2012-11-28
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 5/6 Millner Primary School students accompanied by Miss Sheree Arratta. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CONLAN (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly make a resolution to disallow the management plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park.
Plans of management are important documents. They set the direction for the management of a park and are usually in force for at least 10 years. Each plan should be clearly described and the natural and cultural values of the park should be outlined. Each plan should also describe how those values are to be protected whilst encouraging and providing for a safe and enriching experience for all visitors. Each plan should also recognise the desires of the community, the same community which values these parks and takes pride in them all.
Let me tell you a little about the parks which were included in the plan proposed by the former government. I will begin with the Mary River National Park. This park is located about 100 km east of Darwin and covers 112 000 ha. The park comprises 14 parcels of land from Adelaide River in the west to the East Alligator River in the east. The park attracts about 25 000 visitors per year. That is no small number which visits our natural wonders. The Mary River National Park contains some of the most popular recreational fishing sites in the Territory, spectacular Top End wetlands and floodplains scenery, some of the best viewing of birdlife and crocodiles in the Northern Territory, and of course boating and four-wheel driving are also popular. The park is not Aboriginal land; however, it is jointly managed with traditional owners under the terms of an Indigenous land use agreement and a joint management plan upon becoming operational.
The second park proposed under this plan is the Litchfield National Park. Litchfield National Park is located about 120 km south of Darwin and covers about 146 000 ha. The park is a major Top End tourist destination for interstate and international visitors with over 272 000 visitors in 2011, which is an extremely high number comprised of locals and visitors. It features prominently in Territory tourism marketing campaigns as a highlight for any visitor to the Top End with spectacular and wonderful waterfalls, safe swimming and wild rugged landscapes. The park supports about 50 tourism operators; it is also a popular playground for residents of Darwin and the Top End. Plans for these parks have been prepared and are tabled in this Assembly. Both will shortly come into operation unless disallowed by resolution of this Assembly.
This government values our parks and everybody’s right to enjoy them. When this plan was brought before the parliament this government rang alarm bells. What became apparent from this plan, a plan that would affect hundreds of thousands of people, was that it was flawed.
The Mary River National Park Joint Management Plan was prepared without full and proper consultation. This will affect hundreds of thousands of people and it was developed without proper consultation. This plan did not take into consideration the many people it would affect. One stakeholder group not consulted by the previous government about this plan was the tourism sector.
The government has made it very clear we recognise tourism as a major pillar of our economy and a significant contributor of jobs for all Territorians. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to consult with key tourism operators. These operators’ livelihoods depend upon these parks. Tourists who visit these parks want a wonderful and unique outdoor experience in a picturesque setting and we want to see that these experiences can continue.
When the Litchfield National Park Plan of Management was released for public comment it attracted a number of submissions about antisocial behaviour. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to further consult with the community about antisocial behaviour. This plan can be amended to clearly describe the management actions that will be implemented to reduce or hopefully remove antisocial behaviour from this iconic park.
I put to the Assembly that both these plans be disallowed and that the Parks and Wildlife Commission be directed to prepare fresh plans. In disallowing these plans, this Assembly will be assured that consultation in preparing the new draft plans is comprehensive and addresses matters of concern to the whole community.
New draft plans would be released for public comment, allowing further assurances that interests of the wider community are reflected. I put it to the Assembly that we must get these plans right by ensuring plans adequately address issues raised by the whole community - all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a motion of the parliament and it is normal practice for the opposition to have the right to speak second to the motion. The member for Nightcliff jumped to get your call. The opposition does want to speak to this motion. We do not want to be gagged. This is a serious matter. I am the Leader of the Opposition and I clearly flagged to the government that the shadow spokesperson wants to speak to the disallowance motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Leader of Government Business has the call and indicated the matter before the Assembly will be debated in full at a later time.
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In seeking advice from the Clerk, could you advise him I informed you that the member for Nightcliff would take the jump and seek the call to speak on this motion. This is a gag. In the decade-plus I have been in this parliament I have never witnessed government preventing opposition from speaking to a motion the government puts. An extraordinary precedent will be set in this Chamber today if a call is not given. You knew. Madam Speaker, I advised you, it was clearly the opposition’s view to get the call.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the advice the Clerks and I received earlier this morning was that there had been discussions between the government and the opposition. Only the minister would be speaking and it would be adjourned for debate and discussion at a later date. I have given …
Mr Elferink: Correct, Madam Speaker.
Ms Walker: That is not correct.
Madam SPEAKER: That is the business between the major parties. I have given the call to the Leader of Government Business.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was not informed of that. This is a very important issue. I am not saying the minister does not have some valid points, but without any indication of when this will come back to parliament - this is quite an important debate. I thought we would have time now to debate this.
I have never seen ‘Assembly Business’ before. It just came up on the Notice Paper this morning. I am very disappointed the government will not allow this to be debated.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, perhaps if you could enlighten us as to when the debate may be returned.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, a couple of things here. One: notice was given yesterday. You were told yesterday that this was coming on. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s claim of the member for Nhulunbuy saying they were not informed, they were.
It was explained at length this morning to the leader of opposition business. The reason for this motion is technical. If we do not place this motion on the Notice Paper now then these management plans are locked in. As I explained to the leader of opposition business, slowly and carefully, these management plans would be locked in and the minister wants the opportunity to renegotiate that for all the reasons he explained to this House. That was agreed upon at the very last moment because of the lack of organisation on that side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition walked behind the Speaker’s Chair and said the member for Nightcliff was speaking. That is not what was arranged this morning. What was arranged this morning was done through open communication and with the acquiescence of the leader of opposition business, the representative of the opposition in the business of this House.
The member for Nelson was informed yesterday this was coming on …
Mr Wood: Not that I could not debate it!
Ms Lawrie: At no stage was he told he could not debate it.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the second component. The allegation that we are gagging this is not correct. What we are doing is placing it on the Notice Paper and the debate will continue in due course.
Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought I would have an opportunity to speak to what the Leader of Government Business was saying. The Leader of Government Business informed us he wanted to adjourn this, this morning. We were informed this morning he wanted to adjourn this. Obviously, last night we prepared for a debate.
This morning, we were told it would be adjourned. I came back to our Caucus, as is appropriate, to discuss that. I then went back to the Leader of Government Business after Question Time and indicated we may want to speak to this debate depending on what the minister said because at that point we still had not heard the minister speak. That is what I indicated to the Leader of Government Business.
The Leader of Government Business said they were pretty much not interested in us speaking, which would be reasonable. To paraphrase the Leader of Government Business - he is welcome to put it in his own words - he has said that already. But, we on our side still feel we should have the right to speak to this debate, depending on what the minister has said this morning, when it has come on.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have just heard the leader of opposition business say he spoke to me after Question Time. No, you did not. You did not speak to me after Question Time at all.
Mr Gunner: I walked around there after Question Time and spoke to you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, the Leader of the Opposition did.
Ms Lawrie: No, Gunner did as well.
Mr Gunner: I did. I physically sat right there.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In relation to the Assembly business of this House, let us be clear. This debate can occur in standing orders as well. You have heard from the opposition and the Independent member that both wish to speak this morning, are prepared to speak this morning; prepared last night to speak this morning to this motion, not at some indeterminate time that may or may not bring it back before this House. Are we a democracy or are we simply being gagged at the whim of the member for Port Darwin, at the acquiescence of the Chief Minister?
Madam Speaker, it has never happened before in this Chamber where the Independent member and the opposition have sought to speak to a motion introduced that morning in the House and have been gagged - not in the history of the previous CLP governments nor in the history of the Labor governments.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms LAWRIE : Madam Speaker, you preside over this Chamber. You preside over the fairness of this Chamber. I prevail on you to give the call to the member for Nightcliff and then the member for Nelson. Let it rest there.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Honourable members, the advice we received this morning was that discussions had taken place between the government and the opposition and the matter was to be adjourned. That is the advice the Clerks and I received first thing this morning.
Mr ELFERINK: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided.
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages – Planning Amendment Bill (Serial 6)
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Planning Amendment Bill (Serial 6) passing through all stages on Wednesday 28 November 2012.
The Assembly was given notice of this motion yesterday and the intent has been flagged for a considerable period of time. The purpose of the request is to allow this important item of business to be concluded - acknowledging that next week we have the mini-budget - to provide adequate time for the opposition and Independent member to respond to the mini-budget, and for the government to be allowed to have the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 6) dealt with by this Assembly so we can move on. It has been well flagged. It is not a surprise; it is just to allow us to deal with this item so opposition, the Independent and government have full access to our schedule next week to deal with the mini-budget.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as I reiterated in the last sittings, although I do become concerned about moving bills through all stages more quickly than normally allowed, I understand that at least there was a gap in sittings between when the bill was first introduced and when we will debate it. The intention of the government was that we would have time to thoroughly look at the proposed bill. I do not know whether I can ask this question about how we are going to pass this motion mentioned by the Chief Minister. Will we go straight into the bill or do we have to wait for a number of other things to occur before that happens?
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just at notices at the moment member for Nelson and we will get to orders in a minute where the debate on the bill occurs. We believe on our side it is essentially a technical urgency for a matter of days. The bill has sat on the table for long enough between sittings and it was done before negotiation and consent. We dealt with a number of these matters last sittings. I thought we had dealt with this one back then as well but obviously we are doing it now. This is not a problem because it was captured in the essence of the conversation we had between government and opposition and we are looking forward to the debate later today.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Before I start I place on the record my apology to the member for Fannie Bay. It had slipped my mind, you did come and see me; not that it would have made any difference as I told you at that stage that, basically, it was not on. I apologise because I was wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act to increase the levies imposed on court-imposed orders, infringement notices and enforcement orders and to provide that future changes to victims’ levies can be given effect by regulation.
The amendments give effect to an election commitment to take immediate action on law and order to increase the victims’ assistance levy and provide for victims of violent acts. The increases to the levy amounts will be important to victims as they provide greater financial capacity of schemes which care for the recovery of victims of crime and, particularly, the victims of violent crime. The proposed amendment seeks to generate more revenue for the Victims Assistance Fund which is established under Part 6 of the act and funds the victims counselling scheme and victims financial assistance scheme.
At the moment, the cost of the schemes is not completely covered by the Victims Assistance Fund, which relies heavily on an annual appropriation to meet operational costs of the victims services unit which administers the fund. Only a small percentage of the victims’ levies paid provide for the cost of administering and delivering assistance under the act. The proposed amendments will provide more revenue to the fund and, as a result, there will be less reliance on annual budget allocations.
The bill amends section 61 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act to increase the levy imposed on court-imposed orders, infringement notices and enforcement orders. The increases are considered appropriate given there has only been one prior increase to the levy of the act, commenced in 2007. In 2010, the levy payable on an infringement notice went from $10 to $20. Court-imposed orders were not increased and neither were enforcement orders. The current levies are set by reference to a dollar amount contained in section 61(3) of the act. As the levy is contained in the act rather than in the regulations, increases or alterations to the dollar amount cannot be effected quickly. Whilst it is usual for acts to establish the principles regarding the payment of levies, it is common for the actual dollar figure to be set by way of subordinate legislation.
To allow future increases to be effected more efficiently, section 61 will be amended to provide that future changes to the victims levy amount will be implemented via regulation. This will alleviate the need to make constant changes to the principal act.
Turning to the figures payable as the victims assistance levy, section 61(3) of the act is amended to impose the following levies for court-ordered levies following a finding of guilt where imprisonment is not imposed.
For an adult offender the levy will change:
from $60 to $200 for an indictable offence
from $40 to $150 for any other offence caught by the act.
For a body corporate found guilty of an offence the levy will be increased from $200 to $1000 for any offence.
The levy is payable irrespective of the sentence imposed by the court except sentences of imprisonment, and includes circumstances where an offender is fined or ordered to pay restitution.
I now turn to the new levies imposed on infringement notices or offences for which the offender is not required to appear before a court in lieu of a payment of a monetary penalty.
Section 61(6) of the act will be amended to increase the levy from $20 to $40 per infringement.
The Victims of Crimes Assistance Act provides, at section 61(2)(c), that the levy which applies to infringement notices also applies to the issuing of an enforcement order under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act. This means the $20 levy applied on the making of an enforcement order will also be increased to $40, noting that the levy can only be applied once in relation to each offence.
There is no doubt these increases are significant; they need to be. The current levy amounts do not adequately provide the Victims Assistance Fund with enough revenue to look after the victims of crime. Monies paid to the Victims Assistance Fund are used to provide services to victims such as free counselling, treatment, and payment for loss of earnings. The monies are also used to award compensation in circumstances where the victim has been a victim of a violent act and has suffered an injury or financial loss as a result.
Opponents to the levy increases may argue the increases are too great and will hinder the recovery rate of fines and infringements. However, the imposition of the levy only affects those who break the law. The increases only affect offenders for whom a finding of guilt is made.
This government went to the last election promising better outcomes for the victims of crime and this bill forms part of that commitment.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (VIOLENT ACT CAUSING DEATH) BILL
(Serial 3)
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House for debate. It comes as no surprise as in opposition the then shadow Attorney-General had always been very clear about his intention with this bill.
Following two failed attempts with a private member’s bill to see one punch homicide provisions enacted by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code, he was very clear and vowed his commitment to this law reform and that is admirable.
Now in the role of Attorney-General, he is in a position to see the passage of this bill through the House. Prior to the election this was not only his undertaking but the matter of a CLP election commitment. So far this is about the only commitment, along with axing the Banned Drinker Register, I can see them keeping.
There was no election commitment to inflict massive cuts to the public service and public servants’ jobs. Far from dealing with and relieving cost of living pressures, this new government is treating Territorians with complete contempt and doing just the opposite by inflicting massive hikes to the cost of power and water. That is just the tip of the iceberg - more slashing to come, no doubt, in the mini-budget next week.
While opposition bills rarely pass through this House or other parliaments, there are occasions where it does occur. One of the reasons why the private member’s bill failed was that it was flawed. In fact, it was described as seriously flawed by the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, noting it was:
However, the current bill before the House has been drafted within the realms of the current Northern Territory Criminal Code and is, therefore, now technically correct. I thank the minister for personally attending a briefing session, along with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, in his office on Monday. He, clearly, takes his new role very seriously in sitting in on that briefing, and has committed to being actively engaged
However, I raise my eyebrows, as do some sectors of the public and the legal fraternity, at his active engagement in matters before the court, including his recent announcement that he will be the ‘legal water boy’, as he described himself, assisting the Solicitor-General in an appeal case to be heard before the Supreme Court in February.
Whilst I have absolute confidence in the Solicitor-General to represent the Crown - and he is eminently well qualified to do this on his own - I trust the new Attorney-General enjoys the work experience opportunity, even though he really should be attending to matters to improve our justice system in the Northern Territory. However, that is another debate; we will have it another time, minister, when I look forward to reminding you about the separation of powers and the imperative for judicial independence without ‘political interference’. Like you, I may be new in this job, but it is the most important take-out message I have received so far in my bid to engage with stakeholders, including some very senior members of the legal fraternity.
I understand the minister’s intent in creating this new category of offence, a violent act causing death, and his belief that there currently exists a gap, borne out of the tragic death of Brett Meredith in Katherine on 1 January 2010, a death which resulted from a single blow to the head. A good man, a decent man, whose life was suddenly and violently cut short left a woman and children without their much-loved husband and dad.
It was a trial which attracted much public interest and which resulted in a conviction of manslaughter and a prison term for the defendant, Michael Martyn. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but deferred to the judge as to whether the actions of the defendant were reckless or negligent - these being the elements, of course, of manslaughter. In his sentencing remarks, the judge excluded recklessness but upheld negligence, stating that it was:
Part of the Attorney-General’s argument to date is that ‘one punch’ legislation can deal with a loophole which he believed to have existed in the Brett Meredith case. I note in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech that:
However, there was no loophole in the Meredith case. If anything, what this case illustrated was the system was working insofar as an individual was found guilty and is serving a prison term.
I suggest that is exactly what the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory is saying when he wrote in an article in the Northern Territory Law Society’s newsletter, Balance, very recently:
Further to this, currently in the Northern Territory if you kill someone with one punch, the offences of manslaughter and murder can both apply and carry maximum life sentences. Murder has a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years.
When the Attorney-General, as shadow, introduced this bill initially it was referred to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. I inquired during my briefing this week as to what had become of the report from the committee, and what were the recommendations. I was advised by the Attorney-General that because the report was referred on the terms of the earlier and flawed bill, the deliberations of the committee had ceased at his instruction. I guess that is not unreasonable.
However, when I inquired about why this new bill was not referred back to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee under revised terms of reference, I was a little surprised to hear from the Attorney-General, ‘because it would have taken another six months, and then it was decided not to do this’. From this, one can only presume the Attorney-General is absolutely cocksure of himself; that he has it right and does not need the advice of cumulative years of experience and wisdom from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. I find that extraordinary. The Attorney-General’s determination to proceed with the legislation without allowing the NT Law Reform Committee to provide advice could mean that people who kill with one punch receive lesser sentences.
This has evolved to be an unintended consequence in Western Australia which is the only other jurisdiction to have ‘one punch’ homicide laws. In WA there has also been concern that the legislation gives men who kill their partners or former partners an avenue through the lighter ‘one punch’ charge and thereby avoid the more serious charge of manslaughter. Knowing the unacceptably high levels of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, I have concerns about how this bill can avoid that loophole. It is a terrible misuse of the law.
The Attorney-General stated in his second reading speech that this new offence does not replace manslaughter, is not an alternative verdict to manslaughter, and if the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction for manslaughter that charge only will be prosecuted. You also stated in the second reading speech that manslaughter is to be the preferred charge in appropriate circumstances. But what exactly does that mean? What would be regarded as appropriate or inappropriate circumstances?
There is potential with this bill - apart from letting the perpetrators of domestic violence off on lesser charges - that there could be further and unintended consequences. I trust the Attorney-General can cover off on some of the scenarios which might arise under the new section 161A (4) which states:
I put it to you, Attorney-General, what of a wife who pushes her husband who then accidentally falls downstairs resulting in his death? What of head-high tackles or any unreasonable conduct on a sports field which causes death, even if the conduct fell within the range to which a person playing sport is taken to consent? What, for instance, of any form of ‘socially acceptable’ - and what does that mean? - sexual deviance which leads to death, even if intended for enjoyment and consented to? What of a person who may be holding a media conference in a public place and who, without any warning, is rugby tackled from behind by a complete and aggressive stranger and in wrestling the assailant to the ground, the attacker hits his head leading to his death? What of a parent who smacks a child who accidentally falls or suffers some other illness which leads to death? I am sure many of us have read the novel, The Slap or viewed the excellent dramatised version of this backyard barbeque gone wrong. Thankfully, in that piece of fiction little Hugo suffered no lasting scars, or so we hope, but what if that slap had resulted in his death?
The generalities associated with this part of the amendment seem to be a little general and, with broad application, it appears impossible to say who might be caught by them. Of course, there is another very important angle to this bill, the intention that the existence of this new offence will act as a deterrent to would-be offenders. I sincerely hope this is the case, but as stated in the article in the NT Law Society’s publication I referred to earlier, the author of that article, Russell Goldflam, writes:
It goes without saying that changing and strengthening laws, trying to close gaps and loopholes is one important aspect of reducing violence and tackling crime. Though the member for Sanderson could never bring himself to publicly admit it, and looked very silly for denying it, there is undoubtedly a very clear link between alcohol abuse and crime. One need look no further than to judge the sentencing remarks.
I certainly share community concern about the growing problem of drunken violence, which is why I strongly supported the former Labor government’s Banned Drinker Register and the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms which took 2500 problem drunks off our streets. The new government has removed what police described as one of the best tools in their toolbox to deal with drunks, violence and crime. As I have already said, a number of members of the judiciary refer to it in their sentencing remarks, and also note that unless the supply of alcohol is addressed we will continue to see violent crimes.
Laws are just one part of finding a solution to violent crime and, sadly, irresponsibly, the new CLP government has removed the Banned Drinker Register and replaced it with nothing, other than a yet to be seen habitual drunks policy which would see problem drinkers criminalised and thrown into prison farms for mandatory three-month rehabilitation. There is also much to be said for targeted and powerful awareness campaigns with the aim of trying to penetrate the message, that excessive drinking is incredibly risky and can lead to violence with the most awful and tragic consequences.
In July, Western Australia launched its Real Heroes Walk Away campaign, Queensland has run the One Punch Can Kill campaign, and the Northern Territory ran its own campaign in 2011 when we rolled out the Banned Drinker Register, and for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it. While these laws and campaigns are very important in tackling violence, we have to look at the broader context of what it is and why it is that people, especially men, adopt such angry and violent dispositions that send them on this path of action.
The opposition is not opposing this bill. We sincerely hope this amendment does serve its intent to reduce crime by acting as a deterrent, closing a gap within the existing legislation, and we will watch with interest to see how many cases are successfully prosecuted under this new amendment. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I certainly do not come from a legal background. I was getting some advice and I have tried to look at it from a layman’s point of view. I do have difficulty, and maybe the minister can explain more. When I see the two acts, manslaughter and this act, I struggle to find any great difference between them. Under the manslaughter act, a person is guilty of the crime of manslaughter if the person engages in any conduct which causes the death of another person. It also says the person is reckless or negligent regarding causing the death of this or any person by the conduct.
If I were to take the case that we are looking at now, in which we have a new clause which addresses violent acts causing death:
and
In the case of one punch, I struggle to work out why there is a problem with sentencing people under that, considering they have engaged in conduct - and that conduct refers to any conduct, not just violent conduct - that causes a death. For example, a person could have been pushed over a stool and died and that would be reckless and negligent. So, in cases like that, I am interested to know if they have been rejected by the court and why, because they would have been rejected for very good reason.
The charge below that is the charge of assault, but it is like saying we don’t quite accept that the court is right when it has rejected the case that this is a manslaughter crime, so we will put another clause in the act which will cover somewhere between manslaughter and assault. That is how I see it. You are picking up, as you say, some unique cases.
To some extent, it is saying we do not think the law is good enough. Someone has made a decision that this does not qualify as manslaughter, yet manslaughter seems to cover, technically, everything this violent act causing death clause does. I am interested in having that clarified.
Be that as it may, minister, my questions are more from a practical point of view of how this would work when it went to court. I know there is a definition here called ‘conduct involving a violent act’ which is:
I would like to know, for instance, what is a push? If someone is walking past in a pub - I know how crowded pubs get - and somebody gives a bloke a push enough to make him slip over and hit his head on the floor, would that be regarded as a violent act and, therefore, come within the confines of this new clause?
The same applies to a trip. If I am sitting on a chair in a pub and there is a bloke walking past, and I shove my foot out, trip him over and he falls flat on his head and dies, would that be regarded as a violent act and come under this clause?
You might be able to answer all these in your response, minister, but if I need more clarification I might go to committee stage.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 3/4 Holy Spirit Primary School students accompanied by Ms Emma O’Halloran. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your visit.
Mr WOOD: Make sure you turn the lights off today. I will explain later.
An issue you mentioned, minister, is death on a sporting field. I referee or umpire all year either soccer or AFL. The second reading speech says:
I can give you a case and will not mention names or places. I recently umpired a game of football. A person playing that game charged into a player after the player had kicked the ball. That contravened the rules of the sport. I sent the player off and applied a penalty. That person, unknown to me, was subsequently taken to hospital with a broken jaw and was on oxygen. The hypothetical question is, had that person died, is it possible the perpetrator could be charged under this act? The statement you make here applies to situations in which conduct is reasonable and the rules of the sport are not contravened.
In this case they were contravened and that is why there was a penalty. I would like some clarification on this because you are introducing this clause and making a statement in relation to sport which is not clear. Football is a rough game, and usually contact is within the rules of the game. However, if you contravene the rules are you liable? The case I am giving you is an actual case so I would like clarification.
Again I am showing my lack of legal knowledge minister; however, if someone is charged under this - and you talked about strict liability - is there any consideration given to the fault of the victim? For instance, if you push someone over and they are drunk, the reason they fall over is because they are intoxicated. There may be other reasons why it is not entirely the fault of the person who conducted the violent act. In this clause, is there some allowance to shift the blame? Not to shift all the blame, but that some of the blame is the result of the victim’s stupidity as well?
Madam Speaker, they are the questions I ask. I put them there as practical questions, minister. If you could address those in the second reading I would appreciate it.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will try to get on with this as quickly as I can. I thank honourable members for their contributions.
I remain disappointed with the Labor Party’s approach to this. They say they will not oppose this bill, but in the same breath say this is a terrible misuse of the law. We are legislators and if the Labor Party thinks this is wrong then they should just oppose it.
The other thing that really disappoints me is this is deadly serious, and I have brought this in as a deadly serious attempt to change the law on several occasions now. With Brett Meredith’s widow looking over the shadow Attorney-General’s shoulder, she could not help but use this debate as a vehicle in which she could engage in cheap and nasty politics.
I am not going to rise to that. How we present ourselves …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wish to assure this Chamber that I take the role incredibly seriously. I have researched this debate and completely refute the political remarks the Attorney-General is throwing out at me right now. It is wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member that she strayed into areas which have nothing to do with this bill in an attempt to score cheap and nasty political points. It is possibly because she was unaware that Brett Meredith’s widow was sitting behind her that she thought she could be so cavalier. However, it shows the attitude of the Labor Party in relation to this legislation, and the approach they took the last time was also witnessed by Brett Meredith’s widow.
I have also been somewhat verballed by the shadow Attorney-General when she said I was bringing this forward because of Brett Meredith’s death. No! If you read the second reading speech, I said that Brett Meredith’s death did not come under the circumstances or intention of this legislation, but it highlighted the possibility that we might need such legislation. This legislation was designed specifically to avoid circumstances which may, but have not yet, occurred in this jurisdiction.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say, and I agree - manslaughter is that wide. In the terms of unlawful homicide you have murder at the top end and if you do not qualify for murder, basically manslaughter is any unlawful death caused by recklessness or negligence short of murder. As Barr J said in his sentencing remarks in relation to manslaughter, it could be a prank gone wrong. There is a requisite requirement for recklessness or negligence.
Making this an offence of strict liability under Part 2AA of the Criminal Code sidesteps that issue. If manslaughter is wide, assault and manslaughter is less wide. Some lawyers will argue there is not a gap. The problem is, I believe there is and so do others. It is a gap that I am trying to fill.
That is the rationale behind this legislation. I continue to believe that such a gap exists and will be addressed by this legislation. I pick up on the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General that my first bill was flawed.
The first bill was based on the Western Australian model. We, unfortunately, due to the negligence of the former Labor government, have two mal-fitting parts to our Criminal Code when it comes to criminal offences - the Part 2 sections and the Part 2AA sections. That means we get some pretty strange instructions to the jury, and stranger still, we have defences which will operate in some circumstances, such as intoxication under Part 2 offences, differently to the way they will operate in Part 2AA offences.
My original bill would have fitted under the Part 2 arrangements. The member opposite called it flawed. My response to that is that it fitted under the Part 2 arrangements. However, as we are transitioning to a model Criminal Code requiring the operation of Part 2AA, I determined as the Attorney-General and someone who wants to see that transition continue or restarted so we do not have two ill-fitting halves of the Criminal Code, it would be more sensible to make it a Part 2AA offence, which is why we chose to go down this path.
Madam Speaker, we are getting close to lunch and I still have a long way to go.
Debate suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 655 petitioners praying that the CSIRO science centre manager position be retained. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 361 petitioners relating to the CSIRO service centre manager position. This petition is similar to petition No 4.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A I inform honourable members a response to petition No 2 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 2
Closure of Chambers and Finke Bays to Commercial Fishing
Date presented: 31 October 2012
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Date response due: 20 February 2012
Date response received: 27 November 2012
Government's announced commitment to implement the proposed closure of Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing is based on reallocating the barramundi resource and addressing outstanding social issues in the fishery.
A public comment period on the legislative changes required to implement the closures has been provided and submissions are currently being considered before government makes its final decision on the matter.
Once the final decision is made, a licence buy-back scheme will be undertaken with the aim of removing an appropriate number of licences and adjusting effort levels in the fishery accordingly.
The best possible package of benefits to the Territory is being sought from the fishery based on a high value recreational fishing experience and maintaining a viable and profitable commercial industry.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up where I left off before the luncheon period in relation to wrapping this matter up. There were a couple of issues raised by members opposite.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of what happens when, let us say somebody is standing in front of a television camera and a person walks up behind them and kicks them. That person who has been kicked then turns and apprehends that person and, as a result of that apprehension, the person being apprehended dies from the unintentional activity of the person who was kicked in the first instance.
Clearly, this is a reference to what happened to me during the election campaign. Once again, it was the member trying to be cute. However, let us deal with it and use the example.
If the hypothetical person who is attempting to apprehend his assailant engages in conduct which is so abundantly reckless - not only reckless but recklessly indifferent, to use the old Commonwealth phrase for murder - in the process of making that apprehension, for argument’s sake, grabs a rock and bashes that person around the head for 20 minutes and that person dies then, clearly, a conviction of murder would be appropriate in those circumstances.
If, alternatively, the person who was being apprehended was thrown to the ground extremely roughly and above and beyond the realms of reasonable force, then you could argue the person doing the apprehension had engaged in a use of force which was either reckless or negligent and, therefore, a conviction of manslaughter would be an acceptable result.
If, under our legislation, a person then carries out a violent act and that causes death then, once again, you would look to the evidence of the conduct to determine whether or not the violent act was sufficient to constitute the offence as described by the one proposed before the House today.
Bearing in mind there are defences such as unwilled act and accident to Part 2AA crimes, then you would have to, at an evidentiary level, be able to sidestep those defences to make out the offence. However, the test for this is what the evidence demonstrates occurred.
I will not talk about a matter which is sub judice and still before the courts, which was specifically referred to or implied by the member opposite. I will leave it up to a court to decide the guilt or otherwise of the matter in which I am personally involved arising out of that occasion.
More generally, where a person seeks to apprehend another person within the boundaries determined by section 27 of the Criminal Code, those components dealing with justification, so long as the reasonableness determined or asked for by section 27 applies, is for a court to decide. I take members through the example to demonstrate how this legislative instrument will work.
The issue of sport came up and this is one I thought about long and hard. Sport, and offences of homicide such as manslaughter, have always been around. There is nothing new about this question about sport and whether people commit criminal offences. Bearing in mind most sports, by the rules of the game or even implied permit assaults. We permit assaults upon our persons every single day of the week and we particularly do it on the sporting field. I am a great fan of the gentlemen’s game of rugby union and the not so gentlemanly game of rugby league. I played them both. I played a game of rugby union recently and I believe the member for Barkly was sitting in the bleachers that evening.
Mr McCarthy: And wanted to be on the other side John. I dream of that. Set up one in Corrections.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I thank the member. Of course he would be operating within the rules, and if he wanted to tackle me in those circumstances then he could.
By running onto the sporting field I have given tacit, also explicit, consent to be assaulted. Even in games like basketball and netball, which are technically non-contact sports, in the real world - and the courts have long known about this - there is still physical contact. It would be unreasonable and unsupportable to suggest that if you run into a basketball court the moment you are touched by another player you have a right to pursue a criminal matter through the courts.
The courts have contemplated this issue and I ask members to bear with me because this is one that was particularly close to the heart of the member for Nelson. Perhaps this will help place it into some sort of contextual environment. Australian case law, Rootes v Shelton, High Court of Australia 1967 - I cannot give you the citation because I do not have it in front of me - but Chief Justice Barwick, Justices McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor and Owens said in their joint judgment that consent does not eliminate all duty of care from one participant to another. Whether any duty of care exists will depend on the circumstances of the case and each case must be looked at individually as the rules of the sport or pastime may constitute a relevant circumstance, but their breach does not necessarily constitute a breach of duty.
Justice Taylor went on to say that what the duty may be in a particular case, whether there has been a breach of it or whether there has been a voluntary assumption of risk are questions of fact and this is evidence upon which these questions may be left to the jury. They are essentially matters of their determination.
In McNamara v Duncan in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory – this relates to a king hit during an Australian rules football match - Justice Fox said:
Justice Fox went on to say:
He went on to state:
This was a civil damages case, but it says what happens outside of the rules of the game may constitute a criminal act as it has done for many years. That case hails from 1971.
In McAvenly and Quigly in the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1992, Justice Leggo cited the decision of Justice Fox in McNamara, in the High Court in Rootes as case law in Australia, and there are a number of these decisions. From the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 1995, in the Crown against Tyrone and Stanley, Chief Justices Hunt and Sulley said inter alia:
Justice Levine, in the same matter said:
And there are a number of other cases, so the rules of the game, essentially, are transported into the court.
What the member described in his contribution was an act outside the rules of the game, a violent act. I ask the honourable member to consider this. He said in his contribution that he had later discovered the person had suffered a substantial injury. Even now, if the victim had suffered a substantial injury and sought to pursue an assault, according to the law that person would have, all other circumstances allowing, been found guilty of a serious harm assault. If the person had died, why wouldn’t a court review that homicide as being unlawful? That is the question I would put back. ‘I see this all the time’, well the fact is that the sporting bodies nationally and internationally have been cleaning up their acts enormously, and assaults and other serious assault matters have flowed from contraventions of the rules of games. They are not a free for all; even a game of rugby is not a free for all.
Making those observations, it would depend on the circumstances of the death on the football field.
If you are talking about a deliberate injury, or if you are talking about an injury caused due to unlawful conduct then there are circumstances where this legislative instrument would apply. That is how we deal with sport, bearing in mind, of course, that the defence of unwilled act or accident is still available to a person who engages in conduct contrary to the rules of the game; so some sort of reflexive behaviour may certainly offer a defence in relation to this matter. It is the deliberateness of the violent act which is at the core of this offence.
I hope that this clears the matter up for the member for Nelson. I also want to touch on one other component of the member for Nelson’s contribution. He asked: what if somebody were to do something and this offence was made out and they were found guilty of it and there was a penalty hanging over their head for sixteen years? That is a very valid point; however, any trial takes parts in two parts. Part one is establishing guilt. Part one of a trial deals with the rules of evidence surrounding whether or not a person is guilty. However, part two of the trial is the process of sentencing. What is the appropriate sentence for a person who has ultimately been found guilty of this offence?
Whilst there is a maximum penalty of 16 years in this instance, and the lesser penalty for manslaughter is recognition in relation to the nature of this offence, it does not oblige a court to immediately say it has to give 16 years. There is no mandatory component to the top end of the range of the offence. Therefore, a defence in the sentencing process will bring up matters of mitigation. Those matters of mitigation will attend to the defence of the person who is being convicted and due diligence and care will be given by the court in relation to the sentence which is appropriate. For example, in the case of Michael Martyn, the person convicted of Sergeant Brett Meredith’s manslaughter, the maximum penalty available to the court was life imprisonment but that maximum penalty, even on appeal, did not become manifest. There is still capacity for a court to look at the second part of the trial and deal with those other extraneous matters that go to the mitigation of a sentence rather than the matters which prove the offence in the first place. They are quite separate parts of the trial.
Having attended to those issues, I note the position of the Labor Party has moved from saying it will not support the bill to not opposing the bill. That means, if I hear the opposition correctly, not opposing the bill means they will not stop the bill from passing through this House.
What the member for Nelson will do is up to him; he is an Independent. However, I hope I have addressed the concerns of members and, as a consequence, I have nothing more to add to this matter. I look forward to us being able to keep our promise to the people of the Northern Territory and ensure this is passed into law before Christmas.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Bill 2012 (Serial 3). Is it the wish of the committee that this be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I will not be long, member for Port Darwin. We did not quite cover the area I raised, which was someone being tripped or someone being pushed. How does that fit into the category of a violent act?
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Nelson, I apologise, I did not make a note but I remember you asking this reasonable question. It is one I asked. You will note in the act there is, of course, a definition:
Application of force – I will try to do this from memory – is defined as striking, touching, moving, the application of heat, light, noise, electrical or other energy, gas, odour or substance or thing when applied to such a degree as to cause personal injury or discomfort. How am I doing? Okay, that is the definition of application of force.
I had to think about that. This basically means we are talking about an unlawful application of force; the violent act is conduct which is reference to the application of force which is defined in the Criminal Code.
You will note examples of an application of force of a violent nature are a blow, hit, kick, punch or strike. A court will turn its attention to a couple of things in the case of a trip or a shove, which is where you are saying it is a bit grey. There are several rules of interpretation adduced in generous, I think is the general rule of interpretation – words of a feather flock together – and, alternatively, the nature of the shove, the nature of the trip is an evidentiary issue.
What a prosecutor will ask if seeking to apply this is: what does the evidence demonstrate about the shove? For argument’s sake, ‘strike’ - if I gently push the Chief Minister sidewards in such circumstances that it really is not a shove, then some consideration will be given to that. If I was to walk up to the Chief Minister and give him a very violent shove, causing him to fall back over the chair there, I would classify that in the realm of a strike. I imagine any reasonable court or jury would accept that as well, in which case it has tripped over the boundary and fallen into this domain.
The question for the court, of course, is whether the injury that resulted in the death as a result of that strike has been caused by this offence, beyond reasonable doubt. That, basically, is how it works.
The process of not using this as an alternative to manslaughter means the determination to charge rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP will look at the evidence and he or she will determine, on the evidence, whether or not a charge of manslaughter is pursued, as was the case in Brett Meredith. I imagine in a case like Brett Meredith’s a manslaughter charge will be properly pursued.
However, I ask the member to think about this: if there was still a death, as in the case of Sergeant Meredith, and if the jury did not have strong evidence in front of them – and I realise I am speaking hypothetically – would they have baulked at a manslaughter finding? I understand there was CCTV evidence in that trial. If that had been absent and they were just relying on the evidence of passers-by, would that have been sufficient to support a manslaughter trial? I do not know that; I cannot speculate. I am trying imagine a circumstance. I will give you an example.
In The Age today there is an article about the death of Justin Galligan. The first line in the article said:
This is exactly the sort of thing this bill is seeking to deal with. That was from The Age today.
Affray is a form of assault - it is a fight in a public place basically, an upgraded form of a fight in a public place - which carries a fairly low maximum sentence. When a person dies as a direct result of a violent act by another person there is a public expectation that you are answerable for the death and that is what this is about. That is what Justin’s parents and aunty wanted, and that is what this legislation is about.
They do not have this legislation in Victoria, so you find yourself in a situation as a prosecutor - and as a police officer I imagine, not that it is really the police’s opinion that matters - saying you can only charge them with an assault or an affray or something like that. There is great public expectation that the authorities respond in a better way than as has been the case in Victoria. That is what I am trying to achieve in the Northern Territory.
I do not know how many matters have come before prosecutors in the past which may have satisfied a charge like this but would not have satisfied a manslaughter charge into the future. It may never have happened because I am talking about something that is not particularly wide in the law. But there is a gap and this sort of thing proves it. So that is what we are trying to achieve. The novel thing is that we are not responding to something that has happened; we are trying to respond to something that may happen.
Mr WOOD: Thank you for that answer, minister. When I see the clause ‘strict liability applies to subsection 1(b)’, does that mean that there is no excuse? Does that mean if the victim was doing something silly or was drunk or for whatever reason there might be some mitigating circumstances, that a judge can still take that into account?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I do not want to sound like I am lecturing on the law, but there are two parts to the idea of strict liability and the other hidden component is called ‘absolute liability’. Absolute liability is your seatbelt type offence. You either commit it or you do not, there are no real defences available to you, with the exception of section 26 but we will not talk about that.
A seatbelt offence is an offence of absolute liability and no defences are allowed. So, in the case of an absolute offence you have either done it or you have not, the light is either on or it is off, you were either wearing your seatbelt or you were not, you either went through a red light or you did not. These sorts of offences are very low on the pecking order. I would not suggest for one second - and would have misgivings if we were to apply the term ‘absolute liability’ to something like this, because there are circumstances which you quite rightly pointed out where you would think it would be reasonable.
I referred to one earlier, ‘unwilled act or accident’, which is a defence you can raise if you are being tried for a breach of this offence. Another example would be ‘mistake of fact’ where your liability is no greater than if the actual facts had been as you apprehended them to be. That probably sounds a bit wordy but the actual fact is that there are defences available and those defences have been established for centuries through the common law process and finally captured in codified instruments like the Northern Territory Criminal Code.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Just two more questions. Western Australia passed this legislation, but do you know if it has ever been used?
Mr ELFERINK: It has. This was referred to by the shadow attorney who pointed out some of the shortcomings as the result of its use, which have been attended to in this legislative instrument. It has been used on eleven occasions.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Are you going to review this bill at any stage as there has been some controversy over it? When you first brought it in, I saw two lawyers’ opinions on it and that is one of the reasons I did not vote for it. One opinion came through the Police Association and another from a lawyer and it is very hard when you are in my position. It is as they say: when you get two lawyers in a room you get two different opinions.
Mr ELFERINK: Three different opinions.
Mr WOOD: Three different opinions, sorry. So will the government look at reviewing this bill and seeing whether it is operating as it is intended or whether there could be some problems that may need attention?
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Nelson, I will give you that guarantee up front. Every law is constantly under review. Courts make comments from the bench in relation to the operation of legislative instruments and have done for time immemorial. The public watch what happens. I imagine that the law of affray in Victoria may well be under review at some point. If something pops up that is unexpected, unintended, those sorts of things, of course we will repair it, fix it, do whatever with it. As I said, there is some opinion that manslaughter covers the field. I do not necessarily agree with that, but if manslaughter covers the field this will never be used; however, I suspect and in cases like Justin’s, there is space for this.
If you want me to report back to the House in say 12 months’ time I will be happy to. Do you know what would delight me completely? If I have to report to the House that it has never been used because we even managed to get a successful conviction for manslaughter, or people have not died as a result of this sort of stupidity. Now there is a thought. Could you imagine a law not getting used on the grounds that people did not engage in violent conduct?
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I came into this debate unsure of which way I would go. I was willing to leave it because I got opinions from both lawyers when you had the previous bill before parliament. I am happy to give it my support, subject to some of the matters you have commented on. If there was a review I would probably be looking at 12 months or two years. I am certainly willing to give it my support. I thank you for some explanations on some of the issues I was concerned about. As a member on this side of parliament, I will be looking to see that legislation like this, if it is not working or it has some problems, does come back to be adjusted to make it work properly.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the honourable member. To save me getting to my feet in the third reading debate, this bill is now, by all expectations, about to pass this House. I note for honourable members the presence in the gallery of the widow of Sergeant Meredith who ran this campaign because there was a real fear on her part that the law of manslaughter may not have given her and her husband justice.
Whilst the law of manslaughter did cover the field sufficiently in her instance, I think she has alerted the Northern Territory population, through her activities, to a serious problem. I place on the record my thanks as a citizen of the Northern Territory to Mrs Meredith. She did an extraordinary job pursuing this matter and I find it enormously gratifying that through the processes of the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ of politics, I am in a position to give her at least this much comfort. I hope she lives a full and productive life. I hope this helps bring her some closure, and I am grateful for the support of members on this side of the House and the member for Nelson.
I note the Labor Party has chosen not to oppose this bill so it should pass shortly on the voices. Thank you, Mrs Meredith, we are obliged to you as a jurisdiction.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, thank you. I too acknowledge Mrs Meredith and her family and the incredible pain they have been through which is why, out of genuine sincerity, I made reference to the passing of her husband and her family. I wish to assure members I was not aiming to politicise anything.
Attorney-General, I have a question for you which will sound bizarre. I raised it in my contribution around potential scenarios. This is not me being bizarre or weird, this was a scenario which came up in a discussion I had about this bill with a member of the legal profession. It goes to Part 4(a)(ii) and what would be described or regarded as a socially acceptable function.
I gave you a few scenarios and you have addressed most of them. The one I asked you, which had been raised with me, was around what is socially acceptable or unacceptable. Should somebody die as a result of some kind of sexually deviant act which led to a person’s death, even if it were an act intended for enjoyment and/or consented to, is that socially acceptable? I know it sounds strange. I am from South Australia, where some of the most bizarre homicides in the world have occurred so I would not rule anything out. I put this to you as a very serious question, which you may or may not have an answer to.
Mr ELFERINK: I do.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Attorney.
Mr ELFERINK: I draw your attention to section 26 of the Criminal Code, those sections dealing with authorisation. You cannot, under any circumstances, authorise your own death. In fact, you cannot even, unless you are receiving medical treatment, authorise any form of serious harm to be done to you. If a person dies in these circumstances and the DPP, on the evidence presented, feels a prosecution would be successful then a prosecution can still proceed.
It is conceivable, in the circumstances you have just described, that a person could be convicted of murder or manslaughter, depending on the nature of the act being engaged in. Once again, it comes down to the evidence, but section 26 of the Criminal Code is quite clear in relation to authorisation. You cannot authorise a person to kill you.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, we debate now another one of the new CLP government’s major reforms. This time it is to amend the Planning Act. It is important to put on the record that the passage of this bill through the House has been assisted with the removal of standing orders. There is concern around such a process, but that has been decided by this parliament and we will go down that road. The bill is on its way through the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
It is important to note the commissioner, or the Chair of the Planning Commission, has already been appointed. The Chief Minister has decided he has a credible applicant and appointed that member. Also, in the Northern Territory News on Wednesday 14 November, the advertisement for expressions of interest for members of the Northern Territory Planning Commission was published. It is calling for further membership of what is a new body created by this government.
I place on the public record some hearsay. The Chief Minister conducted a party last night to celebrate the new Planning Commission. Word was abuzz in the halls of the people’s House saying the Chief Minister had called together a party to celebrate the Planning Commission. I was quite shocked on a couple of levels. First of all, the bill was still on its passage through the House and, second, I was not invited.
I am sure the Chief Minister could revisit that at some stage. As we progress with this legislation, as the Chief Minister has informed the House on a number of occasions when discussing the previous Environmental Protection Authority, there will be revisiting of instrument the new commission it creates.
The proposed amendment is certainly complex. I look forward to the committee stage of this legislation because there are many questions to ask. Once again, I advise the minister that the questions have come from constituents wide and far, which is good as it is good to have comment from Territorians. I also took the opportunity of contacting stakeholders who I thought would be across this proposed amendment and the proposed legislation.
I made contact with the Darwin City Council, the Palmerston City Council, the Litchfield Council, the Property Council Northern Territory Division, the Northern Territory Urban Development Institute of Australia, PLan the Planning Action Network, the Real Estate Institute of Northern Territory and, of course, the Master Builders Association.
I conducted some basic phone interviews to, first, advise these stakeholder groups of the amendment, then to ask them whether they had questions or concerns to try to engage in a good healthy debate. The strategy to participate in and research this legislation was a little concerning when many of those stakeholder groups had not seen the proposed amendment and did not know about it. I took the opportunity of advising them. In particular, some of the councils took the opportunity to find out where to get the details to put before council members, to have a discussion and start an information process flowing.
I was a little concerned when people had not seen it and were not aware of this very important legislation that makes major changes to the Planning Act. However, I feel quite proud as a member of parliament that hopefully, maybe due to my research, there has been more dissemination of the information.
I will share with the minister some of the comments in the discussions. Some came as questions, some came as comments, and some of it was very conversational. An interesting question we shared was whether the new Planning Commission would be collating the work of the Greater Darwin Plan. That is the previous plan which was done under the previous government - an incredible body of work that was thoroughly researched and communicated with the community.
In regard to strategic planning, ‘Will the Planning Commission be looking for priorities in the hunt for affordable homes? That was an interesting discussion, I remember that well.
‘The Planning Commission is offering an open door to developers for advice and support on development proposals.’ That is an interesting concept which was thrown around.
‘What is the status of the department’s pre-development sessions currently offered for developers and will they be scrapped?’ That was seen as a very good initiative under the previous government and was accepted and valued by the development community.
‘Will the Planning Commission’s reports on significant developments offer opinions and will the Planning Commission list recommendations for the minister or will it issue, basically, a report?’
It was interesting that these discussions were taking place and I found them to be very valuable for my research. It also came out in the research that the Urban Development Institute of Australia held a forum in Alice Springs. I believe the newly appointed Chair of the Planning Commission and the new CEO of Lands, Planning and the Environment attended that forum. One of the comments was that they were taking copious notes on what the public and the UDIA members were saying. That was a good outcome where it did actually come together in Alice Springs.
Another interesting anecdote concerns the Western Australian Planning Commission, which has a history of 10 years. Now the government is finding it has some real issues getting bogged down in decision-making: not achieving those objectives the Northern Territory minister is looking for, not being able to cut through that red tape, not being able to reduce the time frames and not being able to improve the efficiencies, particularly in relation to the use of committees. When we go to look at this proposed legislation in the Northern Territory, committees are proposed in that amendment, and the Western Australian example, from my advice, was that due to the extensive consultation, research and advice that was sought, the time frames and efficiencies started to break down. That was an interesting discussion and something we could learn from. There are lessons to be learnt there.
The balance is about getting the decisions right. In my humble opinion, one would not consider that cutting red tape and reducing the time lines, increasing the efficiencies, is really the priority. The priority is getting it right because if you take out a couple of thousand hectares of mangroves, that is a considerable planning outcome which can affect generations of Territorians in the future. So, let us not focus too much on the rush job, let us focus on getting it right.
It was good to participate with those stakeholders and have those discussions. It was nice to be welcomed, and for some of those organisations to say they would like to continue the dialogue with me as a shadow of the government’s very important work in this area.
Yesterday, during the debate of the Environment Protection Authority legislation, the Chief Minister made an important point along the lines of let us give it time and see it unfold. We debated the principles of this integration. Just give it time, let it roll out. We talked about reviews, and whilst there was no time frame set for reviews, it was considered appropriate and hopefully, in some sort of process which I interpret as a natural justice process, that will occur.
Once again we will go down this road and this amendment to the Planning Act will go through. It will have its own time, we will see the results of that and we will be able to judge it accordingly. But bad planning decisions - it is not as if, for example, we are going to re-jig the timetables to visit Uluru under a tourism initiative - can create serious chaos for generations to come. So there is a whole different element to the outcomes of this legislation.
Having a bit of time to talk about this, I will revisit Woodroffe Park where I was able to go into the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate and talk to his constituents. A theme emerged in the discussion around the power, water and sewerage hikes and priorities and government policy. It was rational, measured and considered discussion. The element of the constituent advice, though, was concerning arrogance and how politically elected representatives really need to understand the nature of their role. There is a very important element that I continue to talk about and that is good consultation, good listening and no attitude.
It is a very dangerous game, as an elected community member, to develop an attitude. I will say, unsolicited, one of the government members did get a special mention: the member for Braitling. There were comments about him such as, ‘Does this guy not know how politics works?’ Does this guy not know about community consultation? Does this guy know that people do not like to be talked at, they like to be talked to?’ There was a good tip there and, like I say, totally unsolicited. You can imagine I had a perfect opportunity to be proper nasty. However, I chose to be professional, and I say that with all honesty and integrity. The name calling and the abuse will get you nowhere.
I think those constituents in the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate who I talked with left with a fairly balanced impression about me as a Territorian and as an individual, and they can judge my politics second. I throw that into the mix. It was a good reinforcement that consulting well and working with the grass roots will deliver, in the longer term, the better outcomes without any of the cut and thrust, the rush and the ‘we have to do this stuff in a hurry’. When we are talking about amendments to the Planning Act we are talking about things which have generational outcomes and, hopefully, positive not negative outcomes in the Northern Territory.
On a negative note, I put on the public record my total disappointment at the sacking of public servants, in particular the CEO of the Department of Lands and Planning, a guy who I worked with, Dr David Ritchie. He was an inspirational Territorian for me to work with as a politician, a politician who does not have a background in lands, planning and strategic planning and as a leader of that department ...
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is a large storm out towards Channel Island.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Bring on the rain, Madam Speaker. The audio is still working perfectly so I am happy to continue if you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Put the camera down member for Nightcliff.
Mr McCARTHY: I was speaking about Dr David Ritchie. As a leader, he was able to facilitate my learning as a minister and my work with the experts in this field. That was a great experience and I have spoken at length in this House about the privilege to be the Minister for Lands and Planning. I want to pass on my best wishes to Dr David Ritchie and his family; they are great Territorians and I am sure they are doing well. I thank him once again for the incredible learning he provided and the collegial way he worked with the department, introduced me to the department, and created that very good working environment where we did an amazing amount of work. I hope much of that work will continue to support the new minister and the new government because that work was both at the strategic level and the delivery end.
I have listened to the debate, read the minister’s second reading speech, and listened to the Address-in-Reply. I have been listening to the mantra of the then opposition over four years, now as the government. It is very important to reflect that, in 2012, the Property Council of Australia acknowledged and commended the Northern Territory as leading the way in development assessments nationally. That was a very proud moment for the department.
We are talking about the Northern Territory development assessments and planning scheme being recognised as national leaders. There is much to be said by that. Now we are changing direction and going to add something new and it will make it all better. They are a pretty influential mob and I enjoyed my work with the Northern Territory Property Council. The Property Council of Australia, in 2012, acknowledged and commended the Northern Territory as leading the way in development assessments nationally. Dr David Ritchie and all the staff at the old Department of Lands and Planning should be very proud of that. It will not be forgotten. When you tour around the Territory and see the work and the outcomes you really understand what that means. In the national perspective that is a very high accolade.
Dealing with the old mantra of land release, the new government has developed the same type of strategy. That is disappointing really. It should rise to the occasion because it has many more opportunities and much more to do than continue that same style of politics it used in opposition. The land release story has to be one of the most prominent. For a brand new member in 2008, a backbencher trying to learn the ropes quickly, to hear it then and to end up the Minister for Lands and Planning and be belted with it every time you came anywhere near the then opposition is something I will never forget.
The other thing I will not forget - and I am looking forward to getting the two grandsons here to take them on a drive around the greater Darwin area, let alone the rest of the Territory – is to revisit the sites the previous government developed. There will not be too much kicking of the dirt because they are all very beautiful homes, all grassed and landscaped, and all represent the principles of modern urbanism.
I was at Zuccoli on Sunday afternoon and felt proud to see how the new suburb is shaping up with the extra principles of modern urbanism which will preserve much of the natural environment and work it into the development. It is worth putting on the public record one more time the wonderful time I had working with the Henderson Labor government in those four years, adding to the work of the previous minister, now the Leader of the Opposition. When we aggregate those projects we have the new suburbs of Bellamack, Johnston in two stages, Zuccoli and Muirhead, where a mate of mine, a teaching colleague, is building a house. He got one of the last of the government’s housing assistance packages with HOMESTART Extra and is so proud of it. I think back to the work we did with Charles Darwin University and what is emerging at Durack Heights, the work with the private developers who delivered Coolalinga, and that incredible concept going on in the rural area.
In the greater Darwin area we set up a pipeline of 4000 lots which has been rolling out and now represents homes where families are celebrating what they have achieved and what they will go on to achieve. If you take a trip down the track, look at land releases in Katherine, Tennant Creek that I see daily, and Kilgariff in Alice Springs, an incredible area which will provide opportunity for the residents of Alice Springs now and in the future. It is an incredible growth area. Go back and revisit the work we did with Lhere Artepe and the Mt Johns Valley development. That is quite incredible when you put that in a whole-of-Territory perspective. That work had been done in the previous term of the Territory Labor government and I was fortunate and privileged to be part of that from 2008.
The work between 2006 and 2012 was sensational and deserves a lot of credit. Credit goes to the Department of Lands and Planning, Construction, Infrastructure, the Power and Water authority, and the old department of NRETAS. I rejoice in seeing, after the frustrations of the global financial crisis, 2000 units rising from the earth in the Darwin area and the cranes emerging on the skyline. Work had been set up by the previous government but the banks had changed their lending practices globally. Now there is movement in that market. The new government will be celebrating with us. As they have only been in the saddle for 13 weeks, they cannot really claim any kudos around that. In this city which will be, I believe, the capital of Northern Australia, those 2000 home units are rising out of the ground and representing the department, the processes, and what the Territory has achieved.
This new amendment to the Planning Act has some very specific objectives; that is, to speed up the process, cut the red tape and deliver affordable homes. It will be interesting to see how this really goes with what we have and improves it. The challenge around affordable homes will be interesting. As a lay person who started to learn the trade of Lands and Planning, I started pushing into the boundaries where we were conducting dialogue and discourse with the development and general community of the Northern Territory about smaller footprints, smaller lot sizes, and using alternative designs. Then we were pushing the boundaries further into alternative building materials. They are the pressure points I wanted to put on housing affordability; it is not just about the release of land.
As the new government will find out, it is a very sorry day if you create lots of land to grow weeds. It is a demand and supply game. You guys are in the saddle now and you will be feeling that same pressure. It is a macro game, there is nothing micro about it; it is massive. It is very expensive and challenging. I hope the new government continues to push those buttons and drive those levers that can also support affordability in the housing market. It is not just about land release, it is also very much about being responsible and realistic and being honest and up front with Territorians.
It will continue to take considerable government investment to keep prices down because, no matter how you go about amending the act, you will find that the cost of servicing land in the Northern Territory will be one of your biggest challenges. Should you move down the road of working with developers – and I believe you will – some of whose families have been in the field for generations and who have a lot of land available, you will feel the challenges where the service costs of turning off lots will be one of the first major hurdles to jump. Good luck, because that is about growing the Territory. Be realistic, be honest, and we, as an opposition, will be watching this very closely, supporting good initiatives, of course, and giving credit where credit is due.
Regarding what the minister wants to deliver, it is probably good to talk about a couple of the current efficiency initiatives. The pre-lodgment meetings offered by the department with agencies like the Power and Water Corporation, the strategic planners, and the different sections of the Department of Lands Planning and the Environment, like the old NRETAS, are important aspects of the planning process. Those pre-lodgment meetings were definitively welcomed by the development community and were a great initiative from our public sector. They were a great measure in delivering better efficiencies and challenging the lead time into development applications and approvals, and, in an abstract way, cutting red tape.
The pre-lodgment meetings also offered by the Development Consent Authority are another great initiative in the planning process. These are things to be remembered when the person in the street hears from the new government that they are going to change all of this because they have better ways of doing it and they will make it leaner, meaner and deliver far better outcomes than that previous mob, with all the political rhetoric that goes with it. Do not forget some of the really important initiatives that have taken place and I hope will continue to take place.
The use of our strategic planners - now there are a number of other public servants who have been axed. I will not go into all of the names but it is disappointing. The strategic planners in that area were influential on me as a new minister and are great public servants who work tirelessly with the politicians and with government to deliver the best outcomes for the Territory.
It is interesting to see that the new Planning Commission says it will use the same resources. I am interested to hear from the minister how that will take shape because I have had many questions in the community, ‘Oh, you are not talking about short-term contracts are you?’, or ‘You are not talking about public service cuts now are you?’ I really could not answer those questions but I am sure the minister will. It is acknowledging that those people, and many who have devoted careers to this work in the Northern Territory, are valued and will be continuing, albeit in a shift to the right - pardon the pun for the Liberals in the room – their work with the Planning Commission. There are probably some questions about how that will take place, and you have to cut to the chase and ask about job security and how that will be conducted in the future.
It is also important to acknowledge the introduction of a new concept in this amendment to the Planning Act and that is the ‘significant development’. The concept of the significant development is pretty straightforward; however, the new government has made a lot of noise about this so I am interested to report to Territorians what it means by the term ‘significant development’.
It is important to note that currently the Development Consent Authority assesses development applications in the Territory and looks at the broad perspectives of amenity, environment and infrastructure. I am interested in the Environment Protection Authority and the concept of integration of the new Planning Commission, the EPA, heritage and local government, and how that integration will improve the processes. I am wondering if this will create any tension or any conflict in that integration objective.
The Development Consent Authority will be working very closely with the minister and the new Planning Commission so there is an addition to the process; whereas before, the minister, the Planning Commission and the department worked closely with the developers and the community. This amendment brings in another layer, the addition being this Planning Commission. The chairperson of the Development Consent Authority is the statutory authority. If we look at their role now with this new layer that has been created, questions will be asked of the minister in committee stage about whether that officer is party to deliberations and part of the reporting process.
Let us say they are involved in the deliberations and reporting processes and are a member of the Planning Commission on one of these new significant developments and the significant development is referred back to the DCA as the consent authority. These issues need to be teased out a bit more. That will be in the committee stage where the minister will be able to explain very clearly what this amendment delivers regarding that added new layer, yet still using the existing structures of what is a very efficient process and what I came to learn is a very good community consultative process in the Development Consent Authority. That authority is in a unique position; it is a statutory role. This integration has me a little concerned because if you are talking about integration and this fusion of layers, then really a statutory role cannot be making partial decisions. It could be really going backwards, it could be detracting from the process and the objective of what the minister wants to achieve.
I will be asking questions about time and red tape, and little things I interpret through the bill; I might be confused by the semantics of the legal jargon in the bill. For instance, the minister can request a report before or after a development application is lodged. It will be interesting to see how that improves any time frames if that is the case. The Development Consent Authority cannot comment on the significant development process until the Planning Commission has prepared the report relating to particular proposals. How does this show a speed-up in the time frame that the development community is demanding and the government is saying they are going to deliver? Will this, as in the Western Australian example, eventually lead to the need for more committees, for research and a relative process - a real process where the consultation is done properly and the reality is there is no real movement in time frames honestly? We will see. As the minister has said with the Environment Protection Authority, ‘Let us wait and see. Let us give it time and we will see that roll out.’
We certainly will, because as the minister for Tourism reminded me in this House, ‘We have the numbers and we will do this whether you like it or not’. That is the reality of what we have.
However, the Chief Minister is far more moderate and balanced. The Chief Minister has put on the public record that his government will be accountable to Territorians.
In relation to the new Planning Commission, it is all about service delivery. The Chief Minister talked about service delivery. The member for Braitling today talked about customer service, the member for Brennan talked about great failings in service delivery, and the member for Fong Lim talked about the same inefficiencies in the Health department. I took offence because what I saw getting wound into all that was a discussion about NT public sector employees. I am glad I got the reaction I did from the other side because it was almost unanimous.
They jumped to their defence. How dare I suggest they would be attacking public servants! I appreciate that response because it was what I wanted to hear. Under no circumstances should any elected community representative, any politician, be using that approach - the holier-than-thou, ‘You will do what I say’, minister - and not work consultatively and tirelessly for service delivery and the unity that comes from working together in partnership and delivering outcomes Territorians not only deserve but demand.
The Chief Minister went on to say of the Planning Commission, ‘We will develop guidelines to work with developers, to unlock land, to reduce red tape, to address time delays, to reduce running costs and to improve development approvals’. That is the rhetoric coming out of the ministerial statement. We have heard the second reading speech and now we get into the real grass roots of deconstructing this amendment with much positive questioning and positive answers, and we can then move forward. It will be something innovative, another major reform in the Northern Territory.
I conclude by giving a little advice. I have no doubt one of the challenging areas for the minister and this new amendment is the allocation of Crown land. I saw that as an incredible responsibility when faced with decisions about allocating Crown land for developments - the land that belongs to the Crown; the land that belongs to the people.
The other challenge will be the landowners, where there is much available land for development. When I was in the job I met with many developers and took the challenge straight to them: what was in it for the Territory? I tried to keep that mantra alive, ‘What is in it for the Territory?’ When you are talking about profit-driven organisations - businesses are way smarter than me, I have never been good at business. My wife is good at business but I have never been. These people can get a little one-sided with their ambition for profit because that is the way they think, that is what they value, and they are a little short-sighted about the benefits for the Territory.
The new Planning Commission will be challenged just as I was challenged. The minister will have that extra layer of advice. When we talk about significant development - and we will understand more about that later when we question that concept - it will relate not only to Crown land but to private land. Of course, looking at the Territory as a whole, the fastest growing area in the country is definitely the greater Darwin area. Where does most of that private land occur? It occurs in the rural area. These developers have great ideas and they are energetic Territorians - as I said, generations of families.
The message I was getting loud and clear as a new minister was that everybody else neglected this, nobody had delivered it, I could be the first. It was sold to me as a really good opportunity to put my mark on the greater Darwin area. That hick from the bush, that fellow from the Barkly who has lived in the scrub more than half his life was definitely going to buy this. They were going to really do some business and cut up this land. I took a lot of advice and did some study and research and used the good old strategy of a fresh horse: pull it up, whoa back, and just walk for a while.
The message was loud and clear, ‘You can be the first. This could be the mark you leave on the Northern Territory.’ It was very tempting. I am really glad I took advice from the public sector, from friends, family and all sorts of people who would ask broader questions. We took a step back and we really worked it into developing the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. It was an incredible body of work. Attached to that, we then discovered the rural area was very special in being able to generate good development outcomes yet take the community with us.
That is the work we did towards the intensification of rural villages and we got all hung up on the semantics of the village. However, I remember the members for Nelson and Goyder took the bit between their teeth and led and put together a very good submission to that process. Just before I parted company with the Department of Lands and Planning to go back and fight for the seat of Barkly in a general election, I remember that was coming together very nicely. It was fusing into what would deliver good outcomes in the rural area.
Minister, I consider this to be an area for significant development, but it will be very challenging because I am not sure how accepting the development community, the owners of that land, will be in sharing the burden and costs, and rising to the occasion of valuing the principles of modern urbanism. That means creating master plan developments with all those considerations that need to be put into place to set the Territory up for future generations. We are talking about amenity, land for social and community purposes, and the new principles of modern urbanism where we are not creating subdivisions any more, we are creating communities.
That was a message I left with that community. They really did walk away from me …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the shadow minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: They eventually walked away from me; however, the work did not stop. The previous Territory government kept that work going and it was the jewel in the crown that I hope to be able to take the grandchildren to one of these days; that is, the new city of Weddell. I hope that is not forgotten and neglected in the new government’s move with their Planning Commission, their opportunities and ambitions.
Regarding the development community I met and talked with, I gracefully declined the opportunity they offered me. I declined not because I was anti-development, but because I learnt quickly and saw that to deliver it properly, to deliver real generational change and opportunities for the future, we needed to agree on the values around the strategic level of planning, then area planning and the specific elements of a development that support what is no longer a subdivision but the new - what I love to see in our work - ‘walkable’, liveable sustainable community.
It will be a good debate; this is just the start of it. I am privileged to come in after the minister and participate in this debate. I look forward to other members contributing to this very important debate on an extremely important proposal from the new government: another level of their major reform. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be a part of it and, hopefully, a part of the future where this will add the positives we are told it will.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his pearls of wisdom and advice. I recall that in the last sittings you promised it would be the last piece of advice you would give but here we are today hearing more of it. I thank you for that and thank you for explaining at length what a great minister you were.
I move onto the topic at hand, the planning bill. I thank the Chief Minister for his dedication and commitment to forward planning for the future of the Northern Territory and all Territorians. I commend this bill and the proposed amendments to the Planning Act contained therein.
The Northern Territory has undergone various stages in the last 50 years during which time the definition of the term ‘strategic planning’ has changed. In 1963, Harcourt Hilton Long was appointed the first planning officer of the Northern Territory. His role at that time was to provide a plan for Darwin’s growth and future development opportunities. The 1970s and 1980s were an enormously challenging time for planners who had been invigorated by the foresight and passion of Harcourt, yet were devastated by the brutality of Cyclone Tracy, which led to federal intervention and the imposition of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Thank goodness the feds saw the sense to repeal the Darwin Reconstruction Commission in January 1978 and that the Territory realised self-government on 1 July.
All that time, the Territory also faced planning challenges from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Kenbi Land Claim in 1979. We have seen the development of the Darwin Regional Structure Plan in 1984 and the land use concepts, objections and structures plans of the 1990s, 2000 and 2002. As a result of these years of planning, challenges and triumph, much corporate knowledge, understanding and passion was invested into preparing a conceptual outline for the inevitable growth the Northern Territory would experience in time. Town planners at this time were able to forge entire public service careers around this area of expertise because of the commitment of previous County Liberal governments to ensuring the government knew the direction in which the Territory would grow, how it would go about staging the infrastructure and investment for that growth and, importantly, preserve the areas in which future growth would take place to ensure the strategic plan could be implemented in the years to come.
Former public servants such as Graham Bailey, Neville Jones, John Gronnow, and John Pinney are names not unfamiliar to long-term Territorians. For me, they are names that invoke nostalgia of a different time and different place. In my view, it is from this place that our government’s intention to provide a mechanism under which real, honest, actual strategic planning would take place for the Territory, and that mechanism is the Planning Commission.
It is apparent that under the previous Labor government the knowledge, passion and information gathered around strategic planning during the previous Country Liberal governments was to a large extent lost and certainly undervalued. Under Labor, the role of our town planners manifestly changed, not through any fault of the public service, but through the direction of the then government, now opposition. The emphasis was directed away from strategic planning, that is planning for the future, preservation of development corridors and staging of infrastructure and headworks, to a reactive focus that dealt with individual pockets of land as and when development arose. In short, we moved from a proactive strategic planning model to a reactive one.
One might use the hypothetical example of rezoning one block in Stuart Park. The role of the strategic planner is to look at an area as a whole and how that area fits into a broader scheme or plan for its surrounding areas. A person bringing a rezoning application for one block would ideally trigger a town planner to look at the overall implications of this for the entire suburb and for the cluster of suburbs in its immediate region as against the plan for the future. It is evident that this forward thinking does not now form part of what we ask of the public service, which has now been tasked to undertake statutory planning and respond to development applications.
