medal for his contribution to emergency services. Philip joined the NT Emergency Services in 1996 and became Deputy Unit Officer in 2006. He has played a strong role in the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit and worked tirelessly fundraising, supporting the cadet unit and undertaking all the roles of a Northern Territory Emergency Services officer.
Congratulations Philip Merry on this well-deserved recognition for your efforts.
I will conclude with a personal comment about Philip Merry, a great bloke. He is very skilled and knowledgeable in the geo survey and exploration field, and has put a lot of work into geological exploration around Tennant Creek and the Barkly over a quite a number of years, which is ensuring a future for our town and regional community. He is an incredible volunteer.
Phil’s work with the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit, in the role the Northern Territory Emergency Services plays, is exemplary. He is a wealth of knowledge. When you see Phil operating at community events and on the visits I have made to the unit base, you see he is very much acknowledged as a teacher, an instructor and a person who is willing to share that knowledge. We are continually on the hunt for new volunteers, and I can assure any prospective volunteers they are in very good hands if they are working side by side with Philip Merry in Northern Territory Emergency Services operations.
His experience, his cool, calm and collected approach, and his knowledge of the bush are skills available for people new to the Territory, especially teachers, nurses and professionals, or people who come to the community to get an understanding of the environment and learn how to operate safely. Philip Merry and those other great members of the Northern Territory Emergency Services, especially the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit, will deliver.
Great work, Elliot. Congratulations on that prestigious award, and congratulations to Philip Merry. I am sure the Tennant Creek Volunteer Unit is celebrating the acknowledgement of one of its own, one who has put in countless hours of volunteer work and is an incredible role model in the community. Best wishes for the future and thanks for all the work you do in supporting community events and making Territorians safe.
People need to realise these community members are volunteers who work side by side with our police, fire and rescue services on the front line of saving lives. They do a lot of work in remote areas and often put their own lives at risk. So, well done. It is another great story out of a great region, that is, the Barkly region of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016