Our counterparts in southern states have fallen victim to this transition, this vast departure away from forward planning and forward thinking to in-the-moment planning, reactive responses to what is happening in the immediate time and space. This Country Liberal government has a commitment to reinstate strategic planning and will redefine the meaning of strategic planning to provide absolute clarity in the purpose of and need for a Planning Commission. I have heard the opposition criticise our government’s decision to create a Planning Commission saying it is just another layer of bureaucracy, more jobs for the boys, that it duplicates the role of the strategic unit in the department of Lands and Planning and does nothing more than that which is in the reach of the Development Consent Authority.
These criticisms are immature and poorly thought out. In fact, they exemplify the attitude that Labor has imprinted upon the Territory for the last 11 years. It is precisely this narrow-minded approach to planning that has put the Northern Territory in the precarious situation it is in today. Between myself and my colleagues, I am sure we would come up with a list as long as our arms of the planning failures our government will now have to fix. My colleague, the member for Braitling constantly refers to us walking around with a dustpan and broom.
We now have to fix these planning failures because they are critical to the Territory’s ability to grow, to maximise its opportunity, to ensure that Territorians have affordable housing or even housing at all, to safeguard our environmental wonders and capitalise on our proximity and nexus with Asia, and to ensure we are protecting the corridors of growth into the future.
Commissions, by their nature, are not vehicles for personal interest. They facilitate robust discussion amongst a group of individuals who have very purposely been selected for their individual skill set, the combination of which provides for dynamic, constructive and comprehensive assessment of the details put before them. Commissions also have access to support staff and research. The Planning Commission will have these qualities. It will be a group of minds independently looking at the big picture, high-level strategic planning for the whole of the Northern Territory. In practice, the public service does as it is directed by the minister and it is there to deliver the policies of the government of the day.
The beauty and purpose of the Planning Commission is for it to be independent. Of course there will be some connections such as the fact that the support staff to the commission will be from within the department. However, our proposed structure is distinct from the role of the planning unit within the department.
There is no question that what was once big picture planning has moved towards statutory planning which is a mechanism by which the department responds to development applications. This is a piecemeal approach to planning and there is nothing strategic about it. It has a purpose and this is what the Development Consent Authority does.
The purpose of the Development Consent Authority is to review applications as against a set of criteria in accordance with the NT Planning Scheme and the department is set up to support that process. I again emphasise that this process is necessary and will be maintained but is the polar opposite role of the Planning Commission.
There is nothing in the NT Planning Scheme that assists the Development Consent Authority to review applications in light of how a proposed development fits within an overall strategic plan for the Territory, and there is neither mechanism nor purpose to have the Development Consent Authority undertake this role. That means there is no one, no organisation, planning for the future, setting the limits, the framework in which it operates.
The Planning Commission is reflective of the fact that today’s planning processes are very different from those of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We now have many stakeholders actively involved in planning and development and there is no overarching supervisor to connect stakeholders, to facilitate discussion, or to place that development as a piece in a broader puzzle which has bipartisan support of all stakeholders. The stakeholders include - the member for Barkly touched on this - the councils, private landowners, Northern Territory government, Indigenous landowners and federal government owned land. In addition, there is no authority to ensure there is communication and cooperation between departments.
The arguments can be had on the detail of developments between these stakeholders and the community; however, the big picture, the broader plan, must have bipartisan support. It must be delivered by an independent body and must be something this Assembly commits to and focuses on right now. The Planning Commission will be independent and not tied to election cycles. Strategic planning for the Northern Territory cannot be a political creature and something that reacts to the fears and demands of politicians during any term of government.
The Planning Commission and its objectives need to withstand any government, changes to government, or change of ministers. It sits above and to the side of political process for the greater good of the Territory and Territorians. The Planning Commission will set the parameters of what you need in a city, what you need in our regional areas, and what you need in emerging towns and communities. It will look at the needs of Territorians now and in 50 years time. It will put in place plans to ensure the delivery of what is needed in 50 years time does occur and that we do not, in the here and now, destroy the opportunities the future presents or destroy the needs of the future in satisfaction of impulse or reaction.
We need people on this Planning Commission who believe in the Territory and are motivated to plan for the good of all Territorians well into the future, well beyond their lifetimes. We need people who are committed to bringing together all the parts of the Territory into a whole Territory. We need to acknowledge the value of the work done on strategic planning in the Northern Territory over the last 50 years, come to terms with the fact that the principles espoused in these bodies of work are still relevant today, and that we have much to learn from the work undertaken by passionate public servants who have come before us.
We must have a Planning Commission that can engage with all stakeholders in an independent and objective manner. We must have a Planning Commission that can engage in factual public consultation without the so-called fog of war, the cloud of hype, or sensation or emotion. Might I remind Territorians there was a time when the public could walk into a room and see models, proposals and plans for our future?
The Planning Commission will be driven by ideas and they will be the designers of our future. There is no doubt there is still a long way to go in realising the potential of the Planning Commission but, mark my words, the Mills government is committed to putting strategic planning in the forefront of our minds.
We cannot lose sight of this long-term vision and the Planning Commission will withstand the reactive new cycle decision-making Territorians have endured for too long.
I have talked at length about the importance of the Planning Commission for all Territorians. I might add, Palmerston has been severely neglected and faces future challenges in the management of its growth. Palmerston will play an enormous role in the growth of the Top End and I will sleep better at night knowing there will be a body in place whose task is to ensure the future growth of my region is planned and consolidated with the objectives of the Territory.
I want to leave the House with a story from a senior Territorian with a long involvement in planning and development in the Territory. Every day he sits at home and watches INPEX barges dredge our harbour and take tonnes and tonnes of earth out into the deep waters and dump it there. Something like 16 million cubic metres will be dredged from our harbour and not one cubic metre of it will be reused in land fill sites or saved for a rainy day. The Territory can no longer afford to be a jurisdiction without a Planning Commission and I am proud to commend this bill to the House, but, more importantly, to all Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad you will sleep well, member for Drysdale, because of a Planning Commission. I hope I sleep well for other reasons. I must be one of those immature people who have not supported this commission. You said the CLP government did a good job in strategic planning in years gone by without a Planning Commission. I have also said that.
In the days of Graham Bailey and other honourable people you spoke about, the CLP developed a great strategic plan without a Planning Commission. They employed the right people to do it. That is my argument. It is not an immature argument; it is an argument for it. Under that model, the CLP produced some good documents and I have always said that. I have compared the previous government’s plans to the CLP’s plans and have always said the CLP’s plans were far better, far more strategic, and looked at processes in far more detail. My concerns are not immature. I am using an example of the CLP where it set up a strategic section of planning. That is the better way to go; to employ good, long-term, well-qualified planners within the department to do that work. Be that as it may, the government has gone down another path and that is its right.
When I came from Melbourne a long time ago I had studied town planning as part of the course I did there and I remember the great plans for Melbourne, the strategic plans. There were going to be corridors of green circling the city, and most of those green areas were low-lying. They are now housing estates which occasionally run into problems when there is a lot of rain because they are built in low areas.
What concerns me - and we laughed a little about it at dinner last night - is the relationship between the government developers and planning. Good planning should be done on the basis of good planning, not on what developers want. Development has to fit in with the strategic plan, not the other way around. I have seen cases in the Northern Territory where there has been a tendency to listen to the pressures that developers apply and governments give in to those pressures.
I am not making any comment on which government, but I see opportunities that have been missed in the city based more on what the developer wanted rather than what would be good for the city. I see buildings that are right up against the footpath. In some cases, buildings are built over the footpath.
There is very little thought about a tropical city; that is, with room between tall buildings. Designs have appeared along the ‘wedding cake’ design. What you are getting in a tropical city is buildings side by side with no recognition that we live in a tropical climate. The reason we have that is because there was pressure from developers who wanted to get the maximum out of a small parcel of land, and I can understand that. Instead of driving a strategic plan for what the city of Darwin should look like, the developers drove the strategic plan, and the outcomes are not particularly good.
Even today you can see a building on the corner of Cavenagh Street - I am not sure of the name of the street, but it joins Smith Street - where a building is being constructed on a very small block that was a car park some years ago. You can put exactly the same number of buildings that size on five more parcels of land within that block with no requirement to have any space between them. That is because developers want the maximum they can get out of the block. As I said, that is fine from the developer’s point of view, but planning has to be at arm’s length from developers. It does not mean they do not talk to developers, but if we are to look at the development of a good city, we have to do better.
Another classic example is Mitchell Creek in Palmerston. That land was sold to Delfin. Delfin believed the whole block of land, no matter whether it was wet or dry, was theirs to be chopped up. I do not know whether the minister would remember the fuss when Delfin was going to put a pipe at the top end of Mitchell Creek, put a road on top of it and subdivide either side. Thankfully, the minister then, minister Burns, sat down with Delfin and did a land swap and that part of the creek was preserved.
No matter whether you have a strategic planning unit or a Planning Commission, some high objectives need to be set out and good planning needs to be the key priority. Even though that will be done in conjunction and in discussion with a range of people including developers, it should be the highest priority, not necessarily what developers want. Otherwise, you will have what has happened in Melbourne: the sprawl over land that was not suitable for subdivision. When it becomes available for subdivision you then get problems and a poor planning outcome.
You can love or hate Canberra but Canberra was planned and development has stuck more or less to what the concepts were. That is what I like about the 1990 strategic plan for Darwin. It has a concept of medium-sized towns around Darwin Harbour with Darwin Harbour being the centre piece of the development. I hope that idea is retained by the government and not the idea that we will join the cities together because that is the cheapest way out, but in the end you spoil the concepts.
Minister, I will not be supporting this bill. The main reason is that I do not believe the Planning Commission will be independent for the same reason I put my case about the EPA not being independent, and that revolves around the ability of the Planning Commissioner to sit on the EPA and the ability for the Chairman of the EPA to sit on the Planning Commission. That creates a conflict of interest. There is a clause which allows for any conflict of interest between those members of the Planning Commission who are on the EPA. They will have a means to be exempted from any affected personal interest under clause 81W.
Clause 81W makes sure there is no conflict of interest, at least, that can be challenged. I do not think that was mentioned in the second reading, but it was mentioned in the EPA reading. That takes away the independence of the EPA and, to some extent, takes away the independence of the Planning Commission.
My other great concern is the appointment of the chair. This is not a personal attack on the chair. If you have a Planning Commission then I would expect a fully qualified planner to be the head of it because this is a very strategic commission that has a very important job: to develop the Northern Territory. Planning is a job that requires people with qualifications. If you look up the various universities throughout Australia you will see that you can get masters degrees in planning, urban planning, strategic planning, all sorts of planning.
There would have to be a requirement that the chair of the Planning Commission be a qualified town planner with X number of years of experience, especially in tropical areas because we are calling it the Planning Commission. I know you have selected a person to do the job and I know that person has worked in the Northern Territory. That person is not a planner though. I had discussions with him. He said he has had some experience in planning and I understand that. He is a surveyor; he has also done work in the spatial sciences. The spatial sciences deal with issues of land surveying, engineering and mining surveying, cartography, hydrography, remote sensing and spatial information science, but they do not deal with town planning. That is a flaw in this Planning Commission, not only because the chair is not a qualified planner but it has not even been recognised in the membership of the commission under clause 81F.
Clause 81F does not even mention the word ‘planner’. That is a key mistake. This is the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission has the following functions, (clause 81B):
Most of those are what I would expect from a planner who should have been the chairperson. That is not to say that the person you have appointed should not be on there, it makes very good sense to have a surveyor of repute who has been around the Territory for a long time. However, it is a major flaw in something that says it is a Planning Commission.
If I were a qualified planner I would probably feel a bit insulted. I would say, ‘How come you have set up a Planning Commission and you have not mentioned us?’ It is a bit like saying we are going to start a garden commission and we will have everyone on the garden commission except the gardener. We will have the drainage expert, the painting expert and a few other experts, but I would have thought the person you would want on a gardening commission would be someone with a horticultural background. That is a serious flaw.
While I am critical of that, Chief Minister, I am not critical of where you are going with this. Having a body, which I would have preferred to have been in a strategic section of the department, but which will now look at significant development in the Territory is an excellent idea and, do not get me wrong, that is the way we are going and we were missing that in the previous government.
In your second reading speech you mentioned what some of those strategic developments will be. I hope the work done on Weddell and Kilgariff does not disappear from sight. I have always hoped that Weddell would be a shining example of how you can plan a city you could actually remember the look of.
I am one of those who felt that, unfortunately, Palmerston got lost along the way somewhere and all we remember of it is the water tower. It lost its vision somewhere along the line. You have Bunnings in the centre of town, you have Woolies on the other side of a roundabout; it grew up in a spasmodic way, unfortunately, because Palmerston had opportunities to look like a great city. I am not saying it is not a great place to live, but from a planning aspect it could certainly have been much better.
I would not mind the Planning Commission looking at the 2000 houses the minister wishes to establish because I am concerned about infill. My concern is that when the government increases the price of electricity there will be great difficulty for people who live in houses very close to one another who rely on air conditioning, not just to get cool, but for privacy: so they can shut the windows and not hear the neighbour. ‘Affordability’ can also be a code word for little blocks. If we are entering times where electricity is becoming a bit of a luxury item, people will not be able to afford air conditioning and will be looking at houses with natural airflow. You will not be able to achieve that if infill means little blocks of land.
Minister, as you are reviewing this part of the Planning Act you may, in the future, consider the role of the DCA. It is something I have pushed for but did not get anywhere with.
At the moment the DCA only has public input and public decision-making - that is, representatives from the area - for the main towns. If you want to make a decision in Borroloola about a planning matter it will be the delegate who is involved; it would be you, Chief Minister.
I would rather see a floating Development Consent Authority with a core so that when it looked at a development within a certain shire you asked people from that shire to have two representatives on the Development Consent Authority. You would bring in local decision-makers, whereas, presently, a delegate of the minister who represents the shire. That has been a flaw in the system which causes people to miss out, unless the minister asks for a public meeting, which is not a requirement. You are looking at ways of being more inclusive in the way the Northern Territory is being developed. You could also look at that issue.
Minister, you said in your election spiel that you were going to look at expressions of interest for the position of chair but you found a good person and said that good person would do. It would have been far better, especially as we are looking at an independent Planning Commission, to ask for expressions of interest and find out who is out there. You might have found a fully qualified planner to do the job.
Again, minister, it was promised before the election. You explained you have not gone down that path and you picked someone you believe can do the job. That is your decision, but I am looking at it as an outsider looking in. There was a promise there would expressions of interest. If three or four people had put their name forward for this role it could have been seen that the government was prepared to look at obtaining the best person. That is not saying the person you have chosen is not the best person, but it looks better if you had an opportunity to see what was out there in the mix.
I have some issues I might bring up in the committee stage. The shadow minister said he was moving into that area. In the second reading speech there is much talk about a comprehensive long-term plan for Darwin which picks up the Darwin regional land use structure plan. I hope, and hope the member for Goyder agrees, you will not ignore that. I say that with respect. There were 4000 signatures gained within a couple of weeks against the previous government’s view of how the rural area should be developed.
I am concerned about pressure from developers. Good planning requires that the dollar does not become the pusher. It requires what the community wants rather than what the developers want. Some of the community might want development, there is no doubt about that, but we can have a unique part of the world where people have options of lifestyle. We have urban, we can have high-rise, and we have rural.
There are many issues if the government goes down the path of wanting to develop the rural area into small blocks: sewerage, septic tanks, bores. Who pays for the infrastructure? There is a range of practical issues that are sometimes not explained to people.
Strategic planning should look at the rural area, but not from the point of view of how many more blocks we can fit in. It should be strategic planning for how we can retain the lifestyle, develop alternative areas like Weddell for smaller blocks, and make other room in Palmerston and Darwin for development, within reason.
I hope the Planning Commission does not come with a preconceived idea about the rural area being an opportune place for 2000 affordable blocks the government wants fairly quickly. Except for the member for Goyder who was operating as the local member, I have not heard and I am not sure what the concepts about rural development are with the present government. I will be keeping a close ear to the ground. If anyone says I do not agree with any development, I will say I supported the development at Coolalinga. Coolalinga is a district centre; it now has a residential area which is being developed.
I criticise the previous government for not even developing its own land. I put to the new government that if you are looking for land to develop look no further than Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo has a large parcel of residential land on which only one duplex has been built in the last 20 years. There is room for residential development in existing district centres and governments, for some reason, have shied away from doing it. Instead they start looking at private land when, if they want to deliver affordable housing, they can because they own land.
There is also the forestry land in the Howard Springs area. I am told there are some problems with septics in that area but I would be happy to take the Chief Minister on the road to the new prison and look at land which could give you at least 100 blocks immediately if you wish to develop it into 1 ha rural blocks. That would be a good start. It fits within the existing plans. I am not asking someone to change the whole concept out there, but it certainly fits within the existing plan.
The member for Drysdale mentioned the strategic plans. I do not know whether she has read the NT Planning Scheme. She commented about the role of the DCA. I think she was inferring that they did not have to take some of those strategic things into account, but they do. The DCA must take into account the bigger picture under the NT Planning Scheme.
I am not asking that we develop land outside what already exists. It may be that the Planning Commission will look at the land the government owns and use it as part of its mix to obtain blocks of land that will allow for affordable housing which, if you can pull it off, would be great because it has not been easy.
We have had native title in my area. We now have the department of Environment saying you cannot have septics there. It seems every time you turn a corner, there is a problem. If the present government can get around some of those issues, there is opportunity for the rural area to supply some of that land the Chief Minister is talking about to provide affordable housing, except it will be rural, which will allow rural young people who cannot presently afford land to acquire land.
Chief Minister, you will not agree with what I am saying in relation to the Planning Commission but I agree that it is good you have a body which will look at that strategic development of the Northern Territory specifically. I know it has other functions, but the idea of looking at these significant development applications will be important.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have other queries about certain aspects of the legislation and I would be happy to deal with those during the committee stage.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to a very important debate about the establishment of a vehicle which will transform the Northern Territory and establish a capacity for us to accommodate what will be enormous growth.
This started as the asking of very big questions and then considering how we answer those very big questions. A bold question which some people challenge us with: Where would one million people live? Immediately, some people balk and say we do not want one million people living here but that is not the question. If they were to arrive, where would they live? How would they be accommodated? How would they be able to move around? How would they get water? How could they interact with the environment in a sustainable way? These are the big questions we need the mechanisms to be able to answer as a community and as a government. That is why this Planning Commission has been established. Three members have made contributions, which I thank them for.
I start with my response to the member for Nelson. You, essentially, agree there is a need for strategic planning. I understand that from our conversations and from working in this Chamber for many years. But I find it difficult to understand exactly what position you hold with regard to your objections and the reasons for these objections. They were well outlined in terms of procedural issues - I have covered this off, I am exposed. I have made it plain that I did say this, but I made a decision and time will tell. Okay, I cop that criticism and will cop it again, but I am confident in the decision I made in identifying Gary Nairn as being available, eminently suitable and very well received. It is a decision that a leader has taken, in full view of the community and I am accountable for that.
I hear the criticism once again and issues around the specifics of the qualification. We will not proceed much further with that other than to say he is very well received and respected. I, and many in our community at all levels, whether they be in local government, developers, or people with environmental interests, respect the ability and capacity of a man who dearly loves the Territory, has extensive local experience as well as national experience, and is highly regarded in other jurisdictions. It was an opportunity too good to pass up and so that decision was taken. Criticism acknowledged, time will tell. He is the inaugural chair. This is the commencement of a process not the end of the process. This is the beginning of it, and we could not find anyone better suited to be the inaugural chair. I welcome the presence of Gary Nairn to this role. I believe he will serve the Territory well, with enthusiasm, and will deal respectfully, as he has in the past, and very professionally.
The arguments appear to be, member for Nelson, that you value strategic planning but you would prefer it to be as it was in times past, which is justification for an argument that we do not need a Planning Commission. Things have moved on in planning and what is demonstrated in this is a formal specific focus for a specific purpose on strategic planning. It has a more prominent position and is a stronger investment in long-term strategic planning. Looking around and recognising what is happening in our immediate region, we have to be prepared for what is to come and we are making an additional investment in strategic planning so we as a community are better prepared.
There is this recurring theme from the member for Nelson, this fear of developers; it keeps popping up. This is the very reason why there is a stronger and more specific focus on strategic planning; so it becomes clear and known, and the community is engaged and understands where we are going. The bigger questions can be processed at a higher level than they have in the past. In the words of the member for Drysdale, we become proactive and have greater control over our destiny than being reactive and short term, and that is demonstrated by the stronger focus on strategic planning.
The planners who were in the department are still there and they service this process as well. It is not that they disappear; they are there. However, we now have an engine that can drive that capacity in a specific direction with proper community engagement and the consideration of strategic issues at a much higher level than they have before. We need it. We do not need the misunderstanding that because we had it in the past we should go backward in order to go forward. We acknowledge that there was strategic planning capacity before, but we need to ramp that up and strengthen it and that is what we are doing, so, in fact, we are moving forward.
You reiterated your concerns yesterday about the NT EPA and the NT Planning Commission having chairs that swap one with the other. We went through that argument yesterday. You have a view. The purpose here is to make sure that one process is informed by the other process. Once again, the reference to the legal matter which was in yesterday’s debate was to allow it to operate to prevent the legal capacity for someone with a mischievous intent to block the whole process. It was simply that. It is not a reinforcement of that which you claim is a demonstration of there being a conflict of interest. There are sufficient safeguards in both to prevent a conflict of real interest, but it is for integration and for one process to be informing the other; to have environment considered as part of the planning process and for a part of the planning process and deliberations for the environment to be considered, and both as independent entities. That is the intent of government stated again and again.
Yes, it would be nice if the person in charge was a qualified town planner. He has adequate qualifications to be the chair and has planning experience, but I take the point and make the further point that this is not just about town planning, this is about the whole Territory. This includes a commitment to have town plans established for places like Borroloola and to provide a mechanism whereby the community at Borroloola can be actively engaged in the development of a plan for their community.
In the case you have raised, that it would be nice to have a Development Consent Authority, in some ways this satisfies that requirement because the need to engage a community to be able to develop a strategic plan which, in this case, would then be presented for view and then presented to the consent authority, being the minister in this case, is here. We now make sure the community is actively involved. That commitment is made to that community as a case in point, and not only to that one but to others. It provides that capacity, which is a concern you have raised, where the community is then engaged in matters of concern to them. There is now capacity for those high-level strategic issues to be considered in a community with adequate resourcing from government to help develop long-term plans for communities such as Borroloola.
You make a good point and I concede there should have been specific reference to a government architect or a person of specific qualifications. I am looking for a person who would be operating in the role of the government architect or someone at that level that should be included. The expressions of interests are out for that. It is a Planning Commission so we need those planning qualifications and experience at that level, and there is consideration for the government architect to be able to carry those themes and planning ideas all the way through. Regarding those five positions, wait and see! We are looking for it to be populated with people with the appropriate skills to be able to serve the Territory well through that Planning Commission.
You have mentioned Weddell as a place we could develop and that could be a model. It could be and will be, potentially. That is a fine discussion to have but we are dealing with something right here and now. It is not to say yes or no to Weddell. The issue is right under our nose. You have identified there is plenty of land and better decisions could be made concerning the use of that land right here, right now. There are some challenging issues and the former minister acknowledged those as well. We had the vehicle conducting community consultation at the earliest stage of strategic use of key land to satisfy community requirements and have all concerns of community balanced in that consideration.
The more important things are the issues right here and right now: challenging issues of where will we create that space in a sustainable way for balanced urban renewal. How do we make better use of our existing land right here, right now? How do we make a coherent decision which articulates with other considerations in a broader, more strategic context? That is what this is about.
You then argue, member for Nelson, that urban renewal causes you some concerns because that is code for smaller blocks. People on smaller blocks will be living closer to each other, they do not have a chance for natural ventilation, therefore they need air conditioners and fans and they will need to pay much more for electricity. I can understand the logic of the argument but the fundamental problem with the cost of living in the Northern Territory is not electricity tariffs, which we are only setting at a national average. In the case of electricity, it is just below the national average. The greatest contributors to the cost of living in the Northern Territory are rents and mortgages by a long shot, by a country mile. That issue has to be fundamentally dealt with by creating new supply at the appropriate place in the market and these are challenging planning issues. That is why formal investment in a Planning Commission is required.
Member for Drysdale, I thank you for your positive contributions. I appreciated your contribution regarding historical perspectives on the development of strategic plans over time. We have seen that change. Clearly in this bill we have, as government, an investment in bringing back that strategic approach so we can deal with the challenges ahead.
This is a proactive response to planning issues and issues that will be set in a long-term strategic perspective. I really appreciate those comments, particularly a line you used, ‘factual, objective and strategic’ so we can get it out in the open and, as a community, start to develop some confidence in the decisions made which will affect the long-term viability of the community.
Returning to the concern about developers, member for Nelson, the comments made by the member for Drysdale are effectively designed to deal with that for the whole community. All voices are legitimate; your voice is as legitimate as another voice. All voices will weigh into this. We talk about rural block development - all those people in that area may have a particular view, 4000 may have signed, but that community needs to be having that discussion in a broader context with members of the wider Northern Territory and not be threatened by a conversation or an alternate view. The mechanism to be able to deal with an alternate view in a broader context is what this is about so we can then make progress.
To the former minister, thank you for your contribution. Effectively, the advice was good. I made note of some points you made towards the end. I sensed it was supportive but I make a number of comments. First, it was not a party; it was a further level of consultation that occurred last night. Thank you for seeking views in the community and giving that feedback; it was quite useful. However, to carry with that any sense into this debate, and having on the record that there has been inadequate preparation or community consultation - I want to go through a list of the people who have been consulted specifically on the issue of the Planning Commission since October.
There is the Executive Director of the Master Builders Association, the President of the Master Builders Association, the CEO of UDIA, the Chairman of UDIA, the owners of Gimbells, President and Vice-president of the Property Council, the Northern Territory Executive Director of the Property Council, the Chair of the LDC, the Chief Executive of the Darwin City Council, as well as the Manager of Infrastructure Projects, the Mayor, the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, the Executive Director of Power and Water Corporation, NT Shelter, Margaret Clinch of Plan - the Planning Action Network - and the developer of the Hughes and Noonamah village proposals.
There was consultation in Alice Springs in November: the CE of the Alice Springs Town Council, UDIA again with Graeme Suckling and Kerry Osborne, the CE and the Director of the MacDonnell Shire, the members of the department of Planning, and the CE of the Department of Housing. The member for Nelson has been consulted and a couple of agencies I do not understand the acronym of - UNOMS - and a group of some five different planners. That was in the early part of November. Then, in the last little while, we have had the Mayor of Palmerston, a further number of developers, the Mayor of the Litchfield Council, the CEO of the Litchfield Council, Tony Tapsell from LGANT, the CEO of REINT, Steve Thorne of Design Urban, DAS planners, as well as a number of developers last night in a further reception to outline the operation of this important vehicle.
There has been extensive consultation since 1 October. Prior to that there were full addresses to a number of councils, as well as the Property Council, and presentations to large groups in a number of different forums. It has been a subject of many discussions in this Chamber. That is the very impressive outline of community consultation since 1 October. We are taking this very seriously.
Someone asked about the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. This is now a vehicle to assess these plans, engage the community and provide that recommendation so we can then move on and make decisions. What is the priority? It has to be affordable housing around urban renewal. That is the clearest challenge we have to face with the cost of living. The cost of living is the greatest driver which will be a high priority.
You raised the question about the pre-lodgment process – yes, a good scheme which continues. We want people to be as prepared as they can be before making lodgments. That facility still exists. It will make recommendations and provide reports one way or the other, whether it is a report on a specific proposal or something that has been requested.
We need to develop a plan about a specific area. I, as a minister, can request that. It becomes known and we can get this group to work, engage in the community, weigh the options and present a report for all to see.
You said you hope it will not be like the Western Australia model. It is a very different culture in Western Australia. I understand there is a land tax collection aspect to the operation of the commission there. Also, they have a different culture around planning in Western Australia that goes back many years. We are very aware of what has happened in Western Australia where it has become bogged down. That is something, as Territorians, we will learn from and ensure does not happen because we have a lot of work to do and want to move with our community to respond to the challenges in front of us.
I take the compliment that you are taking interest in the lives of the people in Woodroffe in my own electorate. You have given me a view of what they think, which is good. When you were a minister I had similar responses when I went to Tennant Creek and I have been into the Barkly. When you are busy, when you are making decisions as a minister, yes, of course, there is a lack of time to engage. There are similar messages I could report to you, if you would like, of my community consultation in Tennant Creek and areas of the Barkly.
That aside, David Ritchie has graciously served, and served very well. I commend him and support you in that.
You asked for the definition of a ‘significant development’. That is defined, but defined broadly to provide the greatest capacity for our ability to respond to something. That is not tied down too tight at the moment because it would be quite plain when something is identified as significant. There is a capacity, as time goes on, to enable more specific regulations to be developed that would include the specific circumstances applicable. At this stage, we have kept it broad but it should not be too hard to identify something we would class, and agree as a community, to be significant.
I thank honourable members for their feedback. I thank you for the feedback you provided, shadow minister, as well as the community engagement and the questions presented through that process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the next phase we go through will be useful in answering further questions and getting greater clarity on what will be an exciting new chapter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 6). Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, thank you for your comments. We have some very good developers in the rural area, but I know the history of where I used to live and some of the poor developments that have occurred there so I want to make sure there is a balance. I am hoping with the Planning Commission there will be a balance. Sometimes there has been a push for the worse, but we do have some good developers – I will not name them here. There have been issues in the rural area which are the government’s problem because planning has been poor.
I want to make sure the balance is there because there are good planning principles we need to adhere to.
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned the DCA and Borroloola. The Planning Commission and the DCA are not the same thing.
Mr MILLS: I know.
Mr WOOD: The Planning Commission will look at the overall strategic plan for Borroloola. The DCA will then do the more nuts-and-bolts work for development of Borroloola as it needs to occur. What you are saying is right. I thought you were saying the Planning Commission would perform the role of the DCA, but the DCA comes in later after the strategic plan has been finished.
Again, my concern about better use of existing land - whilst I referred to electricity and I do not retract that, I was referring not only to the problems with the cost of living in a house that has to rely on air conditioning, but there are social problems with people living on blocks of land. If you are going to have affordable housing, one way is to have small blocks because that, obviously, will be cheaper and you can have many so they are cheaper to service. But then you run into issues about where kids play, where is the room to blow your nose and shout at the dog without the neighbours complaining. I had a go about the electricity, but my argument is broader than that. I thought I would put that into perspective.
I was going through this bill slowly as I did some of the EPA bill the other day. You mentioned that this might be a difficult bill at times but I had some problems with clause 50C, ‘When significant development reports maybe requested’. I got down to 50C(4) which is to do with how a significant development report is dealt with. When you get to (5) it says:
The bill enables you, as the minister, to tell the Development Consent Authority that you want to be the Development Consent Authority for various applications. I hope that would not be used very often because the Development Consent Authority has public input. I hope that would be something you would not do very often but would allow the Development Consent Authority to look at some of those significant development proposals. I was trying to get an explanation of subclauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 in a nutshell, if that is possible. I tried to work through it the other night and I got confused, to put it bluntly.
Mr MILLS: It is like mental gymnastics to go through this. The best way to consider this is, in (5)(a), the (a) is the existing powers and (b) is the inclusion of the option now we have the Planning Commission, and the same at (7). However, in (5), if the minister considers that the proposed development is a significant development proposal, as in the existing act, I may do this - direct the Development Consent Authority etcetera - or I now have the option to request that the commission give the minister a significant development report. I have now been provided with the option because there is another course open. Similarly in (7), after considering the development report I can direct the Development Consent Authority or I can give the report to the Development Consent Authority together with the development application, and direct the authority to determine the application.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister, that is clearer. Perhaps dot points would help with that portion of the act.
Clause 81D:
I was wondering why that was different to the qualifying clause 9 of the EPA bill:
Mr MILLS: The NT EPA has a decision-making power which is different than the Planning Commission. It makes recommendations and reports. It does not have the decision-making power.
Mr WOOD: Regarding clause 81K, I asked in the briefing whether there should have been a definition of what an integrated strategic plan meant. I do not know if there was an answer to that. I know you have definitions.
Mr MILLS: The points (a), (b) and (c) effectively give you very strong clues as to what an integrated strategic plan is - transport corridors, present and future. Are you looking for a stand-alone definition?
Mr WOOD: Minister, sometimes what you get in the list of definitions is a referral to the section, in this case, ‘integrated strategic plan’ would refer you to 81K. However, because it is such an important part of what is about to happen, there might have been some special reference made to it in the definitions.
Mr MILLS: We could provide a definition, but it would have to be very broad because an integrated strategic plan for a port, or for Borroloola or Elliott, will all be different. They would have to consider different aspects. That is why underneath there you have (a), (b) and (c), and the subsections continue on to give the parameters around the consideration of an integrated strategic plan. Otherwise, it would be fairly broad and that is quite self explanatory.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. In some cases you will see ‘commission’ means the Planning Commission established by section 81A. This one might have ‘integrated strategic plan’ as referred to in 81K.
In 81K(1)(c), I wonder why that word ‘support’ is there? It says:
(1) In preparing an integrated strategic plan mentioned in section 81B(b), the Commission may do any of the following:
Why does it not say ‘investigate’ or ‘identify’? This one is telling the commission – the way it reads is that they have to support urban renewal.
Mr MILLS: The synonym for support in your argument would be to promote urban renewal. The theme running through that section is more like facilitate. To take your earlier point, small blocks and the challenges there require a greater level of integration and, in fact, have a greater demand for a higher level of very good planning. It is quite obvious that urban renewal will require a high level of integration and consideration of strategic issues such as those you have already outlined, including the social issues as well. They become very important matters when you are considering urban renewal. It is the facilitation of those processes that would lead to good design around urban renewal.
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying. I am checking the explanatory note to see whether it said that as well. At first reading it sounds like you are telling them they must support urban renewal. It was just the way it was written. My last question is a little bit of a dig. Clause 81X is about committees. I remember asking the minister for Tourism in his bill if there is a clause for committees. He said we do not need committees because, under the act, the commission can do whatever it wants. Under 81C it says:
That was his argument against committees. Now here is an act which has the same clauses as the Tourist Commission, which actually sets out the roles of committees. It is funny that I argued the case for committees in previous legislation and I was told there is enough power under, in this case, clause 81C. This act comes along with the same clause and it has a section on committees. Is there not sufficient power within clause 81C(1) to set up committees the way the commission wants?
Mr MILLS: No, this is recognition of the size and complexity of the task, and the greater reach required to cover a lot of ground. I have mentioned topics from Borroloola to ports, remote communities, urban renewal, Weddell, bridges and roads. You need a lot of work being done on a number of fronts, so we want to ensure we have the capacity to get the job done.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. To sum up, you said you might not be exactly clear why I did not support the Planning Commission. I do not have a problem per se with the Planning Commission existing, I had another opinion on the way it could be handled. I understand you are saying we have moved on, but one of my fundamental objections was that it is not independent because of the swap between chairs. It is the same as I have argued with the NT EPA.
You mentioned having an architect. There should be a direct line here saying one of these members must be a qualified planner, not an architect. They build lovely buildings and can do wonderful jobs. Burley Griffin, I gather, was the architect, and his wife was the planner when they designed Canberra. It is good to have both of them. I would not be against having an architect and a planner specified as part of the commission.
It is not the reason I am knocking it on the head, but it is one of the issues I have concerns about. The main reason is that the crossover between the EPA and the Planning Commissioner is unwise. Even though I know you are talking about integration, once you have integration you lose independence. I do not mind them getting advice from one another, but they should not be on there as voting members of those two groups. We will not ever agree on that, but I have to have an opinion otherwise I will not be Independent.
Mr MILLS: In closing, my comments about being unclear as to why you oppose the Planning Commision - you have already advised me of your concern about the interchanging or crossover of chairs - one chair on one, and one chair on the other - as being the principal objection. The argument was very clear yesterday.
What is not clear are the objections you have around planning. There seems to be a variety of different points of contest, whether it be bigger blocks, smaller blocks, go back to the past, go forward, we need strategic planning. There seemed to be a range of different views I could not quite bring together in one place. It is the coherence of the objection. I understand that specific one very clearly, but when I mapped it out I could not quite read where the other objections were coming from. Maybe it has just been ‘agin the gub’. That is all right.
Mr WOOD: I threw some of those things in, not as red herrings, but because it gave me the opportunity to tell you about those plans. The shadow minister also mentioned other things. if you want to put it in a nutshell, I am not against strategic planning, I just threw in some issues. I support rural and urban development. I am happy with the path the government is taking. I have some concerns about the methodology getting there, that is all.
Mr MILLS: That is fine, I understand.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have some questions about membership. Clause 4, amending section 3, the definition of member, omitting ‘member’ and inserting ‘appointed member’ - in relation to the Development Consent Authority, does it change the nature of where the chair is the member? It says:
Are they all eligible to sit on the Planning Commission, minister?
Mr MILLS: Shadow minister, could you repeat the question. I was with you up until about ...
Mr McCARTHY: I am reading from the bill where it says, ‘In terms of member …’
Mr MILLS: Where are you reading from?
Mr McCARTHY: This is clause 4 amending section 3 right at the start, minister. It refers to omitting the definition ‘member’ to insert ‘appointed member’.
Okay.
Then it gives that list of definitions. Does that mean any of those following can represent the Development Consent Authority on the Planning Commission?
Mr MILLS: I would not think so, no. The answer is no, but you may need more convincing.
Mr McCARTHY: I am wondering, minister, it is written here and …
Mr MILLS: I am still having difficulty finding the part you are reading from.
Mr McCARTHY: In the bill, minister, page 1 and then if you go to page 2, it defines:
I took it to mean from all the material you supplied that the chair of the Development Consent Authority would be the member of the Planning Commission.
Mr MILLS: It has to be the chair.
Mr McCARTHY: Then how does this read in terms of ‘any of the following ...’?
Mr MILLS: Where are you now?
Mr McCARTHY: Same space. Why would that be in that document if it is only the chair of the Development Consent Authority?
Mr MILLS: That is referring to the Development Consent Authority and the commission. That definition is referring to the two bodies.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, that is right, minister. The first one states:
I was concerned that if the chair of the Development Consent Authority was not available to sit on the Planning Commission to make determinations, could ‘any of the following’ listed in this bill be appointed and, if so, who would appoint those members?
Mr MILLS: The answer is still no. This is an existing section in the existing act. It is describing the membership of the Development Consent Authority and the amendment describes that the chair of the Development Consent Authority has a role on the Planning Commission. That clause is specifically referring to the Development Consent Authority; it is the existing section.
Mr McCARTHY: So, minister, the only person who will be sitting on the Planning Commission in terms of the DCA will be the chair?
Mr MILLS: That is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: Does the role of the Development Consent Authority remain unchanged?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good, that is explained. If we go to the next part, which is clause 5 Part 2, Division 2A inserted.
Part 2 of the Planning Act deals with planning schemes, Division 2 in Part 2 deals with amendments and requests for amendments of a planning scheme.
Clause 5 Division 2A deals with integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria by the commission for inclusion in the NT Planning Scheme. The explanatory statement says this should be read in conjunction with clause 81B(b) which outlines the commission’s functions, including the preparation of integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria for inclusion in the NT Planning Scheme.
Clause 81B(d) states that the commission will undertake community consultation before preparing these plans
Clause 13B states that once the commission has developed integrated strategic plans, guidelines or assessment criteria, the minister must follow the standard procedures for dealing with a proposed planning scheme amendment, i.e., public exhibition with notices in the newspaper, a sign on the site and a reporting body hearing.
Minister, the bill to amend the Planning Act has been communicated to establish an independent Planning Commission. With the objectives of cutting red tape and reducing barriers to land supply and creating affordable housing, how will the process be any different from the existing process?
Mr MILLS: It is different because the higher level strategic considerations are dealt with at the earlier part of the process rather than at the latter. I assume, once that has occurred and the report or recommendation has been made and we go through the process of formally lodging that, it would move fairly swiftly. It establishes a higher-level scheme involving broader community consultation at the earlier stage. It is necessary that once the recommendation or report has been received and will be acted on, that it is flagged with formal recognition that the process is drawing to a close.
I am assuming that, because the process starts at a different point in dealing with the strategic issues, it would bring us more efficiently to the point of decision-making.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister. We have had a lot of discussion about that strategic level, but my reading of the amendment says that even those strategic decisions which you say could be processed swiftly will still go through the normal process and this is giving me confidence. It will go through what is described in the bill as public exhibition, notices in newspapers, signs on sites and reporting-body hearings, yes?
Mr MILLS: That is correct. It is very important and one of the objectives is to build confidence in the community that we do have a process that is working in their interests. We would prefer to make that known to people rather than have any sense it has been concealed from view. Once the community process has occurred, and the recommendations have been considered and passed to the minister, they are made known to the community so we all know. There is a sense of closure, I guess, so the community understands the decisions they have been involved in advising and that we are moving to the final stage.
Mr McCARTHY: We have two processes there, a strategic level that will be thoroughly communicated through the community and existing processes and then it will be cut down into more like a development application which will go through the same processes.
Mr MILLS: This will be for a project of significance or a consideration that does not fit into the normal scheme. It may be a special development or a special consideration so, as part of a process that does not fit into a normal scheme, it must go through the complete process before the final decision is made. The community has to be involved in the consideration of it, the recommendation is then provided to the minister, and the decision is then made. The community is fully advised of the position taken by the minister. It is in full view of the community; it a decision they have been involved in, nothing is hidden.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good minister. What is challenging for me is that in parliament there has been rhetoric about cutting red tape and speeding up processes and this reassures me of two things. First, it will be fully community consultative which is the grassroots basis of good planning outcomes, and second, it will be considered in normal time frames and be very similar, if not identical, to what we have now.
Mr MILLS: No, I think you have missed that there are projects which need to be considered that do not fit in with the existing scheme. It might be a unique development or proposal or consideration that does not fit in with an existing scheme and we need to apply a different level of strategic consideration, community engagement, to move through that. We now have that capacity, with the Planning Commission, to deal with more complex matters that do not fit neatly within existing schemes. It gives us the creativity and flexibility to consider issues from a number of different perspectives, and that is basically it.
You may be thinking, ‘Here we go; it is just further red tape’. It is not. It is providing the flexibility and capacity for a creative solution to a complex problem which may have a number of elements.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, with respect, I was challenging the rhetoric of the language used in parliament and the community about cutting red tape and the negative connotations it had to existing planning processes. There is really not much changing. We will get to the significant development or the special project a little further down the line; however, in relation to the rhetoric put out there, I cannot see where that objective will be achieved. I am not interested in speeding up or ducking around corners or any of those issues you call hiding, absolutely not.
I am challenging what I have heard, what I know, and see it is not going to change significantly, if not remain identical.
Mr MILLS: You are still missing the point. If we want to have a different approach with urban renewal in a specific area, say around public housing, and a consideration that will apply in a number of areas you do not do it with a piecemeal approach. It could be a broader community consideration, say in Palmerston or in the northern suburbs, of what you are going to do with certain sites, then we go through the process of community engagement, then a consideration, then a report is made.
It allows you the capacity to deal with issues which may arise that do not fit into the existing scheme. We have the flexibility and capacity to deal creatively with complex issues and not be constrained to dealing with things in a piecemeal approach. It gives us the capacity to move.
Mr McCARTHY: They are interesting comments, minister. For you, as a new minister, and your new Planning Commission the proof will be in the pudding.
Mr MILLS: That is right.
Mr McCARTHY: As you progress through this, keeping out of the piecemeal analogy, you will see this is a very complex process that will take time. Should there be any short cuts in our democratic society you will be answerable for that. I have put my point forward and you have addressed those concerns. Thank you for that.
Once again, like the argument with the Environment Protection Authority, are you concerned the new Planning Commission looks like a hand-picked delegation which will oversee the NT Planning Act and, consequently, the planning processes?
Mr MILLS: No.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have given the parliament the explanation that you made the decision and are accountable for the selection of the chair. Expressions of interest are in the newspaper and you will get many applicants, no doubt. How will those selection processes be governed and how will those determinations of members be decided?
Mr MILLS: I will seek advice and, ultimately, make a decision.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, who would you ask for advice?
Mr MILLS: A range of wise people. Did you seek advice on how this legislation works? Did you get a briefing?
Mr McCARTHY: No, minister, I have not had the opportunity to get a briefing. I live in the rural remote area and would have loved to have a briefing. I am not saying there is anything derogatory in that. I live in the bush and was not in town to get a briefing.
Mr MILLS: Whilst you were at Woodroffe you could have dropped in and we could have provided you with a briefing. That is not in Tennant Creek.
Mr McCARTHY: No, Woodroffe was last Sunday, minister, when I arrived in Darwin from the remote areas. I relish the opportunity for briefings as we go further. It will mean I will be able to make the time frames where your people are located in Darwin. Of course, should they ever want to visit Tennant Creek that would be a much more central location and I would very much welcome briefings conducted in Tennant Creek, minister.
Mr MILLS: Former minister, you will be involved in this. When I say integrated, I value the advice you provided and there is a briefing available for you at any stage. By the way, you made a comment earlier and the opportunity is here, Burley Griffin was a surveyor, so was Gary Nairn.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. The member for Nelson talked about Sir Walter Burley Griffin and his wife. I thank you for the opportunity for briefings and to be part of it. I hope in all my contributions to this debate in the House that what underlies my contributions is the pride I share, having worked with the Department of Lands and Planning and with the previous government in this area. It is something that has impacted in my life and will never leave me.
We move on to more questions, minister. I want to talk about the government’s strategic planners because you outlined briefly in your reply that things will not change. I see there are possible changes. Will the Planning Commission effectively change the role of the government strategic planners?
Mr MILLS: No. I touched on that before. They will be better served and resourced by having this investment at a higher level in strategic planning through the commission. It gives them direction. They provide a very important resource to service the future planning needs of the Northern Territory. It is complementing and augmenting what we have within the department.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. Will complementing and augmenting require a restructure of the department?
Mr MILLS: No, that has already occurred.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it true the Territory Growth Unit within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment has been scrapped?
Mr MILLS: It was brought into Planning. We have all the planning in one space.
Mr McCARTHY: So, that is the restructure you talk about, minister?
Mr MILLS: Our focus is on planning and we have the capacity to deal with strategic planning.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you. You mentioned the restructure has already taken place so I assume that was the restructure. How many staff from that area have lost their jobs?
Mr MILLS: I will take that on notice. What area are you speaking of?
Mr McCARTHY: We are talking about growth planning, minister.
Mr MILLS: I will take that on notice.
Mr McCARTHY: Are there any interim measures in place for the Territory’s strategic planning during the passage of this bill and the setting up of the Planning Commission?
Mr MILLS: What do you mean by interim measures?
Mr McCARTHY: Who is in charge of strategic planning at the moment?
Mr MILLS: My CE, directly. The Planning Commissioner, if this is supported and passed through the House, will then formally step into that role. He has had a preliminary role.
Mr McCARTHY: What status has the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan received in the new government and the new approach? It represented the most recent and comprehensive community engagement exercise in strategic planning in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS: You can add the adjectives about the most comprehensive and extraordinary process known to the Territory to date, but it does not have a formal status. It is of value and will be considered in the deliberations we take in responding to future planning needs, just as the document which was provided by the Territory opposition was impressive and about which I could also add adjectives. That material is important and would be considered, and will be guiding the deliberations of the Planning Commissioner, which is the subject of your inquiry.
Mr McCARTHY: That gives me great assurance because, all adjectives aside, that is a very important piece of work. You have alluded to the fact the CLP land use plan which was re-born in 2011 as basic strategic land use principles will also be incorporated in the Planning Commission’s documents?
Mr MILLS: No, not incorporated. It was just a discussion paper. That discussion gave rise to the former government releasing something so that came from opposition. It is just a discussion paper; it always has been. It does not have a formal status at all.
Mr McCARTHY: Did that plan which was introduced into the House and the community go any further? Were there any community engagement processes with that discussion paper?
Mr MILLS: Of course there were.
Mr McCARTHY: Can you outline them for us, minister? I could tell you the story about the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, but I am interested to hear since they will probably both be resource documents for the Planning Commission.
Mr MILLS: There is a body of work out there. You want to know what the opposition did with a discussion document that we generated with the meagre resources of opposition and how we communicated that in opposition to stakeholder groups? It was extensive. I believe reports were made in the parliament.
Mr McCARTHY: There were opposing principles between the two. We could talk about water resources for the future cities of Darwin and Palmerston and damming of rivers. That is why I am interested in what level of community engagement and consultation it received.
Mr MILLS: I am happy to respond to that and say it had broad community consultation. It is important as a discussion document, but it has no formal status nor does the document that was generated by the former government. By the way, what aspect of the bill are we discussing in this third reading in the committee stage? How does this relate?
Mr McCARTHY: Strategic planning, minister. Going on, I am particularly interested in any community consultations or feedback from the rural area on that other plan, the CLP plan, when you were in opposition.
Mr MILLS: There was wide-ranging engagement with stakeholders. It was communicated; there was feedback, as you would expect. Why not just spit it out? Is there something you want to ask specifically? I cannot quite understand what you are driving at.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, settle in for the ride. I have done much research on this bill and have many questions to ask. I hope you will be civil enough to answer them. This is very important as I have discussed and I am very interested in your answers, minister. Will these land use plans override any existing area plans currently incorporated into the Northern Territory planning scheme?
Mr MILLS: What land use plans overriding other schemes? What are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: You have at your fingertips the Greater Darwin plan and the 20-year-old Country Liberal Party discussion paper. Will they override any existing area plans developed by the previous government?
Mr MILLS: No, of course not. As has already been stated a number of times, they do not have a formal status so how could they, unless they go through the process which has been outlined and debated here.
Mr McCARTHY: I was involved in the development of area plans. There has been much work done in Borroloola and those growth towns. I would hope that was valued and the lessons learnt in that work would continue to support the new Planning Commission and the minister in the decision-making processes. Consequently, my questions have been to tease out that they are still of value, useful, and you will not be throwing out everything completely in a full-blown attempt to rid the new world of any evidence of the previous government. We will move on, minister.
Mr MILLS: May I respond?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly.
Mr MILLS: You have not heard the language coming from me that there is a whole new era and all that was behind us was devastation. We have something that was held up over there by the member for Nelson that has value and would be considered. These are all valid voices in this discussion. If you are going to allude to the ideas of the past, it was not a 20-year-old document; it was produced by opposition two years ago. Yes, all ideas are valid and will be considered. They do not have a formal status, but we will have a genuine process which the community will be involved in. It is about them. It is not about proprietorship over ideas, one or the other.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. I thank you for the passion you put into that response. As a minister, how do you value the Enquiry by Design process?
Mr MILLS: How does this relate to the committee stage? What particular aspect? It is under the broad heading of what?
Mr McCARTHY: Strategic planning, minister. If you want to look at what has happened in the past the Enquiry by Design process that designed Weddell and Kilgariff, two opposite ends of the Territory, was very successful. I wanted to hear your thoughts about that and then I will ask you what the Planning Commission could do to incorporate that process, because if you ask Territorians, that was probably one of the most comprehensive community consultative processes ever engaged in by the Territory around strategic planning.
Mr MILLS: I will say it again: this is not about proprietorship of ideas; this is about the quality of ideas and the capacity to assess ideas here and now for the future. I acknowledge the processes that have gone on in the past, whether they be the Country Liberals’ or the former Labor government’s; there is a lot of good work there. The issue is the quality of the idea, not who owns the idea or who had authorship of it. There is nothing new under the sun.
We have quality ideas and we are discussing a vehicle whereby the community can be involved in the decision-making that affects them. Do not worry. Good stuff has been done. We are not like that last government. Remember that the last government reckoned everything that happened before was terrible - brand new era. We are not like that. Good stuff happened even under the last government.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister for that confidence building. As I have often said, I like learning from people, and I learn lots in this place. I have learnt from you the difference between policy and politics. My questioning is around good policy, and good policy should be valued. You are giving me confidence there minister, thank you for that.
I had a few more questions about Enquiry by Design, but let us move on to the reporting body hearing in terms of the explanatory statement.
Clause 13B says once the commission has developed integrated strategic plans, guidelines or assessment criteria, the minister must follow the standard procedures for dealing with the proposed planning scheme amendment, that is, public exhibition, notice in newspaper, sign on a site, and a reporting body hearing.
Minister, does this amendment suggest that the Planning Commission will be processing their new plans, guidelines and assessment criteria through the DCA reporting body?
Mr MILLS: There is no change. That is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: That is correct. So I could assume that with a lot of the new thinking and new ideas coming out of the Planning Commission, the DCA will have an increased workload.
Mr MILLS: Possibly. For the processing of some of the more complex and challenging issues there are additional resources to help provide, let us say, some of the higher order consideration of planning before it comes to the point of consent. The DCA is a decision-making body that has often been forced into a dual role of considering planning matters at the point of making a decision. Many of the planning considerations will be handled by the Planning Commission. We get more to the point of the decision through the consent authority.
By definition, you can see that there is a difference. In some ways their workload is eased because they are focusing on the point of decision-making; does this comply; yea or nay? Many of the planning considerations are then carried on by a dedicated and independent body called the Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. You are right. There will be an increase in workload because there will be a whole lot of new territory to explore. The Planning Commission has an enviable and exciting task because they will be looking at that higher-level strategic land use objective. That will filter down into a lot more work in that consent authority process. I am glad you mentioned extra resources because you will find that considerable extra resources will be needed when you start to generate this new thinking in the Territory and process that into outcomes.
There has been some talk about conflict of interest and you have tried to address that in your responses. Regarding the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, you have established for me, thank you, that there will not be any of the following problems - they relate to the chair as a member of the Planning Commission. In this situation, the Chairman of the DCA is party to deliberations and part of the report by the Planning Commission on a significant development. The chairman then sits on the Planning Commission where the report is used.
How will you ensure that crossover does not create problems for the system and break down?
Mr MILLS: There is an act which needs to be complied with.
Mr McCARTHY: Will that mean the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority might have to remove themself in the case he or she were involved in a deliberation and a reporting process and then the Planning Commission is investigating that report?
Mr MILLS: Yes. As you would have seen in your reading, there is occasion where that may be required.
Mr McCARTHY: How would you handle that, minister?
Mr MILLS: As the need arises if there is a clear conflict. It is described in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. I will talk about the significant development proposals. This is new and you said in your response it will be a moving feast.
Mr MILLS: I did not use those words.
Mr McCARTHY: No, they are my words. In reading the amendments, I made the assumption that significant development proposals will be on the largest scale or the more strategic level of what is defined in the bill as a significant development. From the explanatory notes, a significant development proposal is described in proposed section 50A as requiring a development permit and having a significant impact on the strategic planning of the Territory or on the natural environment or existing amenity.
In your words as the new Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, could you give me an example of a significant development proposal that could come your way?
Mr MILLS: One that springs to mind and one I am particularly passionate about is high-density public housing. This would need high-level consideration and would be a significant development. It has planning issues on all levels: environmental, social, transport That is one I would pick straight up - the reform or reshaping of some of our high-density public housing space where the broader community can be engaged in that discussion.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. That was one on my list that the previous government had been working on. Can you describe a significant development that impacts on strategic planning?
Mr MILLS: If you were going to change the scheme that would then permit development which results in many more people living in an area, that will require consideration of transport infrastructure.
Mr McCARTHY: One more, minister - a significant impact on the natural environment?
Mr MILLS: If there is a proposal to develop an area in the rural area that will have a different use than was part of the scheme that may result in some changes to natural vegetation, for example, a forest, the impact on the natural environment would have to be considered.
Mr McCARTHY: Those questions were designed to share with you my experience of the challenges you will go through. Once again, I keep going back to this cutting of red tape and speeding up the process. There is no such thing. I can remember the department saying to me once, when the myriad of green ministerial folders which pile up for decision-making were in record numbers in that department - very important work. You will be challenged by those considerations and will pore over them in a timeless sense. Good luck to you, minister, because it is really exciting work.
Do you consider the Harbour View Plaza building on McMinn Street a significant development?
Mr MILLS: An existing building as a significant development?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister. You are familiar with the Harbour View Plaza building?
Mr MILLS: Yes. Do I consider it a significant development? It is already developed.
Mr McCARTHY: Let us turn the clock back and say it came to you as a proposal. Do you see that as a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: I believe that was built in the late 1980s. Perhaps then it was very significant.
Mr McCARTHY: It is a significant development proposal. Minister, from my learning - and this is my opinion - that has produced a very bad planning outcome in strategic planning for the Darwin CBD. What do you think of that comment?
Mr MILLS: We need a Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Very good, minister. You may want to delve into that example because it was a good one for me to deconstruct, with experts in strategic planning, as to why that is not a good example of a significant development project and the impact it has had on existing amenity, infrastructure, and environment. That is a case study I share with you. I do not know if you want to respond to that, minister.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I do. The powers of the Planning Commission do not go as far as unscrambling eggs. However, there may well be identified planning challenges such as street flows in Palmerston, for example, which may need a fresh approach and to which there may be creative solutions. Yes, there are bad decisions which have been made, and that is why we need a better approach.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In a significant development proposal, do you see maximum building heights forming part of that criteria?
Mr MILLS: There are natural limitations anyway, because of the RAAF.
Mr McCARTHY: You are correct, minister; that is one of the constraints. However, there is probably some room to move there. In a significant development proposal, do you see that as an area the Planning Commission would be interested in taking on?
Mr MILLS: Where we will go now with what you are touching on is the need for the community to be confident to weigh ideas and not to be like the former government, which weighed an idea in a political context to knock it out of play so it could not be considered. All ideas should be able to be considered.
Mr McCARTHY: Ah, minister, your assumptions! I do not know whether you want to put too much energy into your assumptions of where I am going. I am sharing with you learning, and I am very interested in how this amendment will do it better and make these improvements to address your objectives. There is another area I would like to talk about: volumetric controls on buildings in the CBD. Do you see that as a significant development project?
Mr MILLS: We are now wandering into the area of policy consideration and commentary. I draw your attention to your General Business Day coming up. I am largely in your hands and the hands of the parliament, but I believe you have enjoyed the wanders through this. There is a sense of nostalgia transmitting from your side, but we are in the committee stage. I am very aware that your General Business Day is bearing down on us in a couple of minutes, so is it your intention to continue on or are you satisfied?
The point you have just asked me to respond to is a policy discussion; it is not to do with the committee stage of this debate.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, and that is your response to the question. I consider my position here as being a responsible member of a Territory opposition in a democracy that is making comment and having a discourse on what is a major reform for the Northern Territory. If you want to watch a clock or assume I am making mischief, or if you want to cast your assumptions of where I am going then that is an energy waster. I was hoping we were having a legitimate intellectual discourse on something I have learnt much about and am very passionate about. You have lost the value here. Maybe you need a Mars Bar or a drink of water.
Let us continue because I have a few more questions. In terms of policy, I want to discuss dual occupancy as a strategic planning initiative. But if you want to go straight to strategic planning then what about the Arafura Harbor development, minister? Do you see that as a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: If it were to be brought forward as a proposal then absolutely. But we are talking about the vehicle whereby matters can be considered in full view of the community, recommendations and reports made, and the community involved in decisions that affect them - nothing hidden, out in the open. We are talking about the operation of a Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: I would like your thoughts on a subject in which a Planning Commission could make a big difference. Let us go back to the construction of the East Arm Wharf under the administration of the Country Liberal Party government, which built that wharf where storm water ran straight into the harbour. I was fortunate enough to be the minister for Construction and started the process of addressing that. In relation to the Planning Commission, you can see the real benefits when a Planning Commission would be able to look strategically at a major infrastructure icon like the East Arm Wharf and address that problem before it was able to create decades of concern and serious economic challenges for the Northern Territory. Would you like to comment on that, minister?
Mr MILLS: Are you having a lend of us? This is the committee stage. What are you discussing that is relevant in the committee stage?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, the next example of a strategic level of planning I would like your thoughts on is the rezoning of private land in the greater Darwin rural area. Does that constitute a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: You are asking me to comment on policy. We are talking about a legislative means to be able to deal with strategic issues. I draw you back to the discussion that we are supposed to be having, former minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chairman! I note that the time is now 5.30pm. I am aware it is a Wednesday so the General Business Day should be brought on, unless the opposition wants to take another tangent.
Mr CHAIR: Being 5.30pm, it is now time for General Business. Therefore, I will report progress and seek leave for the committee to sit again.
Mr MILLS: Is that your intention? It would have been nice, if you really wanted to have an intellectual exchange and a sharing of ideas, if at least you had gone to get a briefing.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, thank you for the offer of a briefing. I did outline for the House that I live in Tennant Creek. I spend a lot of time in the bush. I no longer have the luxury of unlimited travel within a ministerial budget to conduct the important work that ministers do. I will accept your invitation. I spent hours preparing what I thought would be a good discourse. I look forward to continuing.
Mr MILLS: I will have to complete my remarks at a later stage. I understand you have taken a fair bit of time and have ...
Mr CHAIR: Can we call an end to that at the moment please?
Mr MILLS: All right, we will leave it be.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Madam Speaker, I report that the committee has only partially considered the bill. Accordingly, I move that the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again after general business.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
No matter where you live in the Territory you are deeply affected by this matter. We have seen the shifting sands of the government trying to explain away something that has a significant impact on Territorians, regardless of where they live. We know that before the election the member for Blain’s first and main commitment to Territorians was that he would cut the cost of living. Yet straight after the election he decides to put up power and water bills by $2000 per family.
Prior to the election his commitment was to cut the cost of doing business in the Territory and, after the election, he is slugging small businesses an average of $7800 per year in hikes to their power and water bills. We have heard from some businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, that it is much steeper than that. That is the point I make, that is an average. We have had debates in this Chamber and we have heard very loudly and clearly from people right across the community sectors that families will face a double whammy. Prices will go up everywhere: in the childcare centres, at the grocery stores. Rates will go up as councils have announced - in Darwin by 3%, Palmerston 6% - and as rates go up, everyone knows the landlords put their rents up.
Here we have far-reaching, damaging consequences to Territorians and Territorians have said this is the last straw. This is breaking their back. This government is not listening to the very reasonable calls from people who are saying that if you are hell-bent on hiking up power and water prices then at least do so incrementally over a period of years.
One person in a letter to the editor or text to the editor said that you do not try to pay your house mortgage off in two years, why are you doing this in one fell swoop?
We know why they are doing it in one fell swoop. On Channel 9 news, the presenter asked the Treasurer if she hopes people forget about this in four years. In a candid admission she said, ‘Oh no, we hope they forget about it in two years’.
Mrs Lambley: We do.
Ms LAWRIE: So that is at the basis; that is at the core. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Araluen, ‘we do’, a confirmation again. This is petty politics.
This is the CLP slugging Territorians because they want to get the dividends rolling in from the Power and Water Corporation - the dividend payments that have been on a dividend holiday for many years, not as constructed in the fantasies of the current Treasurer. The Power and Water Corporation has had dividend holidays for many years. The government wants to rake in the money from Power and Water, making the citizens fill up the revenue coffers for Power and Water; rake in the dividends to pay for their unfunded election commitments in the bush.
I place on the record that without the government ruling out privatisation, which to this day they have failed to do - the Treasurer said to the media, ‘Never say never’. This is the pathway well trodden by Liberal governments around our states, the pathway of privatisation, flogging off the utility for a quick cash injection into the coffers, into the general revenue. What happens after privatisation? Massive hikes in power and water charges to the consumer. In all this we are forgetting - all this outside the realm of knowledge or acceptance - that power and water are essential services. They are as essential as going to the hospital for healthcare services. They are fundamental to people’s ability to live in our community and do business in our community.
We heard the member for Fannie Bay yesterday talk about his grandfather finding that all-important water strike in Tennant Creek and how that enabled Tennant Creek to become a township.
I have heard residents in the rural area talk about how much this will cripple them because they rely on power to run their bores to get water. That is not a luxury. They cannot turn the power off to reduce the electricity bill. They have to run it to get water out of the bores. These are rural residents who are making their living out of the land and agriculture.
We have a government which says food is part of its three-hub economy, yet it is crippling those rural residents who are doing the hard yards. It is no easy thing to be sustainable, let alone profitable, in horticulture and agriculture in the Territory. Are there any concessions? Are there any subsidies for the rural residents on the land growing the food we love to get from our shops and markets?
We are proud of our Territory produce and it is provided through the hard sweat and effort of the rural residents of the Northern Territory who rely on electricity to generate the power for the bores to irrigate their crops. Not a moment’s thought, I hazard to think, went into any consideration of the effects of the power and water hikes on the rural residents of the Northern Territory providing Territory produce to our markets, our shopping centres, and literally onto our tables.
Here we have an admission by the Chief Minister announcing fast-tracking of financial support for the Ord scheme. It is things like getting rid of the debt of Power and Water that will enable them to fund the fast-tracking of the Ord. Are we funding cotton or sugarcane to go to China? Is that what you are doing? Is that where your priorities lie? We will destroy the farmers of the rural area for the sake of the vast Chinese investment to send produce to China. That is how obscene the priorities of this government are.
You are putting up the prices everywhere. What will be the weekly impact for the family living in Ngukurr, Kalkarindji, Lajamanu or Papunya who rely on those cards to pay their bills? How far will $50 get you? I am advised it will get you about four days’ worth of electricity. What will $50 get the family now? Two days? Where is the analysis of that impact? Where is the evidence being led by the government of how they will deal with the impact on the people who voted them in to government? The people of the bush; the people who voted for change because they wanted their lives to improve, not get worse. You have just made it a whole lot worse.
Fundamentally, it is all about debt. You want to get rid of the debt. The debt is not unsustainable, unmanageable or unserviceable. Moody’s has rated the Territory AA+ with a stable outlook. The real reason you want to get rid of the debt is you want the dividends. You want the dividends from Power and Water to be the cash cow for the Territory government to fund the unfunded election commitments in the bush.
You want to fill up the coffers of Power and Water so it is positioned for sale – privatisation, as Liberal governments have done around the states of Australia. Where they have done it, what are the communities in those states calling out for now? For their utilities to be returned to the public because they are sick and tired of paying for the profits of the greedy few that come out of an essential service. Power, water and sewerage are essential; they are not luxuries.
In the mini-budget will we see compensation for families for hardship? Will we see grants increased to non-government organisations which deal with the front line of hardship day in, day out, across our communities? Will there be tenfold increases in the financial hardship grants to these non-government organisations for people who go to St Vincent de Paul to seek financial assistance to pay the power bill they cannot pay today? They certainly will not be able to pay it under these CLP price hikes.
Will we have grants going to people who rely on health equipment in their homes to stay alive? Will families be able to get letters from their doctor and send them to Power and Water or the government to say they need to run their air conditioner day in and through the night to keep a controlled cool environment for their child with leukaemia or the husband with burns? If you think I am making these examples up, you are wrong. Unlike the Chief Minister, who today seemed to indicate he has not heard all these terrible things. He seems to forget his electorate office had to be locked down because of the people pouring in the door to complain. Ignoring that, he seems to think it is not so bad and people understand they have to take this bitter medicine.
These are very real circumstances. These are people who have these concerns in their lives and who are genuinely asking the opposition to speak on their behalf because they do not know how to get the government to listen. They ask if we can represent their needs. As a newly formed government, you would appreciate that is exactly what an opposition does. We are doing our job. You can rail against us for it, you can attack me as much as you want; I will not stop. I will continue to speak out for the residents of the Northern Territory, regardless of where they live. I will continue to talk about the consequences of your decision. As I said, play the blame game for as long as you want, stay focused on debt for as long as you want, but I will continue to talk to you about the real consequences in people's lives.
I can tell by that strange look you get on your face, member for Araluen, you really want to brush this off. You do not want it to be an issue you have to deal with. The reality is it is your decision, and the consequences of your decision. Step up to the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your decision!
If you do not want to take on the consequences of your decision, if you do not want to step up to that responsibility in the mini-budget with grants to non-government organisations and financial hardship support to families, if you do not want to help business with support, then at least listen to the people. The people of the Territory are saying, almost to a person, almost to a business, to at least introduce it over a few years. If you want to pay down debt, do it like everyone else does over several years, so we can cope with the impact of your decision.
I am one of the fortunate, born and raised in the Territory. I love this place and will stay here my entire life. I will retire here. It has been an extraordinary period of being inundated with Territorians from all political backgrounds. I have had people say to me, ‘I vote CLP but I am signing this petition because this is wrong’. ‘I have been here since 1967. I never thought I would leave but I cannot afford to stay because of these increases.’
I know the member for Brennan is a huge supporter of these hikes. Member for Brennan, I will ensure that all your constituents know of the strength of your support for these hikes. They will not just be reminded today or next month but they will be very aware of it in 2016. Keep on explaining your way through that but, at the end of the day, being flippant about it does you no good.
The day before the election, the member for Blain said:
Then you hear from both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, ‘Well, you know, just in 13 weeks we cannot do that yet’. We are not asking you to prove to us how you have reduced costs. You missed the point of this debate. We are pointing out to you how you have dramatically worsened the cost of living for Territorians. It is not a ‘sprinkle the fairy dust’ moment here, Treasurer. It is not, ‘How come you have not reduced costs already?’ We are not flippant about that. It is how you have dramatically worsened the cost of living for Territorians whether they are individuals, families, pensioners or business people, and it is across the board. There is no one left untouched by the worsened conditions they receive as a consequence of your decision.
The Power and Water debt position has been raked over. I am sure you will keep clinging to that raft which has lost its oars and is drifting along. You keep clinging to it but people can see through your rhetoric. They have already seen through it in their thousands and thousands.
You continue to say - and you contradict everything you say but let us put something out there – ‘Well, Labor did not do anything’. The NT News editorial, and a few articles in the NT News by people who have been around a bit longer than five minutes in this town, point out that successive governments did not do what they should have. CLP governments did not do what they should have. In the last three years of the CLP government, they took more out of Power and Water in dividends than what they invested in infrastructure, repairs and maintenance. They ran it into the ground. They have inherited that.
Labor inherited Power and Water already with debt. You would have us believe that all this debt is Labor’s making, just like you would have us believe all the current debt across the general government sector is of Labor’s making. No, there were debt levels when we came to government. Power and Water was not a clean sheet when we came to government. Debt existed.
That was then and the debt was added to through infrastructure, not through payments of wages. Why was the infrastructure required? Well, the Reeves report talked about the Merv Davies’ report. It talked about how it had been run down since the 1980s. There were CLP governments for the vast majority of that period. It is the CLP legacy you are dealing with. It is the CLP legacy I had to deal with in 2009. If you do not like that, that is an inconvenient truth. At least I had the decency in 2009 to say it was both CLP and ALP.
But this time, no, that is gone; no inconvenient truths will touch the rhetoric of the CLP in this debate. It is just Labor. Well, it was not just Labor. It was the CLP for the vast majority of that time. Labor had to deal with the consequences of that: the $1.8bn in infrastructure which is the debt. Labor had to deal with the consequences of that which was the reason for the 2009 tariff adjustments. Only in the last 24 hours has the Treasurer started to accept that tariff adjustment happened in 2009. She said they did it for one year - 18%. Well no, get properly briefed.
It was 18% in one year, 5% the following, which is a total of 23%. There is no mention of the 40% adjustments across water and sewerage because again that is an inconvenient truth for the CLP who do not let that touch the debate. What we did with the tariff adjustments is understand that it is an essential service and you cannot price people out of the market. Do not price people out of the Territory, do not price businesses out of business, do not contract your productive domestic economy!
You get the numbers that the bean counters would love and you cast and recast to see what will give you a level of financial sustainability going forward, as well as an impact that people can cope with. That is what we did; it takes a lot to do it. It takes a lot of work, a lot of working through with accountants and experts, but that was not convenient for the CLP. It was an incompetent, knee-jerk reaction and once they had done it and started to understand the consequences they dug in further and deeper and are still digging further and deeper, because they have the monkey on their back.
You have a whole lot of incompetence in your Treasurer. You have a whole host of inability to get the numbers right and the classic was the election. The commitments made by the major parties and submitted to Treasury, and evidently this fiscally irresponsible Labor party - we submitted $200m worth of commitments over four years that were within the forward estimates, got the green light, got the tick from the Treasury.
Mr Chandler: More debt.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan about more debt. In comparison, the CLP had $400m - much more debt. The CLP election commitments were adding to debt but they were just the ones they submitted to Treasury. We have three pages plus of election commitments that were on the record during the election campaign, part of press releases, advertisements in newspapers talked about by CLP members running in the election, which did not appear in the Treasury costings. The Port Keats road is a classic, ‘Yes we will seal the entire road’, and in the last sittings the Treasurer confirmed it as a commitment. The new Katherine hospital - the newspaper advertisement campaigned on by the member for Katherine was not in the Treasury costing.
There are many of them, like the Borroloola contract: a new government business centre in Borroloola. Those contracts were signed all across the bush. There is a host of government centres to be built, a host of roads to be sealed which did not appear in the election costing submitted to Treasury by the CLP, but they are there, real, present and are expected by the members in government to be delivered because they were their election commitments – their unfunded commitments. So fatten up Power and Water to strip out the dividends and make every Territorian pay for your election folly.
It worked for you, do not get me wrong, I get that. You are in government and we are in opposition but I am a big believer that a house fabricated of falsehoods is a house doomed to fail. I fervently hoped all Territorians would not feel the pain along the way, but they are.
Power and Water could have been debt free but the lights would not be on. A catastrophic failure at the Casuarina zone substation - it is not a power station, Treasurer, it is a zone substation - taught us that. The Merv Davies’ report pointed that out. The CLP’s mad rush to pay off debt is driven partly by the ideology that you want to position it for sale, privatisation, putting profits before people and power, profits before a reliable service. As we all know, there is a vast need to fund the unfunded election commitments across the Territory.
At your peril you will ignore Territorians. You are on the record and you were bleating in the past. Only five months ago you were bleating about the Commonwealth’s carbon price saying it increased power and water bills by $130 a year. The member for Blain, the now Chief Minister said Territorian’s could not possibly afford it. However, now he thinks they can afford $2000 a year. Well, go figure! How hypocritical! How do you explain that? When asked to explain how people can find savings of $2000 a year, go to a website is the answer.
Do you think Territorians have not already gone to that website when we promoted it back in 2009? Do you think businesses have not already prevailed upon the opportunity of ecoBiz and done what they can? I know of a pub business that went to ecoBiz and saved $4000. Well, $4000 is a sniff on what they will be forking out. They will not be one of the small businesses forking out $8000 a year. It will be at least triple that because pubs rely on refrigeration, unless, of course, under this new great Northern Territory of the CLP you want us to get used to warm beer. That will not go down too well.
The increase will hurt the economy in so many ways. Of course the Minister for Business does not want to countenance giving any funding to the Chamber of Commerce or any of the affected industry groups to do any economic analysis of it. The party which seemed to be so proud of how it represented business is turning its back on business after given them a right old kicking without any consultation. I have never seen such fury across all the business industry organisations. If you think they do not understand the budget position of the Northern Territory, if you think they have not attended sessions where they understand the debt of the Territory, you are kidding yourself. They know perfectly well. They know the debt was acquired through infrastructure and they know why.
They know why, in the case of Power and Water and the failures in the system and the need to increase generation capacity to meet demand. They know why in the general government sector. They know of the $4.6bn invested since the global financial crisis to keep the manufacturing sector alive, the construction sector alive, tourism off its knees and retail and hospitality in some level of growth when the rest of the nation was plummeting. There is a reason why we are the fastest growing economy in the nation for the next five years. It is that critical $4.6bn spend to keep us in positive growth, landing the major project of Ichthys.
All of that, of course, is an inconvenient truth. The Treasurer says you can track the increase in debt from when I became Treasurer, wanting to completely ignore, because it is an inconvenient truth, that I had one great year before the global financial crisis hit. There was $4.6bn in infrastructure spending as a result of the GFC and all industry congratulated me year in, year out. Daryl Manzie, on radio, commenting on each budget gave it an eight out of 10. He is a former CLP minister; he got it. He understood I was keeping the economy in growth.
Mr Westra van Holthe: You had everyone hoodwinked.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Katherine. I will let the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturing Council, all the industry groups - Property Council, HIA, Real Estate Institute, Master Builders Association - know you think they could be easily hoodwinked. Really? Seriously? For real?
They understood what we were doing. As I keep saying, if you want to understand it, have a look at the 2010-11 actuals. The Territory posted economic growth of 1.6%. If you stripped the public spending out of that we would have been flatlining. Continuing with that, if we had listened and had not put the $4.6bn into infrastructure increasing debt, we would be in recession. That would have made you happy on the opposite benches because you could have pointed to our failings in recession. But, no, we kept the economic growth, not because of the political arguments but because we realised Territorians fundamentally wanted jobs. They cannot live here without jobs. We needed to keep people in jobs. We kept people in jobs and created an additional 13 000 jobs.
You will continue to inflict pain because there is some sort of strange quirk going on over there I do not quite get. You do not have to; you can start to listen to the people who voted. The majority voted for you; I suggest you start to listen to them. If you are hell-bent on these price hikes, bring them in incrementally. Listen to Territorians, families, businesses. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague. I support Territorians because every person I have spoken to in the past few days is very critical of the CLP’s increase in power charges.
I can understand that sometimes you have to increase the price. I can understand the new party coming to power blaming the previous government for everything that went wrong, from the financial situation of the Territory to the hot weather we have this year. However, the reality is, if somebody is looking critically over the whole situation, they will realise many of the things the other side said - both the Chief Minister and Treasurer - are far removed from the truth. As a result, we have seen statements such as, ‘We are broke’. The Treasurer said yesterday that Dr Neil Conn went to the Property Council lunch and spoke to them, describing the dire financial situation of the Territory, and everybody stood with their mouths open. I bet Dr Neil Conn did not tell them he was working for the CLP campaign because their mouths would have been open twice as much.
We have heard much about the debt of the Territory. Of course, some people may think debt is something bad. The reality is, we live in a world where we all have debts. I bet every single person in this House has a credit card, and many of us in this House have a mortgage. So, we have debt and some of this debt will go on for 20 or 30 years. What is really interesting in some of the rhetoric we have from the other side is how bad debt is, how we live beyond our means, and how we have to start paying our way.
I did some research recently. I do not know why, but something came to my mind and I went looking. I found a very interesting statement in some papers.
That statement is in the CLP Budget Papers 2001-02. The CLP, at the time, recognised the need to borrow money, especially after self-government, because they had to build the Territory. They borrowed, and borrowed heavily. The Territory debt at the beginning of self-government was 99% of the revenue. Only in 1993-94 did it fall to 68% of the revenue. The debt to revenue ratio in 1993-94 was 68%. In 1998-99, it was expected to rise to 70%. This is a statement from the CLP budget papers of 2001 and if any of the members opposite have any doubts, I will provide that so they can read it.
We have the opposition taking hard knocks over the debt of the Territory. In 2000, there was a 70% nett debt to revenue ratio compared to ours in 2011-12 of 35%, and this was going to rise in 2012-13 to 48%. The debt in the beginning of the CLP era was spent for infrastructure and, surprise, surprise, the money we borrowed was also spent on infrastructure. A significant amount of money was spent on infrastructure. Let me remind you of some of the infrastructure we put in place.
In your own home town, Treasurer, there is a brand new power station that cost nearly $100m. This is from the money borrowed and put into Alice Springs. In Darwin, the upgrade of the Casuarina substation; the installation of three new generators at the Weddell power station, which produce nearly the same amount of power that Channel Island generates today; the undergrounding of power; the rectification of power lines to the rural area to avoid blackouts; and a significant number of other projects that somehow had to be financed.
They had to be carried out quickly because sufficient money was not provided to Power and Water in the 10 to 20 years before the Labor Party came into government. We probably did not put as much money as we should have into Power and Water in the beginning, but at the same time we did not fleece Power and Water because many times we excused the dividend which we did not receive.
Coming back to the cost of living, the excessive rise in power, water and sewerage prices is only the beginning. The information we get now is that trailers will be registered, and registration will increase by 15%. The CLP even contemplates a boat registration scheme. What else will happen? They are hell-bent on paying the deficit within four years.
I challenge any of you opposite to go home tonight and tell your spouse you want to pay your mortgage in four years. Hence, they would not have entertainment, go out, buy new clothes, and the kids could not have a new computer because you want to pay off your house in four years. I do not believe you will have a very good night; I believe you will have a very interesting few weeks to come.
Debt is a reality of our century; debt is a reality of modern living. Many governments - national, state and territory - have borrowed money and have had debts for many, many years. There is a school of economists advocating that the balanced budget is not the be all and end all. Governments have to learn to live with deficit in order to provide services to their citizens. You cannot tell somebody who turns up to immunise their child that you do not have their vaccination because you have decided not to borrow the money so you can pay the deficit out. You cannot tell kids in the classroom there has to be 45 kids per teacher because you do not want to employ more teachers so you can pay the deficit quicker.
I challenge you to talk to people. You have already done that; you have tried to talk to people and people are very angry. What makes them even angrier is not that you have raised the price of power, they can accept that and the raising of charges, but 30% in one shot - 40% for water and 25% - is excessive. To rub salt into the wound the Treasurer said, ‘We did that because we think they will forget in two years time’.
I will give you a hint; they will not forget in two years time because every quarter they will receive a blue piece of paper with Power and Water or Energex written on it and the power bill will be 30% higher than in the previous quarter. It will be very interesting because the election will be held in August 2016 and all these people will receive a bill from Power and Water, or whatever the name of the utility is at that time, just before the elections. If that does not remind them who did it, I do not know what will.
The Chief Minister talks about the cost of living and insists the high cost of living is due to mortgages and rents. Let me tell you something, the cost of living is not made up of mortgages and rents only. People budget for their mortgage; they enter a contract with their bank and know what they will be paying for the next one, two or three years. Some people even choose to go to fixed interest rates so they know what they will be paying every month. How can the cost of the mortgage contribute to the rising cost of living when the interest rates keep falling and the banks pass most of this on to their consumers?
The cost of living is made high by the price of bread, milk, water, food, clothing, day care, private childcare, school fees and so on. Treasurer, I know your maths is not very good, you admit it. Everything will go up. We have the first wave coming up: the first notices that childcare will go up and the others will follow. You will see it every time you go to the supermarket as will another 200 000 Territorians and they will know very well why this happened.
Even the price of petrol will rise. The petrol stations will pass the costs to the consumer and everybody is angry about the petrol companies putting the price of fuel up. Guess what will happen when they find out they will have to pay another 1c or 2c because the petrol stations are going to pass their costs to the consumer?
This idea that we have to pay the debt out now is crazy, especially when you hear the Minister for Health is preparing to cut costs and services to save money. He had the audacity here yesterday to criticise the former government for providing a life-saving facility to Indigenous people in Central Australia. He had the audacity to say he cancelled the renal dialysis bus because the government had not budgeted for $200 000. Let me tell you something Minister for Health, the budget for the Department of Health is $1.2bn. If they cannot find $200 000 to save the lives of 100 Indigenous Territorians then someone needs their backside kicked because that is what I did and that is what I told them.
I did not hear excuses that they could not find an insignificant amount of money when we were talking about life and death situations and lives of Indigenous Territorians. I recall very well an interview by an ex-Minister for Health and hope you will never be in this position. He spoke on the ABC Nightline program in 2001 or 2000 saying we were not building clinics in remote communities, that if people wanted to die in the communities they could. We are not prepared to let Territorians die in the communities; we prepared to find the money to send the bus to treat Indigenous Territorians. I know you, member for Namatjira, I applaud you but what do you expect? This is a person who never stood for any of her own people; she only stood for herself to benefit herself. It is very cushy to sit in the ministerial seat but she could not accept that the government could find $200 000 to save the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
The cost of living in the Territory is high, I accept that. When I came here from Port Hedland in 1993 I thought life in Darwin was cheap compared with Port Hedland. The price of milk in Port Hedland in 1990 was $4 for 2L and the price of bread was significantly higher than what it is now in the Territory. If you wanted fresh fruit you had to go to the supermarket when the truck arrived, otherwise, two days later, you would not find anything. At that time I was receiving a subsidy from the council I worked for of $1600 to pay the power bill because you could not live in that place - a hot climate - without using your air conditioner.
The reality is that in the Top End air conditioning is a necessity. The Chief Minister said he and his family will cut down the hours of air-conditioning to five. Of course he will. It is only him and his wife and his wife works, he works, and spends most of the time in air-conditioned comfort. He probably would not even need five hours because by the time he gets home, has dinner and a few drinks and goes to bed, it is all right. I wonder how he would have liked it if the government of the day had told him, when he had his young kids in Western Australia in the cold weather, not to use too much gas to heat his house - use blankets to cover himself and his kids.
He would not be very happy and many Territorians are not very happy. There is a situation now where people cannot afford the childcare centre; they have to keep their kids at home. If anybody has a kid at home during the build up or the Wet with the heat and kids pouring with sweat, I wish them luck. When I first came I tried it. I lasted about three days and then the air conditioner went on. It went on because a two-and-a-half year old kid, when it starts whinging, boy it whinges well - really well and for a long time.
I do not know who persuaded you to increase the price of power but they did a disservice to you as a political party and a disservice to all Territorians. I have never seen anywhere in Australia a government being on the nose before it reaches its 100 day mark. I have never seen people signing a petition before we have even set the table up at Casuarina. They were queuing to sign the petition against the increase.
Even worse is the fact they are treated like imbeciles, like little children. People will not accept the Chief Minister lecturing them. They are not his students in his classroom. They are people, individuals with families. People know what they can and cannot do and for the Chief Minister to pontificate about what they have to do to cut costs is very rich coming from somebody who not only works in air-conditioned comfort, but whose salary is much higher than the average Territorian’s. Irrespective of the salary, it will affect every Territorian.
For various reasons, my power bill costs up to $1000. Now it will be $1300. I have changed the lights to LED. I have changed to fluoros, I have cut down on using the air conditioner and use fans more often; however, there is nothing more I can do to bring the cost of power down. There are certain things you cannot do. I even invested in a monitor to monitor consumption of power in my house. When nothing works the consumption per kilowatt hour is about 7 per hour. When I turn the stove on to cook, it costs 45 per hour. If I put the air conditioner and fans on it exceeds $1 per hour and that is only for two rooms. When the kids come home and put their air conditioner on I pay nearly $2 per hour.
I know you can cut power consumption and we do it. We have a solar hot water system like everybody else. However, you have a fridge, fans, air conditioning, and a stove and oven for cooking. You have all the other things that, fortunately or unfortunately, use electricity, even your phone or computer. There is only so much you can do to reduce power consumption. That means whatever you do you will be hit with a big bill for power. For every $100 you paid before, now you have to pay $130.
Indigenous people buy cards and use them in power meters. I want to tell them that if the card lasted three days, now, for the same amount of money, they will only get two days of power. That means people who can ill-afford this expenditure have to fork out 30% more to have their houses heated or cooled, or to cook dinner. It will hurt them all.
Many people rely on a pension or unemployment benefits. Even the ones who have jobs are probably not in as highly paid jobs as those in the city. They will be hurt. The four members opposite will be asked questions by their own constituents. I bet they will be asked questions when this comes into place. ‘Why do we have to pay more? Why does my card not last as long as it did before? Why does it only last two-thirds of what I used to get before?’ These questions will be asked. They have already been asked in the urban centres.
I bet if we started the same petition in Alice Springs the Treasurer’s life would not be as comfy and cosy today because people will start asking questions.
I have been here for quite a while and have a long memory. When I hear some of the claims by the other side I cringe because many of the statements being made are the opposite of the actions the CLP took when it was in government.
I heard the Treasurer talking about competition. It was the CLP government, in 1999-2000, which did everything possible to prevent a company which had a generator from accessing the distribution network to provide cheap electricity to Territorians. That company had a power station at Mt Todd. It was a big turbine which produced about 10 MW of power. The company tried to access the distribution network and the CLP did everything possible to stop them. As a result, the company took us to court and won the case. As a result, Paul Everingham, who was in charge of that company, became $16m richer, which was the amount of damages awarded by the court to Paul Everingham and his company for the failure of the Territory government.
In Alice Springs, there was an agreement between the CLP government and a Western Australian company, which owned the privately-run power station in Alice Springs, to buy power. Irrespective of the amount of power the government would buy, they had to pay for a fixed term. The company had such a watertight contract when I was minister for Power and Water and tried to break that contract there was no way I could do it unless I paid out the whole amount for the rest of the period of the contract.
I take the comments about competition with a grain of salt. I do not believe they have changed their mind now; it is all window dressing, trying to divert the attention of Territorians from the fact that they have raised the power tariff. There is no excuse for that. I say there is no excuse for that because, even with the 30% increase, there is no way they will pay the debt of Power and Water in four years, or eight years. At the same time, they will hurt many Territorians, affect many businesses, and help Territorians make the decision to move south. People told me they were prepared to accept a rise. They were prepared to accept a 5% or 6% rise in their power bills but 30% is too much.
Is this the end? I do not believe this is the end, because we are going to see in the next few days a mini-budget that is going to hurt Territorians even more. It will be very interesting in the next week to see what cuts to services will take place, what cuts in staff will take place in some of the most critical areas of the public service, and what raises we will see in goods and services provided by the government to all Territorians.
This is only the beginning. As I said before, Territorians have already woken up. Some people are even talking about a deliberate tactic to punish the people in Darwin because they did not vote the CLP into power for the last 10 years. I do not think so. However, one thing they believe is that somehow they have to find money to fulfil the commitments made in the bush, and the easy way out is to slug Territorians in the urban centres with price hikes in water, sewerage, power, and services provided by government. It is not a good decision. I was interested to hear the Chief Minister predicting what will happen, because he said, ‘If they do not like what we are doing, they will throw us out’. Well, Chief Minister, they do not like what you are doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government is approaching this the wrong way. I am not saying the prices of electricity and water should not increase. As has been said before, the manner in which this is occurring is the wrong way and is hurting people.
I rang Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville this morning. She told me people were already stressed by increases when the opposition was in government. I remember talking to Vicki some time ago about the stress that already high prices of essential services were causing, along with rent and mortgages. This increase in one big hit is the straw that will break the camel’s back. This will be the worst Christmas for many people. That is what she is saying, and what I believe ...
Mr Tollner: It starts on 1 January, Gerry. Wake up to yourself! ‘Worst Christmas.’ They will not receive their first bill until three months after January.
Mr WOOD: You can see the distance between you, you nong, and the people being affected.
I spoke to one of the local small businesses today; you should talk to some small businesses. When you announced this would happen, they had hardly anyone come through the door. They might have known this was going to happen on 1 January. It has scared people off because they do not know what to do. They will have to somehow find the money ahead of the increase. You are out of touch.
When I talk to Vicky O’Halloran, I am talking to someone who is in touch. When I talk to a person that runs a bookstore, I am talking to someone who is in touch. You are politically grandstanding to support the party policy. I am dealing with people who will be affected.
Mr Tollner: We are all dealing with people who will be affected, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Take it up with Vicky O’Halloran! These people have no disposable income left. Many of the people they deal with at Somerville have worked through their budget carefully. They have cut their electricity consumption. They turn the switches off. They put the air conditioner on a timer. They do all sorts of things to cover the costs the previous government introduced and now they are in trouble. They do not have that disposable income. They cannot afford it, so they see Christmas coming and they know they will have to pay for increases next year. This Christmas will be a lousy Christmas for many families and it is not just people on low wages. It is people on high wages who have bought a house on a high mortgage and will now be struggling.
You can laugh member for Fong Lim. That reflects the cuckoo land you live in because this increase in electricity, water and sewerage is the tip of the iceberg. Talk to the owner of the Howard Springs Bakery! They sell bread to me and many other people; they sell pies and cakes to all the INPEX workers. I rang him this morning; his electricity bill will go up $8000 next year - terrific. What about the butcher at Humpty Doo and Coolalinga? His name is Greg Cooling. He told 105.7 he would consider closing one of his stores as a result of the price hikes. He said:
If you increase the price of meat you increase the cost of living. He fears his customers also see the strain and will look for cheaper cuts of meat. That is the reality.
People are not buying. It is affecting small business not only because it is costing more to operate, but it is costing more for people to buy. Guess what will happen? People will go on eBay and the web and will buy their books via that method because our local bookstore will have to increase the price of books to cover the cost of electricity. Then they have fewer customers, they become less profitable and, all of a sudden, we do not have a bookstore.
That is part of the equation. On top of that - again, for the member for Fong Lim whose electorate goes into Palmerston - Palmerston council put out a media release which stated:
Who will pay the extra $1m? The people of Palmerston, on top of the other costs. It is not a figure out of my imagination. Then we get a bombshell from the Treasurer today - St Francis, Good Shepherd, Sattler Christian College and those other schools - they are my rural schools – will not receive a subsidy. St Francis has a power bill of $46 000. They will pay an extra 30% so their bill will increase an extra $15 000 to $51 000. Their water bill will go up by $1500 to $6000. The Good Shepherd College at Howard Springs has an electricity bill of about $120 000. It will go up by 30%, an extra $36 000. Their water bill is $25 000, it will go up by 30%, an extra $7500. Sattler Christian School’s electricity bill of $14 000 will go up to $18 000 with the 30% increase.
The parents who send their kids to those schools are paying school fees already. That is their right, and it has been a right in Australia for many years to send your children to a religious school or a school that provides a different service. They have now been told they will not receive any subsidy from the government because they send their children to those schools. That is outright discrimination and something the Country Liberals, years ago, would have been appalled by. We are going back to the 1960s. We are going back to the discussion about whether we should have state schools as opposed to non-government schools.
That is one of the worst decisions because the government promised it would lower the cost of living. For those people who struggle to pay those school fees - I know what those school fees are like because my four grandchildren go to non-government schools and I sometimes have to help because they are not easy to pay. They will not only have to pay the existing school fees, those school fees will be bumped up.
So we have the basic increase of 30% in electricity. The rates will increase because of that and the price of meat and bread will increase. For parents with children in certain schools – some are better off than others - you will be paying extra to have your kids at school and have the basic essential services.
You might think I have just picked on the non-government schools, well let us look at the big non-government school in my area, like Taminmin. They are having problems now. They cannot pay for their electricity at the moment. There is a bit of confusion because in the Treasurer’s statement she said schools will receive 50% of the increase. That seems to be at odds with what we heard today in Question Time. At present, Taminmin does not have adequate funding for power charges under the existing tariffs. The school council is still corresponding with the department over a $76 000 shortfall in funding from 2011.
You have to realise that Taminmin College is probably the biggest college in the Territory. It has VET courses and an agricultural section. Their costs of running electricity, say for bores - let alone the VET area for the mechanical section and the normal school requirements of air conditioning and lighting etcetera - are fairly high.
In 2011, to try to bring the cost down, the school reduced power consumption by just under 100 000 kilowatts per hour. They still do not have enough money to pay for the electricity. Believe it or not, one of the options they are discussing is whether they should be charging parents a power levy. They simply do not have enough money for power under the existing payments.
Now you hit them with a subsidised 15% increase. Who is paying? Where is that money coming from? Will it reach the point where the government school will be charging parents a levy to pay for the cost? The reality is – and this is the problem I have with this debate - the government has the economic rationalists saying, ‘We have a problem. We are going to fix it tomorrow. Too bad, we do not care what effect it will have on families. We do not care what stress it will cause families.’ As Vicki O’Halloran said, this is the type of stress that can cause the break-up of marriages. Financial stress is well-known as a problem for families.
She was looking at whether the government has plans to allow people more time to pay. Is it a case of trying to get blood out of a stone? Is it a case that leaves no room for people to pay? What will they do? They will either go broke and Power and Water will get no money because they simply will not be able to pay. Will they pack up and leave, or perhaps their marriage will break up? As I said, $2000 is only the tip of the iceberg. The disposable income for these people will be practically nil. When the member for Fong Lim laughed at me when I said this could be a very sad Christmas for many people he showed he is not in touch with the stress many families will be going through and the vast increase in the cost of living.
The government said it would lower the cost of living. To lower it you will have to somehow, magically, bring all those costs that are increasing, turn the pendulum around and bring it back the other way. Lord knows how you will do it, but the promise was you would reduce the cost of living. You said, ‘Well we did not know all the facts and figures’. Well, you had all the Treasury documents, the Power and Water documents, and the Utilities Commission statements. Even I knew the tariffs would have to increase.
I am not arguing tariffs should not increase. I am arguing that the way you have done it shows the economists have somehow driven this debate and the people who understand the reality on the ground, who know there is a need to do this in a sensible manner which will reflect some compassion for the people who will be affected by this, seem to be left out of this debate, unfortunately.
Yes, we know it is expensive to provide power. We know to provide the infrastructure and capital equipment to run power in the Northern Territory is very expensive. We know we have to pay for that, but the way in which it is being done is the issue I have. When you look at a small portion of what I have raised today, the impact this is having will continue. I have only given you a small portion of what will happen.
The Treasurer hinted that bus fees will go up - another impact. Again, the cost of living. We have a good system which is cheap, but the whole idea is to get people off the road to use public transport. If you end up making it too difficult for people, they will use the car.
There are little increases here and there. I ask the government: has any one done a serious study of the effect of these increases on an average family? Did anyone in Treasury do a cost benefit analysis to see what effect this would have on ordinary families? What would the total impact be? Not just electricity; the total impact.
I am not trying to be smart. I have spoken to Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville. She deals with people with dire financial problems every day. St Vincent De Paul does too. We can sit in our cocoon and not realise what effect it will have. It will affect communities in remote areas. If the government is saying the tariffs are going to increase in some communities, it will affect those people too because many of them have fairly low wages.
Will they have enough money to pay their power bills? Will they put the card in for a few minutes and take it out because they cannot afford to have the power on all the time? I do not know what the effect will be on some of those communities. I do not know whether the government looked at those effects? I know how people pay for electricity in many of the remote communities. They do not have much disposable income. Has the government looked at the effects of what it is doing? I do not believe so because, if they had really done a check of the effects of this mammoth increase in power, water, and sewerage, they would have not done it in this way. Surely, there is someone in the government who understands this will bring enormous stress to families.
You do not have to criticise me. If you do not believe me, ring Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville, Michael Byrne from St Vincent De Paul and those other places which deal with people who have financial stress in their life, not necessarily due to their own fault but because the increases in the cost of living have caused them to struggle with day-to-day living.
I have highlighted the issues. I am extremely disappointed that a CLP government, which supported non-government schools for years, has made a decision which discriminates against Northern Territory families, mums and dads who pay a little extra each year because they believe they have the right to send their children to a school where, perhaps, it is the only place they will receive the religious education they want. Or they may have a different philosophy such as the Steiner School or the Essington School.
Someone told me that Holy Spirit, St John’s and Kormilda are the equivalent of Melbourne Grammar or Scotch College. I regard those as wealthy private schools. Working-class people send their children to Holy Spirit; immigrants send their children there. They go through a lot of pain to find the money to send children to those schools. It is not a flash school, but is a school they wish to send their children to because it teaches some values and religion they would not be taught in government schools. They are now being penalised for that. That is the bit I find hardest with the Country Liberals. I always believed on this side there was, in the background, some resistance to helping non-government schools. Look how long it took to build MacKillop College. It was on the plans for about 10 years. I never thought that side would start to discriminate, because it was the CLP which allowed Holy Spirit, Holy Family ...
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I thought that side would really support those mums and dads who send their kids to those schools. They are not rich. I can tell you the fees for St John’s and for Sacred Heart, because I help pay them. It might be all right on my wage, but it is very hard for my daughter. She makes that effort to send her kids to those schools. She will be paying higher rent, higher electricity and, now, the fees will increase.
I am asking the CLP to reconsider that. Parents in the Northern Territory should not be discriminated against because they send their kids to a non-government school. That is unfair on those kids and those Territory families. No matter where they are in the Territory, they should at least be treated equally when it comes to subsidies.
Chief Minister I would like to see that decision reversed. People will be under enough financial pressure as it is. Do not make it discriminatory with one group of people receiving more relief than the other. That is a bad way for the Territory to go. I ask you to change that decision.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, how interesting it is to hear the member for Nelson rattle on again. He is a good Labor man. He always has been and will always support the comrades over the other side, no doubt about it. He says we do not take him seriously, he is in touch, and all of this stuff. What a character! He comes in here, says the Howard Springs bakery will spend an extra $8000 this year on their water bill because of these increases.
To increase his water bill by $8000 he would have to be using something like 15 million litres of water. He must be making a pretty sloppy dough if he is using a public swimming pool of water every day in his bakery. The member for Nelson believes it. He knows people. He knows the way the world works, and he has an ear for what people are saying. He knows the Howard Springs bakery will be paying an extra $8000 a year on their water bill. Forgive me, member for Nelson, if I do not quite believe that.
I heard an interesting story a little while ago. It honestly does have something to do with this debate. It is about two Irishmen known as Mick and Pat. I imagine a few people in this Chamber have heard of Mick and Pat. Mick got very lucky one day when he bought a raffle ticket and, lo and behold, he won. Mick won a beautiful big red truck. It was a lovely five tonne truck with a flat tray on the back. Mick was absolutely overjoyed.
The first thing he did was visit Pat. He says, ‘Look, Pat. I have won this truck.’ ‘Isn’t it fantastic?’ Pat says, ‘Absolutely, Mick’. Mick says, ‘Well mate, you put in half a dollar towards the ticket, so fair enough, half of this truck is yours’. Pat said, ‘Well, I didn’t realise that Mick. What are we going to do with it?’ Mick says, ‘Well, I was thinking we could go into business Pat’. Pat says, ‘Oh yeah, what are we going to do?’ He says, ‘Well, we can take this big red truck down the highway, park it on the side of the road, and sell watermelons’. Pat says, ‘That’s a fantastic idea, Mick. Let’s do it.’
So, they go and see the local watermelon producer and buy a heap of watermelons. They load up their red truck. They head down the road and park it on the side of the road.
They lift their shingle out, and Pat says to Mick, ‘Hey Pat, just one thing. How much are we going to sell these watermelons for?’ Pat looked at Mick and said, ‘Well, we bought them for 20c each. It wouldn’t be right if we sold them for anything other than 20c each.’ So, they started selling watermelons for 20c each from this beautiful big red truck on the side of the road.
A year goes by and one day Mick turns up to the truck looking very concerned. He says, ‘Hey Pat, I need to have a chat with you. Business is not very good mate. We’re not making any money.’ Pat says, ‘Oh, that is a bit of a problem Mick. What are we going to do?’ Mick says, ‘There is only one thing for it, Pat. We have to buy a bigger truck.’
That is the logic of the member for Nelson and the now opposition when they look at Power and Water. They do not seem to understand or comprehend that Power and Water is going backwards. I do not know how often this is mentioned; I have not heard it too many times but that fact is that Power and Water is selling electricity for less than it produces it.
The story about Mick and Pat was a joke but the story about Power and Water is not. The story about Power and Water is true. Power and Water have been selling electricity at less than the wholesale rate. I have been reliably informed that there are less than 50 customers in the entire Northern Territory who are not being subsidised. You have to ask: how long can you continue a business like that? You have to remember that it is a business.
Ms Walker: It is an essential service!
Mr TOLLNER: It is an essential service but it is a business, member for Nhulunbuy. I know the people on the Labor side like the Communist rules where government owns everything and controls everything but we live in a free market society and this is a business. It has to survive as a business. It cannot keep selling a product at less than what it produces it for. Mick and Pat found that out selling watermelons.
Like Mick and Pat, you mob want to buy a new truck. You cannot understand that there is a pricing problem. We are selling electricity at a cheaper rate than we can produce it for all but 20 customers, or less than 50 customers at least, and you sit here bleating. We did not want to make a decision to increase power prices. No one wants to make that decision.
When you go into a business and see it is falling to bits and radical surgery is needed, the worst thing you can do is turn your back on it, because that business goes to the wall and no one has power, no one has sewerage services, no one has water. But it seems to me that is the path the opposition and the member for Nelson want to take us down.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could he bring it down a bit? My ears are hurting.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, we had to listen to you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Well here is a bloke who says a bakery will spend an extra $8000 on water next year.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! You need to correct the member. What, $8000 extra on water? He was not listening. He was more worried about making flippant statements.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the sort of moronic argument we are dealing with: we expect our utility to sell a product for less than it can produce it. We currently have the second-lowest electricity prices in Australia.
You have to remember that we have a population of 230 000 people in the Northern Territory which is one sixth of Australia’s land mass. Our entire electricity generation system is somewhere around 250 MW in our transmission system. We are a very small economy.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: The cost of producing electricity ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order down the back.
Mr TOLLNER: ... is all rather expensive, and yet we have the second lowest prices in the country. Surely, ding! The light must go on somewhere to say, ‘Hang on, our utilities are going to the wall’. If we do not step in and do something radical, the thing will fall over and the lights will go out on the entire Northern Territory. But this fig of truth does not seem to dent the skulls of the morons across the other side of the Chamber who think that this is just the government being nasty. They just want people to hate them. What sort of twisted foolish people are you?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: How thick. He sits there yap, yap, yap - the old chook - carrying on. The Labor man, red as they come. Absolutely appalling. Imagine taking a job as a director of a company and it all looks well and good. You go into that company and find out that in a couple of months that company will go to the wall. That company is about to go to the wall but you have just signed up as a director. What do you do? You can see that the company has expenses pouring out of its ears. It is getting absolutely nothing for the product it sells.
Does the company say, ‘Well really, we have customers to think of. They do not deserve to have to pay anything more than nothing for our product, irrespective of the fact it is costing us a fortune to produce, so we will just keep giving them this product at the same rate.’
Goodness me, if we really play our cards right maybe the company will not go to the wall in the next two months. Maybe we can string it out for another couple of months after that. Cross our fingers. Perhaps some type of external mechanism will change in the business environment we operate in. Lo and behold, we are not going to do anything.
Of course you do not do that. When you work as a director you have some fiduciary responsibilities to your shareholders, your customers. You have an obligation to try to fix that company to ensure it remains a going concern and continues to produce the services your community wants.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have quiet in the House? I am having trouble hearing and I am sure everyone else is.
Mr TOLLNER: That is the characters over there, they just yabba, yabba, yabba.
The point I am making is we would be wrong to do nothing. Nobody wants to increase power costs like we are about to. It is not what anyone wants to do. The last thing I wanted to do was come from opposition into government and have to make these decisions. It is a tough decision, but one we have to make because if we do not Power and Water will certainly go to the wall. You cannot keep selling a product for less than it costs to produce forever. It does not work.
The hypocrisy of the mob on the other side astounds me because they are saying, ‘The CLP is trying to fatten it up so they can sell it’, like it is some dreadful crime. Only a week or so ago a fellow called Martin Ferguson, who happens to be the federal Resources minister, tabled the Energy White Paper in federal parliament on national electricity markets. The key recommendation was that state and territory governments should divest themselves of these utilities; they should not be in the market of owning these types of utilities.
Oddly enough, Martin Ferguson is part of a government that wears the Labor brand. He is part of the Gillard government in Canberra. We know how federal Labor policy works. Federal Labor policy dictates how our puppets in the Northern Territory operate, or should I say Muppets, because let us look at their track record. Every time Labor says ‘jump’ federally, this mob here jump.
They would not stand up for McArthur River Mine when it was in all that trouble a few years ago. This is 5% of our gross state product. They were quite happy to turn their back on that mining operation and see it go to the wall. They would not do anything about the carbon tax, irrespective of the fact the majority of members in this Chamber voted to have our government oppose the introduction of that tax in the Northern Territory. They ignored the wishes of the elected representatives of the Northern Territory in this Chamber. It is no small thing to ignore a majority vote in this Chamber, but they happily did saying, ‘We do not care what you think because we are hearing it from Julia that we support this carbon tax’.
The strangest thing they did was that unholy act committed by the moronic minister in Canberra when he banned the live cattle export into Indonesia. Anyone worth their salt who represents the Northern Territory, who had the slightest regard for Territory families and the industries that operate here would be opposed to such a thing. However, was the former Labor government opposed to it? No. The former Chief Minister said he welcomed it. He said it was the circuit breaker we needed.
I do not know what else we have to do or see to understand the fact that these guys are just the puppets of the federal Labor mob. When they start talking about us trying to fatten up Power and Water and sell it, you can be 150% certain, without any glimmer of a doubt, were they in government that is exactly what they would do because that is what their masters in Canberra have said they have to do.
You stand up in public when it does not matter and say you want to sell off Power and Water like it is some major crime when you know damn well, if you were in government right now, you would be doing exactly that because that is what your masters in Canberra dictate. You have never bucked your masters in Canberra. You have never said boo to them - roll over, let them scratch your tummy. Hopeless!
A couple of things about Power and Water. They are selling their product for less than they can produce it. They cannot do that forever; that is just a fact of business life. There is practically no business I am aware of that can sustain selling their product for less than they can produce or buy it. Anyone who thinks you can needs to ...
A member: Can join the Labor Party.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, join the Labor Party, that is dead right.
Second, this idea that we are, somehow or other, trying to fatten up and sell it - we can be absolutely certain that would be the case if Labor was still in government because that is their national policy. That is what is being dictated to them.
It is a tough decision the government has made. The Treasurer has my 100% support in the choices she is making as the portfolio minister for Power and Water. She is doing a wonderful job, a very difficult job, and the last thing we need in circumstances like this is a whole pack of Chicken Littles running around the place saying, ‘The sky is falling! The sky is falling!’
At the end of this process, our prices and tariffs will still be on par with the national average, which is quite amazing considering we have such a small population over such a big distance to deliver these services to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a decision we take lightly. It is not something we want to do, but if we are to be able to continue to turn the lights on at night and drink water from our garden hoses or use our toilets, this is the only possible way we can guarantee that into the future.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always entertaining when the member for Fong Lim speaks to this Chamber. I always like it. It is not always informative, but it is always entertaining. I am looking forward to him contributing to other debates in the future, particularly alcohol policy. I am very interested to hear from the Minister for Alcohol Policy in the future. We have not heard enough from him on those issues. However, we are here today to debate power and water.
The member for Nelson made a point during his contribution about the baker at Howard Springs who has worked out he will be paying about $8000 extra next year on his Power and Water bills. The member for Fong Lim did his own maths and worked out that was an absurd figure, apparently. It would not come remotely near $8000 a year. Apparently, there will be swimming pool of water going through the place.
The figures the CLP has provided about the average impact on small business places it at $7800 for next year. By the CLP’s figure, what the baker has worked out he will be facing next year is about right. That is what the CLP thinks is about right for a small business, $8000 a year extra in charges, which will hurt small businesses.
Many people in the rural area will be hit worse than people in the urban area. The vast majority of people living rurally do not have water tanks on tank stands, they need pressure pumps. They pump it up from the bore to the tank, and from the tank into the house. Those ones with bores who do not have a tank are spending more on power than people in urban areas. So, there is a lot of pain in the area the member for Nelson is speaking of.
Mind you, there is much pain being felt everywhere. I am sure the member for Nelson is speaking to people who are as passionately upset about this as we are because, before the election, the CLP promised to cut the cost of living. And the first thing they have done after the election is increase the cost of power, water and sewerage. Everything they based their decision on was public before the election.
The Statement of Corporate Intent, which is what they quote in their press release announcing these charges are increasing, was available before the election. It was covered in great detail during the Estimates Committee process or, to be more specific, the government-owned corporations scrutiny process. That was all public before the election. Everything the CLP is making decisions on was public before the election. They knew before the election they would be increasing the power, water and sewerage.
Yet when they went to the polls, they promised to cut the cost of living. It is infuriating many people out there - to put it more politely than the way they are putting it to us - because they feel they have been betrayed. This is a massive breach of faith to say one thing knowing the whole time you are going to do another, to tear up the contract they made with the people of the Northern Territory so soon after being elected. They were weeks into a new government when they said, ‘Yes, before the election we promised this but, you know what, we were always going to do these other things we just never told you about’. People are very, very upset.
The member for Nelson’s passion on this issue only reflects a small portion of the passion we are hearing from Territorians who are upset that the CLP broke its promise immediately. They have not only broken it, they always knew they would break it. They ran knowing they would break it. Everything they have made their decisions on they knew before the last election, yet they still told Territorians they would do one thing - reduce the cost of living - while the whole time planning to do the opposite. It has people very upset. Most people agree with us that power and water is an essential service that they have a right to access it at a reasonable price - one they can afford.
We increased the cost of power and water in our last term but we took it up to a point where we thought it was about as much as people could bear. Maybe it even went a little too far in that sense, but we thought we had to increase it and we did. We thought we could not go any further because it would break people. You know what? That is what people are saying. They are saying 30% will break them. It will break families and small businesses. That is what we are already hearing.
According to the Minister for Business today, that is okay. As long as most of them survive, that is okay. That is the philosophy of the CLP. It is okay if most of them survive. The small businesses hope they survive; they want all of them to survive. They want to make some money to take home for the family to pay for the roof over their head. They do not want to hear that the philosophy of the CLP is that it is okay that only some or most of them will get through, that some of fall over. That is, apparently, okay. That was quite a shocking statement from a party which is meant to stand for business. They are breaking many tenets, a lot of faiths, at the moment with what they are doing.
It should not come as too much of a surprise that they would say to business, ‘We do not care too much that a few businesses fall over. That is just the price of what we are doing. That is okay, fall over, sort something else out, sorry about your family. That is a shame’. It is just not good enough. That is what it comes down to. People are feeling that a promise has been broken - I will not use words that would require substantive motion – and now they are getting no empathy from the party which broke that promise, although for the whole of the last election they knew they would be breaking it. So you can understand why they are incredibly upset.
We believe power and water are essential services. We also believe schools are an essential service. Yet, we heard from the minister today in Question Time that schools are a private enterprise. They are enterprises and private schools will not receive any support from government to cope with these bills. We have an education system in Australia where we have choice. We have that in Australia and in the Northern Territory. You have choice. We have public and private schools. I went to both public and private schools in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. I received a good education in both. We had choice; that is what you do. But now there will be a difference because the public schools will be subsidised, but they will still pay 15% extra for power, 20% extra for water and 12.5% extra for sewerage, which is a massive slug.
Private schools are not getting any help. They will be paying 30% extra for power; 40% extra for water and 25% extra for sewerage. We heard from a many schools before this was confirmed today – we have been talking to them already - that they have already found all their efficiencies. They have made all the savings they can. We worked with them in great detail after the price rise in 2009. There is no money left in these places. They will have to stop doing things.
The CLP promised, amongst many other things, to protect the front line. Schools are saying they will have to stop doing things. ‘There are no savings to be made here; we will have to stop doing things.’ We heard the member for Nelson’s example of Taminmin where they are already at the point where it is too late, they are stretched as it is, before these charges come on top.
People I spoke with today in schools, in all the different areas of the independent sector, were staggered to hear the CLP call them private enterprises. They do not go to school each day thinking it is a private enterprise. The principals of these schools do not think they are private enterprises. The teachers working in these schools do not think they are private enterprises. They do not think they go to school to make a profit. That is not what they are doing. They are there for the social outcome and the social good. We, as a society, agree our kids should go to school. That is a basic tenet; you have a right to access education. Schools have been told today that they are enterprises.
St John’s College, St Phillips, Essington, Kormilda, The Marrara Christian School and Palmerston Christian School are all enterprises, not schools, not places of learning. They are enterprises and will be treated as such. As we have heard from the Minister for Business today, it is okay if enterprises fall over. We just want most of them to survive. If some fall over, that is fine.
Mr Tollner: You are paraphrasing.
Mr GUNNER: I am not paraphrasing, minister. You quoted Charles Darwin in great depth. You can look at your answer. You are welcome to read it out in the House again, we have no problems with that. ‘It is okay if some fall over.’
Schools are enterprises. This is a new thing to learn today. We consider them an essential service. We do not think you send your kids to school expecting those schools to turn a financial profit. It is about delivering a public service, delivering an educational outcome for our children to take advantages of the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. Apparently, that is not where the CLP are at. Apparently, they have different thoughts about how you approach schools, a philosophy we will have to explore in great detail in the next four years.
They have already made a distinct difference between the public and private sector. I agree with the member for Nelson, I was quite surprised the CLP would do that. We have a choice in the Northern Territory about where you send your kids, sometimes based on faith, sometimes on a different philosophy - the Steiner School is a good example of that. We have choice in the Northern Territory, but apparently it is okay for the private schools to be slugged and now there is a financial difference in what the CLP is providing to schools in the Northern Territory.
That is just part of the human cost we are dealing with as a result of the CLP’s decisions. This will hurt and we can only reflect a degree of the passion in this Chamber of the people we are talking to each day. The member for Nelson did a good job of demonstrating that passion. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition, in leading this motion, demonstrated that passion. It would be almost impossible to replicate in this Chamber some of the feeling without breaching Standing Orders.
People are very upset and that is what we are hearing repeatedly each day. I am assuming the CLP is receiving very similar feedback on how people are responding to this decision and what their thoughts are on how to treat power and water in the Northern Territory: that it is an essential service and they are stretched. Even public schools which are being slugged 15% do not know where they will get that money from. They do not know what they will stop doing to be able to pay for that. They have already made their savings; they have already found their efficiencies. We heard the Minister for Education today say they hoped to work with schools in reducing their consumption of water and electricity. I think ‘hope’ is a good word because it is only a hope. It has basically been found ...
Members: Bigger class sizes.
Mr GUNNER: Bigger class sizes, that will make the AEU happy, that will make teachers happy, that will make parents who do not want their students in bigger class happy.
This will have a massive impact and the Treasurer also said today they do not have any solutions or mechanisms by which they can further assist schools to manage these further imposts on their budget. The CLP is already out of solutions so it is just going to hurt. That is the message to schools: it is going to hurt and will be passed on to the front line.
Each school will make different decisions about how that will impact on students, but there will be an impact on the front line trying to absorb this. That is definite in public schools and it is more than definite in private schools, if you can be more than definite. It will hurt private schools. They do not know how they will cope with this. This will have a massive impact on the education sector. That is the phrase everyone keeps coming back to: it will hurt.
The CLP promised before the election to reduce the cost of living. There are not many things in government you can control. You cannot control the price of food; you cannot control the price of fuel. You cannot control the price of freight or rent. There are many things you cannot control in government, but you can control the price of power.
You promised to reduce the cost of living, instead, when you assumed office, one of the first decisions you made was to increase the cost of living. You increased the cost of power, water and sewerage, which will have flow-on impacts everywhere.
Businesses will have to charge more. We have already heard from a number of businesses about what they will have to charge. The member for Nelson used the example of the baker and the butcher. We have heard similar stories from the Fannie Bay butcher and Brumby’s. They will have to charge more. People will have to pay more when they buy their groceries. They will be paying more in almost every aspect of their lives in addition to what they will pay four times a year when they receive their power, water and sewerage bills. This will really hurt.
We asked today about additional grace periods to give people more time to pay their power and water bills. Obviously, that is not our prime request. We would like this not to happen at all. However, the CLP is doing this. Will they give people a longer grace period to pay bills before the power is cut off? The answer was, essentially, no. They have not looked at that yet. That was during Question Time today.
People are more than welcome to go back through Question Time. The different approach of the CLP to these things is quite enlightening. Those grace periods have not been considered yet. We urge the CLP to think about extending that and to look at providing grace periods for people to pay these imposts because they are not quite sure how they will do it.
The effect of the increased power charges in January is that people are already trying to put money aside to deal with it because they are not quite sure where this money is going to come from. They are not sure what they will have to stop doing next year to pay these bills. They do not have it in the back pocket. It is not like loose change, it is not in your pocket. They do not have it in a savings account. They will have to stop doing something. They are stopping something now in readiness. As you prepare for your Christmas holidays, which most people have, it is not going to be a good time.
The member for Fong Lim could not quite understand why the member for Nelson would say that, but it is true. That is the message we are getting from people already, especially pensioners. They are already putting away loose coins because often that is pretty much all they have after the week’s worth of living. They are trying to work out how to pay for these charges because they are stretched as thin as they can get. Tensions in families will be high. It will create a great deal of family tension as people try to work out how they can cope with these increases.
It all goes back to the fundamental difference between the two parties. There has been no disagreement about this. We have made our position clear; the CLP has made its position clear. There is no disputing we have a clear, fundamental difference between the two parties. We believe supplying power and water is an essential service and these are things you need to live anywhere. These are fundamental things. You have to have a right to access power and water at a reasonable price. That is something the government has to do.
The government disagrees with that. They think it is user pays and if you cannot afford it you cannot have it. It is, basically, a luxury item. We do not agree with that approach. Treating power and water as a luxury item will see many people in the first year this comes in really struggle and make some decisions where you really feel for them. How will they make this work? It is going to hurt.
Again, we ask the CLP to consider a grace period. Consider giving people longer to work out how they can pay their power and water bills. That is a charitable thing to do. Think about the impost that will come to people who cannot work out how they will pay these bills. They do not have the spare money, the spare change. Give them a little longer to pay the bill before you cut the power off. That is a very charitable request. We put it again. I am sure this is a management decision. Allowing people just a little longer to pay their bills will not affect your mini-budget. I ask you to think about that; give people a grace period, a little longer to try to work out how they will pay those bills next year before the power is cut off, because they will need it.
I know pensioners will only be paying half the increases, but for a pensioner half will hurt - 15% extra on their power and 20% extra on their water will hurt. For them, most of their saving will come on the food they buy. There will not be too much else; it will be in the food they are buying, the small things. That is where their hearts and heads are at.
We know it is will hurt businesses. We have already heard from the Chamber of Commerce and other industries that businesses will close and jobs will be lost. We do not know how many yet but it will hurt. Many small businesses will struggle. Sometimes even very good small businesses can have cash-flow problems with seasonal adjustments. It can get very tight.
Growing up in a family of small business owners, with most of my family in small business in different areas, I know the tensions that can come about when things are a little tough for a couple of weeks. They come good again, but you have those periods where things get really tight. There will be many small businesses where things will get really tight and it will hurt. Unfortunately, some businesses will close and jobs will be lost. That is, basically, a guarantee we have heard from the Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups are saying that will happen.
It is going to be unfortunate, particularly in the retail area where they are already under serious competitive pressure from online businesses. The online businesses will not have that 30% fixed impost a retail place will have. So retail, in particular, will really hurt as they try to compete with people who are selling online. They are already being undercut online; now there is a 30% impost which will make it even harder for them to be financially competitive with their online competition. Retail will really struggle.
This is a very painful decision the CLP has made and much of the hurt for people is twofold; from the fact it is happening at all, and that they are going to try to find that saving. They are already realising sacrifices they have to make because the CLP broke its promise. There was a breach of faith. They promised before the election they would reduce the cost of living. Everything they based their decision on was known before the election. A Statement of Corporate Intent was available before the election and was covered in estimates in the government-owned corporations scrutiny committee. They made their promise before the election ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the honourable member for Fannie Bay.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, member for Johnston, I will wrap it up in a minute. Before the election, the CLP promised to reduce the cost of living, all the time knowing they would be increasing it because all the information they made their decision on was available beforehand. The Statement of Corporate Intent, the main material they quoted in the media release announcing the increases in power and water tariffs, was available before the election.
Therefore, it would probably be fair to say the hurt is coming from the cost of power and water increasing and anger is coming from the fact people feel a promise was broken and the CLP already knew it would break that promise. There is much hurt and anger out there.
The Treasurer said she hopes this will be forgotten in a couple of years’ time. I do not think it will; this is running pretty deep. The government might be a bit out of touch if they think this will disappear quickly or people are only temporarily upset. This is a massive issue which will hurt people for a long time and people will not forget about it in a couple of years, which might be convenient for the Treasurer and the government. It is just not going to be case; this is going to hurt and people will be angry for a long time.
They see this as a mean decision from a mean government - a government that does not understand. I am stunned that a government, so early in its term, could not understand the ordinary people and small businesses doing it tough. To bring this in and, essentially, see the backs of ordinary Territorians broken and small businesses going under because of this impost - they just do not get it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a mean government making a mean decision. I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, the former government and the member for Nelson talk about human rights and our duty to the people of the Northern Territory. I understand these arguments. There is not one moment of any day that I have sat here, or in Cabinet, where we have contemplated these decisions, that I did not think to myself, goodness gracious, this will hurt people. We know that.
I would rather not do that but from time to time you are confronted in life with a choice between what you want to do and what duty compels you to do. It was the same sense of duty that the former government, in response to the Reeves report, determined to advance, essentially, what was close to a 24.5% power hike: 18% one year followed by 5% the next year. Of course you have to allow for the compounding effect, so it was probably close to a 24% power hike and that was just to bring the Power and Water Corporation to sustainable levels not commercial levels.
The point is that the Reeves report was never released to the people of the Northern Territory, only the executive summary was. This is something the Leader of the Opposition says is, ‘an open and frank way of dealing with people’. She never released it because I suspect in the body of the report there were certain qualifications as to what could have happened if circumstances changed in the future, and the circumstances did change.
The circumstances changed sufficiently for, and well in advance of, the former government to know they had to deal with what was going on with the Power and Water Corporation. They chose to go down the path of debt for equity swaps and, no matter which way you hold that up to the light, ultimately, it means subsidising power.
We have heard from the Deputy Chief Minister about how concerned the members of the board were and the indemnities they sought from government because of the way they were being positioned. We have heard that the Power and Water Corporation needed debt for equity swaps rather than making the tough decisions to make Power and Water capable of generating its own income.
They decided to go down the path of debt for equity swaps, which was worth tens of millions of dollars. That is tens of millions of dollars that were not paid to schools, roads, etcetera. The longer you avoid a decision, a tough decision, in the world and in life, generally the more difficult, pronounced and demanding decision needs to be. That is why we have been confronted with the determination, or the need to make a tough decision.
I hear the members opposite saying, ‘You knew from the Statement of Corporate Intent the position of the organisation’. That much is true, but what we did not know from the Statement of Corporate Intent is the condition of the rest of government. It was not until we got into government and started ferreting through the books and started to look at things like unfunded liabilities -- we heard what the Minister for Housing had to say about his position this morning in the House - that you start to get a picture of the position government was in.
Government had attached to the side of it an organisation that should be able to trade effectively and sufficiently profitably to not be a drawdown on the rest of government. To achieve that, a tough decision had to be made. Many people do not like being on the receiving end of tough decisions and most people do not like making tough decisions, but when you have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory which transcends mere ‘feel good’ then you are duty-bound and are committed to do your duty.
This government, unlike the former government, recognised that duty, steeled itself for the inevitable hypocritical attack from the Labor Party and the reaction of the public to the decisions we have made. We accept full responsibility for those decisions because we are a responsible government. Being a responsible government means you have to do these things and we did.
I note that this is a substantial cost impost on families. There is no doubt about it. This is already an expensive environment but I find it curious that the unending screeching of the members opposite about this cost impost in power, water and sewerage is imposing, when seen against the effect of housing prices and rental increases. It has to be seen in perspective.
People are telling me that their rent is increasing by $150 to $200 a week. Yet, do I hear a word of complaint from the members opposite about that. Not a chance. Of course, that would mean they would have to acknowledge they had some role to play in that because they know there is no way the CLP could have created an environment where that rental arrangement was being entered into. So they would be looking for the softer underbelly. They have someone to blame for this. There is a face to blame and we are that face. Yes, people will blame us; there is no doubt about that, but it is something that had to be done.
It is one thing to complain about a tough decision, it is another to engage in mischief. One of the things that surprised me when I was reading the newspaper during the week was the claim by the Leader of the Opposition, after she visited the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre, about the cost impost. I am reasonably familiar with that childcare centre; I have fulfilled a couple of roles in the executive of that childcare centre when my children went there, including the role of president and treasurer for a short while when one of the treasurers had to leave. In those I would look at the books and I remember talking to them about their annual reports and their reporting on a couple of occasions. There were some issues with the books. I examined those books fairly closely and I do not recall ever seeing electricity bills in the order of $250 000 a year. If I had, I would have been asking questions about it.
The other component is that I saw the October newsletter from the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre which announced the $5 increase. That was before the Cabinet had made its decision about power and water prices. I have heard the sums done in this House by the former Treasurer about the power increase costing $5 a day per child. That is an annual bill of about $250 000, if memory serves me.
Mrs Lambley: $240 000.
Mr ELFERINK: $240 000. I would have good news for the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre at that point because I would encourage the Power and Water Corporation to find out what was happening that had driven their power bills up that much. The former government does not acknowledge it was instrumental in decisions we opposed on this side of the House on the cost impost on childcare because of part of a national agreement they had so readily signed up to.
I remember the federal Labor government complaining bitterly that businesses were blaming cost imposts on the carbon tax. I suspect there might be an element of that in this instance; that people have to raise their childcare fees and a convenient vehicle is to blame, immediately, the power and water increases. Naturally, I asked the Treasurer, ‘In real terms for an average childcare centre, how much would the cost impost per child per day be?’, and a figure was produced by the department of 29 per child per day. That is not to belittle it. It does not sound like too much, but cumulatively it is worth a bit. However, it makes more sense; it is in the right ballpark. I hope when we have difficult arguments that hysteria is not generated to the point where mischief is engaged in, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition.
I understand the head of that childcare centre, Louise de Bomford, who I have a great deal of time and respect for - she ran that organisation and continues to run it extremely well - has revised her comments about $5 a day and I am grateful she has done that.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition was all too hasty to use somebody’s error for political advantage and thus embarrass that person publicly. That means the Leader of the Opposition has to learn one of the rules of opposition: you have to be careful about some of the people you deal with because not everybody is as perfect as the Leader of the Opposition and may make mistakes. As a consequence, the Leader of the Opposition has to understand that her enthusiasm to win political points also has human casualties.
The other component is in her ruthless and relentless attack - I have said it before in this House and will say it again – Labor are much better haters than the CLP. Her relentless attack on Ken Clarke is obscene. Ken Clarke has provided a service to the people of the Northern Territory in the past. He provided that service under the CLP and, subsequently, under the Labor government, and is again serving the people of the Northern Territory in his current role. Of course, any piece of skulduggery and muckraking will do, but I note this suggestion and fear mongering about us selling Power and Water Corporation is something the Leader of the Opposition cannot resist, based on the flimsiest and most tissue-thin construction of evidence.
The Queensland organisation to which Ken Clarke is a board member, Energex, is not a private company, it is a government-owned corporation. What the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is that Energex, as a government-owned corporation, is seeking to acquire another government-owned corporation in another jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe Queensland is attempting to purchase the Northern Territory. She froths this up with such venom and vigour people will buy it, and that is what it is about. It is not about the truth; the truth is challenging enough. Surely, a politician of capacity would be able to remain within the boundaries of the truth in this debate and still be able to score the required political points for her side without having to engage in frolics of their own in the realm of the obtuse to an absurd degree.
I also find it interesting that we would, in some way, be ashamed of having people like Ken Clarke, John Gardiner and Barry Coulter - eminently sensible people with long track records in business management - look at the financial situation of the Northern Territory, including the Power and Water Corporation. That makes sense. If we were looking at or reviewing the health system we would have health experts. If we were looking at the police system we would have O’Sullivan, an expert on policing. Why is it such a strange idea to have an expert on financial management, two former Under Treasurers and a
person of the stature of Barry Coulter going through the books?
Yet, the Leader of the Opposition launched into this tirade that we have picked a bunch of people who are old mates. These are people of eminent capacity who are qualified to do the job. Yet, because they do the job well, and started to demonstrate to us as a government the flaws in the former Labor government’s position, they are for some reason, villains and evil-doers who are to be pilloried and slandered at every opportunity.
The Leader of the Opposition has no fear of using this House for some of the most vile assertions which are supported by the most tissue-thin evidence. She will do that, and continue to do that, again and again. She is totally unafraid to use this place to launch those attacks - things she is utterly unprepared to say outside the Kevlar-coated walls of this Chamber.
I put out a newsletter. It is not dated, but it carried a graph - I do not have the graph with me other than on a black and white sheet of paper - which tracks debt and income from 2004 to the forward projections of 2015-16. I got this from the government’s last set of budget papers. The problem we have is that debt was tracking to far exceed income into the future. For some reason, the former Treasurer calls this sustainable. How can an ever-increasing debt situation be described as sustainable when there is nothing in the forward projections to suggest we would step down from debt? The answer from the former Treasurer has been the answer articulated in her budget books when she was the Treasurer.
Her answer was this: the GST would return to normal operating parameters. The problem with the former Treasurer’s approach is that somehow, magically, without any indication that it would happen, the halcyon days of the early years of the 21st century would return and rescue us from the debt trap. I have said before in this place: we cannot approach the GST income as though it is going through a hiatus at the moment. I am not seeing any evidence that what is happening at the moment is anything other than the new normal. The old normal was actually abnormal. The first five or six years of the operation of the GST generated more income than was ever expected. If you go back to the forward estimates of the late 1990s in relation to how much money GST would generate, you would discover very quickly there were projections that fell far short of reality. The GST was a gold mine.
Smart governments squirrelled that extra cash away. I have said before, and I will say it again: the Gallop government in Western Australia - a Labor government - was able to reduce its debt to zero. The Howard government, the federal government - which was not a recipient of GST but was also enjoying a time of surprising income - reduced its debt to zero. The Northern Territory could have done exactly the same thing.
What situation do we find ourselves in now? The new government is trying very hard ...
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: The new government finds itself engaging in some really tough decision, not so we can reduce debt to zero, simply so, in the forward estimates, we can prevent debt from growing any further. Our target - which should be the standard target for any government on any given year - is to reach a point where in the final year of the forward estimates we are aiming for a small surplus or, at least, a balance in our books. This means our debt will increase between now and the forward estimates. What we are aiming for is a levelling spot. Yet, I heard the member for Casuarina say we are trying to reduce debt to zero.
I wish we could reduce debt to zero. Oh, how I wish - I have a Dr Seuss moment coming up - I really wish we could get our debt to zero so we could be a financial hero - I know, that is getting too Dr Seuss. The fact is we are not trying to get debt to zero; we are trying to contain the growth, to get the growth down to zero. Then we still have the great big bank card debt.
To put it into perspective for members: we have the family of the Northern Territory, and the boss of the family - which is the head of the family, mum or dad - has a credit card to feed the kids and do everything they have to do. They go out during a period of increased income and spend everything they have from the increased income. They do not save anything and the credit card debt is reduced only slightly. As the years roll on, they suddenly realise they have lost a lot of their income because their income is going flat. So, they have a choice. They either reduce some of the frills and do not take as many holidays or do all the other things they would like, or they can go back to the credit card.
They jam the credit card into the machine, type in the number, grab the credit card. The debt keeps going up and up. The income stays level. Suddenly, the new head of the family comes in and we find ourselves opening the bank statement and saying, ‘Oh my goodness’. The problem is we would like then to say, ‘Oh, we will reduce the growth of debt to zero this year’. But it turns out that the previous family had entered into all sorts of contracts with all sorts of people to provide the new lounge room furniture, the new LCD TV set, the new pool for the kids, everything else like that.
We have to make good on all those contracts. We have to pay for that. For the next few years, we are still reluctantly sticking things on the credit card and the lofty goal we are aiming for is that in four years time we can cut the credit card up. It does not mean the debt has gone away. We just want to be able to cut up the credit card.
I ask a question of any sensible person watching this debate and observing this whole environment: if we inflict all of this pain only to be able to cut up the credit card in four years time, how bad is our position? If this is so painful, imagine how painful it would be if we actually did start trying to reduce debt to zero. The problem is, even if, in four years time under the former government spending practices, we did not spend a cent, we turned all the lights out, we got rid of the health department, the police department, we got rid of education completely, do you reckon you would be able to pay off your credit card in one year? No, even if the government did not spend a red cent on the projections of the former government, it would take more than a year.
Yet, we are villains and bullies and we are mean. What happens on the final end of this exercise is the logical conclusion of what is happening in Europe. I am not saying we are that bad yet, but my goodness gracious me, the Greeks are rioting in the streets because all of a sudden the bailiff has turned up saying, ‘I want you guys to pay the credit card bill’. ‘We cannot’, they scream, ‘We cannot pay the credit card bill.’
I will tell you how it would become manifest in the Northern Territory if we found ourselves in that situation. We talk about statehood, we talk about self-governing jurisdictions. There is a presumed arrangement with the federal government that they would cover off on our debts because we are a territory. If you imagine us turning to the federal government in this circumstance and saying we want to be a self-governing territory but we cannot manage the books, how long do you think we would last?
A member: I do not think so.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not think so. People talk about being passionate about the Northern Territory. I am passionate about the Northern Territory but I also know and remember the years prior to self-government when we were run, essentially, as a federal department out of Canberra. I remember the time pre-1974 - I am looking at Mr Gadd now - when there was not a fully elected Legislative Council in this jurisdiction, where a majority of the Legislative Council was appointed and that is what we would be looking down the barrel of if we do not contain this. This is where we find ourselves today.
We have a choice. We can either be an irresponsible government and sign up to everything the former government signed up to and say, ‘Oh what the hell, someone else will clean up the mess’, because it will not be within our first or second term of government. We could double the debt of this jurisdiction without any major problems but eventually somebody would have to do something and that is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to do something and I wish our goal was loftier than merely being able to contain debt increases to zero in four years time. If you think we are being mean and tricky, horrible and nasty by trying to exert an element of responsibility, then it demonstrates your philosophical position. The other thing that stands out about the former government’s capacity to manage the books, particularly about the Leader of the Opposition, is that the problem started at about the time the current Leader of the Opposition became the Treasurer.
That is endemic in the left of the Labor Party. It is just something you do. That is what we will get with a former Labor government: a government which thinks its job is to be Santa Claus. In the real world, everybody knows the Christmas presents under the tree have to be paid for. They are either paid for in cash up front or if they are being racked up on the credit card, Father Christmas has long disappeared back to the North Pole and everybody else is left to pay the credit card bill.
I cannot support this motion because it is a shallow investigation of what is happening in the Northern Territory. It is simply part of the former government’s campaign to ramp up the hysteria surrounding this government’s decision to exert an element of control and restraint and to show some sobriety and temperance in government. I am not afraid of my duty. Whilst I do not enjoy it, whilst I take no relish in it, I do understand it is a duty thrust upon my shoulders as it is thrust upon the shoulders of the Treasurer, Cabinet and all the members of the Country Liberal Party. They are standing firm in their duty in the face of substantial public criticism because we all know in the Country Liberals that this is the right thing to do.
One last comment regarding the campaign being run, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, that we break this up into two hits. Think about this! If you take $100 as your quarterly electricity bill - I know that it is nowhere near the real figure but this is about the mathematics - and you add 15% now, your next bill will be $115. If you add 30% now, your next bill will be $130. If you add 15%, it will be $115 and if you add another 15% in six months time, you are advocating an increase to $132.25. That would be the compounding phase of a two-stage increase of 15%.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is just another component we need to think about and is something the former government knows because they did it themselves when they had to announce, as a result of the Reeves report, a 23% increase, when in fact it was over 24%.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to the contribution the opposition made to this debate. I have heard all the reasons why we should not put the price of power up. How terrible it is, how disastrous it is; they went on and on and have been going on for a week. Yes, it will be difficult. However, when I listen to members in this House this evening, I can understand why the ALP was petrified of putting prices up. They have given us every reason that must have been discussed in Caucus and Cabinet as to how scary it would be. You can understand why they put this decision off.
We know they were secretly planning to increase prices after the election. I have listened very carefully to the members of the former government, now in opposition, and it is very clear to me they were petrified of what would happen. We heard from the member for Barkly about people going to Casuarina and, before they had even set the table up, they wanted to sign the petition. Labor was going to put prices up because they had to, otherwise Power and Water would go down the gurgler. If we had been in the same position, the people would have been signing a petition for us. I do not believe anyone wants to swallow this very difficult pill.
Labor knew drastic action was needed to make the Power and Water Corporation financially sustainable. I have heard other people mention that word and it is a truism that in this day and age you have to have financial sustainability. Elsewhere in Australia we were known as the second-lowest charging authority for power supply. We knew there were some issues, but it is not until you get into government and get hold of the books that you can see exactly what is going on.
Again, Labor knew they would have to put prices up. Unfortunately, they did not have the intestinal fortitude to put them up before the election. Given they are now in opposition, we hear them bleating and saying what a terrible disaster it is. Well, 13 weeks in, suddenly it appears to be the new government’s fault. All that debt, all that overspending, all that money on the MasterCard is suddenly our doing.
I have also heard the Leader of the Opposition say she is talking to people and they are saying what a disaster it is. I have been at my shopping centres on Saturday mornings talking to my businesses. Businesses do not like it. People do not like it. It does not matter whether you have a dollar in your pocket or not, nobody likes it.
However, they have told me they understand. Quite a few start the conversation with, ‘We know the Australian Labour Party in government in the Northern Territory caused this problem. We do not like it. We do not like paying and extra 30% and we would rather pay less’, but they understand the reality, even though it will hurt.
No one who is new to government wants to make these decisions. However, in contrast to the former ALP government, the Country Liberals government has been honest and up-front with the community. We are not hiding anything. The debt situation the Territory is currently in is an ugly story, a legacy of the former ALP government.
We do not like these rises any more than anyone else, and we are conscious of their impact on families and businesses in the Territory. If the opposition believes I am not receiving e-mails in my electorate account or people are not walking in to my office telling me how difficult it is - I am sure they are getting them as well. But not everyone who walks through the door wants to cane us for increasing the price of power. They understand it is a fault of the previous government that we are in debt, have the highest rents in the country, land release problems, and a multitude of other issues which have led us to where we are at the moment.
We have done what we can to lessen the impact. I am sure, over the coming months, audits will be done through the Power and Water Corporation. I am sure the Treasurer and Cabinet asked for efficiency reports to be put together to see just where savings can be made. We, on our side, have increased support for schools, Ebiz programs, and energy use.
The other thing which really annoys me about what the opposition has been trudging out for the last few days is they have been denigrating the people who have the experience and the qualifications to be going through the books, pointing out what our current financial position is, and how much of a mess this is. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition denigrate people as the ‘old dinosaurs’ and ‘older people’.
She seems to be denigrating older people, the people who hold the corporate knowledge. My mother was an older person. The parents of most of us in this room are older people. Do we just dismiss them? Do we denigrate them? Hardly! This will impact on seniors.
Another issue that came to light today was in relation to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition about Mr Ken Clarke who is doing a fine job. It is a shame Mr Clarke was not on the board of the Power and Water Corporation because he might have been able to give some of that fantastic experience and corporate knowledge he has, and still retains, even though he may not be 21 years of age.
I contacted Shane Stone after the Leader of the Opposition made some comments about Mr Clarke and others. I quote from a letter to the editor the former Chief Minister, Mr Stone, wrote:
Mr STYLES: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quoting a letter to the editor.
This is a quote, member for Nightcliff, and I continue:
It succinctly says a lot about the current debate coming from the opposition. It is their problem; we are left to resolve the problems they created. It is a huge problem, not that we want to put the price of power up, but it is essential that these things happen. I am sure that is not the only thing we find ourselves in a mess over.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about an inconvenient truth in her comments to this motion. I suspect the inconvenient truth is that the former Labor government in the Northern Territory is responsible. That is the truth and the inconvenient bit. They do not want to accept that this is their creation. Admittedly, in 10 years time, I do not believe I would want to be standing here saying, ‘Oh well, it is all the ALP’s fault’, because we would have been in government and we will fix it because we have to. We do not have a choice, just like families.
My mother taught me about basic economics: you cannot spend more than you earn. You can buy a house, sure, but you do not use all your money to pay off the interest bill on the money you borrowed because you could not afford it. We have to live within our means. For sure, we have to borrow; everyone has to have a mortgage if you want to buy a home. However, sadly in the Northern Territory, not everyone has a mortgage. Why is that? Because the previous government failed to release enough land.
I remember coming into this House in 2008, standing on the other side when we were in opposition and saying to the government, ‘I am hearing from young people who want to buy a home, who want to stay here, they do not have sufficient money to buy land because every block of land is under auction. I can put it in simple terms: if there are 50 blocks of land and there are 100 people wanting to buy a block of land, you have an auction on every block of land. Then somebody says, ‘I will give you X dollars’, and the other person says, ‘I will give you some more’. So we start pushing the price up. That was great for the government of the day because they were collecting a truckload in stamp duty. But all that did was push up the prices to the point where we have the most expensive housing in Australia.
Some relatives of mine have just moved here and want to stay. They love the Territory; they think it is great. They came on long service leave, contributed some tourist dollars, spent some time here, went back to Perth and thought they would like to move to the Territory. They are here now and they are struggling. They said, ‘Gee, everything is pretty expensive up here’. I said, ‘Courtesy of the previous Labor government. There was not enough land, they chose to put their dollars in one direction, not into infrastructure and service delivery for the release of land’. So, we have a huge land shortage - a terrible situation for young people to be in.
As the Parliamentary Secretary for Youth, I receive many e-mails from people. I know many young people in the Northern Territory, having in my former life taught 40 000 of them. Many of them come and see me for all sorts of reasons. The most common reason is that they cannot afford to live here. The most important thing to them is the cost of rent and housing.
Seniors are telling me their rent has increased. Why is that? People cannot buy a house; there are not enough blocks of land being released so that has put pressure on the housing market. It puts pressure on the rental market because young people and old people cannot buy anything because the previous government allowed it to escalate to a point where it is ridiculous. They say they love the Territory. I love the Territory too. I want to see the Territory in a better fiscal position than we found it.
When you start throwing rough numbers around, when you earn $5bn and spend $6bn continually - during some of the best times the Territory has had but with nothing squirreled away - debts continue to rise.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘We did this and we had a budget surplus here’, but from 2001 to 2012 that debt has increased. When you look at when the previous Treasurer, the member for Karama took over, it has gone through the roof. The old crocodile jaws: debt rising, income dropping.
I thought I heard the other day, and I would be happy to be corrected, that someone on the opposition side said, ‘Oh well, you know, we were expecting some more GST’. That is about the same as saying you expect to win lotto. I buy a lotto ticket and I am expecting to win lotto. That will be wonderful, everything will be right. I will pay off all my debts, and will pay off that massive big MasterCard as soon as I win TattsLotto. Or worse still, I will go to the casino, put all my money on red and hope lady luck is on my side and I get some more income to fix the massive debt I have.
Mrs Lambley: That’s how she managed the Territory.
Mr STYLES: I think so. It is a bit like roulette.
I have had seniors in my office crying because of rent. In the last 12 months some people have had their rent increased by $150.
I hear interjections from the opposition. I do not blame them because I would be severely embarrassed to be sitting on the opposition benches trying to defend the complete financial mess they left the incoming government.
I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition for trying to defend herself because she needs to. She was the Treasurer and she allowed things to get in a mess. Her former Cabinet colleagues on that side of the House are also fairly responsible, because, I am sure, like on this side, it is a collective decision in the Cabinet. So, you probably have a few people sitting on that side who are responsible for the financial mess we are in.
I hear them say on the radio and the television, this is terrible, the CLP are mean and nasty people. Well what about the opposition in government? They were so mean and nasty that they left a mess. One of the things we all try to do is leave the place in better shape so our kids do not have a worse life. Over there is a bunch of people who have left the place in a mess for their kids. I have kids in this town too and am appalled at what the former government has done to the Territory.
My kids are trying to buy homes and they say ‘Dad, we just cannot afford it’. They do not want to leave because this is where their family is. The opposition talks about people being angry that prices are going up. I can assure all of you in opposition that people have been coming into my office before the election and after and they are angry at you guys because you made such a mess of it. You kept it from them. You say how fantastic this is. It is very important that people understand exactly what has happened here.
There is a whole lot of stuff we have tried to do. Prices are going up 30% for electricity, 40% for water and 25% for services.
Ms Walker: And 15% for rego.
Mr STYLES: I heard the member for Nhulunbuy. The member for Nhulunbuy, in my recollection, did not have any input into Cabinet. Maybe you could absolve yourself of some responsibility, just a little, because it was your Cabinet colleagues who made all these decisions. They have made decisions which put multicultural people in a massively bad situation, where they are trying to get a start - people who have just moved here, who have immigrated to this place. They think ‘Wow, I do not want to be here’. They leave. We lose many people from the Territory who decide to go to Sydney or Melbourne because it is cheaper to live. These people did not arrive in the last 13 weeks.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Mr STYLES: Thank you member for Araluen. I really appreciate that gesture.
I travel broadly, especially from the Top End to the Centre, and as often as I can. In my travels I see people from many cultures who come here and have family coming here. They have relatives and friends immigrating to this country. They would like to stay and live here but they think, ‘Gee, this is a pretty expensive place to live’. We have the most expensive rents in Australia.
We had the second-cheapest power in Australia, but everything else was super-expensive. Try to buy a house. They cannot, so they rent a place. I know people in Wagaman who are paying through the nose for places in very poor condition. Why is that? The previous government did not release the land; it did not look after it. They have left a legacy our children will be paying off for some time.
Youth and MasterCards. We all teach our young people about credit cards. I have counselled my children about using credit cards and racking up the credit card bill - having a great time and not worrying about how to pay it off. There is an old saying about the chickens coming home to roost. Sadly for the opposition, which was in government 13 weeks ago, the chickens have come home to roost. It is your legacy we have to fix. It is your legacy we are debating in this Chamber tonight. In 11 years time, if we are in the same position, I would expect to cop a flogging as well. You need to be up-front, stand up, wear it on the chin and accept responsibility for the mess.
My mother taught me about overspending. One of the things she said the Leader of the Opposition also talks about: we do not pay the mortgage off in two years. This is not about paying the mortgage off in two years; this is about getting the money back to what we are earning. The debt is still there. How we pay that debt off will be interesting. How will we do that? You can put taxes up if you sit around and do nothing. However, it will be about economic activity. That is something we will do in this House. We will be far better at economic activity than the previous ALP government. We need to create that so our kids will have an opportunity.
A few pensioners have told me they have some major problems in paying the increase in power prices. In seeking their advice, they all tell me their biggest problem is not power, it is rent. We have to fix the rental situation. How can we do that? We will have to find the money to release sufficient land so young people have a chance.
Talking to young people, they are pretty smart. A few of them spoke to me about the previous government’s scheme, saying it was really amazing that the government wanted to give them $750 000. They said, ‘Well, how does that work because if they give the person next to me $750 000 as well, do we bid until somebody runs out of money?’ They put prices up to $750 000 and the people who own homes must be rubbing their hands together saying, ‘You beauty, I paid $180 000 for this 10 years ago. Now the government is shovelling money out and pushing the price up.’ I found that amazing. I do not understand how the previous Labor Cabinet allowed that to happen. I would be very happy, after we close tonight, for anyone on that side to explain the logic behind it - it would be really interesting - so I understand it and never make that mistake.
There is a range of things in relation to seniors, youth, multicultural affairs - obviously three areas of great interest to me. I taught my kids about overspending. One of my kids some years ago had an issue with a MasterCard and learnt the hard way. He had to ask, ‘Dad, can you give us a hand? I just need to make a couple of MasterCard payments.’ We sat down and I said, ‘I will do that, but I want to have a look at the books’. He did not want to show me the books. I said, ‘Look, I do not mind helping you because I have some skills and knowledge about how to fix this’. So he had to cough up the books. The books were a mess. It is a bit like dj vu here, where I am looking at my kid’s financial situation and saying, ‘By gee, you have got yourself in a bit of a mess here’. They did not quite understand this or that. They did that and this came in, that bill came in and they did not allow or plan for it and they said, ‘I found myself with a problem; in a bit of debt, then I had to go cap in hand to Dad. I can fix this but I need a bit of a hand.’
The lesson from that is they did not have any idea about how to put it together. We got some financial counselling and fixed the problem. I had to lend him a bit of money for a short period of time, but he had to go without a lot of things to get the books back in order. From that day on he has been extremely grateful to me for making him cough up the books so we could have a look at them and see what sort of mess his finances were in. It was not a lot but he was in a mess.
When I look at the comparison between what we are doing at the moment - not the exact example I wanted to use - it is like playing the parent and coming to the wayward child and saying they have messed up the finances and now we will sit down and work it out. It is really simple. If you earn $100 a week and keep borrowing money and spend $120 a week, which is 20% over what you have to spend, eventually someone has to pay it back. The problem is you have this little thing called interest. It is $750 000 a day now, heading towards $1m soon because of the amount of money we had to borrow.
I am sure we will have an argument over the GFC and all that stuff and that may or may not be a good argument. However, the fact is, in the good times nothing was put away.
They did this and did that, got more of this - not wealth generating but wealth consumption. When I knock on doors people say we just want to get into power. I say I do not necessarily want to get into power; I want to get into government so we can facilitate. There is a difference between power and government. When you get into power you can dictate to people and say, ‘This is good for you. Have we got a fantastic deal for you. You just do this.’ You pat them on the head and tell them to sit there, trust us, and we will do it.
Getting into government is about facilitating people to generate wealth. We must facilitate an environment in which businesses, households, and people in the Northern Territory can prosper. That will be a big call because we have been left a mess. We have to do it and we will do it, and will encourage people to come up with ways to be creative and generate wealth, unlike the other side which just consumed it. There was an almost 20% overspend on the budget.
If you have $120 and that is your lifestyle and you are used to it, everyone is happy and you are just throwing money around, no problems. Eventually, you will have to pay that money back, plus interest. That means at least $20 a week for X number of years plus interest, which may be $10 a week. That is $30 a week. Suddenly, we have gone from an income of a $120 a week down to $70 a week. That is tough. Do you know what? People have to do it. I have had to do it in my life, going almost overnight from a two-income family to a one-income family. How do you do that? You have to tighten the belt and do things, and it is really sad. It made me sad, but it is achievable.
Madam Speaker, when you are left with a legacy beyond your control, you have to deal with it. That is exactly what the CLP government has had to do. We have had to make the tough, necessary decisions, as a legacy of the badly-managed Territory finances of the former Labor government and the ballooning debt. Quite frankly, I am appalled by the mess this previous government not only left me but my children and my grandchildren. For that they should be ashamed.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, tonight, for the third time in the last 24 hours, I talk on this very important issue, the tariff increases we have been forced, as a new government, to implement. Once again, it has been an intriguing discussion, an intriguing debate commencing with the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory giving a slightly insightful presentation tonight. I did sense that she had a need to explain herself.
For the first time she acknowledged her role as the former Treasurer in creating this enormous debt we have been landed with. It was very subtle in its insightfulness but I did detect, ever so slightly, the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, was in a position she wanted to give an explanation; she wanted to give Territorians a story that fills in an ominous gap in people’s understanding of why we are where we are at the moment in the Northern Territory. She exposed herself as being ever so slightly responsible for where we are.
She talked about how she undertook a huge capital expenditure program within the Power and Water Corporation over the last four years. She did that but, for the first time, she articulated it tonight. She said it was necessary. She talked about it being a huge expenditure, probably larger than what she expected. She talked about how she placed the Power and Water Corporation in a large amount of debt.
I believe we have seen a breakthrough because this is cutting a little closer to why we are in this financial predicament at the moment. The former Treasurer disclosed to us that she is in some way responsible for the fact there has been a major decision over the last week to increase tariffs. I was very comforted to hear her somewhat cautious revelation about how she may have contributed to the necessary increase in tariffs that this new government had to announce a week ago.
As I have said before in this parliament, we came to government on 25 August, just 14 weeks ago. A process unfolded in front of us whereby each day a new worsening story unfolded as to the level of the financial debacle the former government left us. We have heard some great versions of what we found from my parliamentary colleagues tonight. It has been horrific each day coming to work as a new member of parliament and hearing more information about how serious this debt problem is that we now face - the fiscal imbalance.
As a new Treasurer, it takes time to fully comprehend the extent of the financial state of affairs and to become au fait with the different terminology and different mechanisms within Treasury. It is quite a voyage I have been on and the former Treasurer has not held back in criticising me at every turn for what she perceives as a ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I draw your attention to the state of the House?
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A wonderful attempt by the opposition to shut me down. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to listen to the new Treasurer reveal to the people of the Northern Territory the extent of the mess we have landed in.
The former Treasurer revealed tonight, and I thank her, that she took a level of responsibility for her major, critical part in the extent of the debt and the fiscal imbalance we face as a new government. The Leader of the Opposition was probably the most humble I have ever seen her in that she admitted she is responsible for placing the Power and Water Corporation in significant debt. When you make that admission, you are basically saying you are responsible for the problem and I thank her for that.
Although it may have pained her, maybe it was a mistake, maybe she did not mean to be so open and frank; in fact it is really not within her nature, and we know that, to be honest and open, but she indicated to me and the rest of those listening this evening that she went on a spending spree, which we know she is very good at, and she landed the Power and Water Corporation in significant debt. The debt of the Power and Water Corporation is sitting around $1.2bn and she has taken responsibility for that.
The former Treasurer has given the people of the Northern Territory a reason why this new government has reluctantly and regretfully had to increase electricity, sewerage and water tariffs. That is because, through her own admission, the Leader of the Opposition went on a spending spree with Power and Water funds and clocked up the credit card, emptied the coffers and had to borrow 68% of what was required to undertake her capital works program last financial year. That is in the latest Statement of Corporate Intent and if we were to carry on with the intentions of the former government, that would soon clock up to 78%. So there we have it. Once and for all it is on the public record.
The Leader of the Opposition, through probably some mistake or error in the way she has worded things no doubt - I do not think she would have intentionally accepted responsibility, but indeed she has, and people in this Chamber tonight heard her and can see her for what she is: the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory. She will go down in history for putting the people of the Northern Territory through many years of suffering because of her irresponsibility and poor management. She will go down in the history books as being the person responsible. There is no hiding from it.
Her colleague down the back, the member for Casuarina, can call the state of the House. There can be any means of distraction and deflection implemented by the opposition in order to shut me down and shut anyone else down who dares to spell out the truth, but the truth of the matter is that the opposition, the former Labor government, has, essentially, admitted responsibility. It has taken many days of discussion, many days of debate but I heard it tonight. It was thinly veiled, it was very subtle, but it was there.
We heard about the pain the increase in tariffs will cause Territorians, we have heard it for many hours over the last two days. The pain of the tariffs will indeed be there and we recognise that. As my colleagues have reiterated, we accept full responsibility for that pain. What we did not hear from the opposite side of the Chamber, what we did not hear from the Leader of the Opposition, is the $750 000 per day in interest payments also causes much pain - $750 000 per day in interest payments is a heck of a lot of money. Can you imagine what you could buy with that amount of money every day? You could buy a house, 365 people in the Northern Territory could be housed with your My New Home scheme free of charge with the interest we pay each day, compliments of the former Labor government. It is outrageous.
If we were to keep spending the way the former Treasurer liked to, that would quickly escalate within the next 18 months to $1m in interest payments per day every day of the year. That is $1m we would be paying because of the former Treasurer’s tendency to love to spend. Spend like there is no tomorrow. Spend irresponsibly; spend your way out of a problem. That is the pain Territorians are experiencing. They are missing out. The money we have to channel into interest payments is at the sake of spending on things we really need.
We really need to bolster our health services, to put the roads into the rural and remote areas, to look after people in the bush who are suffering, to look after the education facilities throughout the Northern Territory. We really need to upgrade much of our infrastructure throughout the Territory. There mounting needs but, compliments of the former government, we have to spend $750 000 per day every day of the year to pay off that debt. That is painful; that is real pain.
The other pain the member for Sanderson articulated so well is the pain we have been experiencing for many years in the high cost of housing and rental accommodation throughout the Northern Territory. Over the last 11 years since 2001, you could only guess how much rentals have gone up in Darwin and Palmerston. In fact, you could not guess if you had not been living here for some time, how much they have gone up. Rentals have gone up 260% since 2001; it is staggering.
The Leader of the Opposition and opposition members are all chiming in accusing us of all types of irresponsible behaviour when they have been presiding over this dramatic increase in rental accommodation over the entire term of their government - 11 years, a 260% increase is staggering, unparalleled. They are the highest rentals in Australia and we are accused of being negligent when it comes to the cost of living. We are 13 weeks into government and somehow we are responsible for everything - the problem, the fact we have been shoved in a corner and had to make a really tough decision. Where are the tough decisions the former government made? What will we spend a couple of million on today?
Those were the tough decisions the former government had to make; nothing responsible, nothing difficult, nothing courageous, just spend, spend, spend. They were lucky, as the member for Sanderson has already highlighted. They were extremely fortunate, they were around during the halcyon days of the GST when there was plenty of money, and boy that money slipped out of their fingers very quickly. There was no intention to save; there was no responsible management of this wonderful GST, a fountain of money and prosperity that came their way.
They were very lucky; it was very timely for the former Labor government to be around because they do not know about responsible financial management but they do know about spending, spending, spending. It is a well-known phenomenon. Everyone around Australia recognises that Labor does the spending and in comes the conservative government with no money in the coffers and fixes. The story is well and truly the case for the Northern Territory. The former Labor government did all the spending, made the big mess, as the member for Sanderson so beautifully described, left the kids a mess, and went on the grey nomad holiday up the coast.
Unfortunately, we have to look at the opposition; they are not on any holiday. They have to look at us across the Chamber during these sittings and we have to look at them. They have to try to flick off, detract, distract and deflect the reality, the truth, of what they have done. It is criminal and alarming. I described last night the looks on the faces of the people who were in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast I attended before the election, during which Dr Neil Conn, now the head of the Renewal Management Board, delivered a stark presentation on the state of the finances in the Northern Territory - absolute silence; people were stunned. But, if you listen to the opposition, they would have you believe everyone they talk to thinks it is fine, that we are exaggerating. If they had been in attendance at that Chamber of Commerce breakfast Neil Conn spoke at before the election they would not have a shadow of a doubt.
This former Labor government, now opposition, has driven the Northern Territory into the ground - not beyond repair, thankfully. Thankfully, the people of the Northern Territory voted us into power. Thankfully, the people of the Northern Territory probably recognised it was time for a change, that things could not continue, that the spending was extraordinary and out of line with the revenue coming in. People are not stupid, they do follow these things. They are somewhat complicated; when you go beyond the surface, they are quite complex. However, in general, people get the formula that if you keep spending more money than you have coming in then you are on a slippery slope to very serious financial problems.
That slippery slope has been in existence in the Northern Territory for at least the past four or five years: since 2008. In 2008, guess what? That was when the former Treasurer came to her position. The year 2008 will mark a very serious decline in the history of the Territory finances. It will go down in the history books as being the point at which the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, really had no idea about how to manage the finances. She really had no idea about basic business concepts.
She has, obviously, never run a business in her life; she has no idea. Even after four years as Treasurer she clearly has no idea. Do you know what? As much as it pains me to say it, I feel sorry for her because the best she can do is throw insults at people, go to that really personal, cutting, nasty level when, in fact, she really has struggled. She is embarrassed, humiliated ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the Treasurer be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, the former Treasurer is a sad and sorry sight sitting over there.
One thing I learnt many years ago is when you trap a wild animal, a person who is vulnerable and scared, the fight or flight principle comes into effect. They either resign or withdraw and take the battering or they come out fighting. If there is one thing you can say about the former Treasurer, she is a fighter. And good on her! That is great. It is good to see someone come out fighting.
I can come out fighting too, I have nothing to hide. I have not done anything irreparably wrong. I have made a few slightly silly comments and I will hear about that forever and a day. That is fine, I can laugh at myself, I am self-deprecating. I am quite a modest person at the end of the day. When I make a mistake I am usually the first one to tell people. If that gives you any solace on the opposite side of the Chamber, if you feel you need to remind me of a mistake I have made, then go ahead. I can laugh it off, I have broad shoulders. I have thick skin and a great sense of humour. I am self deprecating which is something the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition is not. Her personality is not of that nature. She is a fighter; she comes out fighting. Obviously she has a lot to fight back about. Her credibility is on the line, it is being tested to the max.
Mr Tollner: It is shot to pieces.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is shot to pieces, as the member for Fong Lim just brought to my attention. It is quite a miserable time for her, as it is for us. We have had to make one of the most difficult decisions this government will ever have to make: increasing tariffs, electricity by 30%, sewerage and water to significant levels. It is serious business but we have not taken it lightly. Believe it or not, we have tried to keep these increases as low as possible, which has been extremely difficult.
The former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition told us tonight just how much she spent during the last couple of years of her term in government as Treasurer. She told us she invested a huge amount of money in capital works in Power and Water. We know from reading the Statement of Corporate Intent that most of that money had to be borrowed. She had to borrow it because she was not willing to increase the revenue coming into the Power and Water Corporation. That was too scary and made her politically vulnerable. It may have meant she was not re-elected - she was not re-elected anyway because people saw through it – but she could not make those tough decisions.
She just kept spending money on capital. We heard it tonight. Her inability to correct the situation through good management did not dawn on her. She did not understand what to do. We know through anecdotal evidence that she did not listen to her advisors, Treasury or the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board. She did not listen to anyone who would have made an awful lot of sense. We know she did not listen to anyone because the My New Home scheme was just implemented. The people who could have advised her have told me she was not open to their advice. The former Treasurer, in her ignorance, in her sense of self importance, made decisions willy-nilly and she was ill-equipped. She did not understand how things worked.
So we have come to government - now 14 weeks in government - and have identified this problem very quickly. We have very cleverly sought the assistance of some incredibly intelligent, capable human beings. They are old gentlemen - God forbid, we know that the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition has a very significant problem when it comes to old people. We do not on this side of the House.
A member: Old men.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Old men I should say. We do not have a problem with old men. We embrace elderly people. We think elderly men and women have a significant contribution to make to society. We have quickly harnessed the skills and the expertise of a group of elderly men known as the Renewal Management Board and we immediately undertook a process of trying to understand.
Yes, we had access to all the material that was publicly available, yes we did make the most of what was available; but through the analysis of these experts, through their advice and through engaging with the different agencies at a very deep and meaningful level, we gained substantial understanding of what we had in front of us in the finances of the Northern Territory. We did our homework and this is how we have got to where we are today. We really have undertaken a period of study and reflection, a period of trying to fully understand the whole picture of the legacy of the former government when it comes to the finances of the Northern Territory.
We feel we have done that quite well. We have done that competently and are very confident of the position we are in at the moment in this very early stage of our government. We are well-informed and well-advised. We are open and honest and are in a very strong position.
Are we in a good position? No, because we have inherited the muck, the mismanagement from the former government. It is a bad position, and we have had to make some very difficult decisions which have meant bad news for the people of the Northern Territory. We accept that with our hands on our hearts and we take responsibility.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about it, people will suffer. We have all said it. Most of us have expressed our deep regret. But we do not turn away from the fact - and it is a fact, not a perception, not our opinion, not a sleazy criticism we are throwing across the room - this problem was caused by the former government’s mismanagement. This problem is caused by the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory, her incompetence; her inability to recognise when things were going downhill and make amends, and there is absolutely no question about it.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): If I am standing I am wrapping up, so if the Chief Minister wants to speak - I am conscious of the time that is all.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): As I was when we were trying to get through that bill. It has been a very important debate that we have revisited. To reinforce the fine contribution of the Deputy Chief Minister, when we look at the graph that represents the widening gap between what we have by way of income versus expenditure, the gap emerges at almost exactly the same time as we had a new Treasurer in the Northern Territory, the member for Karama. The member for Karama endeavours to hide beneath the global financial crisis but that cannot conceal the obligation that anyone who is responsible for the managing of valuable resources such as taxpayers’ contributions for us to acquit has a responsibility to make adjustments.
The only adjustment that was made by the former Treasurer was an adjustment of language not of attitude. The underlying attitude is one of entitlement; that we are owed a benefit from others who work hard. That is the status of a mendicant. The adjustment of language was that peculiar phrase which struck me and I have heard it often repeated, that we ‘made a downward adjustment in our forward expectations’ which was: we thought we would get more but we got less even though it still was more but not as much as we thought we would get, and we are accustomed so much to spending that we can only adjust our language, we cannot exercise any discipline. That would make us unpopular and after all it is all about how we appear and we are the centre of this little universe we have created – fool’s paradise.
I found it astonishing that the Opposition Leader would reveal a strategy when there was no semblance of a structured plan of any kind to close that gap which began to widen at the point the member for Karama took the helm managing the ship of Treasury.
That debt mountain grew, compounded year upon year and without a change of attitude. The breathtaking audacity in lecturing us about the fine state of the Territory’s affairs was amazing. However, we had revealed, fortunately, yesterday, there was a plan to bring down debt over time and we were waiting for the structure of that plan and what was it? It was an expectation the GST income would increase so we would make an upward adjustment of our forward expectations and then find, somehow, those magical years would return when we always received more than we expected. That was the plan and it is nothing to build a future on. That is a fool’s paradise. Thank God it is over.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, in the interests of time I will keep my speech brief. I support this motion and urge the government to rethink its ill-thought decision to raise power prices by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%. These increases will hurt Territorians. They are already causing great stress to Territorians who are worrying about how they will pay the bills in five weeks’ time.
Power and water are essential services. We live in a harsh climate; we need to use our air conditioners to get our children to sleep during the day and night. Our back yards and recreation are often based around pools and water. We need to use pool pumps to keep our water clean and safe. I will briefly share the stories I have been told since this announcement. The corner store cannot handle a $3000 per month increase to its power bill, nor can the fish and chip shop. Businesses in my electorate are concerned this will be the straw that breaks their back.
I have had phone calls from a pensioner who uses a CPAP machine at night to breathe. He cannot turn this off as he needs the machine to live. I spoke to a lady who lives in the rural area. Her garden is her pride and joy. She grows vegetables and fruit. Her water bill will near double. She is distraught. What you have announced is not fair. People are asking what they can do. They feel helpless. It is not about turning their air conditioners off a bit more to save the difference. It will hurt and will change their lives. I spoke to a lady who was nearly in tears as she explained she lives from week to week and what you have proposed is stressing her deeply. She does not know what she will do. She is a valuable citizen performing a fantastic job. How can a government cause this stress to its people? This will affect so many people and being so close to Christmas just adds to the stress.
In social media people are suggesting boycotting Christmas lights this year. Although this seems a little light-hearted, it shows how helpless people feel. They are hurt.
Financial pressure causes great stress in families. For a government to put this much stress on their people shows it does not understand. We heard the NGO sector speak up this week and today we hear from our private and Catholic schools and private enterprise. As a former teacher, I feel that schools are well-placed to state they are not enterprises. If we do not assist them with the impact of this rise it will only impact on the quality of the education our children receive.
For some communities it is not a choice. In some remote communities Catholic schools are the only schools. What do childcare centres do? Many set their budgets, as they should, for the financial year in May to give families notice of any fee increases. To throw this on people with six to seven weeks notice, mid-financial year, is bad practice. To try to blame this fee increase on the new quality framework is wrong. I have no problem in paying fee increases that support my child’s learning and gives a fair wage to the hard-working educators who care for my children. However, to blame it on that is not fair.
Like the member for Port Darwin opposite, I too have played a role in my child’s childcare centre committee as well as other community and sporting groups. We expect these committee members to follow procedure and abide by the Associations Act yet we throw increases at them with no support or time to manage. Sporting groups across the Territory are wondering how they will pay for the air conditioning to power the basketball stadium or water for the football oval. To have the members opposite give us calculations why it is better to say 30% in a hit rather ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am pointing out it is 9 pm. We have business to get back to.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, I am glad you have a good sense of the time, member for Port Darwin. Member for Nightcliff, it is 9 pm. We are resuming debate. Do you wish to adjourn to a later stage?
Ms FYLES: I am not sure what the agreement was with the Leader of the Opposition but, yes, if that is what you suggest.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I am interested in the amendment which provides for the Planning Commission to consider whether any Crown land will be suitable for a proposed development. This will be an important decision-making process. It reminds me of the example of Myilly Point and what I coined as the Bennelong Point of Darwin. When the CLP was in opposition it was continually pushing development of that Crown land. The government of the day’s argument was it should not be sold off or used as a proposed development at that stage because of the global financial crisis and because real estate prices were flat. Therefore, it would not provide the best return to the Territory taxpayer, to the Crown.
I am interested in the criteria around decision-making on Crown land because in that particular example there was no doubt the opposition had it wrong and the government had it right. Have you put in criteria around those decision-making processes where Crown land will be used for what I assume are significant development proposals?
Mr MILLS: Only those which are described in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: How would that factor in the pressure the opposition could bring to bear on the sale or allocation of Crown land to a proposal? Would the act be sufficient?
Mr MILLS: You would have full access to the process. It is an open process of community consultation. Nothing is hidden; your voices should be heard.
Mr McCARTHY: It was an interesting time though. Do you remember the debate in parliament where this was used more as a political strategy? It showed quite an irresponsible opposition that was really trying to use a political strategy. Should the government have followed that advice, the Crown would have lost considerably on the sale of that land. I am concerned. You are assuring us all of those safeguards are there?
Mr MILLS: As you did not receive a briefing – unfortunately, you were in Tennant Creek and spent a bit of time on the weekend in my electorate, unable to accept the opportunity. We would have made ourselves available on the weekend no problem.
Because you did not receive the briefing, obviously, you are missing the point of this. We are describing a mechanism whereby these decisions can be made. This is a policy discussion not a political discussion and reminiscing about events of the past. We are talking about a bill; this is the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY: Next question, minister. No doubt you will be providing developers with briefings and developers will be providing you with briefings?
Mr MILLS: I am always available. We have an act to guide us. Are you concerned about some weakness within the act? Is this what you are suggesting? You need to be aware we are talking about an amendment to the Planning Act, so which aspect of the act would you be describing as deficient that may cause some kind of breach in this area? Is that your concern or do you want to have a conversation?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I will move to clause 50C. As stated in the explanatory statement:
Once again, I ask you, will you be providing the developer with briefings and the developer providing you with briefings? The second part of the question is, will you provide the shadow minister with the briefing?
Mr MILLS: It is contingent on the first part of your question: will I be providing personal briefings to a developer? There are normal processes. You have already identified one process you are particularly proud of and that was the pre-lodgment support which will still be there.
You have already acknowledged this is an unlikely occurrence because you would assume anyone going down this path would have availed themselves with the adequate processes and the work of the Planning Commission. If all of these events conspire that there is a briefing provided by the department to a developer, which is in the normal course of events, of course that would be available to you. All you have to do is ask, as you could have asked last time to have a briefing on this act which you are debating at length.
Mr McCARTHY: Interesting answer. We will move on to 81B Functions as described in the explanatory statement:
What is determined as undertaking good community consultation?
Mr MILLS: Good community consultation.
Mr McCARTHY: It is good to get this on the public record, our new Planning minister of the Northern Territory.
With respect to the objects of the act:
Mr MILLS: You are taking a fair amount of time to make yourself familiar with the bill you are responsible for testing through this committee process. You would be well aware, therefore, being the former minister, that it is fully covered in the bill you are in the process of testing. You are a former minister; you know those measures already exist.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I do not think you do somehow, but I will continue with this democratic process. Unfortunately, it seems you are not very familiar with this at all. You do not want to engage in discourse. Here is a straightforward question. Does this bill accept third party appeals to consent determinations made by the minister?
Mr MILLS: You are speaking about the role of the Planning Commission, correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I believe within the amendment that you will hold the consent determination in some circumstances.
Mr MILLS: Yes, but could you ask your question again? Were you referring to the role of the Planning Commission?
Mr McCARTHY: I was referring to the role of the minister for the consent determination. Will the minister accept third party appeals?
Mr MILLS: It does not exist in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In terms of staff and facilities:
Minister, what staffing resources will be allocated by government?
Mr MILLS: To where? To whom? What are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The Planning Commission, minister.
Mr MILLS: Which staff are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The staffing resources allocated by government to the Planning Commission, minister. Have you thought about it? Have you done any sort of study on it?
Mr MILLS: Yes, we have, I just want to be very clear about what you are asking.
Mr McCARTHY: Well, let us start with human resources minister.
Mr MILLS: What staff will be allocated to the Planning Commission?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister.
Mr MILLS: Public servants will be appointed as staff to support the commission. The CE of the department has the responsibility for providing support as required for the Planning Commission and to support the functions of the Planning Commission. But, it does not interfere with the operation of the Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have not given me any aggregated figure. What about office space minister? Will the Planning Commission occupy government office space?
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: Do you know where they will be located, minister?
Mr MILLS: Yes, I have visited the office.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it top secret or could you outline for Territorians where it will be?
Mr MILLS: Yes, it is the fifth floor of Energy House.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, will the Planning Commission members receive sitting fees?
Mr MILLS: That discussion is occurring. Those details have not been determined yet.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister. Will the Planning Commission use consultancies?
Mr MILLS: Committees will be established as required that could form consultancies, I suppose, if you want to view it in those terms.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have questions on committees coming up. This was purely the use of consultancies because that will relate to a budget and to allocation of resources. Have you done any planning around that, minister?
Mr MILLS: Yes, the resourcing for the Planning Commission is found within existing allocations.
Mr McCARTHY: Sorry, minister, I missed that, can you repeat that? The question was: will there be a budget for consultancies in the first four years of the Planning Commission’s operation?
Mr MILLS: In setting the budget for the Planning Commission, the budgetary requirements will be found from within existing allocations to the department. There is no additional resourcing.
Mr McCARTHY: Did I get that right? There are no additional resources? It will be funded from within existing coffers?
Mr MILLS: We are not making an external additional allocation to the Planning Commission. It will be funded from within existing resources.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In relation to the integrated strategic plans, there was much discussion around community consultation with the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, or the greater Darwin plan, and the Property Council of Australia highlighted one of its criticisms, which was that it lacked a very detailed level of lands and planning information required to better integrate strategic planning policies. Can you provide examples of the detail required in such an approach for strategic plans and how the new Planning Commission will achieve this?
Mr MILLS: If you want some guidance on that you would compare the amount of money spent by the former government going through its Enquiry by Design process. It cost nearly $2.5m. You produced a document you quite correctly identified was lacking in necessary detail. You could then compare that with the favourable comments made around the document produced by the opposition. To illustrate the point, the type of detail required is the asking of real questions and providing substantive answers to those questions. What you provided was basically an outline with essential detail missing, such as how would this connect to that; you did not describe those sorts of details. Compare the two documents and you will see there is significant difference between them. Do you want me to go into some abstract discussion to satisfy something? I am not certain of exactly what you are after.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how this would connect to that is abstract enough for me. I will remind you, with your twist in the politics, it was the Property Council of Australia’s comment. I was interested in having a discussion with you about the next level of detail required by a significant stakeholder, something we were working on in the previous government.
It must be past your bed time, minister, because you are not very comfortable answering questions and connecting this and that. It shows the Territory what sort of minister we have in control.
Anyway, we will continue on, minister ...
Mr Styles: You have already gone to bed; you are dreaming.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I will pick up on that. What was that comment from the opposition?
Mr Styles: Pay attention, there will be a test.
Mr McCARTHY: Would you like to restate that comment, member for Sanderson?
Mr Styles: Pay attention, there will be a test.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. That was a very healthy contribution to the debate. Thank you very much, sir.
Minister, in relation to committees, is there any idea of committees at this stage? How many committees, the members of committees, time frames or budgets allocated to committees?
Mr MILLS: You already know the details around the budget. You have asked that question and it has been answered. You have already asked questions about the committees and I answered those previously. To go over it again, if you missed it, there is the capacity for the Planning Commission to establish committees as required.
Mr McCARTHY: We touched on that debate around the Western Australian model and the deliberations and reporting time frames around those committees. Have you given any thought to that as a constraint to your objective of improving the time frames and cutting the red tape?
Mr MILLS: What reference? How does the reference you are making to Western Australia apply to this situation specifically?
Mr McCARTHY: The model in Western Australia has found to achieve the best research and consultation to provide government with the best decision-making process involves committee work. They found they did not really improve those time frames, which is one of the big selling points in your objective of this bill. We have established the Northern Territory Planning Commission will use committees. I have asked simply whether you have done any planning or thinking around that. I think your answer is no.
Mr MILLS: The planning and consideration around that is obvious. It is covered in the bill. The provision is there for the Planning Commissioner to be able to form committees as required. Already, the issue about the structures and the culture in Western Australia have been referred to. As I mentioned before, they will instruct and guide us in the way we would form committees as required on an as-needs basis, not to be bogged down in the process, but to use the means of a committee to help make effective decision-making. After all, it is about good recommendations, good reports to inform good decision-making, not to be bogged down in process. There are lessons, obviously, to be learnt from Western Australia. I think it was you who raised this issue before at about 5.30 pm.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have relished the opportunity to discuss this major reform with you in this House. I am not quite comfortable with your attitude, but that is okay, you are in charge. It is interesting, though, that you find this to be mundane ...
Mr MILLS: No, I do not.
Mr McCARTHY: ... or inane. The attitude you are giving me is very much, ‘Do not ask questions, go away’. Once again, it is the attitude of the minister for Tourism, that you have the numbers and you will do this no matter what we think or say. That is a bit unfortunate.
I will abbreviate this considerably and take up your offer of briefings in the future. I very much look forward to further committee stage work with government as a democratic process. I thank you for your time, minister. Sorry to be so inconvenient but we need to follow your advice. That advice is give it time; time will tell.
As a good opposition, and providing a very clear point of reference in policy, we will be travelling in parallel with you and watching this. I wish it all the success it deserves. As I said, we also shared our elements of success. I conclude now, unfortunately, not having the opportunity to ask all my questions.
Mr MILLS: You have had the opportunity.
Mr McCARTHY: No, minister, you keep making it very clear you are very uncomfortable, you are not happy, you are watching the clock. The member behind you is singing out about his interpretation of what is going on here.
A good opposition will continue to monitor legislation. That is our job and that is what we do with integrity, no matter what sort of abuse is used. Thank you very much, minister, for the opportunity to participate in the passage of this legislation.
Mr MILLS: It is our pleasure. To be honest with you, I did not sense - for the first bit I felt there was a sincere interest in this. I felt you were under instruction to consume an amount of time. That was my sense ...
Mr McCARTHY: I take offence to that!
Mr MILLS: That is fine.
Mr McCARTHY: I take offence to that!
Mr MILLS: Well, I take offence to some of that ...
Mr McCARTHY: You do not know me, and you do not judge me! If you want to continue ...
Mr CHAIR: Please be seated. Chief Minister, please be seated.
Mr McCARTHY: ... then we will continue that. We will continue, minister. I am just giving you ...
Mr CHAIR: Please be seated, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Get used to answering the questions.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Chief Minister, please proceed.
Mr MILLS: I am just giving you ...
Mr McCARTHY: No, you are not, you are playing politics.
Mr MILLS: I am not at all.
Mr McCARTHY: You do not believe that is sincere.
Mr MILLS: You can let me speak. For someone who did not take the opportunity to meet the Planning Commissioner to have that briefing or to seek out the information and have a briefing on the bill - that was the underlying concern I had. The nature of the questions to me indicated you were not particularly interested in this, but were trying to play some kind of game. But, I will take your final comments on face value. I would welcome you, as I said earlier on, to be involved in this process. It is a very important process, as you have said at points along the way, and I take you at your word on that. You have made comment to me; I make comment back to you. If you cannot hack it, bad luck.
Mr McCARTHY: We will leave it there. If you want to judge me, then go right ahead but you do not know me from a bar of soap. I take great offence to your continual referral to the clich of the previous opposition, ‘get a briefing’. I do not live in Darwin; I do not know how many times I have to stress that. I do not have access to an unlimited travel budget and I will use every opportunity I get. As a Country Liberal Party person, maybe you should think about bringing the resources into the regions and supporting briefings there because there were many constituents who participated in the crafting of those questions as they were genuinely interested. They do not live in Darwin either. They do not live in Palmerston. You want to treat us with contempt so that is the story. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide questions.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I thought that was a lovely bit of input. I am pretty sure this was the government that was in for 11 years - talking about information and access being brought to the regions. Every time I wanted information I came to Darwin for a briefing. I had the same travel opportunities; I was not on the same salary, but I had the same travel opportunities. All the time I made sure I came here and got the information ...
A member: Yes, you were on a QantasLink flight, Adam. You jump on an aeroplane.
Mr CHAIR: Order!
May I remind members of Standing Order 191, which states we must stay on track on the clauses and the amendments of the bill?
The question is that the bill be agreed to.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have not finished.
Mr CHAIR: We need to keep it relevant.
Mr GILES: I was saying it was very important with pieces of legislation like this to get a briefing. The Chief Minister has done a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to this House, answering all the questions, making his office open and accountable, being able to provide that information at briefings. I know that when I used to travel to parliament I would quite often get a briefing on the Monday before or even the day of the legislation coming forward to make sure I was up to date on what was going on. I find it quite funny that you did not even get a briefing on the Planning Commission when you are so irate about it.
I congratulate the Chief Minister his shortness in his answers. This is an open and transparent process and to have a fully democratic process the committee stage is really important. You cannot ask the questions you should have asked in the briefing. There are common basics about how you do this.
You know how it was last time; you did not want to listen to anything. That was when the numbers were closer. It is not a numbers game, but if you want to find out the information about an important piece of legislation, get a briefing. Do not abuse the Chief Minister because you were too lazy. The Chief Minister is quite prepared ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Chair! Ask him to withdraw lazy.
Mr GILES: I will not withdraw it because you never turned up for a briefing.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr GILES: It is not an unparliamentary comment.
Mr McCARTHY: My questions relate to many people in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. That is not lazy.
Mr GILES: Then why did you not get a briefing if it was that important?
Congratulations, Chief Minister, you have my full support.
Mr McCARTHY: That is as good as it gets with you.
Mr MILLS: What betrays your position, shadow minister, is that you sought briefings and I commend you for doing that. You sought briefings from people across the region, from the people of Palmerston. You sought briefings from the people – you made a specific point - in my own electorate, but you made no effort in your time here to seek a briefing on the bill.
I commend you for getting community consultation, for getting that feedback, but the point is made very clearly that you made no effort whatsoever to get an adequate briefing. That is the point.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chair! The point of the committee stage is the opportunity for members to question in detail the bill before the House. That is exactly what the member for Barkly has done.
Whether the member for Barkly availed himself of a briefing or not is not the process of parliament. The process of the committee stage is what we have just seen, but what we are witnessing is an irate Chief Minister who does not like being questioned; he did not like the length of time of the questions or the breadth of the questioning.
I recall that in the first term minister Ah Kit went through a four-hour committee stage. I have been through extremely long committee stages and I understand your irritation, but that is the committee stage, welcome to government. Welcome to the infinite detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is the committee stage and a member is not required to get a briefing, there is no requirement for a briefing, they can choose to have a briefing or not. Now the member for Barkly is such a hard working member, he chose to ...
Mr CHAIR: Member for Karama, can you please be seated?
Ms LAWRIE: On what basis are you gagging me, Chair of Committees?
Mr CHAIR: I am of the opinion that this discussion we are having is not relevant to the debate.
Ms LAWRIE: It is relevant to the debate. Are you gagging the Leader of the Opposition on relevance?
Mr CHAIR: My view is that the committee stage is to debate the bill and go through the bill; it is not to debate the role of the committee stage which is what is happening now. The only comments or the only call I will give will be to someone who wants to speak to a clause or an amendment to the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: We are about to put the report of the committee to the Speaker so this is at the end of the stage where you can talk to the actions within the committee stage and that is what has occurred.
Mr CHAIR: I am not sure that is the case Leader of the Opposition, I will ask.
Ms LAWRIE: I know you are not sure. We are about to put the whole of the bill.
Mr CHAIR: I have been advised that the committee stage is where we discuss the content of the bill. This is not discussing the content of the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Yet you allowed the Chief Minister to go down this path.
Mr CHAIR: I have given you some time as well but it has reached the point where this House has had time enough wasted. Could you please be seated, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms LAWRIE: You are unbelievable! You are a grub.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chairman! There is no way anyone should reflect on the Chairperson and I ask that you have this lady, the Opposition Leader, removed. She just called you a grub. That is a highly offensive comment to be made in the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory. She should be asked to leave this Chamber for 24 hours.
Mr CHAIR: Can the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw?
Mr GILES: For 24 hours you are gone, how dare you speak like that to the Chairperson!
Ms LAWRIE: I am going.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, just for clarification, you are asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the comment.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr MILLS (Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 14 Noes 8
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to see the Treasurer’s Financial Report for the 2011-12 financial year. It is good and I am making bets with myself as to how long we will see such strong adherence to Australian Accounting Standards in the Territory. I make mention of the old boy’s renewal board progress report and the dinosaurs.
In that report there is one element which is rather concerning where they talk about the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the need to revisit that act. That act ensures the budget of the Territory complies with the Australian Accounting Standards. I would loathe seeing the day the transparent accounting of the state of the Territory’s books is altered in a retrospective and negative fashion. For all the little I think of the government, I hope they do not go that low.
Whilst we are enjoying the adherence to the Australian Accounting Standards, we see the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report handed down at this time each year.
For members, these are the accounts that require audit by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has to sign off on the actual accounts, then the Treasurer has to sign off and deliver the report to parliament. There is a slight qualification in the audit in the numbers still to roll through in SIHIP, and that is understandable - highly complex. At what stage the keys are being handed over into homes etcetera does cause difficulties in the strict adherence to accounting standards; however, it is still transparent and accountable within the books.
I note what the TAFR shows for the 2011-12 financial year is that the prediction we saw in the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook, came to bear in the TAFR, so the actuals in 2011-12 showed an improvement in the Territory’s financial position. It showed a reduction in the deficit in the 2012-13 budget. It was predicted in May that the deficit would be $491m. The actuals showed an improvement in the 2011-12 financial year, delivering a deficit of just $425m down from $491m. That improvement is certainly welcome.
If you look at the test of the Victorian government which looked to operate in surplus, the good news is there is a $175m operating surplus. The TAFR shows also that the GST receipts are still below pre-global financial crisis estimates and what the Territory would have expected to receive. We actually got $282m less than those estimates. With write-downs in GST revenue, it was a real loss of $150m in the 2011-12 financial year. When you look at $700m lost in revenue through those GFC-affected periods, we are starting to see recovery. The TAFR actuals are starting to show that improvement in the national accounts regarding the GST revenue.
GST is often consumer-led taxation. It is off those goods and services. People are spending and you get the revenues coming in. The prevailing winds of the national economy are strengthening, which we are seeing some indications of. You will see that recovery coming through. Part of the recovery for the Territory, of course, is recovery through population growth adjustments running at about $40m per annum in additional GST.
When you look at the analysis by Deloitte Access Economics, CommSec, and the ABS, they are all predicting strength in population growth as a result of the major project, the Ichthys project. What that will mean in GST, of course, is you will see strengthening growth through the population adjustments in future GST periods.
That being said, I am still looking forward to the final report by the GST review committee. I had several meetings with that committee. I know the insults will come flowing thick and fast towards me. The Treasurer wants to call me the worst ever etcetera, but I know the fulsome debates I had to hold on behalf of the Territory at the national level. I know the high regard in which I was held by treasurers around the nation, the federal Treasurer and the GST review committee. Bring on the insults because I am Territory-tough and I can take it.
The actuals are showing the improvement. I knew going into the election - adhering to the great training I have been given in understanding the Australian Accounting Standards as a Treasurer and the importance I attach to those in terms of the budget and the numbers. I applied great rigour in keeping our election commitments within the forward estimates. I knew that if only you could do a bit of extra gazing you could have seen that we would keep pegging out. I know the Chief Minister might say, ‘She was just hoping on a win of GST revenue increasing’. That is one small part of the picture, the other part they like to ignore.
They like to ignore the staffing cap. They like to ignore the efficiency dividends which the unions at the time were rallying against and no longer are because they are seeing the job cuts under the CLP. They also like to ignore that we were running counter-cyclical in capital. All of these reduced deficits to that predicted $200m-odd deficit in the 2015-16 financial year. They also like to ignore the eight surplus budgets in a row, slicing debt by $582m, but these are all inconvenient truths for the tale of woe the CLP government would like to talk about.
Yet, you get the actuals in front of you and look at 2011-12 and you can say yes, absolutely, we were on track. We were reclaiming and reducing the deficit as we said we would. It will change; there will be a mini-budget and all the figures will dramatically change. I am hearing that change will not bode too well for the Territory or Territory public servants.
It identifies those new initiatives that were going to what I refer to as demand pressure areas. That will occur and the government will grapple with the demand pressure areas that exist in the Territory. Go to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which talks about the new initiatives that were funding the high demand in the individual support packages. If you take a different approach in law and decide to change the laws of the Territory and lock up people who have a mental illness rather than have them in forensic facilities and appropriate individual support package care, you could not spend that money there and just lock them away. That would be a retrograde step and I hope we do not live in a Territory where those sorts of decisions are made, but if you will not make those decisions then you fund those individual support packages, which we did.
The other major area in the new initiatives outlined in the 2011-12 actuals was the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. That is a critical scheme in the Territory, as we know. Many of our patients come from remote areas. They have to be flown in courtesy of the tax payer. That Patient Assistance Travel Scheme is a tough scheme to get right. It has gone through serious reform and coordination in the past. Today I was shocked and appalled at the comments by the existing Health minister, describing the medi-hotel as a hotel for long grassers, which was grossly offensive. These are Territorians who are unwell, often very unwell, who have been flown in for care and need to be accommodated and supported in a medical environment.
There are also our young very pregnant mums who have come to the urban centre and need to be accommodated for obstetrician care for birthing. To describe these Territorians as long-grassers - I have never heard anything so appalling and shocking in years. For members opposite to believe this is okay and appropriate, and not have him make an apology is shocking. Extraordinary!
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme was a demand pressure recognised in 2011-12 and responded to with new initiatives in funding as identified in the TAFR. Lo and behold - look at that - within that cohort of new initiatives was the increased road maintenance for flood damaged roads. Yet, having listened to the Infrastructure minister, not a cent was put towards road maintenance and no road maintenance occurred. Listening to the Chief Minister, no road maintenance was occurring but isn’t it good to have a look at what expenditure actually occurred and when it occurred?
Also of note in 2011-12 was the $15m payment to the Land Development Corporation for the affordable housing rental company to deliver affordable rentals. It took a great deal of effort and many negotiations to get a company established in the Territory and $15m to provide a range of rentals at 20% below market rate, which is sitting within these actuals. I wish the Land Development Corporation well with that work. I have no doubt the current government will claim that work. At the end of the day, that is what incoming governments do.
At the end of the day, I am immensely proud of the work former minister Burns did in government to establish the affordable housing rental company. I am immensely proud to have been in a government that funded that initiative to give Territorians a chance to have subsidised rental options in the Territory. That is a scheme that can be expanded. In time, and with good analysis, it can be expanded into the large regional centres. They are models that have been proven to work elsewhere in Australia and we brought that model to the Territory and established it.
Again, it does not really sit with the rhetoric that we did nothing right. Overall, it shows we have continued to be in the depressed GST scenario, the high capital spending was fuelling the economy and the jobs and the actuals have shown that in 2011-12; therefore that $425m deficit sat there. I acknowledge the hard work that goes into the development of the TAFR by all the Treasury staff. I know they sweat over the details and the numbers and the very good notes throughout the report.
Not everyone wants to read through the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report but they go out of their way to make the explanations as readable as possible if you want to understand exactly where the money is and where the money is being spent. The notes spell it out in detail. I know it is pretty dry stuff to most people but I am really pleased to be in the Territory where we are applying the Australian Accounting Standards and making sure the information is there for anyone who wants to read it.
That brings me to a point that was raised earlier tonight in debate when the member for Port Darwin said they knew what the financials of Power and Water were because they had the Statement of Corporate Intent but they did not know what the financials of the government were. That is not true because all you had to do was pick up the 2012-13 budget. All you had to do was to pick up the pre-election fiscal outlook, read any of the TAFRs that has been handed down, and understand that the Australian Accounting Standards apply.
We have not had the debate on the Renewal Management Board. That was not the opposition’s decision. It was the government’s decision to withdraw the debate last sittings. That being said, the only actual data in that report was pulled directly from the PEFO. There were a couple of tables in there, but the PEFO and the rest of it were assumptions made by the old boys: assumptions that really would not be borne out had someone asked me if we were giving an extra $40m to Police for R&M. I would have said no.
The talk of $35m pressure in youth justice - no. I know what parameters I set for delivery of loan initiatives and it was not what the old boys had estimated. They had their fun with it but they were their assumptions and they certainly did not meet Australian Accounting Standards in their assumptions.
Of course the Territory has debts. The debts were acquired through the capital spend and we make no apology for that. We kept the Territory unique in economic growth. We kept people in jobs, we kept Territorians productive, we kept the industries productive and it all occurred through the global financial crisis-affected period.
To come through a global financial crisis and be the fastest growing economy in the nation is a pretty awesome feat. You do that by shouldering the load as a government, and through your capital spend and ability to score the nation’s second-largest infrastructure project in history. They are all good things for the Territory. They will prevail regardless of what decisions government make on spending now.
The Ichthys project is unaffected to an extent. Of course, you always have the regulatory environment, and there is a debate for another day over my concerns about the regulatory environment with the changes to the EPA. That is a debate we have had in the House previously; it is not a TAFR debate.
I recognise that the effects on liabilities remain in regard to the bond rate. The bond rate will ultimately adjust the extent of the Territory’s liabilities. When the bond rate gets back to a more reasonable level you will see debt levels reduce. That is not through any effort of government, it is an adjustment in the bond rate. These are some of the quirks of the Australian Accounting Standards.
You get some good times when an actuarial comes in with superannuation liabilities. It might get you a good result and, all of a sudden, you have far less debt. That is fantastic. It is an actuarial. Another actuarial - we had this happen - can change the way they view the superannuation liabilities and you get a bad result. However, everyone can have fun playing with numbers.
At the end of the day, the 2011-12 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report shows a good result. It shows a reduction in deficit and a clear area of focus on the affordable housing rental company. It shows pressures in the system in the higher demand for individual support packages, the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, and it dealt with that 12-year super Wet Season and the flood damage to roads we responded to quite appropriately.
I finish with my thanks to Treasury officials. I daresay they have been working extremely hard preparing the mini-budget. I look forward to the mini-budget meeting the Australian Accounting Standards in accountability and transparency. I recognise that within the statements there is some growth in taxation revenue which is starting to pick up. You are starting to see some growth occurring in stamp duty which is akin to the numbers in housing approvals. We will see a lull where there was three months of uncertainty with housing schemes.
I have been critical, and will continue to be, of the replacement of the stimulus packages and schemes we had. I know that at no stage during any housing debates does the government want to refer to BuildBonus or Buildstart. As stimulus schemes they delivered the goods in stamp duty revenue - good initiatives there.
That is my contribution to the TAFR. The real debate and real arguments about the governments decision-making and the cuts headed people’s way in the mini-budget will continue in here and out there.
We saw the news today about Motor Vehicle Registry hikes. I hate to think what other fees and charges Territorians will be slugged with in this mini-budget so the government can gather the dollars it wants to pay for its unfunded election commitments.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I like to give credit where credit is due and I know the former Treasurer worked hard to present our case, arguing our fair share of the GST. She was an acting member of the group of treasurers who would meet regularly and fight on behalf of their jurisdictions.
The Chief Minister and I have met, in the short period we have been in government, with the GST Review Committee and, like the former Treasurer, have fought hard to present our case to the GST Review Committee.
This document is a story about the former government. I will not go into any detail over the ins and outs of what happened in 2011-12. I will, however, say it illustrates the growing deficit we are heading towards, reinforcing the concerns we have articulated over the last couple of days about the financial situation we have been left in.
Madam Speaker, I commend this document to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, tonight I follow through on the commitment I gave during the most recent Legislative Assembly sittings to provide a statement on the government’s response to the 2010 board of inquiry report into the child protection system.
Over the last 10 years in the Northern Territory, there has been a huge increase in the number of reports of child harm which have been made to the child protection agency. In 2001-02, there were 1600 reports of child harm. In 2011-12, this number had grown to just under 8000. In that same period of time, the population of children aged 17 years and under had only increased by around 5%.
Along with this increase in reports, the number of cases which were investigated in which the child was found to have been harmed also increased significantly, from 349 cases in 2001-02 to 1705 cases in 2011-12, nearly quadrupling over a 10-year time period. The result of the increase in these numbers is the number of children who have had to be removed from their home for their safety has also increased, with approximately 700 Northern Territory children in out-of-home care at the end of the 2011-12 financial year.
At the point that a board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory was announced, the child protection system in the Northern Territory was on the verge of a total meltdown. As a result of the years of neglect by the previous Labor government, the Growing them strong, together report of the inquiry made 147 recommendations for reforming the child protection system in the Northern Territory.
This was just one of six independent reports tabled in this Northern Territory parliament during the reign of the former Labor government, contributing a total of 315 recommendations during this time. These reports identified significant systemic problems: backlogs, problems with staff recruitment and retention, grossly unmanageable workloads, lack of appropriate risk assessment, and standardised screening and assessment of child protection matters. Serious deficiencies were identified within the agency in relation to the monitoring and review of cases and the capacity to meet legislative requirements. Capacity for the system to respond to the needs of Aboriginal children was found to be inadequate. The failure of other human service agencies to respond to child safety and wellbeing issues was readily apparent.
What all these reports collectively highlight is that the former Labor government’s approach to child protection lacked vision. Their approach was so devoid of any strategic leadership that when the board of inquiry released its report in October 2010, the then Chief Minister seized upon it as a blueprint, a how-to guide for delivering child protection services in the Northern Territory. Having lost their way, and in the absence of their own vision, Labor’s singular focus was on implementing each and every one of the board’s 147 recommendations. There was no critical analysis of these recommendations. The former Chief Minister’s statement was made without considering the suitability or implications of adopting these recommendations from either a policy or financial perspective.
The former government lived and breathed the board of inquiry report. They lived and breathed each and every recommendation. In fact, the entire Children and Families agency was constructed around this report. Even as the number of children being harmed and the number of children needing foster care continued to increase, the former Labor government remained solely focused on those 147 recommendations.
This is not to say that the board of inquiry report did not provide a good critique of the issues facing the child protection system in the Northern Territory. However, reports like these should help to inform government to provide advice on strategies to move forward; they are not intended to be a substitute for government policy.
As a new government, we are tackling the business of child protection very differently from the former government. This government is not defined by a single report. We will set the agenda. Our approach will be a sensible one that is based on the needs of children and families, particularly those living in remote parts of the Northern Territory. A period of consolidation is needed which allows us to focus on what is really important, what we value and what we prioritise. We need to be realistic about what can be done within available resources. This is the start of a new chapter of reform of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Children and Families, I intend to develop a new policy platform driven by government not the board of inquiry, not Little Children are Sacred or any other report.
On 11 October 2012, I announced the creation of a new portfolio of Education and Children’s Services. This established the Office of Children and Families and the Department of Education and Children’s Services as key partners in providing services to children and their families. Significant work has already been undertaken to develop a joint strategic plan based on a set of core values to provide children with the best possible start in life, with families supported to raise children to their full potential. Strategic priorities and actions are being defined to focus a collective effort on the safety, wellbeing and education of children across the Territory, including:
quality services for children from birth to 12 years of age
effective responses to support vulnerable children
universal services of high quality which are accessible and appropriate for families, young people and children
a responsive service sector meeting the needs of children and families and grounded in partnership with service providers and community.
Performance measures are also being developed through which better outcomes for children and families will be monitored and reported. Goals specific to Education NT and the Office of Children and Families will be articulated through specific components of the overall plan. Early Years staff have been transitioned into Children and Families from Education, allowing for a broader range of complementary functions to children and families to be brought together with specific focus on children in the 0-4-years age group. Work to integrate various functions including policy and program design, non-government sector investment, performance reporting and investigatory functions is progressing. Work is also progressing to align services and activities aimed at:
improving school attendance
improved prevention and early intervention strategies that reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention
Through strengthening relationships between Education and Child Protection portfolios, communities will see improved services for children and families. This will result in more strongly connected programs and resources in the 0-4-years age range to better prepare families and their children for schooling. For example, remote child protection workers and community child safety and wellbeing teams will work with Families as First Teachers and community leaders. In each region we will develop a pilot site between schools, children, families and remote teams to develop best practice initiatives to improve children’s education outcomes and reduce the need for statutory intervention. Children and Families staff in remote communities will work with principals, teachers and school communities to provide responses for children about whom teachers are concerned but who do not meet the threshold for a formal child protection response - an ‘economies of scale’ through more efficient use of regional resourcing.
It is in this context that the government is reshaping child protection policy. Growing them strong, together will continue to provide a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements, but will not restrict us in what needs to be done to achieve better outcomes for children. Our priorities are:
improving the Out-of-Home Care system as a priority in 2013, including delivery of strategies to increase our foster carer pool and retention rates of carers
non-government organisations providing support for statutory service provision is key to managing demand and achieving quality outcomes for children and families
imbedding family decision-making as core frontline practice and establishing localised teams to increase kinship care placement options
taking a strengthened, regionalised focus: more staff working at the interface with clients and less staff in the central office
improving child safety and wellbeing outcomes through whole-of-government action.
The work undertaken over the past two years has provided a good start to the reform of the child protection system and the work of the board of inquiry in initiating this process is acknowledged. Some achievements since the release of the Growing them strong, together report include:
the focus on improving quality practice on the front line
support for staff through strengthened supervision practices and a culture of openness
improved staff morale.
I commend all those frontline staff who have stayed on during difficult times; have demonstrated their commitment and worked so diligently with children and families to bring about this change. Since taking office, I have directed Children and Families to reappraise all 147 recommendations made by the inquiry to assess their merit and the capacity to continue to implement the reforms in their entirety.
Specifically, I have requested advice from the office on which of the outstanding recommendations will make a significant difference to children and families and should be progressed as a priority; which recommendations can be implemented at a later date without significant detriment to children and families, which recommendations are no longer vital or applicable or can be implemented more efficiently or effectively than in the manner envisaged by the inquiry, and which recommendations were never properly funded and are beyond budget capacity to deliver?
I have been advised that 56 recommendations have been completed. A further 91 recommendations have commenced, with 69 to be progressed as intended by the inquiry; 14 of these will be completed late in 2012 or early 2013. Eleven recommendations have been superseded. The intent of the recommendations will still be implemented; however, the method of implementation has been modified. Two recommendations are at the discretion of the court. Nine are identified as not possible to complete within current budget constraints. I will address these recommendations in detail.
This government remains committed to many of the initiatives being implemented in the response to the findings of the board of inquiry. Provision of support to foster carers, children and young people in care through Foster Care NT and the CREATE Foundation continues to be an essential component of the statutory service system and the government remains committed to continuing funding these organisations. Funding to non-government organisations delivering out-of-home-care services will also be prioritised.
Prioritising spending on direct service delivery to support child protection frontline services is key, particularly to securing better outcomes for Aboriginal children who make up more than 80% of children in care.
Priority will also be given to initiatives that will further develop capacity within the system to respond to the cultural complexities and needs of Aboriginal children and their families. In addition to the development of an Aboriginal child safety and wellbeing framework, this will be achieved in partnership with Aboriginal staff from many government and non-government agencies through continued funding for the Aboriginal Collaboration, Engagement and Strategy unit.
This unit will support engagement of Aboriginal staff across agencies in a new collaborative approach to creating child-safe environments in remote communities. Cultural advisors will work within each region providing advice to case workers on how to work most effectively with Aboriginal clients. A new kinship care unit will operate from Alice Springs and Katherine, supporting kinship care recruitment and specialised assessment and support services. For all staff there will be further development of a cultural competency framework.
Based around the inquiry’s recommendations and discussions with the office and stakeholders, I have requested that a complete rewrite of the legislation be progressed which will ensure the new act better reflects contemporary approaches to child protection with distinctions between short- and long-term orders, provisions for unborn children and mediation, and is designed to specifically suit the unique circumstances and needs of the Territory and its children. It is simpler and more efficient than the current act, including mediation provisions allowing earlier resolution of child protection matters with fewer matters going to court for hearings, and shorter hearings for those that mediation does not resolve.
The legislative reform proposal will seek to introduce a new system of child protection orders with a distinction between short-term orders aimed at reunification, and long-term orders aimed at stability for the child whilst maintaining the child’s connection to family; therapeutic orders to enable admission to secure care facilities; permanent care or special guardianship orders; and provision enabling information sharing, receipt of notifications and investigations for unborn children.
This process of reform will provide an opportunity for us to lay the groundwork for a modern child protection system that delivers better outcomes for children and families. The inquiry supported a multiagency focus on child safety and wellbeing. I agree that this is essential if we are to address the upstream drivers and determinants of child abuse and neglect.
Through the Child Safety and Wellbeing Director’s network reporting to a chief executive’s task force, a whole-of-government child safety and wellbeing plan will be implemented to guide joined up service delivery and reorientation of core human services to focus on the needs of children in 2013.
Funding will also continue to support multiagency assessment and collaboration teams based at Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals, and community child safety and wellbeing team practitioners based in remote communities. I am committed to ensuring an evidence-based approach informs a roll-out of this program.
With regard to the extensive number of recommendations made by the inquiry relating to the reviews of policy, procedures and programs, recommendations considered critical to improving outcomes for children and families will be prioritised.
Other recommendations still considered important, but not of immediate consequence, will be progressed by core central office staff over a more extended time frame. Given the length of time that has passed since the inquiry handed down its report, it is not surprising a range of recommendations has been overtaken. Eleven recommendations have been superseded and will be implemented but not in the way that was originally envisaged by the inquiry report released over two years ago. For example, a series of recommendations called for policy and procedural changes. These will now be progressed through the development of an overarching child protection practice framework.
Outstanding recommendations relating to residential and alternative care have been overtaken by the required out-of-home care reforms which will be progressed as a priority in 2013.
A small number of recommendations have been identified that will not be completed. The inquiry recommended that the Care and Protection of Children Act be amended to recognise the functions of an Aboriginal childcare agency or other recognised entities. The act will, for the first time, recognise the role all non-government organisations play, and could play in the future, through more formally delegated functions.
It was recommended by the inquiry that the Northern Territory government explore, with the Commonwealth, the trial, development or expansion of existing infrastructure in remote areas to provide on-community, therapeutic, residential options for mothers and small children identified as at risk of removal. This was an ‘urgent 3’ recommendation, important but not urgent, to commence implementation within two to three years. There was never funding committed to implement this recommendation and it is clearly beyond current budget capacity.
Through aligning child protection and early year services and programs within the Office of Children and Families, this will improve service responsiveness to at-risk children and their parents in remote areas. Closer integration with Education will also see Children and Families staff working with principals, teachers and school communities to provide responses for children about whom teachers are concerned, but who do not meet the threshold for informal child protection response.
The inquiry also recommended that a significant and sustained investment be made in the development and expansion of a suite of secondary prevention, tertiary prevention, and therapeutic and reunification services for vulnerable and at-risk children, families, and communities. The inquiry recommended further that the majority of these services should be provided by the non-government sector, and investment should involve new rather than redirected funding and, within a five-year period, match or exceed departmental expenditure in statutory child protection and out-of-home care.
The inquiry anticipated new funding being invested in broad-ranging programs for children and families, as well as substance abuse treatments, parenting skills development, community development and healing. Again, no new funding was committed by the former Labor government to the office or other government agencies to achieve this recommendation.
The Office and the Department of Education and Children’s Services are working closely with the Australian government to plan the roll-out in communities for children in 15 additional sites. This is ensuring proper place-based planning for service provision and will reduce duplication of effort. Through Stronger Futures funding, the Commonwealth is also expanding the number of sites in which intensive family support services are being delivered. The office is leveraging off this investment, and can refer all at-risk families who do not require statutory intervention, where appropriate, to funded non-government organisations for support.
Recommendations which were never funded and will not be completed include the expansion of child and family centres beyond the five sites funded by the Australian government. Construction of the centres is set to commence in 2013. At this stage, there is no funding available to extend the initiative further and the recommendation cannot be completed in the foreseeable future as this is an Australian government area of responsibility and they did not support this recommendation with additional funding.
Creation of a community visitor scheme for children in care was also an unfunded commitment. Children and Families will continue to leverage off funding arrangements with the CREATE Foundation to ensure children in care have a voice within the system. CREATE runs an annual survey to find out about children and young people’s experience in out-of-home care and provide independent advice and analysis on any issues of concern.
Establishment of a new advice and support program for families coming into contact with child protection statutory services in the Top End and Central Australia: there are a range of services where families can already receive assistance. Frontline staff are required to provide information to families about available services and to support them to be referred. In 2013, the office will also progress the establishment of a differential response allowing Central Intake to refer families who do not meet the threshold for statutory intervention to a range of community and human services.
Work to establish a framework for rolling evaluations to measure the outcomes of the recommendations will not be progressed. At my direction, the office is consulting with the Children’s Commissioner on options for increasing his capacity to monitor the performance of the child protection system. The commissioner already has a range of powers under the Care and Protection of Children Act including the capacity to monitor the administration of the act insofar as it relates to vulnerable children. This power, or amendments to the act, could be used to allow the commissioner to report regularly to me on performance data such as child protection notifications, investigations, substantiations, and out-of-home care.
Finally, contractual arrangements for a community education campaign will not be continued due to our need to resource positions on the front line. The work undertaken by Michels Warren Mundayand its partner organisations, NAPCAN, Menzies and Captivate will not be wasted. It will form the basis for ongoing strategies within the agency to disseminate child safety and wellbeing messages and recruit foster and kinship carers.
The former Labor government made a commitment to fully implement each and every one of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry. They broke this promise within weeks of making it. It was clear from the start they never intended to keep this promise, and they did not provide the funding to implement each of the recommendations. This Country Liberals government has never made the promise that we would implement all the recommendations of the board of inquiry. This government has set a new direction for child protection within the new portfolio of Education and Children’s Services.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this statement was slid under my door earlier today with an apology for the late circulation. It was like a last-minute decision, and it seems a little half-baked.
There are reasons, minister, why we have conventions for circulating statements in advance, particularly ones as important as this which is a major shift and change in direction in child protection.
The board of inquiry review of the child protection system in the Northern Territory was the most comprehensive ever to be undertaken.
Minister, I quote from your statement to the House tonight:
Child protection is not about choosing the best bits, the easy bits, or the bits that do not need much funding. Yet this seems to be exactly what you have done.
I am sure I do not need to remind the minister, that by comparison the board of inquiry was co-chaired by national experts in their field, Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby. It was wide-ranging, receiving more than 150 submissions from organisations and individuals. It incorporated consultations within communities and regional centres and pulled together evidence from a range of reports and reference panels of experts from around Australia. Unlike other inquires it encompassed the whole system, not just specific allegations of abuse or adverse incidents.
As a government, we announced an immediate response of an allocation of $130m over five years improving services. This was on top of an annual budget of approximately $180m. We announced key initiatives to address some of the urgent recommendations made by the inquiry, and I remind you that in 2001 when we came to office the child protection budget was around $7m; the previous government did not have a singular focus as you state, its focus was on children in a standalone department. I hope the merge of the Office of Children and Families within the Department of Education does not lose the work of child protection once again. I hope it does not make teachers into child protection officers. Teachers, by nature, care for students; that is their primary focus.
Under Labor, child protection services were expanded to include family and support services, youth services, out-of-home care services, and the Children’s Commissioner was established. The board of inquiry, which you as a government have so easily dismissed, was not a political piece of work; it was independently authored and solely aimed at supporting Territory families and ensuring the safety of our children.
The increased funding to this sector must not be cut. You said:
In this statement there was a substantial amount of needless whining and whingeing at what the previous government had and had not done. I remind you this document is yours, as a government, and you are a government for at least four years. This is your guiding document. This kind of carping is uncalled for and destructive to supporting Territory families.
Minister, in the Territory child protection issues are mainly around child neglect. As a former social worker you would know this. As a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect and behaviours. We do not have time to pause for a period of consolidation as you suggest. The Northern Territory is counting on you, particularly the children.
You talk of a new period and a new policy platform but I question just what is different about the way you intend to progress things. This ministerial statement lacks detail and there is no oversight and accountability, unlike that of the Child Protection External Reporting and Monitoring Committee. I quote from Hansard where you said:
You, as a government, have scrapped this committee and left no oversight in place. I ask the question: why not let them play a role?
However, I note the vague direction to the Office of Children and Families to consult with the Children’s Commissioner on options for increasing his capacity to monitor the performance of your child protection system. You vaguely talked about performance measures being developed through which better outcomes for children and families will be monitored and reported.
Minister, where is the detail? What will you do? I look forward to, over the coming months, hearing and learning more of your plans but it must become urgent. You have requested a complete rewrite of the act with a number of new focuses and aims. Legislation in this area is particularly difficult; we are playing with children’s lives. It is not a game and I look at this request for reform with some apprehension.
The act currently recognises the Children’s Commissioner as the appropriate statutory officeholder to assess, investigate and report on issues relating to vulnerable children. It reinforces the skill and the expertise of the Children’s Commissioner in this regard, but, as you have suggested, to take this a step further for him to monitor the act and report to you on performance data such as child protection investigation, substantiations and out-of-home care - I have concern.
The Children’s Commissioner’s role is to be the voice of vulnerable children not a reporting function to you. If you choose to take this path I assume you will provide suitable funding to do so. I note the significant increase of funding to the Children’s Commissioner role when it was expanded from the recommendations of the board of inquiry.
In your statement you speak about the huge increase of reports and suspected child abuse and, as we know in the Northern Territory, every person is required to report suspected child abuse and neglect. The Office of Children and Families undertakes a number of activities to inform its staff, staff of other agencies, organisations and members of the public about this obligation to report. As I understand, these activities, including providing information about mandatory reporting obligations as part of departmental inductions, orientation processes to health, children and families staff is huge.
Every individual who attends the orientation is provided with a booklet. Reporting child abuse and neglect is everyone’s responsibility. Mandatory reporting sessions are also provided on request to staff of other departments and non-government organisations. Mandatory training was delivered to 180 external parties in 2011. When in government, we increased funding for community organisations to deliver this mandatory reporting and training. NAPCAN delivered sessions to over 200 NGOs and government employees across the NT, including many in remote locations.
The development of two mandatory reporting e-learning tools in relation to child protection and domestic violence was also developed, all extremely important work. It would be disappointing to see this cut. Ensuring members of the community, particularly those in professional roles, have access to this information is vital.
As well as this work in community education, a social marketing campaign took place which you made reference to. I note you will not continue with this but will use it as:
Again, this all seems half-baked to me. This comprehensive community education strategy to highlight key messages about child protection and wellbeing to accompany the service delivery enhancements contained in this report - the need for a broad based community education campaign - was a key recommendation of the board of inquiry yet you choose to turn your back on this advice. The consortium of companies which you spoke of: Michels Warren Munday, Menzies School of Health Research for Child Development and Education, and NAPCAN prepared work plans which covered an audit of the department’s communication approach and materials, fostering and carers’ recruitment and a community education campaign. This may seem trivial but this strategy was to have a five-year life span and be a multimodal model, including having materials translated into local languages and addressing a range of issues on child safety and wellbeing.
The community education campaign was to place strong emphasis on solutions and a community engagement approach where communities were given genuine input to decisions that affected their lives. Yet you, minister, have removed this important community education campaign.
The board of inquiry identified the need for significant development of the Aboriginal service sector to ensure children and families have access to culturally appropriate services they require. I thank you, minister, for outlining your government’s response to protecting children at risk - Aboriginal children and young people. They are the most vulnerable group in the Northern Territory experiencing poverty, exclusion, discrimination and removal from their homes and cultures at unprecedented and unsustainable rates.
To create a strong foundation for the service sector and build capacity, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT was engaged to support the development of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s youth and families peak body. In addition to its functions as a peak, SAF,T as it is known, plays a key role in identifying the service model, scope and function of the Aboriginal child care agencies - ACCAs as they are commonly known - in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Not only were ACCAs a key board of inquiry recommendation, they also exist in a number of other jurisdictions and play a critical role in the child protection system, in particular, family support services and in the placement and care of Aboriginal children. The development of ACCA-type services in Darwin and Alice Springs brings the Territory in line with other jurisdictions. In response to this, the policy framework Safe Children, Bright Futures focused on the need for early intervention and support services for vulnerable Aboriginal families as a means of ensuring the greatest chance of diverting them from entering the child protection system. It also is committed to strengthening Aboriginal non-government services and the NGO sector as the best way of ensuring these families can access culturally appropriate services to seek the assistance they so need.
Given the significance of this and your government’s strength in representing the bush, it comes as a surprise that you, as minister, have refused any reference to this in your ministerial statement.
The peak body celebrated its first birthday in September and this was one of the first events I attended as a shadow minister. In its short lifetime the peak has promoted awareness, understanding and support for Aboriginal child safety issues and the need for the delivery of services to children and families by Aboriginal controlled organisations. The peak’s list of achievements and its contribution to child protection reforms at a Territory and Commonwealth level is extensive.
SAF,T has the full support of every major Aboriginal organisation and their membership in the Northern Territory. These include the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT, and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Indeed, every Aboriginal peak body in the NT.
I call on you, the NT government, to demonstrate your commitment to ensuring the welfare and safety of Aboriginal children in the NT by continuing to support SAF,T and their strategic priorities. In addition, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations at the national level have recognised that, over the past 12 months, safety has played a critical role in advancing a positive agenda for reform. These include the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the National Congress of Australia and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation.
They all agreed the existence of SAF,T has created significant hope amongst communities to provide a voice for marginalised Aboriginal children and youth in the Northern Territory. They described the establishment of SAF,T as a milestone event recognising for the first time that the NT has an Aboriginal body to advocate on behalf of the children, families and communities. They too call upon the NT government to value the knowledge and approach of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by continuing to support the peak body.
SAF,T has achieved much during its first year of operation. However, you, minister, may not be aware of this because, as I understand, despite being asked repeatedly for a meeting since you came to office, you have refused to meet with them. I find it disappointing that you, as a minister, have not met with the only Aboriginal community-controlled organisation specifically set up to address the needs of vulnerable Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, who stated that traditional Aboriginal people have not been given proper respect by Labor, also declined to meet with members of the board regarding its future before the mini-budget. This kind of stonewalling is a clear demonstration of the CLP government’s idea of proper respect for Aboriginal people and its sincerity and commitment to listening to them. I question that.
Minister, I now call on you to come clean and tell the parliament and the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory who voted you into government to serve their interests whether your new chapter of reform of the child protection system closes the door and the book on SAF,T. There was no mention of it in your statement.
One of the key points also in the statement is about economies of scale through more efficient use of regional resourcing. Minister, child protection is not about dollars. As parents we will do anything for our children. As the minister in charge of so many precious children’s lives, I urge you to take your Treasurer’s hat off, but I fear you will not play the role as a leader for our vulnerable children. I note the number of recommendations you have dismissed, placing them in the too hard basket.
One of the key recommendations of the board of inquiry based on the themes in modern child protection is the dual pathway model involving NGOs to support families. I also note you make one of this your priorities:
Yet we have recently heard that, as a government, you have flagged funding cuts to the NGO sector. These organisations provide support and represent workers and organisations providing vital services for our most vulnerable.
Considering the statement we have heard in the media this week from the NGO sector about the tough times Territory families face, I ask you to commit that their funding remains untouched. I fear that this is a statement you give when you intend to slash and burn Children and Families. Scrapping the family group conferencing - is that the start? We do not treat the protection of our children as a business. Minister, you are turning your back on expert advice and, as an opposition, we will be carefully watching you, ensuring this body of work is not lost and, with it, the children let down by government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate adjourned
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourned
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, Jenny Nash is the Principal of Palmerston Senior College and is in the final weeks of a highly-esteemed five-year contribution to her school community.
Mr Chandler: And a good job.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Indeed. Jenny is a principal with many years experience in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Her experience spans various schooling sectors. She has been a principal at remote community schools, an agricultural high school, private schools, primary schools, and high schools.
Prior to commencement at Palmerston Senior College, she was the Principal at Howard Springs Primary School. Jenny moved to the Territory in 2006 with her husband Kevin, who is also an educator, to advance their careers. They saw the opportunity our great Territory offered and took the plunge into a new educational jurisdiction and a new life.
Jenny is passionate about education and is an active member of the Association of the Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, which is the peak advocacy association for principals in the Northern Territory. Her passion and commitment to education were immediately felt in the halls of Palmerston High School, as it was then named, receiving the winner of Excellence in Student Inclusion and Wellbeing in the inaugural Department of Education Smart Schools Awards in 2010.
In 2011, Jenny was further awarded and shared the Principal of the Year Award. She received the award for her leadership skills and continually improving the school community for all of its students, stakeholders, staff, and partners. Jenny was particularly commended for building confidence and leadership in her staff, allowing them to take on increasing responsibility.
In 2011, Jenny oversaw the transformation of Palmerston High School to a dedicated Senior Secondary College for the education of students in their final years of schooling. Under Jenny’s leadership, Palmerston Senior College has implemented an explicit improvement agenda in regard to student wellbeing and behaviour, resulting in a decrease in suspensions and increased educational pathways for students.
Palmerston Senior College has also been established as a Centre of Excellence in the Arts, with a focus on community engagement through visual arts exhibition and public performing arts events. I have seen firsthand the brilliance of the college’s community art exhibition and am heartened by the way it is inclusive of all Palmerston city schools and the general public.
Additionally, Jenny’s leadership has resulted in the school becoming an accredited Cisco academy delivering computer courses and hands-on career-orientated e-learning. The school pioneered the delivery of core subjects to students in small townships in remote areas using state-of-the-art digital technology.
Jenny was also instrumental in the success of the Clontarf program for her male students, and the Palmerston Girls Academy for female students. Just last week I was privileged to attend presentation nights for both of these initiatives and was swept up in Jenny’s passion and commitment to these programs. I commend her for her work in this area.
Jenny has also taken the school global and linked students with their counterparts in two Indian schools and one school in New York.
Jenny is a lovely woman whom I have only had the privilege of knowing for a short time. Jenny will now take on the role of Director of Senior Years within the department to provide guidance and leadership to senior secondary schools and principals. I know from discussions with her she will sorely miss all the students and staff at Palmerston Senior College. I wish her all the very best for the future and know she will make a tremendous contribution to all senior schools in her new role.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you might have noticed that I am proud to be the member for Drysdale and have six wonderful schools in my electorate. I am passionate about education for young Territorians, and it gives me great delight to attend the schools which, as I have said before, are a lovely mix of public, private, senior, primary, and special.
Tonight I will highlight some of the exemplary achievements of the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre. I thank Frankie Maclean the principal of the centre, for keeping me up to date with the activities of students.
Student enrolment numbers are expected to reach 57 at the start of 2013. This will be the largest number of students the centre has ever seen since its establishment in 1999. The renovation of one of the centre’s buildings was recently completed. The centre now has an additional two classrooms, a reception area, a quiet area and a storeroom.
I have had a tour of this extension to the centre and was impressed with its functionality and amenities. I know the teachers are very excited about this new facility. As it turns out, the centre has outgrown this extension before it even opened, and in 2013 it will also occupy another two classrooms in the mainstream areas of the Palmerston Senior College campus.
On 23 November 2012, the centre held its senior year’s dinner dance at Cazaly’s Sports Club and farewelled three students who turned 18 this year. All three are going into jobs, either full- or part-time, in the hospitality, manufacturing, or logistics industries. I wish those students the very best of luck in the future, and congratulate teachers at the centre for providing educational and real life opportunities to our special students.
The special school has a lunch program that provides life skills such as functional numeracy, menu planning, cooking, shopping, budgeting and the like. The Variety Club published in its November newsletter an article about the lunch program. As a result of this, a good Samaritan in the community made a $200 anonymous donation. The centre is utterly grateful to this generous supporter.
The centre also has an enterprise education program which gives students business skills and experiences. At the Palmerston Special Education Centre they make amazing cards which are sold to generate profit for the centre. The centre has been working tirelessly for months to fill an order of 7000 cards, which I am proud to say is the Northern Territory government order for departments to use as Christmas cards. This is a great achievement for the centre as students manufacture the cards and then deliver the finished product to the client.
Gift shops and the museum and art gallery are a strong source of revenue and always stock these beautiful cards. I could not resist ordering some to distribute through my electorate for special birthdays - 21st, 30th, 40th, 50th and so on. I have not had one complaint yet.
Five high-needs students who where non-swimmers have successfully undertaken a nine week water awareness program delivered by two staff members, an AUSTSWIM instructor and a MATE instructor. The results speak for themselves.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I participate where I can in the schools in my electorate and the Special Education Centre is no exception. I look forward to growing my relationship with the school and reporting the centre’s future achievements to this House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I commend and compliment some young pony club and equestrian riders in the rural area. About two months ago they travelled to the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events in Queensland. Some of them flew, but some of them drove, taking horse floats and horses, which was a mammoth effort.
The Territory team did extremely well, given the base we come from. The Northern Territory came fifth overall out of seven teams. We had primary teams as well as secondary teams. As often is the case with athletes and sports people in the Territory, they do tend to punch, or in this case jump, well above their weight. I put on the record the students and riders who went from the Territory but, more interestingly, reference their horses names because they certainly have interesting names. I do not quite know how they decide upon these names, but they sure are interesting.
Dressage Preliminary event: Olivia Ruzsicska on Roskyle Silver Ghost, Anna McConachy on Euston Tribute
As a consequence of the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events, Equestrian Australia received an invitation from the South African Federation for a team of four pony riders aged up until the year in which they turn 15 to compete in a borrowed horse event at the international classic for pony riders. This is a competition held in South Africa and they invited four junior riders to compete.
Equestrian Northern Territory had two riders selected of the four Australians to compete in South Africa: Abbey Seidel and Sarah Lock from Darwin. They were picked for the team and went to South Africa recently to represent Australia. It was a tremendous opportunity for these two young girls. I know both these young girls and their parents. They spend many hours at pony club events and dressage and equestrian events at Freds Pass Show and Darwin Show. They have competed in Territory and national school championships.
They have consolidated their riding through local pony clubs, the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club and the Litchfield Horse and Pony Club. They have spent many hours in the saddle attending clinics and competitions, going to coaching and, of course, competing and having fun.
I do not have the exact results but I can get them and perhaps I will talk about that at another stage. However, they were tremendous ambassadors for not only the Northern Territory, but Australia. I received some information that they did themselves, the Territory, and Australia proud. They won awards and did very well.
Congratulations to all the students, also the families because they are there backing up both at the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events and the competition in South Africa.
In regard to the National Annual Interschool competition, the young rider I mentioned, Olivia Ruzsicska, who went over with her parents and a couple of her horses, wrote a little piece following her trip. This is what she said:
She was ranked 10th in Australia, which is a tremendous effort.
She sent me a photo of her on one of her horses named Bagel. That is when she came 6th in what they call phase 3.
Congratulations to all the young riders. I wish them all the best and know they will compete in many more competitions, both interstate and nationally and will do the Territory proud.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about a very important matter to do with health in remote services, specifically with the issue of patient accommodation for people from remote areas.
In his statement yesterday the new Minister for Health outlined his vision and new reforms. He also outlined some of the cuts he planned to put in place claiming, as the new government is, it just cannot afford anything, which I do not believe.
During his contribution he talked about medi-hotels and a further example, having spoken about the one at Darwin Hospital. He obviously considers it to be an incredibly extravagant and unnecessary thing and he said:
I do not believe there is no budget to run it. I do not believe this new government, in the lead-up to its mini-budget, cannot get its priorities right and listen to people in the bush, knowing they came into government on the back of support from people in the bush and on the promise they would be listening to people in the bush and would fix the bush in the next four years. The government then makes an outrageous statement that they will not support and will put a stop to a $5.8m patient accommodation facility on the campus at Gove Hospital.
It got much worse today. The Health minister clearly felt the need to talk further about why he put a stop to this medi-hotel and set up one of his colleagues, one of his bush members, the member for Arafura, to ask him a dorothy dixer during Question Time. The question was:
The minister, in responding, turned this place into an uproar. The answer included:
He went on to say:
At this point I saw red listening to what the Health minister had to say. It typifies his approach and lack of knowledge, respect and understanding, not only of health issues for Indigenous people but what life in the bush is like. Let me tell you as somebody who has lived in the township of Nhulunbuy for some 22 years and has had the great honour of representing the people in this electorate for the past four and a bit years, people who live in northeast Arnhem Land in remote areas who do not have a hospital nearby - they may have a health clinic - may be on a homeland where they have no immediate access to primary health care. Coming to Gove Hospital is an important part of people’s medical care and hospitalisation.
It is not just for sick people, but is for pregnant women because they cannot deliver their babies at Galiwinku, Elcho Island - the health clinic at Nalkanbuy - they are required to come into Nhulunbuy at around the 36th or 37th week of their pregnancy. Currently, when these women come in there may be space for them at the Aboriginal hostel, they may be in the hospital, they may be with family at Yirrkala, but they are invariably accompanied by a carer. Coming away from country and into hospital in a clinical environment which is foreign to people and where there may be language barriers, carers and escorts are part and parcel of the system.
Some women may also have to travel with their children because there is no one else to care for them. This visitor accommodation, medi-hotel - we are not talking about a five-star resort - is a basic part of our health care system which should be provided and is long overdue in Nhulunbuy.
To hear the Health minister suggest that not only is it not needed because people can stay at the Walkabout Lodge thank you very much, on licensed premises at a cost of about $200 a night and a good 15 minute walk from the hospital, is outrageous. Yes, there is an Aboriginal hostel in Nhulunbuy. It is frequently full and, again, it is some distance from the hospital. When the hostel is full, where do people go? Currently visitors to the hospital, when they have a relative with them, often sleep on the floor within the ward. Staff are always accommodating around that, looking after visitors who are escorting a patient by putting a mattress down.
However, the suggestion that this facility is not only not needed, but where they do exist they are abused by ‘long-grassers’, which he uses often and we understand in a derogatory sense, is so offensive I cannot begin to tell you how unhappy I am and exactly how many people I have e-mailed in my electorate this afternoon - from the clinics from Marthakal homelands, and Laynhapuy homelands. These people come in from their homeland communities which are some distance away, and I believe it is a basic right they should have access to a place where they are comfortable, safe, and where it is culturally appropriate. I am not necessarily suggesting they get it for free, there may be some fee associated with it.
For the minister to wipe it out as something not worth doing saying ‘We are not going to do, it is a waste of time’, is wrong and offensive.
I am offended on another level in that during this whole debacle not one bush member from that side and, in particular, not one Indigenous bush member from that side, seemed to think what the Health minister was suggesting was out of line. By their silence they are complicit in saying and supporting that people in remote areas and, in this instance, in the areas of northeast Arnhem Land - the member for Arnhem’s constituents come to Gove Hospital to be hospitalised, whether it be for treatment for chronic illness, to see specialists, or to have babies. The member for Arnhem’s constituents come to Gove Hospital and they need somewhere to stay, they deserve somewhere to stay. But not one of those bush members has challenged the Health Minister - if not here, clearly not in party wing. They must say, ‘Yes, that is no worries at all, minister, if you think that is a good idea’.
This comes from a minister who we know has form in this area. He has referred to remote communities as hellholes in the past, he has supported, on the record, urban drift. He says urban drift is a good thing: get people out of these remote areas and on to places closer to the Stuart Highway. I am just appalled by the contribution from the minister. I am appalled by the silence from the other ministers.
Madam Speaker, where is the Minister for Indigenous Advancement on this issue? She is the one championing the causes of Indigenous people in the Territory. They hold the majority of the bush seats and, by not challenging their own Health Minister in their own party wing, we can only assume they think it is a good idea that Indigenous people in remote areas do not deserve hospital accommodation. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of this House the achievements of a family I know quite well. This family lives at Daly River for the paying job, while they also maintain a cattle holding on the Edith River. The Fletcher family has been involved with the Daly River for over five years - probably longer; I have not been able to check that exactly.
Barry Fletcher is the current ESO Officer in Nauiyu community. While this position is pretty important, especially in the Wet Season when your power goes on and off, it is his wife, Janet, who I first concentrate my remarks on. Janet Fletcher is the managing senior nurse at the Nauiyu Clinic. She has over 35 years nursing experience and has been very involved in that community’s health outcomes for the years she has been residing there.
From my memory, for the time I have been there, she is probably the longest serving nurse to reside at that clinic. I have had to attend the clinic over my 15 years at Daly and, as you know, I am an insulin dependent diabetic. I have a son who is epileptic and I have full confidence in the skills and experience of not just Janet but all of the staff. I have also had Janet attend a car accident with me in my role of Unit Officer for the Northern Territory Emergency Services Daly River Volunteer Unit. To have her there to assist the injured is a real confidence booster.
What I am getting to here is that Janet was recognised for her dedication back in 2005 when she received the Northern Territory Local Hero of the Year Award. In the same year she won the Barnardo’s Australia Mother of the Year Award and the Remote Nurse of the Year Northern Territory Award.
The reason I raise all this background is that Janet’s son, Peter Fletcher, has received the Northern Territory Local Hero of the Year Award 2012 and will soon be amongst the nominations for the national award. Peter was born and raised in Ngukurr southeast of Katherine. He set his career path as one who aims at improving the lives of people living in remote Australia. He has a double degree in criminology and psychology and uses this knowledge, with local police, to help build a more positive relationship with young people, particularly to curb their binge drinking. Peter is dedicated to helping empower Aboriginal people to make positive change to their lives. Like AA, he takes one day at a time. I feel proud the Territory has such dedicated people.
As a footnote, Janet Fletcher wrote a book of her life which was published in 2011. That book is called Outback Calling. It is a good read and if any members want to read more about this family that is the book to get. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 5/6 Millner Primary School students accompanied by Miss Sheree Arratta. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Disallow Management Plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park
Disallow Management Plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park
Mr CONLAN (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly make a resolution to disallow the management plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park.
Plans of management are important documents. They set the direction for the management of a park and are usually in force for at least 10 years. Each plan should be clearly described and the natural and cultural values of the park should be outlined. Each plan should also describe how those values are to be protected whilst encouraging and providing for a safe and enriching experience for all visitors. Each plan should also recognise the desires of the community, the same community which values these parks and takes pride in them all.
Let me tell you a little about the parks which were included in the plan proposed by the former government. I will begin with the Mary River National Park. This park is located about 100 km east of Darwin and covers 112 000 ha. The park comprises 14 parcels of land from Adelaide River in the west to the East Alligator River in the east. The park attracts about 25 000 visitors per year. That is no small number which visits our natural wonders. The Mary River National Park contains some of the most popular recreational fishing sites in the Territory, spectacular Top End wetlands and floodplains scenery, some of the best viewing of birdlife and crocodiles in the Northern Territory, and of course boating and four-wheel driving are also popular. The park is not Aboriginal land; however, it is jointly managed with traditional owners under the terms of an Indigenous land use agreement and a joint management plan upon becoming operational.
The second park proposed under this plan is the Litchfield National Park. Litchfield National Park is located about 120 km south of Darwin and covers about 146 000 ha. The park is a major Top End tourist destination for interstate and international visitors with over 272 000 visitors in 2011, which is an extremely high number comprised of locals and visitors. It features prominently in Territory tourism marketing campaigns as a highlight for any visitor to the Top End with spectacular and wonderful waterfalls, safe swimming and wild rugged landscapes. The park supports about 50 tourism operators; it is also a popular playground for residents of Darwin and the Top End. Plans for these parks have been prepared and are tabled in this Assembly. Both will shortly come into operation unless disallowed by resolution of this Assembly.
This government values our parks and everybody’s right to enjoy them. When this plan was brought before the parliament this government rang alarm bells. What became apparent from this plan, a plan that would affect hundreds of thousands of people, was that it was flawed.
The Mary River National Park Joint Management Plan was prepared without full and proper consultation. This will affect hundreds of thousands of people and it was developed without proper consultation. This plan did not take into consideration the many people it would affect. One stakeholder group not consulted by the previous government about this plan was the tourism sector.
The government has made it very clear we recognise tourism as a major pillar of our economy and a significant contributor of jobs for all Territorians. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to consult with key tourism operators. These operators’ livelihoods depend upon these parks. Tourists who visit these parks want a wonderful and unique outdoor experience in a picturesque setting and we want to see that these experiences can continue.
When the Litchfield National Park Plan of Management was released for public comment it attracted a number of submissions about antisocial behaviour. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to further consult with the community about antisocial behaviour. This plan can be amended to clearly describe the management actions that will be implemented to reduce or hopefully remove antisocial behaviour from this iconic park.
I put to the Assembly that both these plans be disallowed and that the Parks and Wildlife Commission be directed to prepare fresh plans. In disallowing these plans, this Assembly will be assured that consultation in preparing the new draft plans is comprehensive and addresses matters of concern to the whole community.
New draft plans would be released for public comment, allowing further assurances that interests of the wider community are reflected. I put it to the Assembly that we must get these plans right by ensuring plans adequately address issues raised by the whole community - all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a motion of the parliament and it is normal practice for the opposition to have the right to speak second to the motion. The member for Nightcliff jumped to get your call. The opposition does want to speak to this motion. We do not want to be gagged. This is a serious matter. I am the Leader of the Opposition and I clearly flagged to the government that the shadow spokesperson wants to speak to the disallowance motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Leader of Government Business has the call and indicated the matter before the Assembly will be debated in full at a later time.
Mrs LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In seeking advice from the Clerk, could you advise him I informed you that the member for Nightcliff would take the jump and seek the call to speak on this motion. This is a gag. In the decade-plus I have been in this parliament I have never witnessed government preventing opposition from speaking to a motion the government puts. An extraordinary precedent will be set in this Chamber today if a call is not given. You knew. Madam Speaker, I advised you, it was clearly the opposition’s view to get the call.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the advice the Clerks and I received earlier this morning was that there had been discussions between the government and the opposition. Only the minister would be speaking and it would be adjourned for debate and discussion at a later date. I have given …
Mr Elferink: Correct, Madam Speaker.
Ms Walker: That is not correct.
Madam SPEAKER: That is the business between the major parties. I have given the call to the Leader of Government Business.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was not informed of that. This is a very important issue. I am not saying the minister does not have some valid points, but without any indication of when this will come back to parliament - this is quite an important debate. I thought we would have time now to debate this.
I have never seen ‘Assembly Business’ before. It just came up on the Notice Paper this morning. I am very disappointed the government will not allow this to be debated.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, perhaps if you could enlighten us as to when the debate may be returned.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, a couple of things here. One: notice was given yesterday. You were told yesterday that this was coming on. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s claim of the member for Nhulunbuy saying they were not informed, they were.
It was explained at length this morning to the leader of opposition business. The reason for this motion is technical. If we do not place this motion on the Notice Paper now then these management plans are locked in. As I explained to the leader of opposition business, slowly and carefully, these management plans would be locked in and the minister wants the opportunity to renegotiate that for all the reasons he explained to this House. That was agreed upon at the very last moment because of the lack of organisation on that side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition walked behind the Speaker’s Chair and said the member for Nightcliff was speaking. That is not what was arranged this morning. What was arranged this morning was done through open communication and with the acquiescence of the leader of opposition business, the representative of the opposition in the business of this House.
The member for Nelson was informed yesterday this was coming on …
Mr Wood: Not that I could not debate it!
Ms Lawrie: At no stage was he told he could not debate it.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the second component. The allegation that we are gagging this is not correct. What we are doing is placing it on the Notice Paper and the debate will continue in due course.
Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought I would have an opportunity to speak to what the Leader of Government Business was saying. The Leader of Government Business informed us he wanted to adjourn this, this morning. We were informed this morning he wanted to adjourn this. Obviously, last night we prepared for a debate.
This morning, we were told it would be adjourned. I came back to our Caucus, as is appropriate, to discuss that. I then went back to the Leader of Government Business after Question Time and indicated we may want to speak to this debate depending on what the minister said because at that point we still had not heard the minister speak. That is what I indicated to the Leader of Government Business.
The Leader of Government Business said they were pretty much not interested in us speaking, which would be reasonable. To paraphrase the Leader of Government Business - he is welcome to put it in his own words - he has said that already. But, we on our side still feel we should have the right to speak to this debate, depending on what the minister has said this morning, when it has come on.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have just heard the leader of opposition business say he spoke to me after Question Time. No, you did not. You did not speak to me after Question Time at all.
Mr Gunner: I walked around there after Question Time and spoke to you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, the Leader of the Opposition did.
Ms Lawrie: No, Gunner did as well.
Mr Gunner: I did. I physically sat right there.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In relation to the Assembly business of this House, let us be clear. This debate can occur in standing orders as well. You have heard from the opposition and the Independent member that both wish to speak this morning, are prepared to speak this morning; prepared last night to speak this morning to this motion, not at some indeterminate time that may or may not bring it back before this House. Are we a democracy or are we simply being gagged at the whim of the member for Port Darwin, at the acquiescence of the Chief Minister?
Madam Speaker, it has never happened before in this Chamber where the Independent member and the opposition have sought to speak to a motion introduced that morning in the House and have been gagged - not in the history of the previous CLP governments nor in the history of the Labor governments.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms LAWRIE : Madam Speaker, you preside over this Chamber. You preside over the fairness of this Chamber. I prevail on you to give the call to the member for Nightcliff and then the member for Nelson. Let it rest there.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Honourable members, the advice we received this morning was that discussions had taken place between the government and the opposition and the matter was to be adjourned. That is the advice the Clerks and I received first thing this morning.
Mr ELFERINK: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 15 Noes 9
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Ms Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley Mr Wood
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages – Planning Amendment Bill (Serial 6)
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Planning Amendment Bill (Serial 6) passing through all stages on Wednesday 28 November 2012.
The Assembly was given notice of this motion yesterday and the intent has been flagged for a considerable period of time. The purpose of the request is to allow this important item of business to be concluded - acknowledging that next week we have the mini-budget - to provide adequate time for the opposition and Independent member to respond to the mini-budget, and for the government to be allowed to have the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 6) dealt with by this Assembly so we can move on. It has been well flagged. It is not a surprise; it is just to allow us to deal with this item so opposition, the Independent and government have full access to our schedule next week to deal with the mini-budget.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as I reiterated in the last sittings, although I do become concerned about moving bills through all stages more quickly than normally allowed, I understand that at least there was a gap in sittings between when the bill was first introduced and when we will debate it. The intention of the government was that we would have time to thoroughly look at the proposed bill. I do not know whether I can ask this question about how we are going to pass this motion mentioned by the Chief Minister. Will we go straight into the bill or do we have to wait for a number of other things to occur before that happens?
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just at notices at the moment member for Nelson and we will get to orders in a minute where the debate on the bill occurs. We believe on our side it is essentially a technical urgency for a matter of days. The bill has sat on the table for long enough between sittings and it was done before negotiation and consent. We dealt with a number of these matters last sittings. I thought we had dealt with this one back then as well but obviously we are doing it now. This is not a problem because it was captured in the essence of the conversation we had between government and opposition and we are looking forward to the debate later today.
Motion agreed to.
VICTIMS OF CRIME ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 10)
(Serial 10)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Before I start I place on the record my apology to the member for Fannie Bay. It had slipped my mind, you did come and see me; not that it would have made any difference as I told you at that stage that, basically, it was not on. I apologise because I was wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act to increase the levies imposed on court-imposed orders, infringement notices and enforcement orders and to provide that future changes to victims’ levies can be given effect by regulation.
The amendments give effect to an election commitment to take immediate action on law and order to increase the victims’ assistance levy and provide for victims of violent acts. The increases to the levy amounts will be important to victims as they provide greater financial capacity of schemes which care for the recovery of victims of crime and, particularly, the victims of violent crime. The proposed amendment seeks to generate more revenue for the Victims Assistance Fund which is established under Part 6 of the act and funds the victims counselling scheme and victims financial assistance scheme.
At the moment, the cost of the schemes is not completely covered by the Victims Assistance Fund, which relies heavily on an annual appropriation to meet operational costs of the victims services unit which administers the fund. Only a small percentage of the victims’ levies paid provide for the cost of administering and delivering assistance under the act. The proposed amendments will provide more revenue to the fund and, as a result, there will be less reliance on annual budget allocations.
The bill amends section 61 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act to increase the levy imposed on court-imposed orders, infringement notices and enforcement orders. The increases are considered appropriate given there has only been one prior increase to the levy of the act, commenced in 2007. In 2010, the levy payable on an infringement notice went from $10 to $20. Court-imposed orders were not increased and neither were enforcement orders. The current levies are set by reference to a dollar amount contained in section 61(3) of the act. As the levy is contained in the act rather than in the regulations, increases or alterations to the dollar amount cannot be effected quickly. Whilst it is usual for acts to establish the principles regarding the payment of levies, it is common for the actual dollar figure to be set by way of subordinate legislation.
To allow future increases to be effected more efficiently, section 61 will be amended to provide that future changes to the victims levy amount will be implemented via regulation. This will alleviate the need to make constant changes to the principal act.
Turning to the figures payable as the victims assistance levy, section 61(3) of the act is amended to impose the following levies for court-ordered levies following a finding of guilt where imprisonment is not imposed.
For an adult offender the levy will change:
from $60 to $200 for an indictable offence
from $40 to $150 for any other offence caught by the act.
For a body corporate found guilty of an offence the levy will be increased from $200 to $1000 for any offence.
The levy is payable irrespective of the sentence imposed by the court except sentences of imprisonment, and includes circumstances where an offender is fined or ordered to pay restitution.
I now turn to the new levies imposed on infringement notices or offences for which the offender is not required to appear before a court in lieu of a payment of a monetary penalty.
Section 61(6) of the act will be amended to increase the levy from $20 to $40 per infringement.
The Victims of Crimes Assistance Act provides, at section 61(2)(c), that the levy which applies to infringement notices also applies to the issuing of an enforcement order under the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act. This means the $20 levy applied on the making of an enforcement order will also be increased to $40, noting that the levy can only be applied once in relation to each offence.
There is no doubt these increases are significant; they need to be. The current levy amounts do not adequately provide the Victims Assistance Fund with enough revenue to look after the victims of crime. Monies paid to the Victims Assistance Fund are used to provide services to victims such as free counselling, treatment, and payment for loss of earnings. The monies are also used to award compensation in circumstances where the victim has been a victim of a violent act and has suffered an injury or financial loss as a result.
Opponents to the levy increases may argue the increases are too great and will hinder the recovery rate of fines and infringements. However, the imposition of the levy only affects those who break the law. The increases only affect offenders for whom a finding of guilt is made.
This government went to the last election promising better outcomes for the victims of crime and this bill forms part of that commitment.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (VIOLENT ACT CAUSING DEATH) BILL
(Serial 3)
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House for debate. It comes as no surprise as in opposition the then shadow Attorney-General had always been very clear about his intention with this bill.
Following two failed attempts with a private member’s bill to see one punch homicide provisions enacted by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code, he was very clear and vowed his commitment to this law reform and that is admirable.
Now in the role of Attorney-General, he is in a position to see the passage of this bill through the House. Prior to the election this was not only his undertaking but the matter of a CLP election commitment. So far this is about the only commitment, along with axing the Banned Drinker Register, I can see them keeping.
There was no election commitment to inflict massive cuts to the public service and public servants’ jobs. Far from dealing with and relieving cost of living pressures, this new government is treating Territorians with complete contempt and doing just the opposite by inflicting massive hikes to the cost of power and water. That is just the tip of the iceberg - more slashing to come, no doubt, in the mini-budget next week.
While opposition bills rarely pass through this House or other parliaments, there are occasions where it does occur. One of the reasons why the private member’s bill failed was that it was flawed. In fact, it was described as seriously flawed by the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, noting it was:
- ... drafted in the terms of statutory principles of criminal responsibility for homicide which were superseded some seven years ago.
However, the current bill before the House has been drafted within the realms of the current Northern Territory Criminal Code and is, therefore, now technically correct. I thank the minister for personally attending a briefing session, along with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, in his office on Monday. He, clearly, takes his new role very seriously in sitting in on that briefing, and has committed to being actively engaged
However, I raise my eyebrows, as do some sectors of the public and the legal fraternity, at his active engagement in matters before the court, including his recent announcement that he will be the ‘legal water boy’, as he described himself, assisting the Solicitor-General in an appeal case to be heard before the Supreme Court in February.
Whilst I have absolute confidence in the Solicitor-General to represent the Crown - and he is eminently well qualified to do this on his own - I trust the new Attorney-General enjoys the work experience opportunity, even though he really should be attending to matters to improve our justice system in the Northern Territory. However, that is another debate; we will have it another time, minister, when I look forward to reminding you about the separation of powers and the imperative for judicial independence without ‘political interference’. Like you, I may be new in this job, but it is the most important take-out message I have received so far in my bid to engage with stakeholders, including some very senior members of the legal fraternity.
I understand the minister’s intent in creating this new category of offence, a violent act causing death, and his belief that there currently exists a gap, borne out of the tragic death of Brett Meredith in Katherine on 1 January 2010, a death which resulted from a single blow to the head. A good man, a decent man, whose life was suddenly and violently cut short left a woman and children without their much-loved husband and dad.
It was a trial which attracted much public interest and which resulted in a conviction of manslaughter and a prison term for the defendant, Michael Martyn. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but deferred to the judge as to whether the actions of the defendant were reckless or negligent - these being the elements, of course, of manslaughter. In his sentencing remarks, the judge excluded recklessness but upheld negligence, stating that it was:
- A serious case of negligent manslaughter because it involved a deliberate and intentional heavy blow.
Part of the Attorney-General’s argument to date is that ‘one punch’ legislation can deal with a loophole which he believed to have existed in the Brett Meredith case. I note in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech that:
- Currently if there are no such reasonable prospects of conviction in a ‘one punch’ situation, only assault charges are available.
However, there was no loophole in the Meredith case. If anything, what this case illustrated was the system was working insofar as an individual was found guilty and is serving a prison term.
I suggest that is exactly what the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory is saying when he wrote in an article in the Northern Territory Law Society’s newsletter, Balance, very recently:
- Before we fix this purported problem, we need to be sure the system is broke.
Further to this, currently in the Northern Territory if you kill someone with one punch, the offences of manslaughter and murder can both apply and carry maximum life sentences. Murder has a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years.
When the Attorney-General, as shadow, introduced this bill initially it was referred to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. I inquired during my briefing this week as to what had become of the report from the committee, and what were the recommendations. I was advised by the Attorney-General that because the report was referred on the terms of the earlier and flawed bill, the deliberations of the committee had ceased at his instruction. I guess that is not unreasonable.
However, when I inquired about why this new bill was not referred back to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee under revised terms of reference, I was a little surprised to hear from the Attorney-General, ‘because it would have taken another six months, and then it was decided not to do this’. From this, one can only presume the Attorney-General is absolutely cocksure of himself; that he has it right and does not need the advice of cumulative years of experience and wisdom from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. I find that extraordinary. The Attorney-General’s determination to proceed with the legislation without allowing the NT Law Reform Committee to provide advice could mean that people who kill with one punch receive lesser sentences.
This has evolved to be an unintended consequence in Western Australia which is the only other jurisdiction to have ‘one punch’ homicide laws. In WA there has also been concern that the legislation gives men who kill their partners or former partners an avenue through the lighter ‘one punch’ charge and thereby avoid the more serious charge of manslaughter. Knowing the unacceptably high levels of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, I have concerns about how this bill can avoid that loophole. It is a terrible misuse of the law.
The Attorney-General stated in his second reading speech that this new offence does not replace manslaughter, is not an alternative verdict to manslaughter, and if the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction for manslaughter that charge only will be prosecuted. You also stated in the second reading speech that manslaughter is to be the preferred charge in appropriate circumstances. But what exactly does that mean? What would be regarded as appropriate or inappropriate circumstances?
There is potential with this bill - apart from letting the perpetrators of domestic violence off on lesser charges - that there could be further and unintended consequences. I trust the Attorney-General can cover off on some of the scenarios which might arise under the new section 161A (4) which states:
- However the defendant is not criminally responsible for the crime, if:
(a) the conduct involving the violent act is engaged in by the defendant
- (i) for the purpose of benefiting the other person; or
(ii) as part of a socially acceptable function or activity; and
(b) having regard to the purpose, function or activity mentioned in paragraph (a) the conduct was reasonable.
I put it to you, Attorney-General, what of a wife who pushes her husband who then accidentally falls downstairs resulting in his death? What of head-high tackles or any unreasonable conduct on a sports field which causes death, even if the conduct fell within the range to which a person playing sport is taken to consent? What, for instance, of any form of ‘socially acceptable’ - and what does that mean? - sexual deviance which leads to death, even if intended for enjoyment and consented to? What of a person who may be holding a media conference in a public place and who, without any warning, is rugby tackled from behind by a complete and aggressive stranger and in wrestling the assailant to the ground, the attacker hits his head leading to his death? What of a parent who smacks a child who accidentally falls or suffers some other illness which leads to death? I am sure many of us have read the novel, The Slap or viewed the excellent dramatised version of this backyard barbeque gone wrong. Thankfully, in that piece of fiction little Hugo suffered no lasting scars, or so we hope, but what if that slap had resulted in his death?
The generalities associated with this part of the amendment seem to be a little general and, with broad application, it appears impossible to say who might be caught by them. Of course, there is another very important angle to this bill, the intention that the existence of this new offence will act as a deterrent to would-be offenders. I sincerely hope this is the case, but as stated in the article in the NT Law Society’s publication I referred to earlier, the author of that article, Russell Goldflam, writes:
- Would this measure reduce crime? It is very difficult to see how: aggressive drunks are hardly susceptible to the nuanced subtleties of part IIAA of the Criminal Code when they’re prowling Mitchell Street or Todd Mall looking for trouble.
It goes without saying that changing and strengthening laws, trying to close gaps and loopholes is one important aspect of reducing violence and tackling crime. Though the member for Sanderson could never bring himself to publicly admit it, and looked very silly for denying it, there is undoubtedly a very clear link between alcohol abuse and crime. One need look no further than to judge the sentencing remarks.
I certainly share community concern about the growing problem of drunken violence, which is why I strongly supported the former Labor government’s Banned Drinker Register and the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms which took 2500 problem drunks off our streets. The new government has removed what police described as one of the best tools in their toolbox to deal with drunks, violence and crime. As I have already said, a number of members of the judiciary refer to it in their sentencing remarks, and also note that unless the supply of alcohol is addressed we will continue to see violent crimes.
Laws are just one part of finding a solution to violent crime and, sadly, irresponsibly, the new CLP government has removed the Banned Drinker Register and replaced it with nothing, other than a yet to be seen habitual drunks policy which would see problem drinkers criminalised and thrown into prison farms for mandatory three-month rehabilitation. There is also much to be said for targeted and powerful awareness campaigns with the aim of trying to penetrate the message, that excessive drinking is incredibly risky and can lead to violence with the most awful and tragic consequences.
In July, Western Australia launched its Real Heroes Walk Away campaign, Queensland has run the One Punch Can Kill campaign, and the Northern Territory ran its own campaign in 2011 when we rolled out the Banned Drinker Register, and for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it. While these laws and campaigns are very important in tackling violence, we have to look at the broader context of what it is and why it is that people, especially men, adopt such angry and violent dispositions that send them on this path of action.
The opposition is not opposing this bill. We sincerely hope this amendment does serve its intent to reduce crime by acting as a deterrent, closing a gap within the existing legislation, and we will watch with interest to see how many cases are successfully prosecuted under this new amendment. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I certainly do not come from a legal background. I was getting some advice and I have tried to look at it from a layman’s point of view. I do have difficulty, and maybe the minister can explain more. When I see the two acts, manslaughter and this act, I struggle to find any great difference between them. Under the manslaughter act, a person is guilty of the crime of manslaughter if the person engages in any conduct which causes the death of another person. It also says the person is reckless or negligent regarding causing the death of this or any person by the conduct.
If I were to take the case that we are looking at now, in which we have a new clause which addresses violent acts causing death:
- A person (the defendent) is guilty of a crime of a violent act ...
- ... causing death if
(a) the defendent engages in conduct involving a violent act to another person; and
- (i) the other person; or
and
- strict liability applies to subsection (1)(b).
In the case of one punch, I struggle to work out why there is a problem with sentencing people under that, considering they have engaged in conduct - and that conduct refers to any conduct, not just violent conduct - that causes a death. For example, a person could have been pushed over a stool and died and that would be reckless and negligent. So, in cases like that, I am interested to know if they have been rejected by the court and why, because they would have been rejected for very good reason.
The charge below that is the charge of assault, but it is like saying we don’t quite accept that the court is right when it has rejected the case that this is a manslaughter crime, so we will put another clause in the act which will cover somewhere between manslaughter and assault. That is how I see it. You are picking up, as you say, some unique cases.
To some extent, it is saying we do not think the law is good enough. Someone has made a decision that this does not qualify as manslaughter, yet manslaughter seems to cover, technically, everything this violent act causing death clause does. I am interested in having that clarified.
Be that as it may, minister, my questions are more from a practical point of view of how this would work when it went to court. I know there is a definition here called ‘conduct involving a violent act’ which is:
- conduct involving the direct application of force of a violent nature to a person, whether or not an offensive weapon is used in the application of the force.
I would like to know, for instance, what is a push? If someone is walking past in a pub - I know how crowded pubs get - and somebody gives a bloke a push enough to make him slip over and hit his head on the floor, would that be regarded as a violent act and, therefore, come within the confines of this new clause?
The same applies to a trip. If I am sitting on a chair in a pub and there is a bloke walking past, and I shove my foot out, trip him over and he falls flat on his head and dies, would that be regarded as a violent act and come under this clause?
You might be able to answer all these in your response, minister, but if I need more clarification I might go to committee stage.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 3/4 Holy Spirit Primary School students accompanied by Ms Emma O’Halloran. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your visit.
__________________
Mr WOOD: Make sure you turn the lights off today. I will explain later.
An issue you mentioned, minister, is death on a sporting field. I referee or umpire all year either soccer or AFL. The second reading speech says:
- Deaths on sporting fields, at martial arts tournaments, boxing or kickboxing tournaments and during a number of other socially acceptable activities are rare but, unfortunately, they do occur.
The bill makes it clear that these deaths, where conduct is reasonable and the rules of the sport are not contravened, are not included in this offence. Equally, the bill makes it clear that a person will not be criminally responsible for this offence if the conduct involving a violent act was engaged in for the benefit of the other person and was reasonable in the circumstances.
I can give you a case and will not mention names or places. I recently umpired a game of football. A person playing that game charged into a player after the player had kicked the ball. That contravened the rules of the sport. I sent the player off and applied a penalty. That person, unknown to me, was subsequently taken to hospital with a broken jaw and was on oxygen. The hypothetical question is, had that person died, is it possible the perpetrator could be charged under this act? The statement you make here applies to situations in which conduct is reasonable and the rules of the sport are not contravened.
In this case they were contravened and that is why there was a penalty. I would like some clarification on this because you are introducing this clause and making a statement in relation to sport which is not clear. Football is a rough game, and usually contact is within the rules of the game. However, if you contravene the rules are you liable? The case I am giving you is an actual case so I would like clarification.
Again I am showing my lack of legal knowledge minister; however, if someone is charged under this - and you talked about strict liability - is there any consideration given to the fault of the victim? For instance, if you push someone over and they are drunk, the reason they fall over is because they are intoxicated. There may be other reasons why it is not entirely the fault of the person who conducted the violent act. In this clause, is there some allowance to shift the blame? Not to shift all the blame, but that some of the blame is the result of the victim’s stupidity as well?
Madam Speaker, they are the questions I ask. I put them there as practical questions, minister. If you could address those in the second reading I would appreciate it.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will try to get on with this as quickly as I can. I thank honourable members for their contributions.
I remain disappointed with the Labor Party’s approach to this. They say they will not oppose this bill, but in the same breath say this is a terrible misuse of the law. We are legislators and if the Labor Party thinks this is wrong then they should just oppose it.
The other thing that really disappoints me is this is deadly serious, and I have brought this in as a deadly serious attempt to change the law on several occasions now. With Brett Meredith’s widow looking over the shadow Attorney-General’s shoulder, she could not help but use this debate as a vehicle in which she could engage in cheap and nasty politics.
I am not going to rise to that. How we present ourselves …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wish to assure this Chamber that I take the role incredibly seriously. I have researched this debate and completely refute the political remarks the Attorney-General is throwing out at me right now. It is wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I remind the honourable member that she strayed into areas which have nothing to do with this bill in an attempt to score cheap and nasty political points. It is possibly because she was unaware that Brett Meredith’s widow was sitting behind her that she thought she could be so cavalier. However, it shows the attitude of the Labor Party in relation to this legislation, and the approach they took the last time was also witnessed by Brett Meredith’s widow.
I have also been somewhat verballed by the shadow Attorney-General when she said I was bringing this forward because of Brett Meredith’s death. No! If you read the second reading speech, I said that Brett Meredith’s death did not come under the circumstances or intention of this legislation, but it highlighted the possibility that we might need such legislation. This legislation was designed specifically to avoid circumstances which may, but have not yet, occurred in this jurisdiction.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say, and I agree - manslaughter is that wide. In the terms of unlawful homicide you have murder at the top end and if you do not qualify for murder, basically manslaughter is any unlawful death caused by recklessness or negligence short of murder. As Barr J said in his sentencing remarks in relation to manslaughter, it could be a prank gone wrong. There is a requisite requirement for recklessness or negligence.
Making this an offence of strict liability under Part 2AA of the Criminal Code sidesteps that issue. If manslaughter is wide, assault and manslaughter is less wide. Some lawyers will argue there is not a gap. The problem is, I believe there is and so do others. It is a gap that I am trying to fill.
That is the rationale behind this legislation. I continue to believe that such a gap exists and will be addressed by this legislation. I pick up on the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General that my first bill was flawed.
The first bill was based on the Western Australian model. We, unfortunately, due to the negligence of the former Labor government, have two mal-fitting parts to our Criminal Code when it comes to criminal offences - the Part 2 sections and the Part 2AA sections. That means we get some pretty strange instructions to the jury, and stranger still, we have defences which will operate in some circumstances, such as intoxication under Part 2 offences, differently to the way they will operate in Part 2AA offences.
My original bill would have fitted under the Part 2 arrangements. The member opposite called it flawed. My response to that is that it fitted under the Part 2 arrangements. However, as we are transitioning to a model Criminal Code requiring the operation of Part 2AA, I determined as the Attorney-General and someone who wants to see that transition continue or restarted so we do not have two ill-fitting halves of the Criminal Code, it would be more sensible to make it a Part 2AA offence, which is why we chose to go down this path.
Madam Speaker, we are getting close to lunch and I still have a long way to go.
Debate suspended.
PETITIONS
CSIRO Science Centre Manager Position
CSIRO Science Centre Manager Position
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 655 petitioners praying that the CSIRO science centre manager position be retained. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are seriously concerned with the government’s proposal to axe the job of centre manager of the CSIRO Science Centre located at Berrimah. This role is fundamental to the delivery in primary schools across the Northern Territory of science, mathematics and chemistry learning activities that are undertaken in line with the curriculum and learning outcomes. The position is responsible for the delivery throughout the whole of the Northern Territory of 19 in-schools science programs which include pre and post teacher notes based on the Australian Curriculum.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government continues to fund the position of science centre manager so teachers will have access to national science resources and hence, be in a position to provide quality teaching to students and have important programs available in classrooms and for all students regardless of the school or student’s locations
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
CSIRO Science Centre Manager Position
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 361 petitioners relating to the CSIRO service centre manager position. This petition is similar to petition No 4.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are seriously concerned with the government’s proposal to axe the job of centre manager of the CSIRO Science Centre located at Berrimah. This role is fundamental to the delivery in primary schools across the Northern Territory of science, mathematics and chemistry learning activities that are undertaken in line with the curriculum and learning outcomes. The position is responsible for the delivery throughout the whole of the Northern Territory of 19 in-schools science programs which include pre and post teacher notes based on the Australian Curriculum.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government continues to fund the position of science centre manager so that teachers will have access to national science resources and hence, be in a position to provide quality teaching to students and have important programs available in classrooms and for all students regardless of the school or student’s locations
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Mr CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A I inform honourable members a response to petition No 2 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 2
Closure of Chambers and Finke Bays to Commercial Fishing
Date presented: 31 October 2012
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Date response due: 20 February 2012
Date response received: 27 November 2012
Government's announced commitment to implement the proposed closure of Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing is based on reallocating the barramundi resource and addressing outstanding social issues in the fishery.
A public comment period on the legislative changes required to implement the closures has been provided and submissions are currently being considered before government makes its final decision on the matter.
Once the final decision is made, a licence buy-back scheme will be undertaken with the aim of removing an appropriate number of licences and adjusting effort levels in the fishery accordingly.
The best possible package of benefits to the Territory is being sought from the fishery based on a high value recreational fishing experience and maintaining a viable and profitable commercial industry.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (VIOLENT ACT CAUSING DEATH) BILL
(Serial No 3)
(Serial No 3)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up where I left off before the luncheon period in relation to wrapping this matter up. There were a couple of issues raised by members opposite.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of what happens when, let us say somebody is standing in front of a television camera and a person walks up behind them and kicks them. That person who has been kicked then turns and apprehends that person and, as a result of that apprehension, the person being apprehended dies from the unintentional activity of the person who was kicked in the first instance.
Clearly, this is a reference to what happened to me during the election campaign. Once again, it was the member trying to be cute. However, let us deal with it and use the example.
If the hypothetical person who is attempting to apprehend his assailant engages in conduct which is so abundantly reckless - not only reckless but recklessly indifferent, to use the old Commonwealth phrase for murder - in the process of making that apprehension, for argument’s sake, grabs a rock and bashes that person around the head for 20 minutes and that person dies then, clearly, a conviction of murder would be appropriate in those circumstances.
If, alternatively, the person who was being apprehended was thrown to the ground extremely roughly and above and beyond the realms of reasonable force, then you could argue the person doing the apprehension had engaged in a use of force which was either reckless or negligent and, therefore, a conviction of manslaughter would be an acceptable result.
If, under our legislation, a person then carries out a violent act and that causes death then, once again, you would look to the evidence of the conduct to determine whether or not the violent act was sufficient to constitute the offence as described by the one proposed before the House today.
Bearing in mind there are defences such as unwilled act and accident to Part 2AA crimes, then you would have to, at an evidentiary level, be able to sidestep those defences to make out the offence. However, the test for this is what the evidence demonstrates occurred.
I will not talk about a matter which is sub judice and still before the courts, which was specifically referred to or implied by the member opposite. I will leave it up to a court to decide the guilt or otherwise of the matter in which I am personally involved arising out of that occasion.
More generally, where a person seeks to apprehend another person within the boundaries determined by section 27 of the Criminal Code, those components dealing with justification, so long as the reasonableness determined or asked for by section 27 applies, is for a court to decide. I take members through the example to demonstrate how this legislative instrument will work.
The issue of sport came up and this is one I thought about long and hard. Sport, and offences of homicide such as manslaughter, have always been around. There is nothing new about this question about sport and whether people commit criminal offences. Bearing in mind most sports, by the rules of the game or even implied permit assaults. We permit assaults upon our persons every single day of the week and we particularly do it on the sporting field. I am a great fan of the gentlemen’s game of rugby union and the not so gentlemanly game of rugby league. I played them both. I played a game of rugby union recently and I believe the member for Barkly was sitting in the bleachers that evening.
Mr McCarthy: And wanted to be on the other side John. I dream of that. Set up one in Corrections.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I thank the member. Of course he would be operating within the rules, and if he wanted to tackle me in those circumstances then he could.
By running onto the sporting field I have given tacit, also explicit, consent to be assaulted. Even in games like basketball and netball, which are technically non-contact sports, in the real world - and the courts have long known about this - there is still physical contact. It would be unreasonable and unsupportable to suggest that if you run into a basketball court the moment you are touched by another player you have a right to pursue a criminal matter through the courts.
The courts have contemplated this issue and I ask members to bear with me because this is one that was particularly close to the heart of the member for Nelson. Perhaps this will help place it into some sort of contextual environment. Australian case law, Rootes v Shelton, High Court of Australia 1967 - I cannot give you the citation because I do not have it in front of me - but Chief Justice Barwick, Justices McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor and Owens said in their joint judgment that consent does not eliminate all duty of care from one participant to another. Whether any duty of care exists will depend on the circumstances of the case and each case must be looked at individually as the rules of the sport or pastime may constitute a relevant circumstance, but their breach does not necessarily constitute a breach of duty.
Justice Taylor went on to say that what the duty may be in a particular case, whether there has been a breach of it or whether there has been a voluntary assumption of risk are questions of fact and this is evidence upon which these questions may be left to the jury. They are essentially matters of their determination.
In McNamara v Duncan in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory – this relates to a king hit during an Australian rules football match - Justice Fox said:
- What he did can hardly be understood as an act in the ordinary, legitimate course of the game of football.
The striking was an infringement, a serious infringement, of the rules. The risk of being injured by such an act is not part of the game, if the game is being played according to the rules ...
I do not think it can be reasonably held that the plaintiff consented to receiving a blow such as he received in the present case. It was contrary to the rules and deliberate.
Justice Fox went on to say:
- A footballer consents to those tackles which the rules permit,` and ... those tackles contravening the rules where the rule infringed is framed to maintain the skill of the game ...
- One who enters into a sport, game or contest may be taken to consent to physical contacts consistent with the understood rules of the game.
He went on to state:
- Sports and games differ in their objects and in what is expected of the actors ... deliberate injury, in the sense of something done solely or principally with a view to causing sensible hurt, is not justified by the rules and the usages of the game.
This was a civil damages case, but it says what happens outside of the rules of the game may constitute a criminal act as it has done for many years. That case hails from 1971.
In McAvenly and Quigly in the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1992, Justice Leggo cited the decision of Justice Fox in McNamara, in the High Court in Rootes as case law in Australia, and there are a number of these decisions. From the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 1995, in the Crown against Tyrone and Stanley, Chief Justices Hunt and Sulley said inter alia:
- A participant in a game of rugby league football does not consent to being injured during the course of the game by any act which is not done in a legitimate pursuit of the objects of the game.
- The appellant deliberately struck the victim’s face with his outstretched elbow. It could not be thought to have been an act done in the course of attempting to tackle the victim, which is what the appellant’s job was.
Justice Levine, in the same matter said:
- In an organised game of rugby league, players consent to acts of violence and substantial acts of violence and the risks of injury from the minor to the serious flowing there from. Providing that acts occur during the course of play in accordance with the rules and usages of the game, players are not to be taken to consenting to the malicious use of violence. The policy of the law will not permit mere occasion of a rugby match to render the indecent, or other excuse conduct which can be discretely found beyond reasonable doubt to constitute a criminal offence.
And there are a number of other cases, so the rules of the game, essentially, are transported into the court.
What the member described in his contribution was an act outside the rules of the game, a violent act. I ask the honourable member to consider this. He said in his contribution that he had later discovered the person had suffered a substantial injury. Even now, if the victim had suffered a substantial injury and sought to pursue an assault, according to the law that person would have, all other circumstances allowing, been found guilty of a serious harm assault. If the person had died, why wouldn’t a court review that homicide as being unlawful? That is the question I would put back. ‘I see this all the time’, well the fact is that the sporting bodies nationally and internationally have been cleaning up their acts enormously, and assaults and other serious assault matters have flowed from contraventions of the rules of games. They are not a free for all; even a game of rugby is not a free for all.
Making those observations, it would depend on the circumstances of the death on the football field.
If you are talking about a deliberate injury, or if you are talking about an injury caused due to unlawful conduct then there are circumstances where this legislative instrument would apply. That is how we deal with sport, bearing in mind, of course, that the defence of unwilled act or accident is still available to a person who engages in conduct contrary to the rules of the game; so some sort of reflexive behaviour may certainly offer a defence in relation to this matter. It is the deliberateness of the violent act which is at the core of this offence.
I hope that this clears the matter up for the member for Nelson. I also want to touch on one other component of the member for Nelson’s contribution. He asked: what if somebody were to do something and this offence was made out and they were found guilty of it and there was a penalty hanging over their head for sixteen years? That is a very valid point; however, any trial takes parts in two parts. Part one is establishing guilt. Part one of a trial deals with the rules of evidence surrounding whether or not a person is guilty. However, part two of the trial is the process of sentencing. What is the appropriate sentence for a person who has ultimately been found guilty of this offence?
Whilst there is a maximum penalty of 16 years in this instance, and the lesser penalty for manslaughter is recognition in relation to the nature of this offence, it does not oblige a court to immediately say it has to give 16 years. There is no mandatory component to the top end of the range of the offence. Therefore, a defence in the sentencing process will bring up matters of mitigation. Those matters of mitigation will attend to the defence of the person who is being convicted and due diligence and care will be given by the court in relation to the sentence which is appropriate. For example, in the case of Michael Martyn, the person convicted of Sergeant Brett Meredith’s manslaughter, the maximum penalty available to the court was life imprisonment but that maximum penalty, even on appeal, did not become manifest. There is still capacity for a court to look at the second part of the trial and deal with those other extraneous matters that go to the mitigation of a sentence rather than the matters which prove the offence in the first place. They are quite separate parts of the trial.
Having attended to those issues, I note the position of the Labor Party has moved from saying it will not support the bill to not opposing the bill. That means, if I hear the opposition correctly, not opposing the bill means they will not stop the bill from passing through this House.
What the member for Nelson will do is up to him; he is an Independent. However, I hope I have addressed the concerns of members and, as a consequence, I have nothing more to add to this matter. I look forward to us being able to keep our promise to the people of the Northern Territory and ensure this is passed into law before Christmas.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Bill 2012 (Serial 3). Is it the wish of the committee that this be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: I will not be long, member for Port Darwin. We did not quite cover the area I raised, which was someone being tripped or someone being pushed. How does that fit into the category of a violent act?
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Nelson, I apologise, I did not make a note but I remember you asking this reasonable question. It is one I asked. You will note in the act there is, of course, a definition:
- conduct involving a violent act means conduct involving the direct application of force of a violent nature to a person, whether or not the offensive weapon is used in the application of the force.
Application of force – I will try to do this from memory – is defined as striking, touching, moving, the application of heat, light, noise, electrical or other energy, gas, odour or substance or thing when applied to such a degree as to cause personal injury or discomfort. How am I doing? Okay, that is the definition of application of force.
I had to think about that. This basically means we are talking about an unlawful application of force; the violent act is conduct which is reference to the application of force which is defined in the Criminal Code.
You will note examples of an application of force of a violent nature are a blow, hit, kick, punch or strike. A court will turn its attention to a couple of things in the case of a trip or a shove, which is where you are saying it is a bit grey. There are several rules of interpretation adduced in generous, I think is the general rule of interpretation – words of a feather flock together – and, alternatively, the nature of the shove, the nature of the trip is an evidentiary issue.
What a prosecutor will ask if seeking to apply this is: what does the evidence demonstrate about the shove? For argument’s sake, ‘strike’ - if I gently push the Chief Minister sidewards in such circumstances that it really is not a shove, then some consideration will be given to that. If I was to walk up to the Chief Minister and give him a very violent shove, causing him to fall back over the chair there, I would classify that in the realm of a strike. I imagine any reasonable court or jury would accept that as well, in which case it has tripped over the boundary and fallen into this domain.
The question for the court, of course, is whether the injury that resulted in the death as a result of that strike has been caused by this offence, beyond reasonable doubt. That, basically, is how it works.
The process of not using this as an alternative to manslaughter means the determination to charge rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP will look at the evidence and he or she will determine, on the evidence, whether or not a charge of manslaughter is pursued, as was the case in Brett Meredith. I imagine in a case like Brett Meredith’s a manslaughter charge will be properly pursued.
However, I ask the member to think about this: if there was still a death, as in the case of Sergeant Meredith, and if the jury did not have strong evidence in front of them – and I realise I am speaking hypothetically – would they have baulked at a manslaughter finding? I understand there was CCTV evidence in that trial. If that had been absent and they were just relying on the evidence of passers-by, would that have been sufficient to support a manslaughter trial? I do not know that; I cannot speculate. I am trying imagine a circumstance. I will give you an example.
In The Age today there is an article about the death of Justin Galligan. The first line in the article said:
The state coroner today warned parents about the dangers of tolerating drinking at teenage parties after the death of 16-year-old Justin Galligan who was king-hit by a gatecrasher at a Halloween party.
- Police had identified the killer and sought legal advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions on the offences with which he could be charged. Investigators were told a manslaughter charge could not be sustained, so the killer was charged with the lesser offence of affray.
He was 17 when he appeared in the Children’s Court in September 2009 and received a good behaviour bond. No conviction was recorded.
Justin’s parents, Michael and Mary, told the coroner during the inquest in April that their despair had been ‘compounded by the inability of authorities to bring a more serious offence against the boy who killed Justin’.
- Outside the court today, Justin’s aunt, Cathy Neagle-Haupt, said that the grief over his death remained undiminished. ‘This is compounded by the belief that Justin did not receive full justice in the criminal court’, she said. ‘Given that that is out of our control, it is our deepest desire to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
This is exactly the sort of thing this bill is seeking to deal with. That was from The Age today.
Affray is a form of assault - it is a fight in a public place basically, an upgraded form of a fight in a public place - which carries a fairly low maximum sentence. When a person dies as a direct result of a violent act by another person there is a public expectation that you are answerable for the death and that is what this is about. That is what Justin’s parents and aunty wanted, and that is what this legislation is about.
They do not have this legislation in Victoria, so you find yourself in a situation as a prosecutor - and as a police officer I imagine, not that it is really the police’s opinion that matters - saying you can only charge them with an assault or an affray or something like that. There is great public expectation that the authorities respond in a better way than as has been the case in Victoria. That is what I am trying to achieve in the Northern Territory.
I do not know how many matters have come before prosecutors in the past which may have satisfied a charge like this but would not have satisfied a manslaughter charge into the future. It may never have happened because I am talking about something that is not particularly wide in the law. But there is a gap and this sort of thing proves it. So that is what we are trying to achieve. The novel thing is that we are not responding to something that has happened; we are trying to respond to something that may happen.
Mr WOOD: Thank you for that answer, minister. When I see the clause ‘strict liability applies to subsection 1(b)’, does that mean that there is no excuse? Does that mean if the victim was doing something silly or was drunk or for whatever reason there might be some mitigating circumstances, that a judge can still take that into account?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I do not want to sound like I am lecturing on the law, but there are two parts to the idea of strict liability and the other hidden component is called ‘absolute liability’. Absolute liability is your seatbelt type offence. You either commit it or you do not, there are no real defences available to you, with the exception of section 26 but we will not talk about that.
A seatbelt offence is an offence of absolute liability and no defences are allowed. So, in the case of an absolute offence you have either done it or you have not, the light is either on or it is off, you were either wearing your seatbelt or you were not, you either went through a red light or you did not. These sorts of offences are very low on the pecking order. I would not suggest for one second - and would have misgivings if we were to apply the term ‘absolute liability’ to something like this, because there are circumstances which you quite rightly pointed out where you would think it would be reasonable.
I referred to one earlier, ‘unwilled act or accident’, which is a defence you can raise if you are being tried for a breach of this offence. Another example would be ‘mistake of fact’ where your liability is no greater than if the actual facts had been as you apprehended them to be. That probably sounds a bit wordy but the actual fact is that there are defences available and those defences have been established for centuries through the common law process and finally captured in codified instruments like the Northern Territory Criminal Code.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Just two more questions. Western Australia passed this legislation, but do you know if it has ever been used?
Mr ELFERINK: It has. This was referred to by the shadow attorney who pointed out some of the shortcomings as the result of its use, which have been attended to in this legislative instrument. It has been used on eleven occasions.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Are you going to review this bill at any stage as there has been some controversy over it? When you first brought it in, I saw two lawyers’ opinions on it and that is one of the reasons I did not vote for it. One opinion came through the Police Association and another from a lawyer and it is very hard when you are in my position. It is as they say: when you get two lawyers in a room you get two different opinions.
Mr ELFERINK: Three different opinions.
Mr WOOD: Three different opinions, sorry. So will the government look at reviewing this bill and seeing whether it is operating as it is intended or whether there could be some problems that may need attention?
Mr ELFERINK: Member for Nelson, I will give you that guarantee up front. Every law is constantly under review. Courts make comments from the bench in relation to the operation of legislative instruments and have done for time immemorial. The public watch what happens. I imagine that the law of affray in Victoria may well be under review at some point. If something pops up that is unexpected, unintended, those sorts of things, of course we will repair it, fix it, do whatever with it. As I said, there is some opinion that manslaughter covers the field. I do not necessarily agree with that, but if manslaughter covers the field this will never be used; however, I suspect and in cases like Justin’s, there is space for this.
If you want me to report back to the House in say 12 months’ time I will be happy to. Do you know what would delight me completely? If I have to report to the House that it has never been used because we even managed to get a successful conviction for manslaughter, or people have not died as a result of this sort of stupidity. Now there is a thought. Could you imagine a law not getting used on the grounds that people did not engage in violent conduct?
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I came into this debate unsure of which way I would go. I was willing to leave it because I got opinions from both lawyers when you had the previous bill before parliament. I am happy to give it my support, subject to some of the matters you have commented on. If there was a review I would probably be looking at 12 months or two years. I am certainly willing to give it my support. I thank you for some explanations on some of the issues I was concerned about. As a member on this side of parliament, I will be looking to see that legislation like this, if it is not working or it has some problems, does come back to be adjusted to make it work properly.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the honourable member. To save me getting to my feet in the third reading debate, this bill is now, by all expectations, about to pass this House. I note for honourable members the presence in the gallery of the widow of Sergeant Meredith who ran this campaign because there was a real fear on her part that the law of manslaughter may not have given her and her husband justice.
Whilst the law of manslaughter did cover the field sufficiently in her instance, I think she has alerted the Northern Territory population, through her activities, to a serious problem. I place on the record my thanks as a citizen of the Northern Territory to Mrs Meredith. She did an extraordinary job pursuing this matter and I find it enormously gratifying that through the processes of the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ of politics, I am in a position to give her at least this much comfort. I hope she lives a full and productive life. I hope this helps bring her some closure, and I am grateful for the support of members on this side of the House and the member for Nelson.
I note the Labor Party has chosen not to oppose this bill so it should pass shortly on the voices. Thank you, Mrs Meredith, we are obliged to you as a jurisdiction.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, thank you. I too acknowledge Mrs Meredith and her family and the incredible pain they have been through which is why, out of genuine sincerity, I made reference to the passing of her husband and her family. I wish to assure members I was not aiming to politicise anything.
Attorney-General, I have a question for you which will sound bizarre. I raised it in my contribution around potential scenarios. This is not me being bizarre or weird, this was a scenario which came up in a discussion I had about this bill with a member of the legal profession. It goes to Part 4(a)(ii) and what would be described or regarded as a socially acceptable function.
I gave you a few scenarios and you have addressed most of them. The one I asked you, which had been raised with me, was around what is socially acceptable or unacceptable. Should somebody die as a result of some kind of sexually deviant act which led to a person’s death, even if it were an act intended for enjoyment and/or consented to, is that socially acceptable? I know it sounds strange. I am from South Australia, where some of the most bizarre homicides in the world have occurred so I would not rule anything out. I put this to you as a very serious question, which you may or may not have an answer to.
Mr ELFERINK: I do.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Attorney.
Mr ELFERINK: I draw your attention to section 26 of the Criminal Code, those sections dealing with authorisation. You cannot, under any circumstances, authorise your own death. In fact, you cannot even, unless you are receiving medical treatment, authorise any form of serious harm to be done to you. If a person dies in these circumstances and the DPP, on the evidence presented, feels a prosecution would be successful then a prosecution can still proceed.
It is conceivable, in the circumstances you have just described, that a person could be convicted of murder or manslaughter, depending on the nature of the act being engaged in. Once again, it comes down to the evidence, but section 26 of the Criminal Code is quite clear in relation to authorisation. You cannot authorise a person to kill you.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PLANNING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 6)
(Serial 6)
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, we debate now another one of the new CLP government’s major reforms. This time it is to amend the Planning Act. It is important to put on the record that the passage of this bill through the House has been assisted with the removal of standing orders. There is concern around such a process, but that has been decided by this parliament and we will go down that road. The bill is on its way through the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
It is important to note the commissioner, or the Chair of the Planning Commission, has already been appointed. The Chief Minister has decided he has a credible applicant and appointed that member. Also, in the Northern Territory News on Wednesday 14 November, the advertisement for expressions of interest for members of the Northern Territory Planning Commission was published. It is calling for further membership of what is a new body created by this government.
I place on the public record some hearsay. The Chief Minister conducted a party last night to celebrate the new Planning Commission. Word was abuzz in the halls of the people’s House saying the Chief Minister had called together a party to celebrate the Planning Commission. I was quite shocked on a couple of levels. First of all, the bill was still on its passage through the House and, second, I was not invited.
I am sure the Chief Minister could revisit that at some stage. As we progress with this legislation, as the Chief Minister has informed the House on a number of occasions when discussing the previous Environmental Protection Authority, there will be revisiting of instrument the new commission it creates.
The proposed amendment is certainly complex. I look forward to the committee stage of this legislation because there are many questions to ask. Once again, I advise the minister that the questions have come from constituents wide and far, which is good as it is good to have comment from Territorians. I also took the opportunity of contacting stakeholders who I thought would be across this proposed amendment and the proposed legislation.
I made contact with the Darwin City Council, the Palmerston City Council, the Litchfield Council, the Property Council Northern Territory Division, the Northern Territory Urban Development Institute of Australia, PLan the Planning Action Network, the Real Estate Institute of Northern Territory and, of course, the Master Builders Association.
I conducted some basic phone interviews to, first, advise these stakeholder groups of the amendment, then to ask them whether they had questions or concerns to try to engage in a good healthy debate. The strategy to participate in and research this legislation was a little concerning when many of those stakeholder groups had not seen the proposed amendment and did not know about it. I took the opportunity of advising them. In particular, some of the councils took the opportunity to find out where to get the details to put before council members, to have a discussion and start an information process flowing.
I was a little concerned when people had not seen it and were not aware of this very important legislation that makes major changes to the Planning Act. However, I feel quite proud as a member of parliament that hopefully, maybe due to my research, there has been more dissemination of the information.
I will share with the minister some of the comments in the discussions. Some came as questions, some came as comments, and some of it was very conversational. An interesting question we shared was whether the new Planning Commission would be collating the work of the Greater Darwin Plan. That is the previous plan which was done under the previous government - an incredible body of work that was thoroughly researched and communicated with the community.
In regard to strategic planning, ‘Will the Planning Commission be looking for priorities in the hunt for affordable homes? That was an interesting discussion, I remember that well.
‘The Planning Commission is offering an open door to developers for advice and support on development proposals.’ That is an interesting concept which was thrown around.
‘What is the status of the department’s pre-development sessions currently offered for developers and will they be scrapped?’ That was seen as a very good initiative under the previous government and was accepted and valued by the development community.
‘Will the Planning Commission’s reports on significant developments offer opinions and will the Planning Commission list recommendations for the minister or will it issue, basically, a report?’
It was interesting that these discussions were taking place and I found them to be very valuable for my research. It also came out in the research that the Urban Development Institute of Australia held a forum in Alice Springs. I believe the newly appointed Chair of the Planning Commission and the new CEO of Lands, Planning and the Environment attended that forum. One of the comments was that they were taking copious notes on what the public and the UDIA members were saying. That was a good outcome where it did actually come together in Alice Springs.
Another interesting anecdote concerns the Western Australian Planning Commission, which has a history of 10 years. Now the government is finding it has some real issues getting bogged down in decision-making: not achieving those objectives the Northern Territory minister is looking for, not being able to cut through that red tape, not being able to reduce the time frames and not being able to improve the efficiencies, particularly in relation to the use of committees. When we go to look at this proposed legislation in the Northern Territory, committees are proposed in that amendment, and the Western Australian example, from my advice, was that due to the extensive consultation, research and advice that was sought, the time frames and efficiencies started to break down. That was an interesting discussion and something we could learn from. There are lessons to be learnt there.
The balance is about getting the decisions right. In my humble opinion, one would not consider that cutting red tape and reducing the time lines, increasing the efficiencies, is really the priority. The priority is getting it right because if you take out a couple of thousand hectares of mangroves, that is a considerable planning outcome which can affect generations of Territorians in the future. So, let us not focus too much on the rush job, let us focus on getting it right.
It was good to participate with those stakeholders and have those discussions. It was nice to be welcomed, and for some of those organisations to say they would like to continue the dialogue with me as a shadow of the government’s very important work in this area.
Yesterday, during the debate of the Environment Protection Authority legislation, the Chief Minister made an important point along the lines of let us give it time and see it unfold. We debated the principles of this integration. Just give it time, let it roll out. We talked about reviews, and whilst there was no time frame set for reviews, it was considered appropriate and hopefully, in some sort of process which I interpret as a natural justice process, that will occur.
Once again we will go down this road and this amendment to the Planning Act will go through. It will have its own time, we will see the results of that and we will be able to judge it accordingly. But bad planning decisions - it is not as if, for example, we are going to re-jig the timetables to visit Uluru under a tourism initiative - can create serious chaos for generations to come. So there is a whole different element to the outcomes of this legislation.
Having a bit of time to talk about this, I will revisit Woodroffe Park where I was able to go into the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate and talk to his constituents. A theme emerged in the discussion around the power, water and sewerage hikes and priorities and government policy. It was rational, measured and considered discussion. The element of the constituent advice, though, was concerning arrogance and how politically elected representatives really need to understand the nature of their role. There is a very important element that I continue to talk about and that is good consultation, good listening and no attitude.
It is a very dangerous game, as an elected community member, to develop an attitude. I will say, unsolicited, one of the government members did get a special mention: the member for Braitling. There were comments about him such as, ‘Does this guy not know how politics works?’ Does this guy not know about community consultation? Does this guy know that people do not like to be talked at, they like to be talked to?’ There was a good tip there and, like I say, totally unsolicited. You can imagine I had a perfect opportunity to be proper nasty. However, I chose to be professional, and I say that with all honesty and integrity. The name calling and the abuse will get you nowhere.
I think those constituents in the heartland of the Chief Minister’s electorate who I talked with left with a fairly balanced impression about me as a Territorian and as an individual, and they can judge my politics second. I throw that into the mix. It was a good reinforcement that consulting well and working with the grass roots will deliver, in the longer term, the better outcomes without any of the cut and thrust, the rush and the ‘we have to do this stuff in a hurry’. When we are talking about amendments to the Planning Act we are talking about things which have generational outcomes and, hopefully, positive not negative outcomes in the Northern Territory.
On a negative note, I put on the public record my total disappointment at the sacking of public servants, in particular the CEO of the Department of Lands and Planning, a guy who I worked with, Dr David Ritchie. He was an inspirational Territorian for me to work with as a politician, a politician who does not have a background in lands, planning and strategic planning and as a leader of that department ...
_____________________
Statement by Speaker
Storm Warning
Statement by Speaker
Storm Warning
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is a large storm out towards Channel Island.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Bring on the rain, Madam Speaker. The audio is still working perfectly so I am happy to continue if you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Put the camera down member for Nightcliff.
_____________________
Mr McCARTHY: I was speaking about Dr David Ritchie. As a leader, he was able to facilitate my learning as a minister and my work with the experts in this field. That was a great experience and I have spoken at length in this House about the privilege to be the Minister for Lands and Planning. I want to pass on my best wishes to Dr David Ritchie and his family; they are great Territorians and I am sure they are doing well. I thank him once again for the incredible learning he provided and the collegial way he worked with the department, introduced me to the department, and created that very good working environment where we did an amazing amount of work. I hope much of that work will continue to support the new minister and the new government because that work was both at the strategic level and the delivery end.
I have listened to the debate, read the minister’s second reading speech, and listened to the Address-in-Reply. I have been listening to the mantra of the then opposition over four years, now as the government. It is very important to reflect that, in 2012, the Property Council of Australia acknowledged and commended the Northern Territory as leading the way in development assessments nationally. That was a very proud moment for the department.
We are talking about the Northern Territory development assessments and planning scheme being recognised as national leaders. There is much to be said by that. Now we are changing direction and going to add something new and it will make it all better. They are a pretty influential mob and I enjoyed my work with the Northern Territory Property Council. The Property Council of Australia, in 2012, acknowledged and commended the Northern Territory as leading the way in development assessments nationally. Dr David Ritchie and all the staff at the old Department of Lands and Planning should be very proud of that. It will not be forgotten. When you tour around the Territory and see the work and the outcomes you really understand what that means. In the national perspective that is a very high accolade.
Dealing with the old mantra of land release, the new government has developed the same type of strategy. That is disappointing really. It should rise to the occasion because it has many more opportunities and much more to do than continue that same style of politics it used in opposition. The land release story has to be one of the most prominent. For a brand new member in 2008, a backbencher trying to learn the ropes quickly, to hear it then and to end up the Minister for Lands and Planning and be belted with it every time you came anywhere near the then opposition is something I will never forget.
The other thing I will not forget - and I am looking forward to getting the two grandsons here to take them on a drive around the greater Darwin area, let alone the rest of the Territory – is to revisit the sites the previous government developed. There will not be too much kicking of the dirt because they are all very beautiful homes, all grassed and landscaped, and all represent the principles of modern urbanism.
I was at Zuccoli on Sunday afternoon and felt proud to see how the new suburb is shaping up with the extra principles of modern urbanism which will preserve much of the natural environment and work it into the development. It is worth putting on the public record one more time the wonderful time I had working with the Henderson Labor government in those four years, adding to the work of the previous minister, now the Leader of the Opposition. When we aggregate those projects we have the new suburbs of Bellamack, Johnston in two stages, Zuccoli and Muirhead, where a mate of mine, a teaching colleague, is building a house. He got one of the last of the government’s housing assistance packages with HOMESTART Extra and is so proud of it. I think back to the work we did with Charles Darwin University and what is emerging at Durack Heights, the work with the private developers who delivered Coolalinga, and that incredible concept going on in the rural area.
In the greater Darwin area we set up a pipeline of 4000 lots which has been rolling out and now represents homes where families are celebrating what they have achieved and what they will go on to achieve. If you take a trip down the track, look at land releases in Katherine, Tennant Creek that I see daily, and Kilgariff in Alice Springs, an incredible area which will provide opportunity for the residents of Alice Springs now and in the future. It is an incredible growth area. Go back and revisit the work we did with Lhere Artepe and the Mt Johns Valley development. That is quite incredible when you put that in a whole-of-Territory perspective. That work had been done in the previous term of the Territory Labor government and I was fortunate and privileged to be part of that from 2008.
The work between 2006 and 2012 was sensational and deserves a lot of credit. Credit goes to the Department of Lands and Planning, Construction, Infrastructure, the Power and Water authority, and the old department of NRETAS. I rejoice in seeing, after the frustrations of the global financial crisis, 2000 units rising from the earth in the Darwin area and the cranes emerging on the skyline. Work had been set up by the previous government but the banks had changed their lending practices globally. Now there is movement in that market. The new government will be celebrating with us. As they have only been in the saddle for 13 weeks, they cannot really claim any kudos around that. In this city which will be, I believe, the capital of Northern Australia, those 2000 home units are rising out of the ground and representing the department, the processes, and what the Territory has achieved.
This new amendment to the Planning Act has some very specific objectives; that is, to speed up the process, cut the red tape and deliver affordable homes. It will be interesting to see how this really goes with what we have and improves it. The challenge around affordable homes will be interesting. As a lay person who started to learn the trade of Lands and Planning, I started pushing into the boundaries where we were conducting dialogue and discourse with the development and general community of the Northern Territory about smaller footprints, smaller lot sizes, and using alternative designs. Then we were pushing the boundaries further into alternative building materials. They are the pressure points I wanted to put on housing affordability; it is not just about the release of land.
As the new government will find out, it is a very sorry day if you create lots of land to grow weeds. It is a demand and supply game. You guys are in the saddle now and you will be feeling that same pressure. It is a macro game, there is nothing micro about it; it is massive. It is very expensive and challenging. I hope the new government continues to push those buttons and drive those levers that can also support affordability in the housing market. It is not just about land release, it is also very much about being responsible and realistic and being honest and up front with Territorians.
It will continue to take considerable government investment to keep prices down because, no matter how you go about amending the act, you will find that the cost of servicing land in the Northern Territory will be one of your biggest challenges. Should you move down the road of working with developers – and I believe you will – some of whose families have been in the field for generations and who have a lot of land available, you will feel the challenges where the service costs of turning off lots will be one of the first major hurdles to jump. Good luck, because that is about growing the Territory. Be realistic, be honest, and we, as an opposition, will be watching this very closely, supporting good initiatives, of course, and giving credit where credit is due.
Regarding what the minister wants to deliver, it is probably good to talk about a couple of the current efficiency initiatives. The pre-lodgment meetings offered by the department with agencies like the Power and Water Corporation, the strategic planners, and the different sections of the Department of Lands Planning and the Environment, like the old NRETAS, are important aspects of the planning process. Those pre-lodgment meetings were definitively welcomed by the development community and were a great initiative from our public sector. They were a great measure in delivering better efficiencies and challenging the lead time into development applications and approvals, and, in an abstract way, cutting red tape.
The pre-lodgment meetings also offered by the Development Consent Authority are another great initiative in the planning process. These are things to be remembered when the person in the street hears from the new government that they are going to change all of this because they have better ways of doing it and they will make it leaner, meaner and deliver far better outcomes than that previous mob, with all the political rhetoric that goes with it. Do not forget some of the really important initiatives that have taken place and I hope will continue to take place.
The use of our strategic planners - now there are a number of other public servants who have been axed. I will not go into all of the names but it is disappointing. The strategic planners in that area were influential on me as a new minister and are great public servants who work tirelessly with the politicians and with government to deliver the best outcomes for the Territory.
It is interesting to see that the new Planning Commission says it will use the same resources. I am interested to hear from the minister how that will take shape because I have had many questions in the community, ‘Oh, you are not talking about short-term contracts are you?’, or ‘You are not talking about public service cuts now are you?’ I really could not answer those questions but I am sure the minister will. It is acknowledging that those people, and many who have devoted careers to this work in the Northern Territory, are valued and will be continuing, albeit in a shift to the right - pardon the pun for the Liberals in the room – their work with the Planning Commission. There are probably some questions about how that will take place, and you have to cut to the chase and ask about job security and how that will be conducted in the future.
It is also important to acknowledge the introduction of a new concept in this amendment to the Planning Act and that is the ‘significant development’. The concept of the significant development is pretty straightforward; however, the new government has made a lot of noise about this so I am interested to report to Territorians what it means by the term ‘significant development’.
It is important to note that currently the Development Consent Authority assesses development applications in the Territory and looks at the broad perspectives of amenity, environment and infrastructure. I am interested in the Environment Protection Authority and the concept of integration of the new Planning Commission, the EPA, heritage and local government, and how that integration will improve the processes. I am wondering if this will create any tension or any conflict in that integration objective.
The Development Consent Authority will be working very closely with the minister and the new Planning Commission so there is an addition to the process; whereas before, the minister, the Planning Commission and the department worked closely with the developers and the community. This amendment brings in another layer, the addition being this Planning Commission. The chairperson of the Development Consent Authority is the statutory authority. If we look at their role now with this new layer that has been created, questions will be asked of the minister in committee stage about whether that officer is party to deliberations and part of the reporting process.
Let us say they are involved in the deliberations and reporting processes and are a member of the Planning Commission on one of these new significant developments and the significant development is referred back to the DCA as the consent authority. These issues need to be teased out a bit more. That will be in the committee stage where the minister will be able to explain very clearly what this amendment delivers regarding that added new layer, yet still using the existing structures of what is a very efficient process and what I came to learn is a very good community consultative process in the Development Consent Authority. That authority is in a unique position; it is a statutory role. This integration has me a little concerned because if you are talking about integration and this fusion of layers, then really a statutory role cannot be making partial decisions. It could be really going backwards, it could be detracting from the process and the objective of what the minister wants to achieve.
I will be asking questions about time and red tape, and little things I interpret through the bill; I might be confused by the semantics of the legal jargon in the bill. For instance, the minister can request a report before or after a development application is lodged. It will be interesting to see how that improves any time frames if that is the case. The Development Consent Authority cannot comment on the significant development process until the Planning Commission has prepared the report relating to particular proposals. How does this show a speed-up in the time frame that the development community is demanding and the government is saying they are going to deliver? Will this, as in the Western Australian example, eventually lead to the need for more committees, for research and a relative process - a real process where the consultation is done properly and the reality is there is no real movement in time frames honestly? We will see. As the minister has said with the Environment Protection Authority, ‘Let us wait and see. Let us give it time and we will see that roll out.’
We certainly will, because as the minister for Tourism reminded me in this House, ‘We have the numbers and we will do this whether you like it or not’. That is the reality of what we have.
However, the Chief Minister is far more moderate and balanced. The Chief Minister has put on the public record that his government will be accountable to Territorians.
In relation to the new Planning Commission, it is all about service delivery. The Chief Minister talked about service delivery. The member for Braitling today talked about customer service, the member for Brennan talked about great failings in service delivery, and the member for Fong Lim talked about the same inefficiencies in the Health department. I took offence because what I saw getting wound into all that was a discussion about NT public sector employees. I am glad I got the reaction I did from the other side because it was almost unanimous.
They jumped to their defence. How dare I suggest they would be attacking public servants! I appreciate that response because it was what I wanted to hear. Under no circumstances should any elected community representative, any politician, be using that approach - the holier-than-thou, ‘You will do what I say’, minister - and not work consultatively and tirelessly for service delivery and the unity that comes from working together in partnership and delivering outcomes Territorians not only deserve but demand.
The Chief Minister went on to say of the Planning Commission, ‘We will develop guidelines to work with developers, to unlock land, to reduce red tape, to address time delays, to reduce running costs and to improve development approvals’. That is the rhetoric coming out of the ministerial statement. We have heard the second reading speech and now we get into the real grass roots of deconstructing this amendment with much positive questioning and positive answers, and we can then move forward. It will be something innovative, another major reform in the Northern Territory.
I conclude by giving a little advice. I have no doubt one of the challenging areas for the minister and this new amendment is the allocation of Crown land. I saw that as an incredible responsibility when faced with decisions about allocating Crown land for developments - the land that belongs to the Crown; the land that belongs to the people.
The other challenge will be the landowners, where there is much available land for development. When I was in the job I met with many developers and took the challenge straight to them: what was in it for the Territory? I tried to keep that mantra alive, ‘What is in it for the Territory?’ When you are talking about profit-driven organisations - businesses are way smarter than me, I have never been good at business. My wife is good at business but I have never been. These people can get a little one-sided with their ambition for profit because that is the way they think, that is what they value, and they are a little short-sighted about the benefits for the Territory.
The new Planning Commission will be challenged just as I was challenged. The minister will have that extra layer of advice. When we talk about significant development - and we will understand more about that later when we question that concept - it will relate not only to Crown land but to private land. Of course, looking at the Territory as a whole, the fastest growing area in the country is definitely the greater Darwin area. Where does most of that private land occur? It occurs in the rural area. These developers have great ideas and they are energetic Territorians - as I said, generations of families.
The message I was getting loud and clear as a new minister was that everybody else neglected this, nobody had delivered it, I could be the first. It was sold to me as a really good opportunity to put my mark on the greater Darwin area. That hick from the bush, that fellow from the Barkly who has lived in the scrub more than half his life was definitely going to buy this. They were going to really do some business and cut up this land. I took a lot of advice and did some study and research and used the good old strategy of a fresh horse: pull it up, whoa back, and just walk for a while.
The message was loud and clear, ‘You can be the first. This could be the mark you leave on the Northern Territory.’ It was very tempting. I am really glad I took advice from the public sector, from friends, family and all sorts of people who would ask broader questions. We took a step back and we really worked it into developing the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. It was an incredible body of work. Attached to that, we then discovered the rural area was very special in being able to generate good development outcomes yet take the community with us.
That is the work we did towards the intensification of rural villages and we got all hung up on the semantics of the village. However, I remember the members for Nelson and Goyder took the bit between their teeth and led and put together a very good submission to that process. Just before I parted company with the Department of Lands and Planning to go back and fight for the seat of Barkly in a general election, I remember that was coming together very nicely. It was fusing into what would deliver good outcomes in the rural area.
Minister, I consider this to be an area for significant development, but it will be very challenging because I am not sure how accepting the development community, the owners of that land, will be in sharing the burden and costs, and rising to the occasion of valuing the principles of modern urbanism. That means creating master plan developments with all those considerations that need to be put into place to set the Territory up for future generations. We are talking about amenity, land for social and community purposes, and the new principles of modern urbanism where we are not creating subdivisions any more, we are creating communities.
That was a message I left with that community. They really did walk away from me …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the shadow minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: They eventually walked away from me; however, the work did not stop. The previous Territory government kept that work going and it was the jewel in the crown that I hope to be able to take the grandchildren to one of these days; that is, the new city of Weddell. I hope that is not forgotten and neglected in the new government’s move with their Planning Commission, their opportunities and ambitions.
Regarding the development community I met and talked with, I gracefully declined the opportunity they offered me. I declined not because I was anti-development, but because I learnt quickly and saw that to deliver it properly, to deliver real generational change and opportunities for the future, we needed to agree on the values around the strategic level of planning, then area planning and the specific elements of a development that support what is no longer a subdivision but the new - what I love to see in our work - ‘walkable’, liveable sustainable community.
It will be a good debate; this is just the start of it. I am privileged to come in after the minister and participate in this debate. I look forward to other members contributing to this very important debate on an extremely important proposal from the new government: another level of their major reform. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be a part of it and, hopefully, a part of the future where this will add the positives we are told it will.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for his pearls of wisdom and advice. I recall that in the last sittings you promised it would be the last piece of advice you would give but here we are today hearing more of it. I thank you for that and thank you for explaining at length what a great minister you were.
I move onto the topic at hand, the planning bill. I thank the Chief Minister for his dedication and commitment to forward planning for the future of the Northern Territory and all Territorians. I commend this bill and the proposed amendments to the Planning Act contained therein.
The Northern Territory has undergone various stages in the last 50 years during which time the definition of the term ‘strategic planning’ has changed. In 1963, Harcourt Hilton Long was appointed the first planning officer of the Northern Territory. His role at that time was to provide a plan for Darwin’s growth and future development opportunities. The 1970s and 1980s were an enormously challenging time for planners who had been invigorated by the foresight and passion of Harcourt, yet were devastated by the brutality of Cyclone Tracy, which led to federal intervention and the imposition of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Thank goodness the feds saw the sense to repeal the Darwin Reconstruction Commission in January 1978 and that the Territory realised self-government on 1 July.
All that time, the Territory also faced planning challenges from the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Kenbi Land Claim in 1979. We have seen the development of the Darwin Regional Structure Plan in 1984 and the land use concepts, objections and structures plans of the 1990s, 2000 and 2002. As a result of these years of planning, challenges and triumph, much corporate knowledge, understanding and passion was invested into preparing a conceptual outline for the inevitable growth the Northern Territory would experience in time. Town planners at this time were able to forge entire public service careers around this area of expertise because of the commitment of previous County Liberal governments to ensuring the government knew the direction in which the Territory would grow, how it would go about staging the infrastructure and investment for that growth and, importantly, preserve the areas in which future growth would take place to ensure the strategic plan could be implemented in the years to come.
Former public servants such as Graham Bailey, Neville Jones, John Gronnow, and John Pinney are names not unfamiliar to long-term Territorians. For me, they are names that invoke nostalgia of a different time and different place. In my view, it is from this place that our government’s intention to provide a mechanism under which real, honest, actual strategic planning would take place for the Territory, and that mechanism is the Planning Commission.
It is apparent that under the previous Labor government the knowledge, passion and information gathered around strategic planning during the previous Country Liberal governments was to a large extent lost and certainly undervalued. Under Labor, the role of our town planners manifestly changed, not through any fault of the public service, but through the direction of the then government, now opposition. The emphasis was directed away from strategic planning, that is planning for the future, preservation of development corridors and staging of infrastructure and headworks, to a reactive focus that dealt with individual pockets of land as and when development arose. In short, we moved from a proactive strategic planning model to a reactive one.
One might use the hypothetical example of rezoning one block in Stuart Park. The role of the strategic planner is to look at an area as a whole and how that area fits into a broader scheme or plan for its surrounding areas. A person bringing a rezoning application for one block would ideally trigger a town planner to look at the overall implications of this for the entire suburb and for the cluster of suburbs in its immediate region as against the plan for the future. It is evident that this forward thinking does not now form part of what we ask of the public service, which has now been tasked to undertake statutory planning and respond to development applications.
Our counterparts in southern states have fallen victim to this transition, this vast departure away from forward planning and forward thinking to in-the-moment planning, reactive responses to what is happening in the immediate time and space. This Country Liberal government has a commitment to reinstate strategic planning and will redefine the meaning of strategic planning to provide absolute clarity in the purpose of and need for a Planning Commission. I have heard the opposition criticise our government’s decision to create a Planning Commission saying it is just another layer of bureaucracy, more jobs for the boys, that it duplicates the role of the strategic unit in the department of Lands and Planning and does nothing more than that which is in the reach of the Development Consent Authority.
These criticisms are immature and poorly thought out. In fact, they exemplify the attitude that Labor has imprinted upon the Territory for the last 11 years. It is precisely this narrow-minded approach to planning that has put the Northern Territory in the precarious situation it is in today. Between myself and my colleagues, I am sure we would come up with a list as long as our arms of the planning failures our government will now have to fix. My colleague, the member for Braitling constantly refers to us walking around with a dustpan and broom.
We now have to fix these planning failures because they are critical to the Territory’s ability to grow, to maximise its opportunity, to ensure that Territorians have affordable housing or even housing at all, to safeguard our environmental wonders and capitalise on our proximity and nexus with Asia, and to ensure we are protecting the corridors of growth into the future.
Commissions, by their nature, are not vehicles for personal interest. They facilitate robust discussion amongst a group of individuals who have very purposely been selected for their individual skill set, the combination of which provides for dynamic, constructive and comprehensive assessment of the details put before them. Commissions also have access to support staff and research. The Planning Commission will have these qualities. It will be a group of minds independently looking at the big picture, high-level strategic planning for the whole of the Northern Territory. In practice, the public service does as it is directed by the minister and it is there to deliver the policies of the government of the day.
The beauty and purpose of the Planning Commission is for it to be independent. Of course there will be some connections such as the fact that the support staff to the commission will be from within the department. However, our proposed structure is distinct from the role of the planning unit within the department.
There is no question that what was once big picture planning has moved towards statutory planning which is a mechanism by which the department responds to development applications. This is a piecemeal approach to planning and there is nothing strategic about it. It has a purpose and this is what the Development Consent Authority does.
The purpose of the Development Consent Authority is to review applications as against a set of criteria in accordance with the NT Planning Scheme and the department is set up to support that process. I again emphasise that this process is necessary and will be maintained but is the polar opposite role of the Planning Commission.
There is nothing in the NT Planning Scheme that assists the Development Consent Authority to review applications in light of how a proposed development fits within an overall strategic plan for the Territory, and there is neither mechanism nor purpose to have the Development Consent Authority undertake this role. That means there is no one, no organisation, planning for the future, setting the limits, the framework in which it operates.
The Planning Commission is reflective of the fact that today’s planning processes are very different from those of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We now have many stakeholders actively involved in planning and development and there is no overarching supervisor to connect stakeholders, to facilitate discussion, or to place that development as a piece in a broader puzzle which has bipartisan support of all stakeholders. The stakeholders include - the member for Barkly touched on this - the councils, private landowners, Northern Territory government, Indigenous landowners and federal government owned land. In addition, there is no authority to ensure there is communication and cooperation between departments.
The arguments can be had on the detail of developments between these stakeholders and the community; however, the big picture, the broader plan, must have bipartisan support. It must be delivered by an independent body and must be something this Assembly commits to and focuses on right now. The Planning Commission will be independent and not tied to election cycles. Strategic planning for the Northern Territory cannot be a political creature and something that reacts to the fears and demands of politicians during any term of government.
The Planning Commission and its objectives need to withstand any government, changes to government, or change of ministers. It sits above and to the side of political process for the greater good of the Territory and Territorians. The Planning Commission will set the parameters of what you need in a city, what you need in our regional areas, and what you need in emerging towns and communities. It will look at the needs of Territorians now and in 50 years time. It will put in place plans to ensure the delivery of what is needed in 50 years time does occur and that we do not, in the here and now, destroy the opportunities the future presents or destroy the needs of the future in satisfaction of impulse or reaction.
We need people on this Planning Commission who believe in the Territory and are motivated to plan for the good of all Territorians well into the future, well beyond their lifetimes. We need people who are committed to bringing together all the parts of the Territory into a whole Territory. We need to acknowledge the value of the work done on strategic planning in the Northern Territory over the last 50 years, come to terms with the fact that the principles espoused in these bodies of work are still relevant today, and that we have much to learn from the work undertaken by passionate public servants who have come before us.
We must have a Planning Commission that can engage with all stakeholders in an independent and objective manner. We must have a Planning Commission that can engage in factual public consultation without the so-called fog of war, the cloud of hype, or sensation or emotion. Might I remind Territorians there was a time when the public could walk into a room and see models, proposals and plans for our future?
The Planning Commission will be driven by ideas and they will be the designers of our future. There is no doubt there is still a long way to go in realising the potential of the Planning Commission but, mark my words, the Mills government is committed to putting strategic planning in the forefront of our minds.
We cannot lose sight of this long-term vision and the Planning Commission will withstand the reactive new cycle decision-making Territorians have endured for too long.
I have talked at length about the importance of the Planning Commission for all Territorians. I might add, Palmerston has been severely neglected and faces future challenges in the management of its growth. Palmerston will play an enormous role in the growth of the Top End and I will sleep better at night knowing there will be a body in place whose task is to ensure the future growth of my region is planned and consolidated with the objectives of the Territory.
I want to leave the House with a story from a senior Territorian with a long involvement in planning and development in the Territory. Every day he sits at home and watches INPEX barges dredge our harbour and take tonnes and tonnes of earth out into the deep waters and dump it there. Something like 16 million cubic metres will be dredged from our harbour and not one cubic metre of it will be reused in land fill sites or saved for a rainy day. The Territory can no longer afford to be a jurisdiction without a Planning Commission and I am proud to commend this bill to the House, but, more importantly, to all Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad you will sleep well, member for Drysdale, because of a Planning Commission. I hope I sleep well for other reasons. I must be one of those immature people who have not supported this commission. You said the CLP government did a good job in strategic planning in years gone by without a Planning Commission. I have also said that.
In the days of Graham Bailey and other honourable people you spoke about, the CLP developed a great strategic plan without a Planning Commission. They employed the right people to do it. That is my argument. It is not an immature argument; it is an argument for it. Under that model, the CLP produced some good documents and I have always said that. I have compared the previous government’s plans to the CLP’s plans and have always said the CLP’s plans were far better, far more strategic, and looked at processes in far more detail. My concerns are not immature. I am using an example of the CLP where it set up a strategic section of planning. That is the better way to go; to employ good, long-term, well-qualified planners within the department to do that work. Be that as it may, the government has gone down another path and that is its right.
When I came from Melbourne a long time ago I had studied town planning as part of the course I did there and I remember the great plans for Melbourne, the strategic plans. There were going to be corridors of green circling the city, and most of those green areas were low-lying. They are now housing estates which occasionally run into problems when there is a lot of rain because they are built in low areas.
What concerns me - and we laughed a little about it at dinner last night - is the relationship between the government developers and planning. Good planning should be done on the basis of good planning, not on what developers want. Development has to fit in with the strategic plan, not the other way around. I have seen cases in the Northern Territory where there has been a tendency to listen to the pressures that developers apply and governments give in to those pressures.
I am not making any comment on which government, but I see opportunities that have been missed in the city based more on what the developer wanted rather than what would be good for the city. I see buildings that are right up against the footpath. In some cases, buildings are built over the footpath.
There is very little thought about a tropical city; that is, with room between tall buildings. Designs have appeared along the ‘wedding cake’ design. What you are getting in a tropical city is buildings side by side with no recognition that we live in a tropical climate. The reason we have that is because there was pressure from developers who wanted to get the maximum out of a small parcel of land, and I can understand that. Instead of driving a strategic plan for what the city of Darwin should look like, the developers drove the strategic plan, and the outcomes are not particularly good.
Even today you can see a building on the corner of Cavenagh Street - I am not sure of the name of the street, but it joins Smith Street - where a building is being constructed on a very small block that was a car park some years ago. You can put exactly the same number of buildings that size on five more parcels of land within that block with no requirement to have any space between them. That is because developers want the maximum they can get out of the block. As I said, that is fine from the developer’s point of view, but planning has to be at arm’s length from developers. It does not mean they do not talk to developers, but if we are to look at the development of a good city, we have to do better.
Another classic example is Mitchell Creek in Palmerston. That land was sold to Delfin. Delfin believed the whole block of land, no matter whether it was wet or dry, was theirs to be chopped up. I do not know whether the minister would remember the fuss when Delfin was going to put a pipe at the top end of Mitchell Creek, put a road on top of it and subdivide either side. Thankfully, the minister then, minister Burns, sat down with Delfin and did a land swap and that part of the creek was preserved.
No matter whether you have a strategic planning unit or a Planning Commission, some high objectives need to be set out and good planning needs to be the key priority. Even though that will be done in conjunction and in discussion with a range of people including developers, it should be the highest priority, not necessarily what developers want. Otherwise, you will have what has happened in Melbourne: the sprawl over land that was not suitable for subdivision. When it becomes available for subdivision you then get problems and a poor planning outcome.
You can love or hate Canberra but Canberra was planned and development has stuck more or less to what the concepts were. That is what I like about the 1990 strategic plan for Darwin. It has a concept of medium-sized towns around Darwin Harbour with Darwin Harbour being the centre piece of the development. I hope that idea is retained by the government and not the idea that we will join the cities together because that is the cheapest way out, but in the end you spoil the concepts.
Minister, I will not be supporting this bill. The main reason is that I do not believe the Planning Commission will be independent for the same reason I put my case about the EPA not being independent, and that revolves around the ability of the Planning Commissioner to sit on the EPA and the ability for the Chairman of the EPA to sit on the Planning Commission. That creates a conflict of interest. There is a clause which allows for any conflict of interest between those members of the Planning Commission who are on the EPA. They will have a means to be exempted from any affected personal interest under clause 81W.
Clause 81W makes sure there is no conflict of interest, at least, that can be challenged. I do not think that was mentioned in the second reading, but it was mentioned in the EPA reading. That takes away the independence of the EPA and, to some extent, takes away the independence of the Planning Commission.
My other great concern is the appointment of the chair. This is not a personal attack on the chair. If you have a Planning Commission then I would expect a fully qualified planner to be the head of it because this is a very strategic commission that has a very important job: to develop the Northern Territory. Planning is a job that requires people with qualifications. If you look up the various universities throughout Australia you will see that you can get masters degrees in planning, urban planning, strategic planning, all sorts of planning.
There would have to be a requirement that the chair of the Planning Commission be a qualified town planner with X number of years of experience, especially in tropical areas because we are calling it the Planning Commission. I know you have selected a person to do the job and I know that person has worked in the Northern Territory. That person is not a planner though. I had discussions with him. He said he has had some experience in planning and I understand that. He is a surveyor; he has also done work in the spatial sciences. The spatial sciences deal with issues of land surveying, engineering and mining surveying, cartography, hydrography, remote sensing and spatial information science, but they do not deal with town planning. That is a flaw in this Planning Commission, not only because the chair is not a qualified planner but it has not even been recognised in the membership of the commission under clause 81F.
- The Commission consists of the following members:
(a) the Chairperson;
(b) the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority;
(c) the chairperson of the Heritage Council under the Heritage Act;
(d) the chairperson of the NT EPA ...
(e) a representative of the Local Government Association;
(f) any other members to a maximum of five.
Clause 81F does not even mention the word ‘planner’. That is a key mistake. This is the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission has the following functions, (clause 81B):
- (a) to review the NT Planning Scheme ...
(b) to prepare integrated strategic plans for inclusion in the NT Planning Scheme;
Most of those are what I would expect from a planner who should have been the chairperson. That is not to say that the person you have appointed should not be on there, it makes very good sense to have a surveyor of repute who has been around the Territory for a long time. However, it is a major flaw in something that says it is a Planning Commission.
If I were a qualified planner I would probably feel a bit insulted. I would say, ‘How come you have set up a Planning Commission and you have not mentioned us?’ It is a bit like saying we are going to start a garden commission and we will have everyone on the garden commission except the gardener. We will have the drainage expert, the painting expert and a few other experts, but I would have thought the person you would want on a gardening commission would be someone with a horticultural background. That is a serious flaw.
While I am critical of that, Chief Minister, I am not critical of where you are going with this. Having a body, which I would have preferred to have been in a strategic section of the department, but which will now look at significant development in the Territory is an excellent idea and, do not get me wrong, that is the way we are going and we were missing that in the previous government.
In your second reading speech you mentioned what some of those strategic developments will be. I hope the work done on Weddell and Kilgariff does not disappear from sight. I have always hoped that Weddell would be a shining example of how you can plan a city you could actually remember the look of.
I am one of those who felt that, unfortunately, Palmerston got lost along the way somewhere and all we remember of it is the water tower. It lost its vision somewhere along the line. You have Bunnings in the centre of town, you have Woolies on the other side of a roundabout; it grew up in a spasmodic way, unfortunately, because Palmerston had opportunities to look like a great city. I am not saying it is not a great place to live, but from a planning aspect it could certainly have been much better.
I would not mind the Planning Commission looking at the 2000 houses the minister wishes to establish because I am concerned about infill. My concern is that when the government increases the price of electricity there will be great difficulty for people who live in houses very close to one another who rely on air conditioning, not just to get cool, but for privacy: so they can shut the windows and not hear the neighbour. ‘Affordability’ can also be a code word for little blocks. If we are entering times where electricity is becoming a bit of a luxury item, people will not be able to afford air conditioning and will be looking at houses with natural airflow. You will not be able to achieve that if infill means little blocks of land.
Minister, as you are reviewing this part of the Planning Act you may, in the future, consider the role of the DCA. It is something I have pushed for but did not get anywhere with.
At the moment the DCA only has public input and public decision-making - that is, representatives from the area - for the main towns. If you want to make a decision in Borroloola about a planning matter it will be the delegate who is involved; it would be you, Chief Minister.
I would rather see a floating Development Consent Authority with a core so that when it looked at a development within a certain shire you asked people from that shire to have two representatives on the Development Consent Authority. You would bring in local decision-makers, whereas, presently, a delegate of the minister who represents the shire. That has been a flaw in the system which causes people to miss out, unless the minister asks for a public meeting, which is not a requirement. You are looking at ways of being more inclusive in the way the Northern Territory is being developed. You could also look at that issue.
Minister, you said in your election spiel that you were going to look at expressions of interest for the position of chair but you found a good person and said that good person would do. It would have been far better, especially as we are looking at an independent Planning Commission, to ask for expressions of interest and find out who is out there. You might have found a fully qualified planner to do the job.
Again, minister, it was promised before the election. You explained you have not gone down that path and you picked someone you believe can do the job. That is your decision, but I am looking at it as an outsider looking in. There was a promise there would expressions of interest. If three or four people had put their name forward for this role it could have been seen that the government was prepared to look at obtaining the best person. That is not saying the person you have chosen is not the best person, but it looks better if you had an opportunity to see what was out there in the mix.
I have some issues I might bring up in the committee stage. The shadow minister said he was moving into that area. In the second reading speech there is much talk about a comprehensive long-term plan for Darwin which picks up the Darwin regional land use structure plan. I hope, and hope the member for Goyder agrees, you will not ignore that. I say that with respect. There were 4000 signatures gained within a couple of weeks against the previous government’s view of how the rural area should be developed.
I am concerned about pressure from developers. Good planning requires that the dollar does not become the pusher. It requires what the community wants rather than what the developers want. Some of the community might want development, there is no doubt about that, but we can have a unique part of the world where people have options of lifestyle. We have urban, we can have high-rise, and we have rural.
There are many issues if the government goes down the path of wanting to develop the rural area into small blocks: sewerage, septic tanks, bores. Who pays for the infrastructure? There is a range of practical issues that are sometimes not explained to people.
Strategic planning should look at the rural area, but not from the point of view of how many more blocks we can fit in. It should be strategic planning for how we can retain the lifestyle, develop alternative areas like Weddell for smaller blocks, and make other room in Palmerston and Darwin for development, within reason.
I hope the Planning Commission does not come with a preconceived idea about the rural area being an opportune place for 2000 affordable blocks the government wants fairly quickly. Except for the member for Goyder who was operating as the local member, I have not heard and I am not sure what the concepts about rural development are with the present government. I will be keeping a close ear to the ground. If anyone says I do not agree with any development, I will say I supported the development at Coolalinga. Coolalinga is a district centre; it now has a residential area which is being developed.
I criticise the previous government for not even developing its own land. I put to the new government that if you are looking for land to develop look no further than Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo has a large parcel of residential land on which only one duplex has been built in the last 20 years. There is room for residential development in existing district centres and governments, for some reason, have shied away from doing it. Instead they start looking at private land when, if they want to deliver affordable housing, they can because they own land.
There is also the forestry land in the Howard Springs area. I am told there are some problems with septics in that area but I would be happy to take the Chief Minister on the road to the new prison and look at land which could give you at least 100 blocks immediately if you wish to develop it into 1 ha rural blocks. That would be a good start. It fits within the existing plans. I am not asking someone to change the whole concept out there, but it certainly fits within the existing plan.
The member for Drysdale mentioned the strategic plans. I do not know whether she has read the NT Planning Scheme. She commented about the role of the DCA. I think she was inferring that they did not have to take some of those strategic things into account, but they do. The DCA must take into account the bigger picture under the NT Planning Scheme.
I am not asking that we develop land outside what already exists. It may be that the Planning Commission will look at the land the government owns and use it as part of its mix to obtain blocks of land that will allow for affordable housing which, if you can pull it off, would be great because it has not been easy.
We have had native title in my area. We now have the department of Environment saying you cannot have septics there. It seems every time you turn a corner, there is a problem. If the present government can get around some of those issues, there is opportunity for the rural area to supply some of that land the Chief Minister is talking about to provide affordable housing, except it will be rural, which will allow rural young people who cannot presently afford land to acquire land.
Chief Minister, you will not agree with what I am saying in relation to the Planning Commission but I agree that it is good you have a body which will look at that strategic development of the Northern Territory specifically. I know it has other functions, but the idea of looking at these significant development applications will be important.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have other queries about certain aspects of the legislation and I would be happy to deal with those during the committee stage.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to a very important debate about the establishment of a vehicle which will transform the Northern Territory and establish a capacity for us to accommodate what will be enormous growth.
This started as the asking of very big questions and then considering how we answer those very big questions. A bold question which some people challenge us with: Where would one million people live? Immediately, some people balk and say we do not want one million people living here but that is not the question. If they were to arrive, where would they live? How would they be accommodated? How would they be able to move around? How would they get water? How could they interact with the environment in a sustainable way? These are the big questions we need the mechanisms to be able to answer as a community and as a government. That is why this Planning Commission has been established. Three members have made contributions, which I thank them for.
I start with my response to the member for Nelson. You, essentially, agree there is a need for strategic planning. I understand that from our conversations and from working in this Chamber for many years. But I find it difficult to understand exactly what position you hold with regard to your objections and the reasons for these objections. They were well outlined in terms of procedural issues - I have covered this off, I am exposed. I have made it plain that I did say this, but I made a decision and time will tell. Okay, I cop that criticism and will cop it again, but I am confident in the decision I made in identifying Gary Nairn as being available, eminently suitable and very well received. It is a decision that a leader has taken, in full view of the community and I am accountable for that.
I hear the criticism once again and issues around the specifics of the qualification. We will not proceed much further with that other than to say he is very well received and respected. I, and many in our community at all levels, whether they be in local government, developers, or people with environmental interests, respect the ability and capacity of a man who dearly loves the Territory, has extensive local experience as well as national experience, and is highly regarded in other jurisdictions. It was an opportunity too good to pass up and so that decision was taken. Criticism acknowledged, time will tell. He is the inaugural chair. This is the commencement of a process not the end of the process. This is the beginning of it, and we could not find anyone better suited to be the inaugural chair. I welcome the presence of Gary Nairn to this role. I believe he will serve the Territory well, with enthusiasm, and will deal respectfully, as he has in the past, and very professionally.
The arguments appear to be, member for Nelson, that you value strategic planning but you would prefer it to be as it was in times past, which is justification for an argument that we do not need a Planning Commission. Things have moved on in planning and what is demonstrated in this is a formal specific focus for a specific purpose on strategic planning. It has a more prominent position and is a stronger investment in long-term strategic planning. Looking around and recognising what is happening in our immediate region, we have to be prepared for what is to come and we are making an additional investment in strategic planning so we as a community are better prepared.
There is this recurring theme from the member for Nelson, this fear of developers; it keeps popping up. This is the very reason why there is a stronger and more specific focus on strategic planning; so it becomes clear and known, and the community is engaged and understands where we are going. The bigger questions can be processed at a higher level than they have in the past. In the words of the member for Drysdale, we become proactive and have greater control over our destiny than being reactive and short term, and that is demonstrated by the stronger focus on strategic planning.
The planners who were in the department are still there and they service this process as well. It is not that they disappear; they are there. However, we now have an engine that can drive that capacity in a specific direction with proper community engagement and the consideration of strategic issues at a much higher level than they have before. We need it. We do not need the misunderstanding that because we had it in the past we should go backward in order to go forward. We acknowledge that there was strategic planning capacity before, but we need to ramp that up and strengthen it and that is what we are doing, so, in fact, we are moving forward.
You reiterated your concerns yesterday about the NT EPA and the NT Planning Commission having chairs that swap one with the other. We went through that argument yesterday. You have a view. The purpose here is to make sure that one process is informed by the other process. Once again, the reference to the legal matter which was in yesterday’s debate was to allow it to operate to prevent the legal capacity for someone with a mischievous intent to block the whole process. It was simply that. It is not a reinforcement of that which you claim is a demonstration of there being a conflict of interest. There are sufficient safeguards in both to prevent a conflict of real interest, but it is for integration and for one process to be informing the other; to have environment considered as part of the planning process and for a part of the planning process and deliberations for the environment to be considered, and both as independent entities. That is the intent of government stated again and again.
Yes, it would be nice if the person in charge was a qualified town planner. He has adequate qualifications to be the chair and has planning experience, but I take the point and make the further point that this is not just about town planning, this is about the whole Territory. This includes a commitment to have town plans established for places like Borroloola and to provide a mechanism whereby the community at Borroloola can be actively engaged in the development of a plan for their community.
In the case you have raised, that it would be nice to have a Development Consent Authority, in some ways this satisfies that requirement because the need to engage a community to be able to develop a strategic plan which, in this case, would then be presented for view and then presented to the consent authority, being the minister in this case, is here. We now make sure the community is actively involved. That commitment is made to that community as a case in point, and not only to that one but to others. It provides that capacity, which is a concern you have raised, where the community is then engaged in matters of concern to them. There is now capacity for those high-level strategic issues to be considered in a community with adequate resourcing from government to help develop long-term plans for communities such as Borroloola.
You make a good point and I concede there should have been specific reference to a government architect or a person of specific qualifications. I am looking for a person who would be operating in the role of the government architect or someone at that level that should be included. The expressions of interests are out for that. It is a Planning Commission so we need those planning qualifications and experience at that level, and there is consideration for the government architect to be able to carry those themes and planning ideas all the way through. Regarding those five positions, wait and see! We are looking for it to be populated with people with the appropriate skills to be able to serve the Territory well through that Planning Commission.
You have mentioned Weddell as a place we could develop and that could be a model. It could be and will be, potentially. That is a fine discussion to have but we are dealing with something right here and now. It is not to say yes or no to Weddell. The issue is right under our nose. You have identified there is plenty of land and better decisions could be made concerning the use of that land right here, right now. There are some challenging issues and the former minister acknowledged those as well. We had the vehicle conducting community consultation at the earliest stage of strategic use of key land to satisfy community requirements and have all concerns of community balanced in that consideration.
The more important things are the issues right here and right now: challenging issues of where will we create that space in a sustainable way for balanced urban renewal. How do we make better use of our existing land right here, right now? How do we make a coherent decision which articulates with other considerations in a broader, more strategic context? That is what this is about.
You then argue, member for Nelson, that urban renewal causes you some concerns because that is code for smaller blocks. People on smaller blocks will be living closer to each other, they do not have a chance for natural ventilation, therefore they need air conditioners and fans and they will need to pay much more for electricity. I can understand the logic of the argument but the fundamental problem with the cost of living in the Northern Territory is not electricity tariffs, which we are only setting at a national average. In the case of electricity, it is just below the national average. The greatest contributors to the cost of living in the Northern Territory are rents and mortgages by a long shot, by a country mile. That issue has to be fundamentally dealt with by creating new supply at the appropriate place in the market and these are challenging planning issues. That is why formal investment in a Planning Commission is required.
Member for Drysdale, I thank you for your positive contributions. I appreciated your contribution regarding historical perspectives on the development of strategic plans over time. We have seen that change. Clearly in this bill we have, as government, an investment in bringing back that strategic approach so we can deal with the challenges ahead.
This is a proactive response to planning issues and issues that will be set in a long-term strategic perspective. I really appreciate those comments, particularly a line you used, ‘factual, objective and strategic’ so we can get it out in the open and, as a community, start to develop some confidence in the decisions made which will affect the long-term viability of the community.
Returning to the concern about developers, member for Nelson, the comments made by the member for Drysdale are effectively designed to deal with that for the whole community. All voices are legitimate; your voice is as legitimate as another voice. All voices will weigh into this. We talk about rural block development - all those people in that area may have a particular view, 4000 may have signed, but that community needs to be having that discussion in a broader context with members of the wider Northern Territory and not be threatened by a conversation or an alternate view. The mechanism to be able to deal with an alternate view in a broader context is what this is about so we can then make progress.
To the former minister, thank you for your contribution. Effectively, the advice was good. I made note of some points you made towards the end. I sensed it was supportive but I make a number of comments. First, it was not a party; it was a further level of consultation that occurred last night. Thank you for seeking views in the community and giving that feedback; it was quite useful. However, to carry with that any sense into this debate, and having on the record that there has been inadequate preparation or community consultation - I want to go through a list of the people who have been consulted specifically on the issue of the Planning Commission since October.
There is the Executive Director of the Master Builders Association, the President of the Master Builders Association, the CEO of UDIA, the Chairman of UDIA, the owners of Gimbells, President and Vice-president of the Property Council, the Northern Territory Executive Director of the Property Council, the Chair of the LDC, the Chief Executive of the Darwin City Council, as well as the Manager of Infrastructure Projects, the Mayor, the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, the Executive Director of Power and Water Corporation, NT Shelter, Margaret Clinch of Plan - the Planning Action Network - and the developer of the Hughes and Noonamah village proposals.
There was consultation in Alice Springs in November: the CE of the Alice Springs Town Council, UDIA again with Graeme Suckling and Kerry Osborne, the CE and the Director of the MacDonnell Shire, the members of the department of Planning, and the CE of the Department of Housing. The member for Nelson has been consulted and a couple of agencies I do not understand the acronym of - UNOMS - and a group of some five different planners. That was in the early part of November. Then, in the last little while, we have had the Mayor of Palmerston, a further number of developers, the Mayor of the Litchfield Council, the CEO of the Litchfield Council, Tony Tapsell from LGANT, the CEO of REINT, Steve Thorne of Design Urban, DAS planners, as well as a number of developers last night in a further reception to outline the operation of this important vehicle.
There has been extensive consultation since 1 October. Prior to that there were full addresses to a number of councils, as well as the Property Council, and presentations to large groups in a number of different forums. It has been a subject of many discussions in this Chamber. That is the very impressive outline of community consultation since 1 October. We are taking this very seriously.
Someone asked about the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. This is now a vehicle to assess these plans, engage the community and provide that recommendation so we can then move on and make decisions. What is the priority? It has to be affordable housing around urban renewal. That is the clearest challenge we have to face with the cost of living. The cost of living is the greatest driver which will be a high priority.
You raised the question about the pre-lodgment process – yes, a good scheme which continues. We want people to be as prepared as they can be before making lodgments. That facility still exists. It will make recommendations and provide reports one way or the other, whether it is a report on a specific proposal or something that has been requested.
We need to develop a plan about a specific area. I, as a minister, can request that. It becomes known and we can get this group to work, engage in the community, weigh the options and present a report for all to see.
You said you hope it will not be like the Western Australia model. It is a very different culture in Western Australia. I understand there is a land tax collection aspect to the operation of the commission there. Also, they have a different culture around planning in Western Australia that goes back many years. We are very aware of what has happened in Western Australia where it has become bogged down. That is something, as Territorians, we will learn from and ensure does not happen because we have a lot of work to do and want to move with our community to respond to the challenges in front of us.
I take the compliment that you are taking interest in the lives of the people in Woodroffe in my own electorate. You have given me a view of what they think, which is good. When you were a minister I had similar responses when I went to Tennant Creek and I have been into the Barkly. When you are busy, when you are making decisions as a minister, yes, of course, there is a lack of time to engage. There are similar messages I could report to you, if you would like, of my community consultation in Tennant Creek and areas of the Barkly.
That aside, David Ritchie has graciously served, and served very well. I commend him and support you in that.
You asked for the definition of a ‘significant development’. That is defined, but defined broadly to provide the greatest capacity for our ability to respond to something. That is not tied down too tight at the moment because it would be quite plain when something is identified as significant. There is a capacity, as time goes on, to enable more specific regulations to be developed that would include the specific circumstances applicable. At this stage, we have kept it broad but it should not be too hard to identify something we would class, and agree as a community, to be significant.
I thank honourable members for their feedback. I thank you for the feedback you provided, shadow minister, as well as the community engagement and the questions presented through that process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the next phase we go through will be useful in answering further questions and getting greater clarity on what will be an exciting new chapter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Planning Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 6). Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, thank you for your comments. We have some very good developers in the rural area, but I know the history of where I used to live and some of the poor developments that have occurred there so I want to make sure there is a balance. I am hoping with the Planning Commission there will be a balance. Sometimes there has been a push for the worse, but we do have some good developers – I will not name them here. There have been issues in the rural area which are the government’s problem because planning has been poor.
I want to make sure the balance is there because there are good planning principles we need to adhere to.
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned the DCA and Borroloola. The Planning Commission and the DCA are not the same thing.
Mr MILLS: I know.
Mr WOOD: The Planning Commission will look at the overall strategic plan for Borroloola. The DCA will then do the more nuts-and-bolts work for development of Borroloola as it needs to occur. What you are saying is right. I thought you were saying the Planning Commission would perform the role of the DCA, but the DCA comes in later after the strategic plan has been finished.
Again, my concern about better use of existing land - whilst I referred to electricity and I do not retract that, I was referring not only to the problems with the cost of living in a house that has to rely on air conditioning, but there are social problems with people living on blocks of land. If you are going to have affordable housing, one way is to have small blocks because that, obviously, will be cheaper and you can have many so they are cheaper to service. But then you run into issues about where kids play, where is the room to blow your nose and shout at the dog without the neighbours complaining. I had a go about the electricity, but my argument is broader than that. I thought I would put that into perspective.
I was going through this bill slowly as I did some of the EPA bill the other day. You mentioned that this might be a difficult bill at times but I had some problems with clause 50C, ‘When significant development reports maybe requested’. I got down to 50C(4) which is to do with how a significant development report is dealt with. When you get to (5) it says:
- If the minister considers that the proposed development is a significant development proposal, the minister may:
(a) direct the Development Consent Authority under section 85(3) that the minister is the consent authority in relation to the development application; or
(b) request the commission to give the minister a significant development report relating to the significant development proposal.
The bill enables you, as the minister, to tell the Development Consent Authority that you want to be the Development Consent Authority for various applications. I hope that would not be used very often because the Development Consent Authority has public input. I hope that would be something you would not do very often but would allow the Development Consent Authority to look at some of those significant development proposals. I was trying to get an explanation of subclauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 in a nutshell, if that is possible. I tried to work through it the other night and I got confused, to put it bluntly.
Mr MILLS: It is like mental gymnastics to go through this. The best way to consider this is, in (5)(a), the (a) is the existing powers and (b) is the inclusion of the option now we have the Planning Commission, and the same at (7). However, in (5), if the minister considers that the proposed development is a significant development proposal, as in the existing act, I may do this - direct the Development Consent Authority etcetera - or I now have the option to request that the commission give the minister a significant development report. I have now been provided with the option because there is another course open. Similarly in (7), after considering the development report I can direct the Development Consent Authority or I can give the report to the Development Consent Authority together with the development application, and direct the authority to determine the application.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister, that is clearer. Perhaps dot points would help with that portion of the act.
Clause 81D:
- The commission must perform its functions and exercise its powers independently, impartially and in the public interest, taking into account the objects of this act.
I was wondering why that was different to the qualifying clause 9 of the EPA bill:
- (1) The NT EPA is not subject to the direction or control of the minister in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions.
Mr MILLS: The NT EPA has a decision-making power which is different than the Planning Commission. It makes recommendations and reports. It does not have the decision-making power.
Mr WOOD: Regarding clause 81K, I asked in the briefing whether there should have been a definition of what an integrated strategic plan meant. I do not know if there was an answer to that. I know you have definitions.
Mr MILLS: The points (a), (b) and (c) effectively give you very strong clues as to what an integrated strategic plan is - transport corridors, present and future. Are you looking for a stand-alone definition?
Mr WOOD: Minister, sometimes what you get in the list of definitions is a referral to the section, in this case, ‘integrated strategic plan’ would refer you to 81K. However, because it is such an important part of what is about to happen, there might have been some special reference made to it in the definitions.
Mr MILLS: We could provide a definition, but it would have to be very broad because an integrated strategic plan for a port, or for Borroloola or Elliott, will all be different. They would have to consider different aspects. That is why underneath there you have (a), (b) and (c), and the subsections continue on to give the parameters around the consideration of an integrated strategic plan. Otherwise, it would be fairly broad and that is quite self explanatory.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. In some cases you will see ‘commission’ means the Planning Commission established by section 81A. This one might have ‘integrated strategic plan’ as referred to in 81K.
In 81K(1)(c), I wonder why that word ‘support’ is there? It says:
(1) In preparing an integrated strategic plan mentioned in section 81B(b), the Commission may do any of the following:
- (a) identify future transport corridors, utility corridors, and sites for essential facilities;
- (b) provide guidance through master plans on where and how communities of urban areas should grow.
Why does it not say ‘investigate’ or ‘identify’? This one is telling the commission – the way it reads is that they have to support urban renewal.
Mr MILLS: The synonym for support in your argument would be to promote urban renewal. The theme running through that section is more like facilitate. To take your earlier point, small blocks and the challenges there require a greater level of integration and, in fact, have a greater demand for a higher level of very good planning. It is quite obvious that urban renewal will require a high level of integration and consideration of strategic issues such as those you have already outlined, including the social issues as well. They become very important matters when you are considering urban renewal. It is the facilitation of those processes that would lead to good design around urban renewal.
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying. I am checking the explanatory note to see whether it said that as well. At first reading it sounds like you are telling them they must support urban renewal. It was just the way it was written. My last question is a little bit of a dig. Clause 81X is about committees. I remember asking the minister for Tourism in his bill if there is a clause for committees. He said we do not need committees because, under the act, the commission can do whatever it wants. Under 81C it says:
- (1) The commission has the powers necessary to perform its functions,
That was his argument against committees. Now here is an act which has the same clauses as the Tourist Commission, which actually sets out the roles of committees. It is funny that I argued the case for committees in previous legislation and I was told there is enough power under, in this case, clause 81C. This act comes along with the same clause and it has a section on committees. Is there not sufficient power within clause 81C(1) to set up committees the way the commission wants?
Mr MILLS: No, this is recognition of the size and complexity of the task, and the greater reach required to cover a lot of ground. I have mentioned topics from Borroloola to ports, remote communities, urban renewal, Weddell, bridges and roads. You need a lot of work being done on a number of fronts, so we want to ensure we have the capacity to get the job done.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. To sum up, you said you might not be exactly clear why I did not support the Planning Commission. I do not have a problem per se with the Planning Commission existing, I had another opinion on the way it could be handled. I understand you are saying we have moved on, but one of my fundamental objections was that it is not independent because of the swap between chairs. It is the same as I have argued with the NT EPA.
You mentioned having an architect. There should be a direct line here saying one of these members must be a qualified planner, not an architect. They build lovely buildings and can do wonderful jobs. Burley Griffin, I gather, was the architect, and his wife was the planner when they designed Canberra. It is good to have both of them. I would not be against having an architect and a planner specified as part of the commission.
It is not the reason I am knocking it on the head, but it is one of the issues I have concerns about. The main reason is that the crossover between the EPA and the Planning Commissioner is unwise. Even though I know you are talking about integration, once you have integration you lose independence. I do not mind them getting advice from one another, but they should not be on there as voting members of those two groups. We will not ever agree on that, but I have to have an opinion otherwise I will not be Independent.
Mr MILLS: In closing, my comments about being unclear as to why you oppose the Planning Commision - you have already advised me of your concern about the interchanging or crossover of chairs - one chair on one, and one chair on the other - as being the principal objection. The argument was very clear yesterday.
What is not clear are the objections you have around planning. There seems to be a variety of different points of contest, whether it be bigger blocks, smaller blocks, go back to the past, go forward, we need strategic planning. There seemed to be a range of different views I could not quite bring together in one place. It is the coherence of the objection. I understand that specific one very clearly, but when I mapped it out I could not quite read where the other objections were coming from. Maybe it has just been ‘agin the gub’. That is all right.
Mr WOOD: I threw some of those things in, not as red herrings, but because it gave me the opportunity to tell you about those plans. The shadow minister also mentioned other things. if you want to put it in a nutshell, I am not against strategic planning, I just threw in some issues. I support rural and urban development. I am happy with the path the government is taking. I have some concerns about the methodology getting there, that is all.
Mr MILLS: That is fine, I understand.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have some questions about membership. Clause 4, amending section 3, the definition of member, omitting ‘member’ and inserting ‘appointed member’ - in relation to the Development Consent Authority, does it change the nature of where the chair is the member? It says:
- in relation to the Development Consent Authority – any of the following:
- (i) the Chairman;
(ii) a person appointed under section 89 or 90 as a member;
(iii) an alternate member appointed under section 91 while acting as a member;
(iv) a temporary member appointed under section 93 or 94 while acting as a member.
Are they all eligible to sit on the Planning Commission, minister?
Mr MILLS: Shadow minister, could you repeat the question. I was with you up until about ...
Mr McCARTHY: I am reading from the bill where it says, ‘In terms of member …’
Mr MILLS: Where are you reading from?
Mr McCARTHY: This is clause 4 amending section 3 right at the start, minister. It refers to omitting the definition ‘member’ to insert ‘appointed member’.
- Member means:
in relation to the Commission - a member mentioned in section 81F(1) ...
Okay.
- In relation to the Development Consent Authority - any of the following: ...
Then it gives that list of definitions. Does that mean any of those following can represent the Development Consent Authority on the Planning Commission?
Mr MILLS: I would not think so, no. The answer is no, but you may need more convincing.
Mr McCARTHY: I am wondering, minister, it is written here and …
Mr MILLS: I am still having difficulty finding the part you are reading from.
Mr McCARTHY: In the bill, minister, page 1 and then if you go to page 2, it defines:
- Member means:
in relation to the Commission - a member mentioned in section 81F(1) ...
- In relation to the Development Consent Authority - any of the following: ...
I took it to mean from all the material you supplied that the chair of the Development Consent Authority would be the member of the Planning Commission.
Mr MILLS: It has to be the chair.
Mr McCARTHY: Then how does this read in terms of ‘any of the following ...’?
Mr MILLS: Where are you now?
Mr McCARTHY: Same space. Why would that be in that document if it is only the chair of the Development Consent Authority?
Mr MILLS: That is referring to the Development Consent Authority and the commission. That definition is referring to the two bodies.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, that is right, minister. The first one states:
- in relation to the Commission - a member mentioned in section 81F(1) ...
In relation to the Development Consent Authority - any of the following:
I was concerned that if the chair of the Development Consent Authority was not available to sit on the Planning Commission to make determinations, could ‘any of the following’ listed in this bill be appointed and, if so, who would appoint those members?
Mr MILLS: The answer is still no. This is an existing section in the existing act. It is describing the membership of the Development Consent Authority and the amendment describes that the chair of the Development Consent Authority has a role on the Planning Commission. That clause is specifically referring to the Development Consent Authority; it is the existing section.
Mr McCARTHY: So, minister, the only person who will be sitting on the Planning Commission in terms of the DCA will be the chair?
Mr MILLS: That is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: Does the role of the Development Consent Authority remain unchanged?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good, that is explained. If we go to the next part, which is clause 5 Part 2, Division 2A inserted.
Part 2 of the Planning Act deals with planning schemes, Division 2 in Part 2 deals with amendments and requests for amendments of a planning scheme.
Clause 5 Division 2A deals with integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria by the commission for inclusion in the NT Planning Scheme. The explanatory statement says this should be read in conjunction with clause 81B(b) which outlines the commission’s functions, including the preparation of integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria for inclusion in the NT Planning Scheme.
Clause 81B(d) states that the commission will undertake community consultation before preparing these plans
Clause 13B states that once the commission has developed integrated strategic plans, guidelines or assessment criteria, the minister must follow the standard procedures for dealing with a proposed planning scheme amendment, i.e., public exhibition with notices in the newspaper, a sign on the site and a reporting body hearing.
Minister, the bill to amend the Planning Act has been communicated to establish an independent Planning Commission. With the objectives of cutting red tape and reducing barriers to land supply and creating affordable housing, how will the process be any different from the existing process?
Mr MILLS: It is different because the higher level strategic considerations are dealt with at the earlier part of the process rather than at the latter. I assume, once that has occurred and the report or recommendation has been made and we go through the process of formally lodging that, it would move fairly swiftly. It establishes a higher-level scheme involving broader community consultation at the earlier stage. It is necessary that once the recommendation or report has been received and will be acted on, that it is flagged with formal recognition that the process is drawing to a close.
I am assuming that, because the process starts at a different point in dealing with the strategic issues, it would bring us more efficiently to the point of decision-making.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister. We have had a lot of discussion about that strategic level, but my reading of the amendment says that even those strategic decisions which you say could be processed swiftly will still go through the normal process and this is giving me confidence. It will go through what is described in the bill as public exhibition, notices in newspapers, signs on sites and reporting-body hearings, yes?
Mr MILLS: That is correct. It is very important and one of the objectives is to build confidence in the community that we do have a process that is working in their interests. We would prefer to make that known to people rather than have any sense it has been concealed from view. Once the community process has occurred, and the recommendations have been considered and passed to the minister, they are made known to the community so we all know. There is a sense of closure, I guess, so the community understands the decisions they have been involved in advising and that we are moving to the final stage.
Mr McCARTHY: We have two processes there, a strategic level that will be thoroughly communicated through the community and existing processes and then it will be cut down into more like a development application which will go through the same processes.
Mr MILLS: This will be for a project of significance or a consideration that does not fit into the normal scheme. It may be a special development or a special consideration so, as part of a process that does not fit into a normal scheme, it must go through the complete process before the final decision is made. The community has to be involved in the consideration of it, the recommendation is then provided to the minister, and the decision is then made. The community is fully advised of the position taken by the minister. It is in full view of the community; it a decision they have been involved in, nothing is hidden.
Mr McCARTHY: That is good minister. What is challenging for me is that in parliament there has been rhetoric about cutting red tape and speeding up processes and this reassures me of two things. First, it will be fully community consultative which is the grassroots basis of good planning outcomes, and second, it will be considered in normal time frames and be very similar, if not identical, to what we have now.
Mr MILLS: No, I think you have missed that there are projects which need to be considered that do not fit in with the existing scheme. It might be a unique development or proposal or consideration that does not fit in with an existing scheme and we need to apply a different level of strategic consideration, community engagement, to move through that. We now have that capacity, with the Planning Commission, to deal with more complex matters that do not fit neatly within existing schemes. It gives us the creativity and flexibility to consider issues from a number of different perspectives, and that is basically it.
You may be thinking, ‘Here we go; it is just further red tape’. It is not. It is providing the flexibility and capacity for a creative solution to a complex problem which may have a number of elements.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, with respect, I was challenging the rhetoric of the language used in parliament and the community about cutting red tape and the negative connotations it had to existing planning processes. There is really not much changing. We will get to the significant development or the special project a little further down the line; however, in relation to the rhetoric put out there, I cannot see where that objective will be achieved. I am not interested in speeding up or ducking around corners or any of those issues you call hiding, absolutely not.
I am challenging what I have heard, what I know, and see it is not going to change significantly, if not remain identical.
Mr MILLS: You are still missing the point. If we want to have a different approach with urban renewal in a specific area, say around public housing, and a consideration that will apply in a number of areas you do not do it with a piecemeal approach. It could be a broader community consideration, say in Palmerston or in the northern suburbs, of what you are going to do with certain sites, then we go through the process of community engagement, then a consideration, then a report is made.
It allows you the capacity to deal with issues which may arise that do not fit into the existing scheme. We have the flexibility and capacity to deal creatively with complex issues and not be constrained to dealing with things in a piecemeal approach. It gives us the capacity to move.
Mr McCARTHY: They are interesting comments, minister. For you, as a new minister, and your new Planning Commission the proof will be in the pudding.
Mr MILLS: That is right.
Mr McCARTHY: As you progress through this, keeping out of the piecemeal analogy, you will see this is a very complex process that will take time. Should there be any short cuts in our democratic society you will be answerable for that. I have put my point forward and you have addressed those concerns. Thank you for that.
Once again, like the argument with the Environment Protection Authority, are you concerned the new Planning Commission looks like a hand-picked delegation which will oversee the NT Planning Act and, consequently, the planning processes?
Mr MILLS: No.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have given the parliament the explanation that you made the decision and are accountable for the selection of the chair. Expressions of interest are in the newspaper and you will get many applicants, no doubt. How will those selection processes be governed and how will those determinations of members be decided?
Mr MILLS: I will seek advice and, ultimately, make a decision.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, who would you ask for advice?
Mr MILLS: A range of wise people. Did you seek advice on how this legislation works? Did you get a briefing?
Mr McCARTHY: No, minister, I have not had the opportunity to get a briefing. I live in the rural remote area and would have loved to have a briefing. I am not saying there is anything derogatory in that. I live in the bush and was not in town to get a briefing.
Mr MILLS: Whilst you were at Woodroffe you could have dropped in and we could have provided you with a briefing. That is not in Tennant Creek.
Mr McCARTHY: No, Woodroffe was last Sunday, minister, when I arrived in Darwin from the remote areas. I relish the opportunity for briefings as we go further. It will mean I will be able to make the time frames where your people are located in Darwin. Of course, should they ever want to visit Tennant Creek that would be a much more central location and I would very much welcome briefings conducted in Tennant Creek, minister.
Mr MILLS: Former minister, you will be involved in this. When I say integrated, I value the advice you provided and there is a briefing available for you at any stage. By the way, you made a comment earlier and the opportunity is here, Burley Griffin was a surveyor, so was Gary Nairn.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. The member for Nelson talked about Sir Walter Burley Griffin and his wife. I thank you for the opportunity for briefings and to be part of it. I hope in all my contributions to this debate in the House that what underlies my contributions is the pride I share, having worked with the Department of Lands and Planning and with the previous government in this area. It is something that has impacted in my life and will never leave me.
We move on to more questions, minister. I want to talk about the government’s strategic planners because you outlined briefly in your reply that things will not change. I see there are possible changes. Will the Planning Commission effectively change the role of the government strategic planners?
Mr MILLS: No. I touched on that before. They will be better served and resourced by having this investment at a higher level in strategic planning through the commission. It gives them direction. They provide a very important resource to service the future planning needs of the Northern Territory. It is complementing and augmenting what we have within the department.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. Will complementing and augmenting require a restructure of the department?
Mr MILLS: No, that has already occurred.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it true the Territory Growth Unit within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment has been scrapped?
Mr MILLS: It was brought into Planning. We have all the planning in one space.
Mr McCARTHY: So, that is the restructure you talk about, minister?
Mr MILLS: Our focus is on planning and we have the capacity to deal with strategic planning.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you. You mentioned the restructure has already taken place so I assume that was the restructure. How many staff from that area have lost their jobs?
Mr MILLS: I will take that on notice. What area are you speaking of?
Mr McCARTHY: We are talking about growth planning, minister.
Mr MILLS: I will take that on notice.
Mr McCARTHY: Are there any interim measures in place for the Territory’s strategic planning during the passage of this bill and the setting up of the Planning Commission?
Mr MILLS: What do you mean by interim measures?
Mr McCARTHY: Who is in charge of strategic planning at the moment?
Mr MILLS: My CE, directly. The Planning Commissioner, if this is supported and passed through the House, will then formally step into that role. He has had a preliminary role.
Mr McCARTHY: What status has the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan received in the new government and the new approach? It represented the most recent and comprehensive community engagement exercise in strategic planning in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS: You can add the adjectives about the most comprehensive and extraordinary process known to the Territory to date, but it does not have a formal status. It is of value and will be considered in the deliberations we take in responding to future planning needs, just as the document which was provided by the Territory opposition was impressive and about which I could also add adjectives. That material is important and would be considered, and will be guiding the deliberations of the Planning Commissioner, which is the subject of your inquiry.
Mr McCARTHY: That gives me great assurance because, all adjectives aside, that is a very important piece of work. You have alluded to the fact the CLP land use plan which was re-born in 2011 as basic strategic land use principles will also be incorporated in the Planning Commission’s documents?
Mr MILLS: No, not incorporated. It was just a discussion paper. That discussion gave rise to the former government releasing something so that came from opposition. It is just a discussion paper; it always has been. It does not have a formal status at all.
Mr McCARTHY: Did that plan which was introduced into the House and the community go any further? Were there any community engagement processes with that discussion paper?
Mr MILLS: Of course there were.
Mr McCARTHY: Can you outline them for us, minister? I could tell you the story about the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, but I am interested to hear since they will probably both be resource documents for the Planning Commission.
Mr MILLS: There is a body of work out there. You want to know what the opposition did with a discussion document that we generated with the meagre resources of opposition and how we communicated that in opposition to stakeholder groups? It was extensive. I believe reports were made in the parliament.
Mr McCARTHY: There were opposing principles between the two. We could talk about water resources for the future cities of Darwin and Palmerston and damming of rivers. That is why I am interested in what level of community engagement and consultation it received.
Mr MILLS: I am happy to respond to that and say it had broad community consultation. It is important as a discussion document, but it has no formal status nor does the document that was generated by the former government. By the way, what aspect of the bill are we discussing in this third reading in the committee stage? How does this relate?
Mr McCARTHY: Strategic planning, minister. Going on, I am particularly interested in any community consultations or feedback from the rural area on that other plan, the CLP plan, when you were in opposition.
Mr MILLS: There was wide-ranging engagement with stakeholders. It was communicated; there was feedback, as you would expect. Why not just spit it out? Is there something you want to ask specifically? I cannot quite understand what you are driving at.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, settle in for the ride. I have done much research on this bill and have many questions to ask. I hope you will be civil enough to answer them. This is very important as I have discussed and I am very interested in your answers, minister. Will these land use plans override any existing area plans currently incorporated into the Northern Territory planning scheme?
Mr MILLS: What land use plans overriding other schemes? What are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: You have at your fingertips the Greater Darwin plan and the 20-year-old Country Liberal Party discussion paper. Will they override any existing area plans developed by the previous government?
Mr MILLS: No, of course not. As has already been stated a number of times, they do not have a formal status so how could they, unless they go through the process which has been outlined and debated here.
Mr McCARTHY: I was involved in the development of area plans. There has been much work done in Borroloola and those growth towns. I would hope that was valued and the lessons learnt in that work would continue to support the new Planning Commission and the minister in the decision-making processes. Consequently, my questions have been to tease out that they are still of value, useful, and you will not be throwing out everything completely in a full-blown attempt to rid the new world of any evidence of the previous government. We will move on, minister.
Mr MILLS: May I respond?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly.
Mr MILLS: You have not heard the language coming from me that there is a whole new era and all that was behind us was devastation. We have something that was held up over there by the member for Nelson that has value and would be considered. These are all valid voices in this discussion. If you are going to allude to the ideas of the past, it was not a 20-year-old document; it was produced by opposition two years ago. Yes, all ideas are valid and will be considered. They do not have a formal status, but we will have a genuine process which the community will be involved in. It is about them. It is not about proprietorship over ideas, one or the other.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. I thank you for the passion you put into that response. As a minister, how do you value the Enquiry by Design process?
Mr MILLS: How does this relate to the committee stage? What particular aspect? It is under the broad heading of what?
Mr McCARTHY: Strategic planning, minister. If you want to look at what has happened in the past the Enquiry by Design process that designed Weddell and Kilgariff, two opposite ends of the Territory, was very successful. I wanted to hear your thoughts about that and then I will ask you what the Planning Commission could do to incorporate that process, because if you ask Territorians, that was probably one of the most comprehensive community consultative processes ever engaged in by the Territory around strategic planning.
Mr MILLS: I will say it again: this is not about proprietorship of ideas; this is about the quality of ideas and the capacity to assess ideas here and now for the future. I acknowledge the processes that have gone on in the past, whether they be the Country Liberals’ or the former Labor government’s; there is a lot of good work there. The issue is the quality of the idea, not who owns the idea or who had authorship of it. There is nothing new under the sun.
We have quality ideas and we are discussing a vehicle whereby the community can be involved in the decision-making that affects them. Do not worry. Good stuff has been done. We are not like that last government. Remember that the last government reckoned everything that happened before was terrible - brand new era. We are not like that. Good stuff happened even under the last government.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister for that confidence building. As I have often said, I like learning from people, and I learn lots in this place. I have learnt from you the difference between policy and politics. My questioning is around good policy, and good policy should be valued. You are giving me confidence there minister, thank you for that.
I had a few more questions about Enquiry by Design, but let us move on to the reporting body hearing in terms of the explanatory statement.
Clause 13B says once the commission has developed integrated strategic plans, guidelines or assessment criteria, the minister must follow the standard procedures for dealing with the proposed planning scheme amendment, that is, public exhibition, notice in newspaper, sign on a site, and a reporting body hearing.
Minister, does this amendment suggest that the Planning Commission will be processing their new plans, guidelines and assessment criteria through the DCA reporting body?
Mr MILLS: There is no change. That is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: That is correct. So I could assume that with a lot of the new thinking and new ideas coming out of the Planning Commission, the DCA will have an increased workload.
Mr MILLS: Possibly. For the processing of some of the more complex and challenging issues there are additional resources to help provide, let us say, some of the higher order consideration of planning before it comes to the point of consent. The DCA is a decision-making body that has often been forced into a dual role of considering planning matters at the point of making a decision. Many of the planning considerations will be handled by the Planning Commission. We get more to the point of the decision through the consent authority.
By definition, you can see that there is a difference. In some ways their workload is eased because they are focusing on the point of decision-making; does this comply; yea or nay? Many of the planning considerations are then carried on by a dedicated and independent body called the Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. You are right. There will be an increase in workload because there will be a whole lot of new territory to explore. The Planning Commission has an enviable and exciting task because they will be looking at that higher-level strategic land use objective. That will filter down into a lot more work in that consent authority process. I am glad you mentioned extra resources because you will find that considerable extra resources will be needed when you start to generate this new thinking in the Territory and process that into outcomes.
There has been some talk about conflict of interest and you have tried to address that in your responses. Regarding the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority, you have established for me, thank you, that there will not be any of the following problems - they relate to the chair as a member of the Planning Commission. In this situation, the Chairman of the DCA is party to deliberations and part of the report by the Planning Commission on a significant development. The chairman then sits on the Planning Commission where the report is used.
How will you ensure that crossover does not create problems for the system and break down?
Mr MILLS: There is an act which needs to be complied with.
Mr McCARTHY: Will that mean the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority might have to remove themself in the case he or she were involved in a deliberation and a reporting process and then the Planning Commission is investigating that report?
Mr MILLS: Yes. As you would have seen in your reading, there is occasion where that may be required.
Mr McCARTHY: How would you handle that, minister?
Mr MILLS: As the need arises if there is a clear conflict. It is described in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. I will talk about the significant development proposals. This is new and you said in your response it will be a moving feast.
Mr MILLS: I did not use those words.
Mr McCARTHY: No, they are my words. In reading the amendments, I made the assumption that significant development proposals will be on the largest scale or the more strategic level of what is defined in the bill as a significant development. From the explanatory notes, a significant development proposal is described in proposed section 50A as requiring a development permit and having a significant impact on the strategic planning of the Territory or on the natural environment or existing amenity.
In your words as the new Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, could you give me an example of a significant development proposal that could come your way?
Mr MILLS: One that springs to mind and one I am particularly passionate about is high-density public housing. This would need high-level consideration and would be a significant development. It has planning issues on all levels: environmental, social, transport That is one I would pick straight up - the reform or reshaping of some of our high-density public housing space where the broader community can be engaged in that discussion.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. That was one on my list that the previous government had been working on. Can you describe a significant development that impacts on strategic planning?
Mr MILLS: If you were going to change the scheme that would then permit development which results in many more people living in an area, that will require consideration of transport infrastructure.
Mr McCARTHY: One more, minister - a significant impact on the natural environment?
Mr MILLS: If there is a proposal to develop an area in the rural area that will have a different use than was part of the scheme that may result in some changes to natural vegetation, for example, a forest, the impact on the natural environment would have to be considered.
Mr McCARTHY: Those questions were designed to share with you my experience of the challenges you will go through. Once again, I keep going back to this cutting of red tape and speeding up the process. There is no such thing. I can remember the department saying to me once, when the myriad of green ministerial folders which pile up for decision-making were in record numbers in that department - very important work. You will be challenged by those considerations and will pore over them in a timeless sense. Good luck to you, minister, because it is really exciting work.
Do you consider the Harbour View Plaza building on McMinn Street a significant development?
Mr MILLS: An existing building as a significant development?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister. You are familiar with the Harbour View Plaza building?
Mr MILLS: Yes. Do I consider it a significant development? It is already developed.
Mr McCARTHY: Let us turn the clock back and say it came to you as a proposal. Do you see that as a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: I believe that was built in the late 1980s. Perhaps then it was very significant.
Mr McCARTHY: It is a significant development proposal. Minister, from my learning - and this is my opinion - that has produced a very bad planning outcome in strategic planning for the Darwin CBD. What do you think of that comment?
Mr MILLS: We need a Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Very good, minister. You may want to delve into that example because it was a good one for me to deconstruct, with experts in strategic planning, as to why that is not a good example of a significant development project and the impact it has had on existing amenity, infrastructure, and environment. That is a case study I share with you. I do not know if you want to respond to that, minister.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I do. The powers of the Planning Commission do not go as far as unscrambling eggs. However, there may well be identified planning challenges such as street flows in Palmerston, for example, which may need a fresh approach and to which there may be creative solutions. Yes, there are bad decisions which have been made, and that is why we need a better approach.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In a significant development proposal, do you see maximum building heights forming part of that criteria?
Mr MILLS: There are natural limitations anyway, because of the RAAF.
Mr McCARTHY: You are correct, minister; that is one of the constraints. However, there is probably some room to move there. In a significant development proposal, do you see that as an area the Planning Commission would be interested in taking on?
Mr MILLS: Where we will go now with what you are touching on is the need for the community to be confident to weigh ideas and not to be like the former government, which weighed an idea in a political context to knock it out of play so it could not be considered. All ideas should be able to be considered.
Mr McCARTHY: Ah, minister, your assumptions! I do not know whether you want to put too much energy into your assumptions of where I am going. I am sharing with you learning, and I am very interested in how this amendment will do it better and make these improvements to address your objectives. There is another area I would like to talk about: volumetric controls on buildings in the CBD. Do you see that as a significant development project?
Mr MILLS: We are now wandering into the area of policy consideration and commentary. I draw your attention to your General Business Day coming up. I am largely in your hands and the hands of the parliament, but I believe you have enjoyed the wanders through this. There is a sense of nostalgia transmitting from your side, but we are in the committee stage. I am very aware that your General Business Day is bearing down on us in a couple of minutes, so is it your intention to continue on or are you satisfied?
The point you have just asked me to respond to is a policy discussion; it is not to do with the committee stage of this debate.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, and that is your response to the question. I consider my position here as being a responsible member of a Territory opposition in a democracy that is making comment and having a discourse on what is a major reform for the Northern Territory. If you want to watch a clock or assume I am making mischief, or if you want to cast your assumptions of where I am going then that is an energy waster. I was hoping we were having a legitimate intellectual discourse on something I have learnt much about and am very passionate about. You have lost the value here. Maybe you need a Mars Bar or a drink of water.
Let us continue because I have a few more questions. In terms of policy, I want to discuss dual occupancy as a strategic planning initiative. But if you want to go straight to strategic planning then what about the Arafura Harbor development, minister? Do you see that as a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: If it were to be brought forward as a proposal then absolutely. But we are talking about the vehicle whereby matters can be considered in full view of the community, recommendations and reports made, and the community involved in decisions that affect them - nothing hidden, out in the open. We are talking about the operation of a Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: I would like your thoughts on a subject in which a Planning Commission could make a big difference. Let us go back to the construction of the East Arm Wharf under the administration of the Country Liberal Party government, which built that wharf where storm water ran straight into the harbour. I was fortunate enough to be the minister for Construction and started the process of addressing that. In relation to the Planning Commission, you can see the real benefits when a Planning Commission would be able to look strategically at a major infrastructure icon like the East Arm Wharf and address that problem before it was able to create decades of concern and serious economic challenges for the Northern Territory. Would you like to comment on that, minister?
Mr MILLS: Are you having a lend of us? This is the committee stage. What are you discussing that is relevant in the committee stage?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, the next example of a strategic level of planning I would like your thoughts on is the rezoning of private land in the greater Darwin rural area. Does that constitute a significant development proposal?
Mr MILLS: You are asking me to comment on policy. We are talking about a legislative means to be able to deal with strategic issues. I draw you back to the discussion that we are supposed to be having, former minister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Chairman! I note that the time is now 5.30pm. I am aware it is a Wednesday so the General Business Day should be brought on, unless the opposition wants to take another tangent.
Mr CHAIR: Being 5.30pm, it is now time for General Business. Therefore, I will report progress and seek leave for the committee to sit again.
Mr MILLS: Is that your intention? It would have been nice, if you really wanted to have an intellectual exchange and a sharing of ideas, if at least you had gone to get a briefing.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, thank you for the offer of a briefing. I did outline for the House that I live in Tennant Creek. I spend a lot of time in the bush. I no longer have the luxury of unlimited travel within a ministerial budget to conduct the important work that ministers do. I will accept your invitation. I spent hours preparing what I thought would be a good discourse. I look forward to continuing.
Mr MILLS: I will have to complete my remarks at a later stage. I understand you have taken a fair bit of time and have ...
Mr CHAIR: Can we call an end to that at the moment please?
Mr MILLS: All right, we will leave it be.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Madam Speaker, I report that the committee has only partially considered the bill. Accordingly, I move that the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again after general business.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
MOTION
Power and Water Price Increases
Power and Water Price Increases
No matter where you live in the Territory you are deeply affected by this matter. We have seen the shifting sands of the government trying to explain away something that has a significant impact on Territorians, regardless of where they live. We know that before the election the member for Blain’s first and main commitment to Territorians was that he would cut the cost of living. Yet straight after the election he decides to put up power and water bills by $2000 per family.
Prior to the election his commitment was to cut the cost of doing business in the Territory and, after the election, he is slugging small businesses an average of $7800 per year in hikes to their power and water bills. We have heard from some businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, that it is much steeper than that. That is the point I make, that is an average. We have had debates in this Chamber and we have heard very loudly and clearly from people right across the community sectors that families will face a double whammy. Prices will go up everywhere: in the childcare centres, at the grocery stores. Rates will go up as councils have announced - in Darwin by 3%, Palmerston 6% - and as rates go up, everyone knows the landlords put their rents up.
Here we have far-reaching, damaging consequences to Territorians and Territorians have said this is the last straw. This is breaking their back. This government is not listening to the very reasonable calls from people who are saying that if you are hell-bent on hiking up power and water prices then at least do so incrementally over a period of years.
One person in a letter to the editor or text to the editor said that you do not try to pay your house mortgage off in two years, why are you doing this in one fell swoop?
We know why they are doing it in one fell swoop. On Channel 9 news, the presenter asked the Treasurer if she hopes people forget about this in four years. In a candid admission she said, ‘Oh no, we hope they forget about it in two years’.
Mrs Lambley: We do.
Ms LAWRIE: So that is at the basis; that is at the core. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Araluen, ‘we do’, a confirmation again. This is petty politics.
This is the CLP slugging Territorians because they want to get the dividends rolling in from the Power and Water Corporation - the dividend payments that have been on a dividend holiday for many years, not as constructed in the fantasies of the current Treasurer. The Power and Water Corporation has had dividend holidays for many years. The government wants to rake in the money from Power and Water, making the citizens fill up the revenue coffers for Power and Water; rake in the dividends to pay for their unfunded election commitments in the bush.
I place on the record that without the government ruling out privatisation, which to this day they have failed to do - the Treasurer said to the media, ‘Never say never’. This is the pathway well trodden by Liberal governments around our states, the pathway of privatisation, flogging off the utility for a quick cash injection into the coffers, into the general revenue. What happens after privatisation? Massive hikes in power and water charges to the consumer. In all this we are forgetting - all this outside the realm of knowledge or acceptance - that power and water are essential services. They are as essential as going to the hospital for healthcare services. They are fundamental to people’s ability to live in our community and do business in our community.
We heard the member for Fannie Bay yesterday talk about his grandfather finding that all-important water strike in Tennant Creek and how that enabled Tennant Creek to become a township.
I have heard residents in the rural area talk about how much this will cripple them because they rely on power to run their bores to get water. That is not a luxury. They cannot turn the power off to reduce the electricity bill. They have to run it to get water out of the bores. These are rural residents who are making their living out of the land and agriculture.
We have a government which says food is part of its three-hub economy, yet it is crippling those rural residents who are doing the hard yards. It is no easy thing to be sustainable, let alone profitable, in horticulture and agriculture in the Territory. Are there any concessions? Are there any subsidies for the rural residents on the land growing the food we love to get from our shops and markets?
We are proud of our Territory produce and it is provided through the hard sweat and effort of the rural residents of the Northern Territory who rely on electricity to generate the power for the bores to irrigate their crops. Not a moment’s thought, I hazard to think, went into any consideration of the effects of the power and water hikes on the rural residents of the Northern Territory providing Territory produce to our markets, our shopping centres, and literally onto our tables.
Here we have an admission by the Chief Minister announcing fast-tracking of financial support for the Ord scheme. It is things like getting rid of the debt of Power and Water that will enable them to fund the fast-tracking of the Ord. Are we funding cotton or sugarcane to go to China? Is that what you are doing? Is that where your priorities lie? We will destroy the farmers of the rural area for the sake of the vast Chinese investment to send produce to China. That is how obscene the priorities of this government are.
You are putting up the prices everywhere. What will be the weekly impact for the family living in Ngukurr, Kalkarindji, Lajamanu or Papunya who rely on those cards to pay their bills? How far will $50 get you? I am advised it will get you about four days’ worth of electricity. What will $50 get the family now? Two days? Where is the analysis of that impact? Where is the evidence being led by the government of how they will deal with the impact on the people who voted them in to government? The people of the bush; the people who voted for change because they wanted their lives to improve, not get worse. You have just made it a whole lot worse.
Fundamentally, it is all about debt. You want to get rid of the debt. The debt is not unsustainable, unmanageable or unserviceable. Moody’s has rated the Territory AA+ with a stable outlook. The real reason you want to get rid of the debt is you want the dividends. You want the dividends from Power and Water to be the cash cow for the Territory government to fund the unfunded election commitments in the bush.
You want to fill up the coffers of Power and Water so it is positioned for sale – privatisation, as Liberal governments have done around the states of Australia. Where they have done it, what are the communities in those states calling out for now? For their utilities to be returned to the public because they are sick and tired of paying for the profits of the greedy few that come out of an essential service. Power, water and sewerage are essential; they are not luxuries.
In the mini-budget will we see compensation for families for hardship? Will we see grants increased to non-government organisations which deal with the front line of hardship day in, day out, across our communities? Will there be tenfold increases in the financial hardship grants to these non-government organisations for people who go to St Vincent de Paul to seek financial assistance to pay the power bill they cannot pay today? They certainly will not be able to pay it under these CLP price hikes.
Will we have grants going to people who rely on health equipment in their homes to stay alive? Will families be able to get letters from their doctor and send them to Power and Water or the government to say they need to run their air conditioner day in and through the night to keep a controlled cool environment for their child with leukaemia or the husband with burns? If you think I am making these examples up, you are wrong. Unlike the Chief Minister, who today seemed to indicate he has not heard all these terrible things. He seems to forget his electorate office had to be locked down because of the people pouring in the door to complain. Ignoring that, he seems to think it is not so bad and people understand they have to take this bitter medicine.
These are very real circumstances. These are people who have these concerns in their lives and who are genuinely asking the opposition to speak on their behalf because they do not know how to get the government to listen. They ask if we can represent their needs. As a newly formed government, you would appreciate that is exactly what an opposition does. We are doing our job. You can rail against us for it, you can attack me as much as you want; I will not stop. I will continue to speak out for the residents of the Northern Territory, regardless of where they live. I will continue to talk about the consequences of your decision. As I said, play the blame game for as long as you want, stay focused on debt for as long as you want, but I will continue to talk to you about the real consequences in people's lives.
I can tell by that strange look you get on your face, member for Araluen, you really want to brush this off. You do not want it to be an issue you have to deal with. The reality is it is your decision, and the consequences of your decision. Step up to the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your decision!
If you do not want to take on the consequences of your decision, if you do not want to step up to that responsibility in the mini-budget with grants to non-government organisations and financial hardship support to families, if you do not want to help business with support, then at least listen to the people. The people of the Territory are saying, almost to a person, almost to a business, to at least introduce it over a few years. If you want to pay down debt, do it like everyone else does over several years, so we can cope with the impact of your decision.
I am one of the fortunate, born and raised in the Territory. I love this place and will stay here my entire life. I will retire here. It has been an extraordinary period of being inundated with Territorians from all political backgrounds. I have had people say to me, ‘I vote CLP but I am signing this petition because this is wrong’. ‘I have been here since 1967. I never thought I would leave but I cannot afford to stay because of these increases.’
I know the member for Brennan is a huge supporter of these hikes. Member for Brennan, I will ensure that all your constituents know of the strength of your support for these hikes. They will not just be reminded today or next month but they will be very aware of it in 2016. Keep on explaining your way through that but, at the end of the day, being flippant about it does you no good.
The day before the election, the member for Blain said:
- A Country Liberal’s government will work tirelessly to reduce costs for Territorian families.
Then you hear from both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, ‘Well, you know, just in 13 weeks we cannot do that yet’. We are not asking you to prove to us how you have reduced costs. You missed the point of this debate. We are pointing out to you how you have dramatically worsened the cost of living for Territorians. It is not a ‘sprinkle the fairy dust’ moment here, Treasurer. It is not, ‘How come you have not reduced costs already?’ We are not flippant about that. It is how you have dramatically worsened the cost of living for Territorians whether they are individuals, families, pensioners or business people, and it is across the board. There is no one left untouched by the worsened conditions they receive as a consequence of your decision.
The Power and Water debt position has been raked over. I am sure you will keep clinging to that raft which has lost its oars and is drifting along. You keep clinging to it but people can see through your rhetoric. They have already seen through it in their thousands and thousands.
You continue to say - and you contradict everything you say but let us put something out there – ‘Well, Labor did not do anything’. The NT News editorial, and a few articles in the NT News by people who have been around a bit longer than five minutes in this town, point out that successive governments did not do what they should have. CLP governments did not do what they should have. In the last three years of the CLP government, they took more out of Power and Water in dividends than what they invested in infrastructure, repairs and maintenance. They ran it into the ground. They have inherited that.
Labor inherited Power and Water already with debt. You would have us believe that all this debt is Labor’s making, just like you would have us believe all the current debt across the general government sector is of Labor’s making. No, there were debt levels when we came to government. Power and Water was not a clean sheet when we came to government. Debt existed.
That was then and the debt was added to through infrastructure, not through payments of wages. Why was the infrastructure required? Well, the Reeves report talked about the Merv Davies’ report. It talked about how it had been run down since the 1980s. There were CLP governments for the vast majority of that period. It is the CLP legacy you are dealing with. It is the CLP legacy I had to deal with in 2009. If you do not like that, that is an inconvenient truth. At least I had the decency in 2009 to say it was both CLP and ALP.
But this time, no, that is gone; no inconvenient truths will touch the rhetoric of the CLP in this debate. It is just Labor. Well, it was not just Labor. It was the CLP for the vast majority of that time. Labor had to deal with the consequences of that: the $1.8bn in infrastructure which is the debt. Labor had to deal with the consequences of that which was the reason for the 2009 tariff adjustments. Only in the last 24 hours has the Treasurer started to accept that tariff adjustment happened in 2009. She said they did it for one year - 18%. Well no, get properly briefed.
It was 18% in one year, 5% the following, which is a total of 23%. There is no mention of the 40% adjustments across water and sewerage because again that is an inconvenient truth for the CLP who do not let that touch the debate. What we did with the tariff adjustments is understand that it is an essential service and you cannot price people out of the market. Do not price people out of the Territory, do not price businesses out of business, do not contract your productive domestic economy!
You get the numbers that the bean counters would love and you cast and recast to see what will give you a level of financial sustainability going forward, as well as an impact that people can cope with. That is what we did; it takes a lot to do it. It takes a lot of work, a lot of working through with accountants and experts, but that was not convenient for the CLP. It was an incompetent, knee-jerk reaction and once they had done it and started to understand the consequences they dug in further and deeper and are still digging further and deeper, because they have the monkey on their back.
You have a whole lot of incompetence in your Treasurer. You have a whole host of inability to get the numbers right and the classic was the election. The commitments made by the major parties and submitted to Treasury, and evidently this fiscally irresponsible Labor party - we submitted $200m worth of commitments over four years that were within the forward estimates, got the green light, got the tick from the Treasury.
Mr Chandler: More debt.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan about more debt. In comparison, the CLP had $400m - much more debt. The CLP election commitments were adding to debt but they were just the ones they submitted to Treasury. We have three pages plus of election commitments that were on the record during the election campaign, part of press releases, advertisements in newspapers talked about by CLP members running in the election, which did not appear in the Treasury costings. The Port Keats road is a classic, ‘Yes we will seal the entire road’, and in the last sittings the Treasurer confirmed it as a commitment. The new Katherine hospital - the newspaper advertisement campaigned on by the member for Katherine was not in the Treasury costing.
There are many of them, like the Borroloola contract: a new government business centre in Borroloola. Those contracts were signed all across the bush. There is a host of government centres to be built, a host of roads to be sealed which did not appear in the election costing submitted to Treasury by the CLP, but they are there, real, present and are expected by the members in government to be delivered because they were their election commitments – their unfunded commitments. So fatten up Power and Water to strip out the dividends and make every Territorian pay for your election folly.
It worked for you, do not get me wrong, I get that. You are in government and we are in opposition but I am a big believer that a house fabricated of falsehoods is a house doomed to fail. I fervently hoped all Territorians would not feel the pain along the way, but they are.
Power and Water could have been debt free but the lights would not be on. A catastrophic failure at the Casuarina zone substation - it is not a power station, Treasurer, it is a zone substation - taught us that. The Merv Davies’ report pointed that out. The CLP’s mad rush to pay off debt is driven partly by the ideology that you want to position it for sale, privatisation, putting profits before people and power, profits before a reliable service. As we all know, there is a vast need to fund the unfunded election commitments across the Territory.
At your peril you will ignore Territorians. You are on the record and you were bleating in the past. Only five months ago you were bleating about the Commonwealth’s carbon price saying it increased power and water bills by $130 a year. The member for Blain, the now Chief Minister said Territorian’s could not possibly afford it. However, now he thinks they can afford $2000 a year. Well, go figure! How hypocritical! How do you explain that? When asked to explain how people can find savings of $2000 a year, go to a website is the answer.
Do you think Territorians have not already gone to that website when we promoted it back in 2009? Do you think businesses have not already prevailed upon the opportunity of ecoBiz and done what they can? I know of a pub business that went to ecoBiz and saved $4000. Well, $4000 is a sniff on what they will be forking out. They will not be one of the small businesses forking out $8000 a year. It will be at least triple that because pubs rely on refrigeration, unless, of course, under this new great Northern Territory of the CLP you want us to get used to warm beer. That will not go down too well.
The increase will hurt the economy in so many ways. Of course the Minister for Business does not want to countenance giving any funding to the Chamber of Commerce or any of the affected industry groups to do any economic analysis of it. The party which seemed to be so proud of how it represented business is turning its back on business after given them a right old kicking without any consultation. I have never seen such fury across all the business industry organisations. If you think they do not understand the budget position of the Northern Territory, if you think they have not attended sessions where they understand the debt of the Territory, you are kidding yourself. They know perfectly well. They know the debt was acquired through infrastructure and they know why.
They know why, in the case of Power and Water and the failures in the system and the need to increase generation capacity to meet demand. They know why in the general government sector. They know of the $4.6bn invested since the global financial crisis to keep the manufacturing sector alive, the construction sector alive, tourism off its knees and retail and hospitality in some level of growth when the rest of the nation was plummeting. There is a reason why we are the fastest growing economy in the nation for the next five years. It is that critical $4.6bn spend to keep us in positive growth, landing the major project of Ichthys.
All of that, of course, is an inconvenient truth. The Treasurer says you can track the increase in debt from when I became Treasurer, wanting to completely ignore, because it is an inconvenient truth, that I had one great year before the global financial crisis hit. There was $4.6bn in infrastructure spending as a result of the GFC and all industry congratulated me year in, year out. Daryl Manzie, on radio, commenting on each budget gave it an eight out of 10. He is a former CLP minister; he got it. He understood I was keeping the economy in growth.
Mr Westra van Holthe: You had everyone hoodwinked.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Katherine. I will let the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturing Council, all the industry groups - Property Council, HIA, Real Estate Institute, Master Builders Association - know you think they could be easily hoodwinked. Really? Seriously? For real?
They understood what we were doing. As I keep saying, if you want to understand it, have a look at the 2010-11 actuals. The Territory posted economic growth of 1.6%. If you stripped the public spending out of that we would have been flatlining. Continuing with that, if we had listened and had not put the $4.6bn into infrastructure increasing debt, we would be in recession. That would have made you happy on the opposite benches because you could have pointed to our failings in recession. But, no, we kept the economic growth, not because of the political arguments but because we realised Territorians fundamentally wanted jobs. They cannot live here without jobs. We needed to keep people in jobs. We kept people in jobs and created an additional 13 000 jobs.
You will continue to inflict pain because there is some sort of strange quirk going on over there I do not quite get. You do not have to; you can start to listen to the people who voted. The majority voted for you; I suggest you start to listen to them. If you are hell-bent on these price hikes, bring them in incrementally. Listen to Territorians, families, businesses. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague. I support Territorians because every person I have spoken to in the past few days is very critical of the CLP’s increase in power charges.
I can understand that sometimes you have to increase the price. I can understand the new party coming to power blaming the previous government for everything that went wrong, from the financial situation of the Territory to the hot weather we have this year. However, the reality is, if somebody is looking critically over the whole situation, they will realise many of the things the other side said - both the Chief Minister and Treasurer - are far removed from the truth. As a result, we have seen statements such as, ‘We are broke’. The Treasurer said yesterday that Dr Neil Conn went to the Property Council lunch and spoke to them, describing the dire financial situation of the Territory, and everybody stood with their mouths open. I bet Dr Neil Conn did not tell them he was working for the CLP campaign because their mouths would have been open twice as much.
We have heard much about the debt of the Territory. Of course, some people may think debt is something bad. The reality is, we live in a world where we all have debts. I bet every single person in this House has a credit card, and many of us in this House have a mortgage. So, we have debt and some of this debt will go on for 20 or 30 years. What is really interesting in some of the rhetoric we have from the other side is how bad debt is, how we live beyond our means, and how we have to start paying our way.
I did some research recently. I do not know why, but something came to my mind and I went looking. I found a very interesting statement in some papers.
- Debt is a necessary source of funding for governments. In recent years, the Territory has raised debt exclusively through the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation ...
That statement is in the CLP Budget Papers 2001-02. The CLP, at the time, recognised the need to borrow money, especially after self-government, because they had to build the Territory. They borrowed, and borrowed heavily. The Territory debt at the beginning of self-government was 99% of the revenue. Only in 1993-94 did it fall to 68% of the revenue. The debt to revenue ratio in 1993-94 was 68%. In 1998-99, it was expected to rise to 70%. This is a statement from the CLP budget papers of 2001 and if any of the members opposite have any doubts, I will provide that so they can read it.
We have the opposition taking hard knocks over the debt of the Territory. In 2000, there was a 70% nett debt to revenue ratio compared to ours in 2011-12 of 35%, and this was going to rise in 2012-13 to 48%. The debt in the beginning of the CLP era was spent for infrastructure and, surprise, surprise, the money we borrowed was also spent on infrastructure. A significant amount of money was spent on infrastructure. Let me remind you of some of the infrastructure we put in place.
In your own home town, Treasurer, there is a brand new power station that cost nearly $100m. This is from the money borrowed and put into Alice Springs. In Darwin, the upgrade of the Casuarina substation; the installation of three new generators at the Weddell power station, which produce nearly the same amount of power that Channel Island generates today; the undergrounding of power; the rectification of power lines to the rural area to avoid blackouts; and a significant number of other projects that somehow had to be financed.
They had to be carried out quickly because sufficient money was not provided to Power and Water in the 10 to 20 years before the Labor Party came into government. We probably did not put as much money as we should have into Power and Water in the beginning, but at the same time we did not fleece Power and Water because many times we excused the dividend which we did not receive.
Coming back to the cost of living, the excessive rise in power, water and sewerage prices is only the beginning. The information we get now is that trailers will be registered, and registration will increase by 15%. The CLP even contemplates a boat registration scheme. What else will happen? They are hell-bent on paying the deficit within four years.
I challenge any of you opposite to go home tonight and tell your spouse you want to pay your mortgage in four years. Hence, they would not have entertainment, go out, buy new clothes, and the kids could not have a new computer because you want to pay off your house in four years. I do not believe you will have a very good night; I believe you will have a very interesting few weeks to come.
Debt is a reality of our century; debt is a reality of modern living. Many governments - national, state and territory - have borrowed money and have had debts for many, many years. There is a school of economists advocating that the balanced budget is not the be all and end all. Governments have to learn to live with deficit in order to provide services to their citizens. You cannot tell somebody who turns up to immunise their child that you do not have their vaccination because you have decided not to borrow the money so you can pay the deficit out. You cannot tell kids in the classroom there has to be 45 kids per teacher because you do not want to employ more teachers so you can pay the deficit quicker.
I challenge you to talk to people. You have already done that; you have tried to talk to people and people are very angry. What makes them even angrier is not that you have raised the price of power, they can accept that and the raising of charges, but 30% in one shot - 40% for water and 25% - is excessive. To rub salt into the wound the Treasurer said, ‘We did that because we think they will forget in two years time’.
I will give you a hint; they will not forget in two years time because every quarter they will receive a blue piece of paper with Power and Water or Energex written on it and the power bill will be 30% higher than in the previous quarter. It will be very interesting because the election will be held in August 2016 and all these people will receive a bill from Power and Water, or whatever the name of the utility is at that time, just before the elections. If that does not remind them who did it, I do not know what will.
The Chief Minister talks about the cost of living and insists the high cost of living is due to mortgages and rents. Let me tell you something, the cost of living is not made up of mortgages and rents only. People budget for their mortgage; they enter a contract with their bank and know what they will be paying for the next one, two or three years. Some people even choose to go to fixed interest rates so they know what they will be paying every month. How can the cost of the mortgage contribute to the rising cost of living when the interest rates keep falling and the banks pass most of this on to their consumers?
The cost of living is made high by the price of bread, milk, water, food, clothing, day care, private childcare, school fees and so on. Treasurer, I know your maths is not very good, you admit it. Everything will go up. We have the first wave coming up: the first notices that childcare will go up and the others will follow. You will see it every time you go to the supermarket as will another 200 000 Territorians and they will know very well why this happened.
Even the price of petrol will rise. The petrol stations will pass the costs to the consumer and everybody is angry about the petrol companies putting the price of fuel up. Guess what will happen when they find out they will have to pay another 1c or 2c because the petrol stations are going to pass their costs to the consumer?
This idea that we have to pay the debt out now is crazy, especially when you hear the Minister for Health is preparing to cut costs and services to save money. He had the audacity here yesterday to criticise the former government for providing a life-saving facility to Indigenous people in Central Australia. He had the audacity to say he cancelled the renal dialysis bus because the government had not budgeted for $200 000. Let me tell you something Minister for Health, the budget for the Department of Health is $1.2bn. If they cannot find $200 000 to save the lives of 100 Indigenous Territorians then someone needs their backside kicked because that is what I did and that is what I told them.
I did not hear excuses that they could not find an insignificant amount of money when we were talking about life and death situations and lives of Indigenous Territorians. I recall very well an interview by an ex-Minister for Health and hope you will never be in this position. He spoke on the ABC Nightline program in 2001 or 2000 saying we were not building clinics in remote communities, that if people wanted to die in the communities they could. We are not prepared to let Territorians die in the communities; we prepared to find the money to send the bus to treat Indigenous Territorians. I know you, member for Namatjira, I applaud you but what do you expect? This is a person who never stood for any of her own people; she only stood for herself to benefit herself. It is very cushy to sit in the ministerial seat but she could not accept that the government could find $200 000 to save the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
The cost of living in the Territory is high, I accept that. When I came here from Port Hedland in 1993 I thought life in Darwin was cheap compared with Port Hedland. The price of milk in Port Hedland in 1990 was $4 for 2L and the price of bread was significantly higher than what it is now in the Territory. If you wanted fresh fruit you had to go to the supermarket when the truck arrived, otherwise, two days later, you would not find anything. At that time I was receiving a subsidy from the council I worked for of $1600 to pay the power bill because you could not live in that place - a hot climate - without using your air conditioner.
The reality is that in the Top End air conditioning is a necessity. The Chief Minister said he and his family will cut down the hours of air-conditioning to five. Of course he will. It is only him and his wife and his wife works, he works, and spends most of the time in air-conditioned comfort. He probably would not even need five hours because by the time he gets home, has dinner and a few drinks and goes to bed, it is all right. I wonder how he would have liked it if the government of the day had told him, when he had his young kids in Western Australia in the cold weather, not to use too much gas to heat his house - use blankets to cover himself and his kids.
He would not be very happy and many Territorians are not very happy. There is a situation now where people cannot afford the childcare centre; they have to keep their kids at home. If anybody has a kid at home during the build up or the Wet with the heat and kids pouring with sweat, I wish them luck. When I first came I tried it. I lasted about three days and then the air conditioner went on. It went on because a two-and-a-half year old kid, when it starts whinging, boy it whinges well - really well and for a long time.
I do not know who persuaded you to increase the price of power but they did a disservice to you as a political party and a disservice to all Territorians. I have never seen anywhere in Australia a government being on the nose before it reaches its 100 day mark. I have never seen people signing a petition before we have even set the table up at Casuarina. They were queuing to sign the petition against the increase.
Even worse is the fact they are treated like imbeciles, like little children. People will not accept the Chief Minister lecturing them. They are not his students in his classroom. They are people, individuals with families. People know what they can and cannot do and for the Chief Minister to pontificate about what they have to do to cut costs is very rich coming from somebody who not only works in air-conditioned comfort, but whose salary is much higher than the average Territorian’s. Irrespective of the salary, it will affect every Territorian.
For various reasons, my power bill costs up to $1000. Now it will be $1300. I have changed the lights to LED. I have changed to fluoros, I have cut down on using the air conditioner and use fans more often; however, there is nothing more I can do to bring the cost of power down. There are certain things you cannot do. I even invested in a monitor to monitor consumption of power in my house. When nothing works the consumption per kilowatt hour is about 7 per hour. When I turn the stove on to cook, it costs 45 per hour. If I put the air conditioner and fans on it exceeds $1 per hour and that is only for two rooms. When the kids come home and put their air conditioner on I pay nearly $2 per hour.
I know you can cut power consumption and we do it. We have a solar hot water system like everybody else. However, you have a fridge, fans, air conditioning, and a stove and oven for cooking. You have all the other things that, fortunately or unfortunately, use electricity, even your phone or computer. There is only so much you can do to reduce power consumption. That means whatever you do you will be hit with a big bill for power. For every $100 you paid before, now you have to pay $130.
Indigenous people buy cards and use them in power meters. I want to tell them that if the card lasted three days, now, for the same amount of money, they will only get two days of power. That means people who can ill-afford this expenditure have to fork out 30% more to have their houses heated or cooled, or to cook dinner. It will hurt them all.
Many people rely on a pension or unemployment benefits. Even the ones who have jobs are probably not in as highly paid jobs as those in the city. They will be hurt. The four members opposite will be asked questions by their own constituents. I bet they will be asked questions when this comes into place. ‘Why do we have to pay more? Why does my card not last as long as it did before? Why does it only last two-thirds of what I used to get before?’ These questions will be asked. They have already been asked in the urban centres.
I bet if we started the same petition in Alice Springs the Treasurer’s life would not be as comfy and cosy today because people will start asking questions.
I have been here for quite a while and have a long memory. When I hear some of the claims by the other side I cringe because many of the statements being made are the opposite of the actions the CLP took when it was in government.
I heard the Treasurer talking about competition. It was the CLP government, in 1999-2000, which did everything possible to prevent a company which had a generator from accessing the distribution network to provide cheap electricity to Territorians. That company had a power station at Mt Todd. It was a big turbine which produced about 10 MW of power. The company tried to access the distribution network and the CLP did everything possible to stop them. As a result, the company took us to court and won the case. As a result, Paul Everingham, who was in charge of that company, became $16m richer, which was the amount of damages awarded by the court to Paul Everingham and his company for the failure of the Territory government.
In Alice Springs, there was an agreement between the CLP government and a Western Australian company, which owned the privately-run power station in Alice Springs, to buy power. Irrespective of the amount of power the government would buy, they had to pay for a fixed term. The company had such a watertight contract when I was minister for Power and Water and tried to break that contract there was no way I could do it unless I paid out the whole amount for the rest of the period of the contract.
I take the comments about competition with a grain of salt. I do not believe they have changed their mind now; it is all window dressing, trying to divert the attention of Territorians from the fact that they have raised the power tariff. There is no excuse for that. I say there is no excuse for that because, even with the 30% increase, there is no way they will pay the debt of Power and Water in four years, or eight years. At the same time, they will hurt many Territorians, affect many businesses, and help Territorians make the decision to move south. People told me they were prepared to accept a rise. They were prepared to accept a 5% or 6% rise in their power bills but 30% is too much.
Is this the end? I do not believe this is the end, because we are going to see in the next few days a mini-budget that is going to hurt Territorians even more. It will be very interesting in the next week to see what cuts to services will take place, what cuts in staff will take place in some of the most critical areas of the public service, and what raises we will see in goods and services provided by the government to all Territorians.
This is only the beginning. As I said before, Territorians have already woken up. Some people are even talking about a deliberate tactic to punish the people in Darwin because they did not vote the CLP into power for the last 10 years. I do not think so. However, one thing they believe is that somehow they have to find money to fulfil the commitments made in the bush, and the easy way out is to slug Territorians in the urban centres with price hikes in water, sewerage, power, and services provided by government. It is not a good decision. I was interested to hear the Chief Minister predicting what will happen, because he said, ‘If they do not like what we are doing, they will throw us out’. Well, Chief Minister, they do not like what you are doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government is approaching this the wrong way. I am not saying the prices of electricity and water should not increase. As has been said before, the manner in which this is occurring is the wrong way and is hurting people.
I rang Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville this morning. She told me people were already stressed by increases when the opposition was in government. I remember talking to Vicki some time ago about the stress that already high prices of essential services were causing, along with rent and mortgages. This increase in one big hit is the straw that will break the camel’s back. This will be the worst Christmas for many people. That is what she is saying, and what I believe ...
Mr Tollner: It starts on 1 January, Gerry. Wake up to yourself! ‘Worst Christmas.’ They will not receive their first bill until three months after January.
Mr WOOD: You can see the distance between you, you nong, and the people being affected.
I spoke to one of the local small businesses today; you should talk to some small businesses. When you announced this would happen, they had hardly anyone come through the door. They might have known this was going to happen on 1 January. It has scared people off because they do not know what to do. They will have to somehow find the money ahead of the increase. You are out of touch.
When I talk to Vicky O’Halloran, I am talking to someone who is in touch. When I talk to a person that runs a bookstore, I am talking to someone who is in touch. You are politically grandstanding to support the party policy. I am dealing with people who will be affected.
Mr Tollner: We are all dealing with people who will be affected, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Take it up with Vicky O’Halloran! These people have no disposable income left. Many of the people they deal with at Somerville have worked through their budget carefully. They have cut their electricity consumption. They turn the switches off. They put the air conditioner on a timer. They do all sorts of things to cover the costs the previous government introduced and now they are in trouble. They do not have that disposable income. They cannot afford it, so they see Christmas coming and they know they will have to pay for increases next year. This Christmas will be a lousy Christmas for many families and it is not just people on low wages. It is people on high wages who have bought a house on a high mortgage and will now be struggling.
You can laugh member for Fong Lim. That reflects the cuckoo land you live in because this increase in electricity, water and sewerage is the tip of the iceberg. Talk to the owner of the Howard Springs Bakery! They sell bread to me and many other people; they sell pies and cakes to all the INPEX workers. I rang him this morning; his electricity bill will go up $8000 next year - terrific. What about the butcher at Humpty Doo and Coolalinga? His name is Greg Cooling. He told 105.7 he would consider closing one of his stores as a result of the price hikes. He said:
- On our rough estimates we expect to be up about $1000 extra a month.
It is hard enough to make a profit, we’ll probably have to increase the price of meat.
If you increase the price of meat you increase the cost of living. He fears his customers also see the strain and will look for cheaper cuts of meat. That is the reality.
People are not buying. It is affecting small business not only because it is costing more to operate, but it is costing more for people to buy. Guess what will happen? People will go on eBay and the web and will buy their books via that method because our local bookstore will have to increase the price of books to cover the cost of electricity. Then they have fewer customers, they become less profitable and, all of a sudden, we do not have a bookstore.
That is part of the equation. On top of that - again, for the member for Fong Lim whose electorate goes into Palmerston - Palmerston council put out a media release which stated:
- ‘We are in the process of undertaking an operational review to see what the final figures will be but we didn’t want to leave our community with no time to prepare. Rates are likely to increase and we are talking an equivalent of 5.92% just to meet the additional Power and Water charges. Last year the City of Palmerston was able to absorb the $200 000 carbon tax costs but we cannot continue to absorb costs and remain viable.’
Ricky Bruhn CEO said yesterday, ‘The increased Power and Water charges to take effect from the 1st January 2013 will create a budget shortfall of $193 000 in the current financial year and will mean that in the 2013-14 budget, Council will need to find a further $455 000 to fund power, water and sewerage for the city.
In addition, Power and Water have informed Council that from July 1 2013 they will be adding an additional charge of $340 000 to streetlight repairs and maintenance. This is an entirely new charge.’
Adding these costs together the city looks to be facing an increase in operating costs of close to $1m, this is before other cost increases across the range of Council services, facilities and infrastructure are calculated.
Who will pay the extra $1m? The people of Palmerston, on top of the other costs. It is not a figure out of my imagination. Then we get a bombshell from the Treasurer today - St Francis, Good Shepherd, Sattler Christian College and those other schools - they are my rural schools – will not receive a subsidy. St Francis has a power bill of $46 000. They will pay an extra 30% so their bill will increase an extra $15 000 to $51 000. Their water bill will go up by $1500 to $6000. The Good Shepherd College at Howard Springs has an electricity bill of about $120 000. It will go up by 30%, an extra $36 000. Their water bill is $25 000, it will go up by 30%, an extra $7500. Sattler Christian School’s electricity bill of $14 000 will go up to $18 000 with the 30% increase.
The parents who send their kids to those schools are paying school fees already. That is their right, and it has been a right in Australia for many years to send your children to a religious school or a school that provides a different service. They have now been told they will not receive any subsidy from the government because they send their children to those schools. That is outright discrimination and something the Country Liberals, years ago, would have been appalled by. We are going back to the 1960s. We are going back to the discussion about whether we should have state schools as opposed to non-government schools.
That is one of the worst decisions because the government promised it would lower the cost of living. For those people who struggle to pay those school fees - I know what those school fees are like because my four grandchildren go to non-government schools and I sometimes have to help because they are not easy to pay. They will not only have to pay the existing school fees, those school fees will be bumped up.
So we have the basic increase of 30% in electricity. The rates will increase because of that and the price of meat and bread will increase. For parents with children in certain schools – some are better off than others - you will be paying extra to have your kids at school and have the basic essential services.
You might think I have just picked on the non-government schools, well let us look at the big non-government school in my area, like Taminmin. They are having problems now. They cannot pay for their electricity at the moment. There is a bit of confusion because in the Treasurer’s statement she said schools will receive 50% of the increase. That seems to be at odds with what we heard today in Question Time. At present, Taminmin does not have adequate funding for power charges under the existing tariffs. The school council is still corresponding with the department over a $76 000 shortfall in funding from 2011.
You have to realise that Taminmin College is probably the biggest college in the Territory. It has VET courses and an agricultural section. Their costs of running electricity, say for bores - let alone the VET area for the mechanical section and the normal school requirements of air conditioning and lighting etcetera - are fairly high.
In 2011, to try to bring the cost down, the school reduced power consumption by just under 100 000 kilowatts per hour. They still do not have enough money to pay for the electricity. Believe it or not, one of the options they are discussing is whether they should be charging parents a power levy. They simply do not have enough money for power under the existing payments.
Now you hit them with a subsidised 15% increase. Who is paying? Where is that money coming from? Will it reach the point where the government school will be charging parents a levy to pay for the cost? The reality is – and this is the problem I have with this debate - the government has the economic rationalists saying, ‘We have a problem. We are going to fix it tomorrow. Too bad, we do not care what effect it will have on families. We do not care what stress it will cause families.’ As Vicki O’Halloran said, this is the type of stress that can cause the break-up of marriages. Financial stress is well-known as a problem for families.
She was looking at whether the government has plans to allow people more time to pay. Is it a case of trying to get blood out of a stone? Is it a case that leaves no room for people to pay? What will they do? They will either go broke and Power and Water will get no money because they simply will not be able to pay. Will they pack up and leave, or perhaps their marriage will break up? As I said, $2000 is only the tip of the iceberg. The disposable income for these people will be practically nil. When the member for Fong Lim laughed at me when I said this could be a very sad Christmas for many people he showed he is not in touch with the stress many families will be going through and the vast increase in the cost of living.
The government said it would lower the cost of living. To lower it you will have to somehow, magically, bring all those costs that are increasing, turn the pendulum around and bring it back the other way. Lord knows how you will do it, but the promise was you would reduce the cost of living. You said, ‘Well we did not know all the facts and figures’. Well, you had all the Treasury documents, the Power and Water documents, and the Utilities Commission statements. Even I knew the tariffs would have to increase.
I am not arguing tariffs should not increase. I am arguing that the way you have done it shows the economists have somehow driven this debate and the people who understand the reality on the ground, who know there is a need to do this in a sensible manner which will reflect some compassion for the people who will be affected by this, seem to be left out of this debate, unfortunately.
Yes, we know it is expensive to provide power. We know to provide the infrastructure and capital equipment to run power in the Northern Territory is very expensive. We know we have to pay for that, but the way in which it is being done is the issue I have. When you look at a small portion of what I have raised today, the impact this is having will continue. I have only given you a small portion of what will happen.
The Treasurer hinted that bus fees will go up - another impact. Again, the cost of living. We have a good system which is cheap, but the whole idea is to get people off the road to use public transport. If you end up making it too difficult for people, they will use the car.
There are little increases here and there. I ask the government: has any one done a serious study of the effect of these increases on an average family? Did anyone in Treasury do a cost benefit analysis to see what effect this would have on ordinary families? What would the total impact be? Not just electricity; the total impact.
I am not trying to be smart. I have spoken to Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville. She deals with people with dire financial problems every day. St Vincent De Paul does too. We can sit in our cocoon and not realise what effect it will have. It will affect communities in remote areas. If the government is saying the tariffs are going to increase in some communities, it will affect those people too because many of them have fairly low wages.
Will they have enough money to pay their power bills? Will they put the card in for a few minutes and take it out because they cannot afford to have the power on all the time? I do not know what the effect will be on some of those communities. I do not know whether the government looked at those effects? I know how people pay for electricity in many of the remote communities. They do not have much disposable income. Has the government looked at the effects of what it is doing? I do not believe so because, if they had really done a check of the effects of this mammoth increase in power, water, and sewerage, they would have not done it in this way. Surely, there is someone in the government who understands this will bring enormous stress to families.
You do not have to criticise me. If you do not believe me, ring Vicki O’Halloran from Somerville, Michael Byrne from St Vincent De Paul and those other places which deal with people who have financial stress in their life, not necessarily due to their own fault but because the increases in the cost of living have caused them to struggle with day-to-day living.
I have highlighted the issues. I am extremely disappointed that a CLP government, which supported non-government schools for years, has made a decision which discriminates against Northern Territory families, mums and dads who pay a little extra each year because they believe they have the right to send their children to a school where, perhaps, it is the only place they will receive the religious education they want. Or they may have a different philosophy such as the Steiner School or the Essington School.
Someone told me that Holy Spirit, St John’s and Kormilda are the equivalent of Melbourne Grammar or Scotch College. I regard those as wealthy private schools. Working-class people send their children to Holy Spirit; immigrants send their children there. They go through a lot of pain to find the money to send children to those schools. It is not a flash school, but is a school they wish to send their children to because it teaches some values and religion they would not be taught in government schools. They are now being penalised for that. That is the bit I find hardest with the Country Liberals. I always believed on this side there was, in the background, some resistance to helping non-government schools. Look how long it took to build MacKillop College. It was on the plans for about 10 years. I never thought that side would start to discriminate, because it was the CLP which allowed Holy Spirit, Holy Family ...
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I thought that side would really support those mums and dads who send their kids to those schools. They are not rich. I can tell you the fees for St John’s and for Sacred Heart, because I help pay them. It might be all right on my wage, but it is very hard for my daughter. She makes that effort to send her kids to those schools. She will be paying higher rent, higher electricity and, now, the fees will increase.
I am asking the CLP to reconsider that. Parents in the Northern Territory should not be discriminated against because they send their kids to a non-government school. That is unfair on those kids and those Territory families. No matter where they are in the Territory, they should at least be treated equally when it comes to subsidies.
Chief Minister I would like to see that decision reversed. People will be under enough financial pressure as it is. Do not make it discriminatory with one group of people receiving more relief than the other. That is a bad way for the Territory to go. I ask you to change that decision.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, how interesting it is to hear the member for Nelson rattle on again. He is a good Labor man. He always has been and will always support the comrades over the other side, no doubt about it. He says we do not take him seriously, he is in touch, and all of this stuff. What a character! He comes in here, says the Howard Springs bakery will spend an extra $8000 this year on their water bill because of these increases.
To increase his water bill by $8000 he would have to be using something like 15 million litres of water. He must be making a pretty sloppy dough if he is using a public swimming pool of water every day in his bakery. The member for Nelson believes it. He knows people. He knows the way the world works, and he has an ear for what people are saying. He knows the Howard Springs bakery will be paying an extra $8000 a year on their water bill. Forgive me, member for Nelson, if I do not quite believe that.
I heard an interesting story a little while ago. It honestly does have something to do with this debate. It is about two Irishmen known as Mick and Pat. I imagine a few people in this Chamber have heard of Mick and Pat. Mick got very lucky one day when he bought a raffle ticket and, lo and behold, he won. Mick won a beautiful big red truck. It was a lovely five tonne truck with a flat tray on the back. Mick was absolutely overjoyed.
The first thing he did was visit Pat. He says, ‘Look, Pat. I have won this truck.’ ‘Isn’t it fantastic?’ Pat says, ‘Absolutely, Mick’. Mick says, ‘Well mate, you put in half a dollar towards the ticket, so fair enough, half of this truck is yours’. Pat said, ‘Well, I didn’t realise that Mick. What are we going to do with it?’ Mick says, ‘Well, I was thinking we could go into business Pat’. Pat says, ‘Oh yeah, what are we going to do?’ He says, ‘Well, we can take this big red truck down the highway, park it on the side of the road, and sell watermelons’. Pat says, ‘That’s a fantastic idea, Mick. Let’s do it.’
So, they go and see the local watermelon producer and buy a heap of watermelons. They load up their red truck. They head down the road and park it on the side of the road.
They lift their shingle out, and Pat says to Mick, ‘Hey Pat, just one thing. How much are we going to sell these watermelons for?’ Pat looked at Mick and said, ‘Well, we bought them for 20c each. It wouldn’t be right if we sold them for anything other than 20c each.’ So, they started selling watermelons for 20c each from this beautiful big red truck on the side of the road.
A year goes by and one day Mick turns up to the truck looking very concerned. He says, ‘Hey Pat, I need to have a chat with you. Business is not very good mate. We’re not making any money.’ Pat says, ‘Oh, that is a bit of a problem Mick. What are we going to do?’ Mick says, ‘There is only one thing for it, Pat. We have to buy a bigger truck.’
That is the logic of the member for Nelson and the now opposition when they look at Power and Water. They do not seem to understand or comprehend that Power and Water is going backwards. I do not know how often this is mentioned; I have not heard it too many times but that fact is that Power and Water is selling electricity for less than it produces it.
The story about Mick and Pat was a joke but the story about Power and Water is not. The story about Power and Water is true. Power and Water have been selling electricity at less than the wholesale rate. I have been reliably informed that there are less than 50 customers in the entire Northern Territory who are not being subsidised. You have to ask: how long can you continue a business like that? You have to remember that it is a business.
Ms Walker: It is an essential service!
Mr TOLLNER: It is an essential service but it is a business, member for Nhulunbuy. I know the people on the Labor side like the Communist rules where government owns everything and controls everything but we live in a free market society and this is a business. It has to survive as a business. It cannot keep selling a product at less than what it produces it for. Mick and Pat found that out selling watermelons.
Like Mick and Pat, you mob want to buy a new truck. You cannot understand that there is a pricing problem. We are selling electricity at a cheaper rate than we can produce it for all but 20 customers, or less than 50 customers at least, and you sit here bleating. We did not want to make a decision to increase power prices. No one wants to make that decision.
When you go into a business and see it is falling to bits and radical surgery is needed, the worst thing you can do is turn your back on it, because that business goes to the wall and no one has power, no one has sewerage services, no one has water. But it seems to me that is the path the opposition and the member for Nelson want to take us down.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could he bring it down a bit? My ears are hurting.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, we had to listen to you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Well here is a bloke who says a bakery will spend an extra $8000 on water next year.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! You need to correct the member. What, $8000 extra on water? He was not listening. He was more worried about making flippant statements.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the sort of moronic argument we are dealing with: we expect our utility to sell a product for less than it can produce it. We currently have the second-lowest electricity prices in Australia.
You have to remember that we have a population of 230 000 people in the Northern Territory which is one sixth of Australia’s land mass. Our entire electricity generation system is somewhere around 250 MW in our transmission system. We are a very small economy.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: The cost of producing electricity ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order down the back.
Mr TOLLNER: ... is all rather expensive, and yet we have the second lowest prices in the country. Surely, ding! The light must go on somewhere to say, ‘Hang on, our utilities are going to the wall’. If we do not step in and do something radical, the thing will fall over and the lights will go out on the entire Northern Territory. But this fig of truth does not seem to dent the skulls of the morons across the other side of the Chamber who think that this is just the government being nasty. They just want people to hate them. What sort of twisted foolish people are you?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: How thick. He sits there yap, yap, yap - the old chook - carrying on. The Labor man, red as they come. Absolutely appalling. Imagine taking a job as a director of a company and it all looks well and good. You go into that company and find out that in a couple of months that company will go to the wall. That company is about to go to the wall but you have just signed up as a director. What do you do? You can see that the company has expenses pouring out of its ears. It is getting absolutely nothing for the product it sells.
Does the company say, ‘Well really, we have customers to think of. They do not deserve to have to pay anything more than nothing for our product, irrespective of the fact it is costing us a fortune to produce, so we will just keep giving them this product at the same rate.’
Goodness me, if we really play our cards right maybe the company will not go to the wall in the next two months. Maybe we can string it out for another couple of months after that. Cross our fingers. Perhaps some type of external mechanism will change in the business environment we operate in. Lo and behold, we are not going to do anything.
Of course you do not do that. When you work as a director you have some fiduciary responsibilities to your shareholders, your customers. You have an obligation to try to fix that company to ensure it remains a going concern and continues to produce the services your community wants.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have quiet in the House? I am having trouble hearing and I am sure everyone else is.
Mr TOLLNER: That is the characters over there, they just yabba, yabba, yabba.
The point I am making is we would be wrong to do nothing. Nobody wants to increase power costs like we are about to. It is not what anyone wants to do. The last thing I wanted to do was come from opposition into government and have to make these decisions. It is a tough decision, but one we have to make because if we do not Power and Water will certainly go to the wall. You cannot keep selling a product for less than it costs to produce forever. It does not work.
The hypocrisy of the mob on the other side astounds me because they are saying, ‘The CLP is trying to fatten it up so they can sell it’, like it is some dreadful crime. Only a week or so ago a fellow called Martin Ferguson, who happens to be the federal Resources minister, tabled the Energy White Paper in federal parliament on national electricity markets. The key recommendation was that state and territory governments should divest themselves of these utilities; they should not be in the market of owning these types of utilities.
Oddly enough, Martin Ferguson is part of a government that wears the Labor brand. He is part of the Gillard government in Canberra. We know how federal Labor policy works. Federal Labor policy dictates how our puppets in the Northern Territory operate, or should I say Muppets, because let us look at their track record. Every time Labor says ‘jump’ federally, this mob here jump.
They would not stand up for McArthur River Mine when it was in all that trouble a few years ago. This is 5% of our gross state product. They were quite happy to turn their back on that mining operation and see it go to the wall. They would not do anything about the carbon tax, irrespective of the fact the majority of members in this Chamber voted to have our government oppose the introduction of that tax in the Northern Territory. They ignored the wishes of the elected representatives of the Northern Territory in this Chamber. It is no small thing to ignore a majority vote in this Chamber, but they happily did saying, ‘We do not care what you think because we are hearing it from Julia that we support this carbon tax’.
The strangest thing they did was that unholy act committed by the moronic minister in Canberra when he banned the live cattle export into Indonesia. Anyone worth their salt who represents the Northern Territory, who had the slightest regard for Territory families and the industries that operate here would be opposed to such a thing. However, was the former Labor government opposed to it? No. The former Chief Minister said he welcomed it. He said it was the circuit breaker we needed.
I do not know what else we have to do or see to understand the fact that these guys are just the puppets of the federal Labor mob. When they start talking about us trying to fatten up Power and Water and sell it, you can be 150% certain, without any glimmer of a doubt, were they in government that is exactly what they would do because that is what their masters in Canberra have said they have to do.
You stand up in public when it does not matter and say you want to sell off Power and Water like it is some major crime when you know damn well, if you were in government right now, you would be doing exactly that because that is what your masters in Canberra dictate. You have never bucked your masters in Canberra. You have never said boo to them - roll over, let them scratch your tummy. Hopeless!
A couple of things about Power and Water. They are selling their product for less than they can produce it. They cannot do that forever; that is just a fact of business life. There is practically no business I am aware of that can sustain selling their product for less than they can produce or buy it. Anyone who thinks you can needs to ...
A member: Can join the Labor Party.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, join the Labor Party, that is dead right.
Second, this idea that we are, somehow or other, trying to fatten up and sell it - we can be absolutely certain that would be the case if Labor was still in government because that is their national policy. That is what is being dictated to them.
It is a tough decision the government has made. The Treasurer has my 100% support in the choices she is making as the portfolio minister for Power and Water. She is doing a wonderful job, a very difficult job, and the last thing we need in circumstances like this is a whole pack of Chicken Littles running around the place saying, ‘The sky is falling! The sky is falling!’
At the end of this process, our prices and tariffs will still be on par with the national average, which is quite amazing considering we have such a small population over such a big distance to deliver these services to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a decision we take lightly. It is not something we want to do, but if we are to be able to continue to turn the lights on at night and drink water from our garden hoses or use our toilets, this is the only possible way we can guarantee that into the future.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always entertaining when the member for Fong Lim speaks to this Chamber. I always like it. It is not always informative, but it is always entertaining. I am looking forward to him contributing to other debates in the future, particularly alcohol policy. I am very interested to hear from the Minister for Alcohol Policy in the future. We have not heard enough from him on those issues. However, we are here today to debate power and water.
The member for Nelson made a point during his contribution about the baker at Howard Springs who has worked out he will be paying about $8000 extra next year on his Power and Water bills. The member for Fong Lim did his own maths and worked out that was an absurd figure, apparently. It would not come remotely near $8000 a year. Apparently, there will be swimming pool of water going through the place.
The figures the CLP has provided about the average impact on small business places it at $7800 for next year. By the CLP’s figure, what the baker has worked out he will be facing next year is about right. That is what the CLP thinks is about right for a small business, $8000 a year extra in charges, which will hurt small businesses.
Many people in the rural area will be hit worse than people in the urban area. The vast majority of people living rurally do not have water tanks on tank stands, they need pressure pumps. They pump it up from the bore to the tank, and from the tank into the house. Those ones with bores who do not have a tank are spending more on power than people in urban areas. So, there is a lot of pain in the area the member for Nelson is speaking of.
Mind you, there is much pain being felt everywhere. I am sure the member for Nelson is speaking to people who are as passionately upset about this as we are because, before the election, the CLP promised to cut the cost of living. And the first thing they have done after the election is increase the cost of power, water and sewerage. Everything they based their decision on was public before the election.
The Statement of Corporate Intent, which is what they quote in their press release announcing these charges are increasing, was available before the election. It was covered in great detail during the Estimates Committee process or, to be more specific, the government-owned corporations scrutiny process. That was all public before the election. Everything the CLP is making decisions on was public before the election. They knew before the election they would be increasing the power, water and sewerage.
Yet when they went to the polls, they promised to cut the cost of living. It is infuriating many people out there - to put it more politely than the way they are putting it to us - because they feel they have been betrayed. This is a massive breach of faith to say one thing knowing the whole time you are going to do another, to tear up the contract they made with the people of the Northern Territory so soon after being elected. They were weeks into a new government when they said, ‘Yes, before the election we promised this but, you know what, we were always going to do these other things we just never told you about’. People are very, very upset.
The member for Nelson’s passion on this issue only reflects a small portion of the passion we are hearing from Territorians who are upset that the CLP broke its promise immediately. They have not only broken it, they always knew they would break it. They ran knowing they would break it. Everything they have made their decisions on they knew before the last election, yet they still told Territorians they would do one thing - reduce the cost of living - while the whole time planning to do the opposite. It has people very upset. Most people agree with us that power and water is an essential service that they have a right to access it at a reasonable price - one they can afford.
We increased the cost of power and water in our last term but we took it up to a point where we thought it was about as much as people could bear. Maybe it even went a little too far in that sense, but we thought we had to increase it and we did. We thought we could not go any further because it would break people. You know what? That is what people are saying. They are saying 30% will break them. It will break families and small businesses. That is what we are already hearing.
According to the Minister for Business today, that is okay. As long as most of them survive, that is okay. That is the philosophy of the CLP. It is okay if most of them survive. The small businesses hope they survive; they want all of them to survive. They want to make some money to take home for the family to pay for the roof over their head. They do not want to hear that the philosophy of the CLP is that it is okay that only some or most of them will get through, that some of fall over. That is, apparently, okay. That was quite a shocking statement from a party which is meant to stand for business. They are breaking many tenets, a lot of faiths, at the moment with what they are doing.
It should not come as too much of a surprise that they would say to business, ‘We do not care too much that a few businesses fall over. That is just the price of what we are doing. That is okay, fall over, sort something else out, sorry about your family. That is a shame’. It is just not good enough. That is what it comes down to. People are feeling that a promise has been broken - I will not use words that would require substantive motion – and now they are getting no empathy from the party which broke that promise, although for the whole of the last election they knew they would be breaking it. So you can understand why they are incredibly upset.
We believe power and water are essential services. We also believe schools are an essential service. Yet, we heard from the minister today in Question Time that schools are a private enterprise. They are enterprises and private schools will not receive any support from government to cope with these bills. We have an education system in Australia where we have choice. We have that in Australia and in the Northern Territory. You have choice. We have public and private schools. I went to both public and private schools in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. I received a good education in both. We had choice; that is what you do. But now there will be a difference because the public schools will be subsidised, but they will still pay 15% extra for power, 20% extra for water and 12.5% extra for sewerage, which is a massive slug.
Private schools are not getting any help. They will be paying 30% extra for power; 40% extra for water and 25% extra for sewerage. We heard from a many schools before this was confirmed today – we have been talking to them already - that they have already found all their efficiencies. They have made all the savings they can. We worked with them in great detail after the price rise in 2009. There is no money left in these places. They will have to stop doing things.
The CLP promised, amongst many other things, to protect the front line. Schools are saying they will have to stop doing things. ‘There are no savings to be made here; we will have to stop doing things.’ We heard the member for Nelson’s example of Taminmin where they are already at the point where it is too late, they are stretched as it is, before these charges come on top.
People I spoke with today in schools, in all the different areas of the independent sector, were staggered to hear the CLP call them private enterprises. They do not go to school each day thinking it is a private enterprise. The principals of these schools do not think they are private enterprises. The teachers working in these schools do not think they are private enterprises. They do not think they go to school to make a profit. That is not what they are doing. They are there for the social outcome and the social good. We, as a society, agree our kids should go to school. That is a basic tenet; you have a right to access education. Schools have been told today that they are enterprises.
St John’s College, St Phillips, Essington, Kormilda, The Marrara Christian School and Palmerston Christian School are all enterprises, not schools, not places of learning. They are enterprises and will be treated as such. As we have heard from the Minister for Business today, it is okay if enterprises fall over. We just want most of them to survive. If some fall over, that is fine.
Mr Tollner: You are paraphrasing.
Mr GUNNER: I am not paraphrasing, minister. You quoted Charles Darwin in great depth. You can look at your answer. You are welcome to read it out in the House again, we have no problems with that. ‘It is okay if some fall over.’
Schools are enterprises. This is a new thing to learn today. We consider them an essential service. We do not think you send your kids to school expecting those schools to turn a financial profit. It is about delivering a public service, delivering an educational outcome for our children to take advantages of the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. Apparently, that is not where the CLP are at. Apparently, they have different thoughts about how you approach schools, a philosophy we will have to explore in great detail in the next four years.
They have already made a distinct difference between the public and private sector. I agree with the member for Nelson, I was quite surprised the CLP would do that. We have a choice in the Northern Territory about where you send your kids, sometimes based on faith, sometimes on a different philosophy - the Steiner School is a good example of that. We have choice in the Northern Territory, but apparently it is okay for the private schools to be slugged and now there is a financial difference in what the CLP is providing to schools in the Northern Territory.
That is just part of the human cost we are dealing with as a result of the CLP’s decisions. This will hurt and we can only reflect a degree of the passion in this Chamber of the people we are talking to each day. The member for Nelson did a good job of demonstrating that passion. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition, in leading this motion, demonstrated that passion. It would be almost impossible to replicate in this Chamber some of the feeling without breaching Standing Orders.
People are very upset and that is what we are hearing repeatedly each day. I am assuming the CLP is receiving very similar feedback on how people are responding to this decision and what their thoughts are on how to treat power and water in the Northern Territory: that it is an essential service and they are stretched. Even public schools which are being slugged 15% do not know where they will get that money from. They do not know what they will stop doing to be able to pay for that. They have already made their savings; they have already found their efficiencies. We heard the Minister for Education today say they hoped to work with schools in reducing their consumption of water and electricity. I think ‘hope’ is a good word because it is only a hope. It has basically been found ...
Members: Bigger class sizes.
Mr GUNNER: Bigger class sizes, that will make the AEU happy, that will make teachers happy, that will make parents who do not want their students in bigger class happy.
This will have a massive impact and the Treasurer also said today they do not have any solutions or mechanisms by which they can further assist schools to manage these further imposts on their budget. The CLP is already out of solutions so it is just going to hurt. That is the message to schools: it is going to hurt and will be passed on to the front line.
Each school will make different decisions about how that will impact on students, but there will be an impact on the front line trying to absorb this. That is definite in public schools and it is more than definite in private schools, if you can be more than definite. It will hurt private schools. They do not know how they will cope with this. This will have a massive impact on the education sector. That is the phrase everyone keeps coming back to: it will hurt.
The CLP promised before the election to reduce the cost of living. There are not many things in government you can control. You cannot control the price of food; you cannot control the price of fuel. You cannot control the price of freight or rent. There are many things you cannot control in government, but you can control the price of power.
You promised to reduce the cost of living, instead, when you assumed office, one of the first decisions you made was to increase the cost of living. You increased the cost of power, water and sewerage, which will have flow-on impacts everywhere.
Businesses will have to charge more. We have already heard from a number of businesses about what they will have to charge. The member for Nelson used the example of the baker and the butcher. We have heard similar stories from the Fannie Bay butcher and Brumby’s. They will have to charge more. People will have to pay more when they buy their groceries. They will be paying more in almost every aspect of their lives in addition to what they will pay four times a year when they receive their power, water and sewerage bills. This will really hurt.
We asked today about additional grace periods to give people more time to pay their power and water bills. Obviously, that is not our prime request. We would like this not to happen at all. However, the CLP is doing this. Will they give people a longer grace period to pay bills before the power is cut off? The answer was, essentially, no. They have not looked at that yet. That was during Question Time today.
People are more than welcome to go back through Question Time. The different approach of the CLP to these things is quite enlightening. Those grace periods have not been considered yet. We urge the CLP to think about extending that and to look at providing grace periods for people to pay these imposts because they are not quite sure how they will do it.
The effect of the increased power charges in January is that people are already trying to put money aside to deal with it because they are not quite sure where this money is going to come from. They are not sure what they will have to stop doing next year to pay these bills. They do not have it in the back pocket. It is not like loose change, it is not in your pocket. They do not have it in a savings account. They will have to stop doing something. They are stopping something now in readiness. As you prepare for your Christmas holidays, which most people have, it is not going to be a good time.
The member for Fong Lim could not quite understand why the member for Nelson would say that, but it is true. That is the message we are getting from people already, especially pensioners. They are already putting away loose coins because often that is pretty much all they have after the week’s worth of living. They are trying to work out how to pay for these charges because they are stretched as thin as they can get. Tensions in families will be high. It will create a great deal of family tension as people try to work out how they can cope with these increases.
It all goes back to the fundamental difference between the two parties. There has been no disagreement about this. We have made our position clear; the CLP has made its position clear. There is no disputing we have a clear, fundamental difference between the two parties. We believe supplying power and water is an essential service and these are things you need to live anywhere. These are fundamental things. You have to have a right to access power and water at a reasonable price. That is something the government has to do.
The government disagrees with that. They think it is user pays and if you cannot afford it you cannot have it. It is, basically, a luxury item. We do not agree with that approach. Treating power and water as a luxury item will see many people in the first year this comes in really struggle and make some decisions where you really feel for them. How will they make this work? It is going to hurt.
Again, we ask the CLP to consider a grace period. Consider giving people longer to work out how they can pay their power and water bills. That is a charitable thing to do. Think about the impost that will come to people who cannot work out how they will pay these bills. They do not have the spare money, the spare change. Give them a little longer to pay the bill before you cut the power off. That is a very charitable request. We put it again. I am sure this is a management decision. Allowing people just a little longer to pay their bills will not affect your mini-budget. I ask you to think about that; give people a grace period, a little longer to try to work out how they will pay those bills next year before the power is cut off, because they will need it.
I know pensioners will only be paying half the increases, but for a pensioner half will hurt - 15% extra on their power and 20% extra on their water will hurt. For them, most of their saving will come on the food they buy. There will not be too much else; it will be in the food they are buying, the small things. That is where their hearts and heads are at.
We know it is will hurt businesses. We have already heard from the Chamber of Commerce and other industries that businesses will close and jobs will be lost. We do not know how many yet but it will hurt. Many small businesses will struggle. Sometimes even very good small businesses can have cash-flow problems with seasonal adjustments. It can get very tight.
Growing up in a family of small business owners, with most of my family in small business in different areas, I know the tensions that can come about when things are a little tough for a couple of weeks. They come good again, but you have those periods where things get really tight. There will be many small businesses where things will get really tight and it will hurt. Unfortunately, some businesses will close and jobs will be lost. That is, basically, a guarantee we have heard from the Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups are saying that will happen.
It is going to be unfortunate, particularly in the retail area where they are already under serious competitive pressure from online businesses. The online businesses will not have that 30% fixed impost a retail place will have. So retail, in particular, will really hurt as they try to compete with people who are selling online. They are already being undercut online; now there is a 30% impost which will make it even harder for them to be financially competitive with their online competition. Retail will really struggle.
This is a very painful decision the CLP has made and much of the hurt for people is twofold; from the fact it is happening at all, and that they are going to try to find that saving. They are already realising sacrifices they have to make because the CLP broke its promise. There was a breach of faith. They promised before the election they would reduce the cost of living. Everything they based their decision on was known before the election. A Statement of Corporate Intent was available before the election and was covered in estimates in the government-owned corporations scrutiny committee. They made their promise before the election ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the honourable member for Fannie Bay.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, member for Johnston, I will wrap it up in a minute. Before the election, the CLP promised to reduce the cost of living, all the time knowing they would be increasing it because all the information they made their decision on was available beforehand. The Statement of Corporate Intent, the main material they quoted in the media release announcing the increases in power and water tariffs, was available before the election.
Therefore, it would probably be fair to say the hurt is coming from the cost of power and water increasing and anger is coming from the fact people feel a promise was broken and the CLP already knew it would break that promise. There is much hurt and anger out there.
The Treasurer said she hopes this will be forgotten in a couple of years’ time. I do not think it will; this is running pretty deep. The government might be a bit out of touch if they think this will disappear quickly or people are only temporarily upset. This is a massive issue which will hurt people for a long time and people will not forget about it in a couple of years, which might be convenient for the Treasurer and the government. It is just not going to be case; this is going to hurt and people will be angry for a long time.
They see this as a mean decision from a mean government - a government that does not understand. I am stunned that a government, so early in its term, could not understand the ordinary people and small businesses doing it tough. To bring this in and, essentially, see the backs of ordinary Territorians broken and small businesses going under because of this impost - they just do not get it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a mean government making a mean decision. I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, the former government and the member for Nelson talk about human rights and our duty to the people of the Northern Territory. I understand these arguments. There is not one moment of any day that I have sat here, or in Cabinet, where we have contemplated these decisions, that I did not think to myself, goodness gracious, this will hurt people. We know that.
I would rather not do that but from time to time you are confronted in life with a choice between what you want to do and what duty compels you to do. It was the same sense of duty that the former government, in response to the Reeves report, determined to advance, essentially, what was close to a 24.5% power hike: 18% one year followed by 5% the next year. Of course you have to allow for the compounding effect, so it was probably close to a 24% power hike and that was just to bring the Power and Water Corporation to sustainable levels not commercial levels.
The point is that the Reeves report was never released to the people of the Northern Territory, only the executive summary was. This is something the Leader of the Opposition says is, ‘an open and frank way of dealing with people’. She never released it because I suspect in the body of the report there were certain qualifications as to what could have happened if circumstances changed in the future, and the circumstances did change.
The circumstances changed sufficiently for, and well in advance of, the former government to know they had to deal with what was going on with the Power and Water Corporation. They chose to go down the path of debt for equity swaps and, no matter which way you hold that up to the light, ultimately, it means subsidising power.
We have heard from the Deputy Chief Minister about how concerned the members of the board were and the indemnities they sought from government because of the way they were being positioned. We have heard that the Power and Water Corporation needed debt for equity swaps rather than making the tough decisions to make Power and Water capable of generating its own income.
They decided to go down the path of debt for equity swaps, which was worth tens of millions of dollars. That is tens of millions of dollars that were not paid to schools, roads, etcetera. The longer you avoid a decision, a tough decision, in the world and in life, generally the more difficult, pronounced and demanding decision needs to be. That is why we have been confronted with the determination, or the need to make a tough decision.
I hear the members opposite saying, ‘You knew from the Statement of Corporate Intent the position of the organisation’. That much is true, but what we did not know from the Statement of Corporate Intent is the condition of the rest of government. It was not until we got into government and started ferreting through the books and started to look at things like unfunded liabilities -- we heard what the Minister for Housing had to say about his position this morning in the House - that you start to get a picture of the position government was in.
Government had attached to the side of it an organisation that should be able to trade effectively and sufficiently profitably to not be a drawdown on the rest of government. To achieve that, a tough decision had to be made. Many people do not like being on the receiving end of tough decisions and most people do not like making tough decisions, but when you have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory which transcends mere ‘feel good’ then you are duty-bound and are committed to do your duty.
This government, unlike the former government, recognised that duty, steeled itself for the inevitable hypocritical attack from the Labor Party and the reaction of the public to the decisions we have made. We accept full responsibility for those decisions because we are a responsible government. Being a responsible government means you have to do these things and we did.
I note that this is a substantial cost impost on families. There is no doubt about it. This is already an expensive environment but I find it curious that the unending screeching of the members opposite about this cost impost in power, water and sewerage is imposing, when seen against the effect of housing prices and rental increases. It has to be seen in perspective.
People are telling me that their rent is increasing by $150 to $200 a week. Yet, do I hear a word of complaint from the members opposite about that. Not a chance. Of course, that would mean they would have to acknowledge they had some role to play in that because they know there is no way the CLP could have created an environment where that rental arrangement was being entered into. So they would be looking for the softer underbelly. They have someone to blame for this. There is a face to blame and we are that face. Yes, people will blame us; there is no doubt about that, but it is something that had to be done.
It is one thing to complain about a tough decision, it is another to engage in mischief. One of the things that surprised me when I was reading the newspaper during the week was the claim by the Leader of the Opposition, after she visited the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre, about the cost impost. I am reasonably familiar with that childcare centre; I have fulfilled a couple of roles in the executive of that childcare centre when my children went there, including the role of president and treasurer for a short while when one of the treasurers had to leave. In those I would look at the books and I remember talking to them about their annual reports and their reporting on a couple of occasions. There were some issues with the books. I examined those books fairly closely and I do not recall ever seeing electricity bills in the order of $250 000 a year. If I had, I would have been asking questions about it.
The other component is that I saw the October newsletter from the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre which announced the $5 increase. That was before the Cabinet had made its decision about power and water prices. I have heard the sums done in this House by the former Treasurer about the power increase costing $5 a day per child. That is an annual bill of about $250 000, if memory serves me.
Mrs Lambley: $240 000.
Mr ELFERINK: $240 000. I would have good news for the Mitchell Street Child Care Centre at that point because I would encourage the Power and Water Corporation to find out what was happening that had driven their power bills up that much. The former government does not acknowledge it was instrumental in decisions we opposed on this side of the House on the cost impost on childcare because of part of a national agreement they had so readily signed up to.
I remember the federal Labor government complaining bitterly that businesses were blaming cost imposts on the carbon tax. I suspect there might be an element of that in this instance; that people have to raise their childcare fees and a convenient vehicle is to blame, immediately, the power and water increases. Naturally, I asked the Treasurer, ‘In real terms for an average childcare centre, how much would the cost impost per child per day be?’, and a figure was produced by the department of 29 per child per day. That is not to belittle it. It does not sound like too much, but cumulatively it is worth a bit. However, it makes more sense; it is in the right ballpark. I hope when we have difficult arguments that hysteria is not generated to the point where mischief is engaged in, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition.
I understand the head of that childcare centre, Louise de Bomford, who I have a great deal of time and respect for - she ran that organisation and continues to run it extremely well - has revised her comments about $5 a day and I am grateful she has done that.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition was all too hasty to use somebody’s error for political advantage and thus embarrass that person publicly. That means the Leader of the Opposition has to learn one of the rules of opposition: you have to be careful about some of the people you deal with because not everybody is as perfect as the Leader of the Opposition and may make mistakes. As a consequence, the Leader of the Opposition has to understand that her enthusiasm to win political points also has human casualties.
The other component is in her ruthless and relentless attack - I have said it before in this House and will say it again – Labor are much better haters than the CLP. Her relentless attack on Ken Clarke is obscene. Ken Clarke has provided a service to the people of the Northern Territory in the past. He provided that service under the CLP and, subsequently, under the Labor government, and is again serving the people of the Northern Territory in his current role. Of course, any piece of skulduggery and muckraking will do, but I note this suggestion and fear mongering about us selling Power and Water Corporation is something the Leader of the Opposition cannot resist, based on the flimsiest and most tissue-thin construction of evidence.
The Queensland organisation to which Ken Clarke is a board member, Energex, is not a private company, it is a government-owned corporation. What the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is that Energex, as a government-owned corporation, is seeking to acquire another government-owned corporation in another jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe Queensland is attempting to purchase the Northern Territory. She froths this up with such venom and vigour people will buy it, and that is what it is about. It is not about the truth; the truth is challenging enough. Surely, a politician of capacity would be able to remain within the boundaries of the truth in this debate and still be able to score the required political points for her side without having to engage in frolics of their own in the realm of the obtuse to an absurd degree.
I also find it interesting that we would, in some way, be ashamed of having people like Ken Clarke, John Gardiner and Barry Coulter - eminently sensible people with long track records in business management - look at the financial situation of the Northern Territory, including the Power and Water Corporation. That makes sense. If we were looking at or reviewing the health system we would have health experts. If we were looking at the police system we would have O’Sullivan, an expert on policing. Why is it such a strange idea to have an expert on financial management, two former Under Treasurers and a
person of the stature of Barry Coulter going through the books?
Yet, the Leader of the Opposition launched into this tirade that we have picked a bunch of people who are old mates. These are people of eminent capacity who are qualified to do the job. Yet, because they do the job well, and started to demonstrate to us as a government the flaws in the former Labor government’s position, they are for some reason, villains and evil-doers who are to be pilloried and slandered at every opportunity.
The Leader of the Opposition has no fear of using this House for some of the most vile assertions which are supported by the most tissue-thin evidence. She will do that, and continue to do that, again and again. She is totally unafraid to use this place to launch those attacks - things she is utterly unprepared to say outside the Kevlar-coated walls of this Chamber.
I put out a newsletter. It is not dated, but it carried a graph - I do not have the graph with me other than on a black and white sheet of paper - which tracks debt and income from 2004 to the forward projections of 2015-16. I got this from the government’s last set of budget papers. The problem we have is that debt was tracking to far exceed income into the future. For some reason, the former Treasurer calls this sustainable. How can an ever-increasing debt situation be described as sustainable when there is nothing in the forward projections to suggest we would step down from debt? The answer from the former Treasurer has been the answer articulated in her budget books when she was the Treasurer.
Her answer was this: the GST would return to normal operating parameters. The problem with the former Treasurer’s approach is that somehow, magically, without any indication that it would happen, the halcyon days of the early years of the 21st century would return and rescue us from the debt trap. I have said before in this place: we cannot approach the GST income as though it is going through a hiatus at the moment. I am not seeing any evidence that what is happening at the moment is anything other than the new normal. The old normal was actually abnormal. The first five or six years of the operation of the GST generated more income than was ever expected. If you go back to the forward estimates of the late 1990s in relation to how much money GST would generate, you would discover very quickly there were projections that fell far short of reality. The GST was a gold mine.
Smart governments squirrelled that extra cash away. I have said before, and I will say it again: the Gallop government in Western Australia - a Labor government - was able to reduce its debt to zero. The Howard government, the federal government - which was not a recipient of GST but was also enjoying a time of surprising income - reduced its debt to zero. The Northern Territory could have done exactly the same thing.
What situation do we find ourselves in now? The new government is trying very hard ...
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: The new government finds itself engaging in some really tough decision, not so we can reduce debt to zero, simply so, in the forward estimates, we can prevent debt from growing any further. Our target - which should be the standard target for any government on any given year - is to reach a point where in the final year of the forward estimates we are aiming for a small surplus or, at least, a balance in our books. This means our debt will increase between now and the forward estimates. What we are aiming for is a levelling spot. Yet, I heard the member for Casuarina say we are trying to reduce debt to zero.
I wish we could reduce debt to zero. Oh, how I wish - I have a Dr Seuss moment coming up - I really wish we could get our debt to zero so we could be a financial hero - I know, that is getting too Dr Seuss. The fact is we are not trying to get debt to zero; we are trying to contain the growth, to get the growth down to zero. Then we still have the great big bank card debt.
To put it into perspective for members: we have the family of the Northern Territory, and the boss of the family - which is the head of the family, mum or dad - has a credit card to feed the kids and do everything they have to do. They go out during a period of increased income and spend everything they have from the increased income. They do not save anything and the credit card debt is reduced only slightly. As the years roll on, they suddenly realise they have lost a lot of their income because their income is going flat. So, they have a choice. They either reduce some of the frills and do not take as many holidays or do all the other things they would like, or they can go back to the credit card.
They jam the credit card into the machine, type in the number, grab the credit card. The debt keeps going up and up. The income stays level. Suddenly, the new head of the family comes in and we find ourselves opening the bank statement and saying, ‘Oh my goodness’. The problem is we would like then to say, ‘Oh, we will reduce the growth of debt to zero this year’. But it turns out that the previous family had entered into all sorts of contracts with all sorts of people to provide the new lounge room furniture, the new LCD TV set, the new pool for the kids, everything else like that.
We have to make good on all those contracts. We have to pay for that. For the next few years, we are still reluctantly sticking things on the credit card and the lofty goal we are aiming for is that in four years time we can cut the credit card up. It does not mean the debt has gone away. We just want to be able to cut up the credit card.
I ask a question of any sensible person watching this debate and observing this whole environment: if we inflict all of this pain only to be able to cut up the credit card in four years time, how bad is our position? If this is so painful, imagine how painful it would be if we actually did start trying to reduce debt to zero. The problem is, even if, in four years time under the former government spending practices, we did not spend a cent, we turned all the lights out, we got rid of the health department, the police department, we got rid of education completely, do you reckon you would be able to pay off your credit card in one year? No, even if the government did not spend a red cent on the projections of the former government, it would take more than a year.
Yet, we are villains and bullies and we are mean. What happens on the final end of this exercise is the logical conclusion of what is happening in Europe. I am not saying we are that bad yet, but my goodness gracious me, the Greeks are rioting in the streets because all of a sudden the bailiff has turned up saying, ‘I want you guys to pay the credit card bill’. ‘We cannot’, they scream, ‘We cannot pay the credit card bill.’
I will tell you how it would become manifest in the Northern Territory if we found ourselves in that situation. We talk about statehood, we talk about self-governing jurisdictions. There is a presumed arrangement with the federal government that they would cover off on our debts because we are a territory. If you imagine us turning to the federal government in this circumstance and saying we want to be a self-governing territory but we cannot manage the books, how long do you think we would last?
A member: I do not think so.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not think so. People talk about being passionate about the Northern Territory. I am passionate about the Northern Territory but I also know and remember the years prior to self-government when we were run, essentially, as a federal department out of Canberra. I remember the time pre-1974 - I am looking at Mr Gadd now - when there was not a fully elected Legislative Council in this jurisdiction, where a majority of the Legislative Council was appointed and that is what we would be looking down the barrel of if we do not contain this. This is where we find ourselves today.
We have a choice. We can either be an irresponsible government and sign up to everything the former government signed up to and say, ‘Oh what the hell, someone else will clean up the mess’, because it will not be within our first or second term of government. We could double the debt of this jurisdiction without any major problems but eventually somebody would have to do something and that is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to do something and I wish our goal was loftier than merely being able to contain debt increases to zero in four years time. If you think we are being mean and tricky, horrible and nasty by trying to exert an element of responsibility, then it demonstrates your philosophical position. The other thing that stands out about the former government’s capacity to manage the books, particularly about the Leader of the Opposition, is that the problem started at about the time the current Leader of the Opposition became the Treasurer.
That is endemic in the left of the Labor Party. It is just something you do. That is what we will get with a former Labor government: a government which thinks its job is to be Santa Claus. In the real world, everybody knows the Christmas presents under the tree have to be paid for. They are either paid for in cash up front or if they are being racked up on the credit card, Father Christmas has long disappeared back to the North Pole and everybody else is left to pay the credit card bill.
I cannot support this motion because it is a shallow investigation of what is happening in the Northern Territory. It is simply part of the former government’s campaign to ramp up the hysteria surrounding this government’s decision to exert an element of control and restraint and to show some sobriety and temperance in government. I am not afraid of my duty. Whilst I do not enjoy it, whilst I take no relish in it, I do understand it is a duty thrust upon my shoulders as it is thrust upon the shoulders of the Treasurer, Cabinet and all the members of the Country Liberal Party. They are standing firm in their duty in the face of substantial public criticism because we all know in the Country Liberals that this is the right thing to do.
One last comment regarding the campaign being run, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, that we break this up into two hits. Think about this! If you take $100 as your quarterly electricity bill - I know that it is nowhere near the real figure but this is about the mathematics - and you add 15% now, your next bill will be $115. If you add 30% now, your next bill will be $130. If you add 15%, it will be $115 and if you add another 15% in six months time, you are advocating an increase to $132.25. That would be the compounding phase of a two-stage increase of 15%.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is just another component we need to think about and is something the former government knows because they did it themselves when they had to announce, as a result of the Reeves report, a 23% increase, when in fact it was over 24%.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to the contribution the opposition made to this debate. I have heard all the reasons why we should not put the price of power up. How terrible it is, how disastrous it is; they went on and on and have been going on for a week. Yes, it will be difficult. However, when I listen to members in this House this evening, I can understand why the ALP was petrified of putting prices up. They have given us every reason that must have been discussed in Caucus and Cabinet as to how scary it would be. You can understand why they put this decision off.
We know they were secretly planning to increase prices after the election. I have listened very carefully to the members of the former government, now in opposition, and it is very clear to me they were petrified of what would happen. We heard from the member for Barkly about people going to Casuarina and, before they had even set the table up, they wanted to sign the petition. Labor was going to put prices up because they had to, otherwise Power and Water would go down the gurgler. If we had been in the same position, the people would have been signing a petition for us. I do not believe anyone wants to swallow this very difficult pill.
Labor knew drastic action was needed to make the Power and Water Corporation financially sustainable. I have heard other people mention that word and it is a truism that in this day and age you have to have financial sustainability. Elsewhere in Australia we were known as the second-lowest charging authority for power supply. We knew there were some issues, but it is not until you get into government and get hold of the books that you can see exactly what is going on.
Again, Labor knew they would have to put prices up. Unfortunately, they did not have the intestinal fortitude to put them up before the election. Given they are now in opposition, we hear them bleating and saying what a terrible disaster it is. Well, 13 weeks in, suddenly it appears to be the new government’s fault. All that debt, all that overspending, all that money on the MasterCard is suddenly our doing.
I have also heard the Leader of the Opposition say she is talking to people and they are saying what a disaster it is. I have been at my shopping centres on Saturday mornings talking to my businesses. Businesses do not like it. People do not like it. It does not matter whether you have a dollar in your pocket or not, nobody likes it.
However, they have told me they understand. Quite a few start the conversation with, ‘We know the Australian Labour Party in government in the Northern Territory caused this problem. We do not like it. We do not like paying and extra 30% and we would rather pay less’, but they understand the reality, even though it will hurt.
No one who is new to government wants to make these decisions. However, in contrast to the former ALP government, the Country Liberals government has been honest and up-front with the community. We are not hiding anything. The debt situation the Territory is currently in is an ugly story, a legacy of the former ALP government.
We do not like these rises any more than anyone else, and we are conscious of their impact on families and businesses in the Territory. If the opposition believes I am not receiving e-mails in my electorate account or people are not walking in to my office telling me how difficult it is - I am sure they are getting them as well. But not everyone who walks through the door wants to cane us for increasing the price of power. They understand it is a fault of the previous government that we are in debt, have the highest rents in the country, land release problems, and a multitude of other issues which have led us to where we are at the moment.
We have done what we can to lessen the impact. I am sure, over the coming months, audits will be done through the Power and Water Corporation. I am sure the Treasurer and Cabinet asked for efficiency reports to be put together to see just where savings can be made. We, on our side, have increased support for schools, Ebiz programs, and energy use.
The other thing which really annoys me about what the opposition has been trudging out for the last few days is they have been denigrating the people who have the experience and the qualifications to be going through the books, pointing out what our current financial position is, and how much of a mess this is. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition denigrate people as the ‘old dinosaurs’ and ‘older people’.
She seems to be denigrating older people, the people who hold the corporate knowledge. My mother was an older person. The parents of most of us in this room are older people. Do we just dismiss them? Do we denigrate them? Hardly! This will impact on seniors.
Another issue that came to light today was in relation to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition about Mr Ken Clarke who is doing a fine job. It is a shame Mr Clarke was not on the board of the Power and Water Corporation because he might have been able to give some of that fantastic experience and corporate knowledge he has, and still retains, even though he may not be 21 years of age.
I contacted Shane Stone after the Leader of the Opposition made some comments about Mr Clarke and others. I quote from a letter to the editor the former Chief Minister, Mr Stone, wrote:
- Journalists are always very quick to demand that politicians apologise and recant when they get something wrong. How about journalists and editorial writers? First we had the public power utility Energex being described as a ‘private company’ when it’s not. Now we have speculation that Energex is about to be privatised and sold off, which it’s not. The Premier of Queensland has made that clear both inside and outside parliament.
Now we have Energex being described as a potential buyer of PAWA. How would that work? To start I don’t have a budget or authority to acquire any other utility. We are owned by the Queensland taxpayer, accountable to the shareholder ministers and subject to the Queensland Auditor-General. Queensland is broke courtesy of Labor, so they don’t exactly have the cash to splash, even if they wanted to.
Further, the suggestion of some grand plan to link the two is so stupid it defies all logic. Energex is in the southeast corner of Queensland - thousands of kilometres away. The other Queensland government power utility, Ergon, has the rest of Queensland up to the Territory border.
And for the record, Ken Clarke has worked for both the ALP Henderson government and Country Liberal Party Mills government. Ken Clarke consulted extensively to NT Housing on Labor’s watch. How come he was OK then but not now, or did Delia forget?
- Where’s the conflict? His directorship of Energex is not a secret - it was in the news and is on the website ...
Mr STYLES: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quoting a letter to the editor.
This is a quote, member for Nightcliff, and I continue:
- Small detail: he is not on the Board of PAWA, or did that get missed somewhere?
Some of this commentary is too silly for words; it’s misinformed, and detracts from what is otherwise a serious and compelling issue - power prices and the real impact of the carbon tax on working families. Come on NT News you can do better than this; you’re supposed to be an accurate chronicle of NT history.
It succinctly says a lot about the current debate coming from the opposition. It is their problem; we are left to resolve the problems they created. It is a huge problem, not that we want to put the price of power up, but it is essential that these things happen. I am sure that is not the only thing we find ourselves in a mess over.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about an inconvenient truth in her comments to this motion. I suspect the inconvenient truth is that the former Labor government in the Northern Territory is responsible. That is the truth and the inconvenient bit. They do not want to accept that this is their creation. Admittedly, in 10 years time, I do not believe I would want to be standing here saying, ‘Oh well, it is all the ALP’s fault’, because we would have been in government and we will fix it because we have to. We do not have a choice, just like families.
My mother taught me about basic economics: you cannot spend more than you earn. You can buy a house, sure, but you do not use all your money to pay off the interest bill on the money you borrowed because you could not afford it. We have to live within our means. For sure, we have to borrow; everyone has to have a mortgage if you want to buy a home. However, sadly in the Northern Territory, not everyone has a mortgage. Why is that? Because the previous government failed to release enough land.
I remember coming into this House in 2008, standing on the other side when we were in opposition and saying to the government, ‘I am hearing from young people who want to buy a home, who want to stay here, they do not have sufficient money to buy land because every block of land is under auction. I can put it in simple terms: if there are 50 blocks of land and there are 100 people wanting to buy a block of land, you have an auction on every block of land. Then somebody says, ‘I will give you X dollars’, and the other person says, ‘I will give you some more’. So we start pushing the price up. That was great for the government of the day because they were collecting a truckload in stamp duty. But all that did was push up the prices to the point where we have the most expensive housing in Australia.
Some relatives of mine have just moved here and want to stay. They love the Territory; they think it is great. They came on long service leave, contributed some tourist dollars, spent some time here, went back to Perth and thought they would like to move to the Territory. They are here now and they are struggling. They said, ‘Gee, everything is pretty expensive up here’. I said, ‘Courtesy of the previous Labor government. There was not enough land, they chose to put their dollars in one direction, not into infrastructure and service delivery for the release of land’. So, we have a huge land shortage - a terrible situation for young people to be in.
As the Parliamentary Secretary for Youth, I receive many e-mails from people. I know many young people in the Northern Territory, having in my former life taught 40 000 of them. Many of them come and see me for all sorts of reasons. The most common reason is that they cannot afford to live here. The most important thing to them is the cost of rent and housing.
Seniors are telling me their rent has increased. Why is that? People cannot buy a house; there are not enough blocks of land being released so that has put pressure on the housing market. It puts pressure on the rental market because young people and old people cannot buy anything because the previous government allowed it to escalate to a point where it is ridiculous. They say they love the Territory. I love the Territory too. I want to see the Territory in a better fiscal position than we found it.
When you start throwing rough numbers around, when you earn $5bn and spend $6bn continually - during some of the best times the Territory has had but with nothing squirreled away - debts continue to rise.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘We did this and we had a budget surplus here’, but from 2001 to 2012 that debt has increased. When you look at when the previous Treasurer, the member for Karama took over, it has gone through the roof. The old crocodile jaws: debt rising, income dropping.
I thought I heard the other day, and I would be happy to be corrected, that someone on the opposition side said, ‘Oh well, you know, we were expecting some more GST’. That is about the same as saying you expect to win lotto. I buy a lotto ticket and I am expecting to win lotto. That will be wonderful, everything will be right. I will pay off all my debts, and will pay off that massive big MasterCard as soon as I win TattsLotto. Or worse still, I will go to the casino, put all my money on red and hope lady luck is on my side and I get some more income to fix the massive debt I have.
Mrs Lambley: That’s how she managed the Territory.
Mr STYLES: I think so. It is a bit like roulette.
I have had seniors in my office crying because of rent. In the last 12 months some people have had their rent increased by $150.
I hear interjections from the opposition. I do not blame them because I would be severely embarrassed to be sitting on the opposition benches trying to defend the complete financial mess they left the incoming government.
I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition for trying to defend herself because she needs to. She was the Treasurer and she allowed things to get in a mess. Her former Cabinet colleagues on that side of the House are also fairly responsible, because, I am sure, like on this side, it is a collective decision in the Cabinet. So, you probably have a few people sitting on that side who are responsible for the financial mess we are in.
I hear them say on the radio and the television, this is terrible, the CLP are mean and nasty people. Well what about the opposition in government? They were so mean and nasty that they left a mess. One of the things we all try to do is leave the place in better shape so our kids do not have a worse life. Over there is a bunch of people who have left the place in a mess for their kids. I have kids in this town too and am appalled at what the former government has done to the Territory.
My kids are trying to buy homes and they say ‘Dad, we just cannot afford it’. They do not want to leave because this is where their family is. The opposition talks about people being angry that prices are going up. I can assure all of you in opposition that people have been coming into my office before the election and after and they are angry at you guys because you made such a mess of it. You kept it from them. You say how fantastic this is. It is very important that people understand exactly what has happened here.
There is a whole lot of stuff we have tried to do. Prices are going up 30% for electricity, 40% for water and 25% for services.
Ms Walker: And 15% for rego.
Mr STYLES: I heard the member for Nhulunbuy. The member for Nhulunbuy, in my recollection, did not have any input into Cabinet. Maybe you could absolve yourself of some responsibility, just a little, because it was your Cabinet colleagues who made all these decisions. They have made decisions which put multicultural people in a massively bad situation, where they are trying to get a start - people who have just moved here, who have immigrated to this place. They think ‘Wow, I do not want to be here’. They leave. We lose many people from the Territory who decide to go to Sydney or Melbourne because it is cheaper to live. These people did not arrive in the last 13 weeks.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Mr STYLES: Thank you member for Araluen. I really appreciate that gesture.
I travel broadly, especially from the Top End to the Centre, and as often as I can. In my travels I see people from many cultures who come here and have family coming here. They have relatives and friends immigrating to this country. They would like to stay and live here but they think, ‘Gee, this is a pretty expensive place to live’. We have the most expensive rents in Australia.
We had the second-cheapest power in Australia, but everything else was super-expensive. Try to buy a house. They cannot, so they rent a place. I know people in Wagaman who are paying through the nose for places in very poor condition. Why is that? The previous government did not release the land; it did not look after it. They have left a legacy our children will be paying off for some time.
Youth and MasterCards. We all teach our young people about credit cards. I have counselled my children about using credit cards and racking up the credit card bill - having a great time and not worrying about how to pay it off. There is an old saying about the chickens coming home to roost. Sadly for the opposition, which was in government 13 weeks ago, the chickens have come home to roost. It is your legacy we have to fix. It is your legacy we are debating in this Chamber tonight. In 11 years time, if we are in the same position, I would expect to cop a flogging as well. You need to be up-front, stand up, wear it on the chin and accept responsibility for the mess.
My mother taught me about overspending. One of the things she said the Leader of the Opposition also talks about: we do not pay the mortgage off in two years. This is not about paying the mortgage off in two years; this is about getting the money back to what we are earning. The debt is still there. How we pay that debt off will be interesting. How will we do that? You can put taxes up if you sit around and do nothing. However, it will be about economic activity. That is something we will do in this House. We will be far better at economic activity than the previous ALP government. We need to create that so our kids will have an opportunity.
A few pensioners have told me they have some major problems in paying the increase in power prices. In seeking their advice, they all tell me their biggest problem is not power, it is rent. We have to fix the rental situation. How can we do that? We will have to find the money to release sufficient land so young people have a chance.
Talking to young people, they are pretty smart. A few of them spoke to me about the previous government’s scheme, saying it was really amazing that the government wanted to give them $750 000. They said, ‘Well, how does that work because if they give the person next to me $750 000 as well, do we bid until somebody runs out of money?’ They put prices up to $750 000 and the people who own homes must be rubbing their hands together saying, ‘You beauty, I paid $180 000 for this 10 years ago. Now the government is shovelling money out and pushing the price up.’ I found that amazing. I do not understand how the previous Labor Cabinet allowed that to happen. I would be very happy, after we close tonight, for anyone on that side to explain the logic behind it - it would be really interesting - so I understand it and never make that mistake.
There is a range of things in relation to seniors, youth, multicultural affairs - obviously three areas of great interest to me. I taught my kids about overspending. One of my kids some years ago had an issue with a MasterCard and learnt the hard way. He had to ask, ‘Dad, can you give us a hand? I just need to make a couple of MasterCard payments.’ We sat down and I said, ‘I will do that, but I want to have a look at the books’. He did not want to show me the books. I said, ‘Look, I do not mind helping you because I have some skills and knowledge about how to fix this’. So he had to cough up the books. The books were a mess. It is a bit like dj vu here, where I am looking at my kid’s financial situation and saying, ‘By gee, you have got yourself in a bit of a mess here’. They did not quite understand this or that. They did that and this came in, that bill came in and they did not allow or plan for it and they said, ‘I found myself with a problem; in a bit of debt, then I had to go cap in hand to Dad. I can fix this but I need a bit of a hand.’
The lesson from that is they did not have any idea about how to put it together. We got some financial counselling and fixed the problem. I had to lend him a bit of money for a short period of time, but he had to go without a lot of things to get the books back in order. From that day on he has been extremely grateful to me for making him cough up the books so we could have a look at them and see what sort of mess his finances were in. It was not a lot but he was in a mess.
When I look at the comparison between what we are doing at the moment - not the exact example I wanted to use - it is like playing the parent and coming to the wayward child and saying they have messed up the finances and now we will sit down and work it out. It is really simple. If you earn $100 a week and keep borrowing money and spend $120 a week, which is 20% over what you have to spend, eventually someone has to pay it back. The problem is you have this little thing called interest. It is $750 000 a day now, heading towards $1m soon because of the amount of money we had to borrow.
I am sure we will have an argument over the GFC and all that stuff and that may or may not be a good argument. However, the fact is, in the good times nothing was put away.
They did this and did that, got more of this - not wealth generating but wealth consumption. When I knock on doors people say we just want to get into power. I say I do not necessarily want to get into power; I want to get into government so we can facilitate. There is a difference between power and government. When you get into power you can dictate to people and say, ‘This is good for you. Have we got a fantastic deal for you. You just do this.’ You pat them on the head and tell them to sit there, trust us, and we will do it.
Getting into government is about facilitating people to generate wealth. We must facilitate an environment in which businesses, households, and people in the Northern Territory can prosper. That will be a big call because we have been left a mess. We have to do it and we will do it, and will encourage people to come up with ways to be creative and generate wealth, unlike the other side which just consumed it. There was an almost 20% overspend on the budget.
If you have $120 and that is your lifestyle and you are used to it, everyone is happy and you are just throwing money around, no problems. Eventually, you will have to pay that money back, plus interest. That means at least $20 a week for X number of years plus interest, which may be $10 a week. That is $30 a week. Suddenly, we have gone from an income of a $120 a week down to $70 a week. That is tough. Do you know what? People have to do it. I have had to do it in my life, going almost overnight from a two-income family to a one-income family. How do you do that? You have to tighten the belt and do things, and it is really sad. It made me sad, but it is achievable.
Madam Speaker, when you are left with a legacy beyond your control, you have to deal with it. That is exactly what the CLP government has had to do. We have had to make the tough, necessary decisions, as a legacy of the badly-managed Territory finances of the former Labor government and the ballooning debt. Quite frankly, I am appalled by the mess this previous government not only left me but my children and my grandchildren. For that they should be ashamed.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, tonight, for the third time in the last 24 hours, I talk on this very important issue, the tariff increases we have been forced, as a new government, to implement. Once again, it has been an intriguing discussion, an intriguing debate commencing with the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory giving a slightly insightful presentation tonight. I did sense that she had a need to explain herself.
For the first time she acknowledged her role as the former Treasurer in creating this enormous debt we have been landed with. It was very subtle in its insightfulness but I did detect, ever so slightly, the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, was in a position she wanted to give an explanation; she wanted to give Territorians a story that fills in an ominous gap in people’s understanding of why we are where we are at the moment in the Northern Territory. She exposed herself as being ever so slightly responsible for where we are.
She talked about how she undertook a huge capital expenditure program within the Power and Water Corporation over the last four years. She did that but, for the first time, she articulated it tonight. She said it was necessary. She talked about it being a huge expenditure, probably larger than what she expected. She talked about how she placed the Power and Water Corporation in a large amount of debt.
I believe we have seen a breakthrough because this is cutting a little closer to why we are in this financial predicament at the moment. The former Treasurer disclosed to us that she is in some way responsible for the fact there has been a major decision over the last week to increase tariffs. I was very comforted to hear her somewhat cautious revelation about how she may have contributed to the necessary increase in tariffs that this new government had to announce a week ago.
As I have said before in this parliament, we came to government on 25 August, just 14 weeks ago. A process unfolded in front of us whereby each day a new worsening story unfolded as to the level of the financial debacle the former government left us. We have heard some great versions of what we found from my parliamentary colleagues tonight. It has been horrific each day coming to work as a new member of parliament and hearing more information about how serious this debt problem is that we now face - the fiscal imbalance.
As a new Treasurer, it takes time to fully comprehend the extent of the financial state of affairs and to become au fait with the different terminology and different mechanisms within Treasury. It is quite a voyage I have been on and the former Treasurer has not held back in criticising me at every turn for what she perceives as a ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I draw your attention to the state of the House?
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mrs LAMBLEY: A wonderful attempt by the opposition to shut me down. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to listen to the new Treasurer reveal to the people of the Northern Territory the extent of the mess we have landed in.
The former Treasurer revealed tonight, and I thank her, that she took a level of responsibility for her major, critical part in the extent of the debt and the fiscal imbalance we face as a new government. The Leader of the Opposition was probably the most humble I have ever seen her in that she admitted she is responsible for placing the Power and Water Corporation in significant debt. When you make that admission, you are basically saying you are responsible for the problem and I thank her for that.
Although it may have pained her, maybe it was a mistake, maybe she did not mean to be so open and frank; in fact it is really not within her nature, and we know that, to be honest and open, but she indicated to me and the rest of those listening this evening that she went on a spending spree, which we know she is very good at, and she landed the Power and Water Corporation in significant debt. The debt of the Power and Water Corporation is sitting around $1.2bn and she has taken responsibility for that.
The former Treasurer has given the people of the Northern Territory a reason why this new government has reluctantly and regretfully had to increase electricity, sewerage and water tariffs. That is because, through her own admission, the Leader of the Opposition went on a spending spree with Power and Water funds and clocked up the credit card, emptied the coffers and had to borrow 68% of what was required to undertake her capital works program last financial year. That is in the latest Statement of Corporate Intent and if we were to carry on with the intentions of the former government, that would soon clock up to 78%. So there we have it. Once and for all it is on the public record.
The Leader of the Opposition, through probably some mistake or error in the way she has worded things no doubt - I do not think she would have intentionally accepted responsibility, but indeed she has, and people in this Chamber tonight heard her and can see her for what she is: the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory. She will go down in history for putting the people of the Northern Territory through many years of suffering because of her irresponsibility and poor management. She will go down in the history books as being the person responsible. There is no hiding from it.
Her colleague down the back, the member for Casuarina, can call the state of the House. There can be any means of distraction and deflection implemented by the opposition in order to shut me down and shut anyone else down who dares to spell out the truth, but the truth of the matter is that the opposition, the former Labor government, has, essentially, admitted responsibility. It has taken many days of discussion, many days of debate but I heard it tonight. It was thinly veiled, it was very subtle, but it was there.
We heard about the pain the increase in tariffs will cause Territorians, we have heard it for many hours over the last two days. The pain of the tariffs will indeed be there and we recognise that. As my colleagues have reiterated, we accept full responsibility for that pain. What we did not hear from the opposite side of the Chamber, what we did not hear from the Leader of the Opposition, is the $750 000 per day in interest payments also causes much pain - $750 000 per day in interest payments is a heck of a lot of money. Can you imagine what you could buy with that amount of money every day? You could buy a house, 365 people in the Northern Territory could be housed with your My New Home scheme free of charge with the interest we pay each day, compliments of the former Labor government. It is outrageous.
If we were to keep spending the way the former Treasurer liked to, that would quickly escalate within the next 18 months to $1m in interest payments per day every day of the year. That is $1m we would be paying because of the former Treasurer’s tendency to love to spend. Spend like there is no tomorrow. Spend irresponsibly; spend your way out of a problem. That is the pain Territorians are experiencing. They are missing out. The money we have to channel into interest payments is at the sake of spending on things we really need.
We really need to bolster our health services, to put the roads into the rural and remote areas, to look after people in the bush who are suffering, to look after the education facilities throughout the Northern Territory. We really need to upgrade much of our infrastructure throughout the Territory. There mounting needs but, compliments of the former government, we have to spend $750 000 per day every day of the year to pay off that debt. That is painful; that is real pain.
The other pain the member for Sanderson articulated so well is the pain we have been experiencing for many years in the high cost of housing and rental accommodation throughout the Northern Territory. Over the last 11 years since 2001, you could only guess how much rentals have gone up in Darwin and Palmerston. In fact, you could not guess if you had not been living here for some time, how much they have gone up. Rentals have gone up 260% since 2001; it is staggering.
The Leader of the Opposition and opposition members are all chiming in accusing us of all types of irresponsible behaviour when they have been presiding over this dramatic increase in rental accommodation over the entire term of their government - 11 years, a 260% increase is staggering, unparalleled. They are the highest rentals in Australia and we are accused of being negligent when it comes to the cost of living. We are 13 weeks into government and somehow we are responsible for everything - the problem, the fact we have been shoved in a corner and had to make a really tough decision. Where are the tough decisions the former government made? What will we spend a couple of million on today?
Those were the tough decisions the former government had to make; nothing responsible, nothing difficult, nothing courageous, just spend, spend, spend. They were lucky, as the member for Sanderson has already highlighted. They were extremely fortunate, they were around during the halcyon days of the GST when there was plenty of money, and boy that money slipped out of their fingers very quickly. There was no intention to save; there was no responsible management of this wonderful GST, a fountain of money and prosperity that came their way.
They were very lucky; it was very timely for the former Labor government to be around because they do not know about responsible financial management but they do know about spending, spending, spending. It is a well-known phenomenon. Everyone around Australia recognises that Labor does the spending and in comes the conservative government with no money in the coffers and fixes. The story is well and truly the case for the Northern Territory. The former Labor government did all the spending, made the big mess, as the member for Sanderson so beautifully described, left the kids a mess, and went on the grey nomad holiday up the coast.
Unfortunately, we have to look at the opposition; they are not on any holiday. They have to look at us across the Chamber during these sittings and we have to look at them. They have to try to flick off, detract, distract and deflect the reality, the truth, of what they have done. It is criminal and alarming. I described last night the looks on the faces of the people who were in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast I attended before the election, during which Dr Neil Conn, now the head of the Renewal Management Board, delivered a stark presentation on the state of the finances in the Northern Territory - absolute silence; people were stunned. But, if you listen to the opposition, they would have you believe everyone they talk to thinks it is fine, that we are exaggerating. If they had been in attendance at that Chamber of Commerce breakfast Neil Conn spoke at before the election they would not have a shadow of a doubt.
This former Labor government, now opposition, has driven the Northern Territory into the ground - not beyond repair, thankfully. Thankfully, the people of the Northern Territory voted us into power. Thankfully, the people of the Northern Territory probably recognised it was time for a change, that things could not continue, that the spending was extraordinary and out of line with the revenue coming in. People are not stupid, they do follow these things. They are somewhat complicated; when you go beyond the surface, they are quite complex. However, in general, people get the formula that if you keep spending more money than you have coming in then you are on a slippery slope to very serious financial problems.
That slippery slope has been in existence in the Northern Territory for at least the past four or five years: since 2008. In 2008, guess what? That was when the former Treasurer came to her position. The year 2008 will mark a very serious decline in the history of the Territory finances. It will go down in the history books as being the point at which the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, really had no idea about how to manage the finances. She really had no idea about basic business concepts.
She has, obviously, never run a business in her life; she has no idea. Even after four years as Treasurer she clearly has no idea. Do you know what? As much as it pains me to say it, I feel sorry for her because the best she can do is throw insults at people, go to that really personal, cutting, nasty level when, in fact, she really has struggled. She is embarrassed, humiliated ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the Treasurer be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, the former Treasurer is a sad and sorry sight sitting over there.
One thing I learnt many years ago is when you trap a wild animal, a person who is vulnerable and scared, the fight or flight principle comes into effect. They either resign or withdraw and take the battering or they come out fighting. If there is one thing you can say about the former Treasurer, she is a fighter. And good on her! That is great. It is good to see someone come out fighting.
I can come out fighting too, I have nothing to hide. I have not done anything irreparably wrong. I have made a few slightly silly comments and I will hear about that forever and a day. That is fine, I can laugh at myself, I am self-deprecating. I am quite a modest person at the end of the day. When I make a mistake I am usually the first one to tell people. If that gives you any solace on the opposite side of the Chamber, if you feel you need to remind me of a mistake I have made, then go ahead. I can laugh it off, I have broad shoulders. I have thick skin and a great sense of humour. I am self deprecating which is something the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition is not. Her personality is not of that nature. She is a fighter; she comes out fighting. Obviously she has a lot to fight back about. Her credibility is on the line, it is being tested to the max.
Mr Tollner: It is shot to pieces.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is shot to pieces, as the member for Fong Lim just brought to my attention. It is quite a miserable time for her, as it is for us. We have had to make one of the most difficult decisions this government will ever have to make: increasing tariffs, electricity by 30%, sewerage and water to significant levels. It is serious business but we have not taken it lightly. Believe it or not, we have tried to keep these increases as low as possible, which has been extremely difficult.
The former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition told us tonight just how much she spent during the last couple of years of her term in government as Treasurer. She told us she invested a huge amount of money in capital works in Power and Water. We know from reading the Statement of Corporate Intent that most of that money had to be borrowed. She had to borrow it because she was not willing to increase the revenue coming into the Power and Water Corporation. That was too scary and made her politically vulnerable. It may have meant she was not re-elected - she was not re-elected anyway because people saw through it – but she could not make those tough decisions.
She just kept spending money on capital. We heard it tonight. Her inability to correct the situation through good management did not dawn on her. She did not understand what to do. We know through anecdotal evidence that she did not listen to her advisors, Treasury or the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board. She did not listen to anyone who would have made an awful lot of sense. We know she did not listen to anyone because the My New Home scheme was just implemented. The people who could have advised her have told me she was not open to their advice. The former Treasurer, in her ignorance, in her sense of self importance, made decisions willy-nilly and she was ill-equipped. She did not understand how things worked.
So we have come to government - now 14 weeks in government - and have identified this problem very quickly. We have very cleverly sought the assistance of some incredibly intelligent, capable human beings. They are old gentlemen - God forbid, we know that the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition has a very significant problem when it comes to old people. We do not on this side of the House.
A member: Old men.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Old men I should say. We do not have a problem with old men. We embrace elderly people. We think elderly men and women have a significant contribution to make to society. We have quickly harnessed the skills and the expertise of a group of elderly men known as the Renewal Management Board and we immediately undertook a process of trying to understand.
Yes, we had access to all the material that was publicly available, yes we did make the most of what was available; but through the analysis of these experts, through their advice and through engaging with the different agencies at a very deep and meaningful level, we gained substantial understanding of what we had in front of us in the finances of the Northern Territory. We did our homework and this is how we have got to where we are today. We really have undertaken a period of study and reflection, a period of trying to fully understand the whole picture of the legacy of the former government when it comes to the finances of the Northern Territory.
We feel we have done that quite well. We have done that competently and are very confident of the position we are in at the moment in this very early stage of our government. We are well-informed and well-advised. We are open and honest and are in a very strong position.
Are we in a good position? No, because we have inherited the muck, the mismanagement from the former government. It is a bad position, and we have had to make some very difficult decisions which have meant bad news for the people of the Northern Territory. We accept that with our hands on our hearts and we take responsibility.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about it, people will suffer. We have all said it. Most of us have expressed our deep regret. But we do not turn away from the fact - and it is a fact, not a perception, not our opinion, not a sleazy criticism we are throwing across the room - this problem was caused by the former government’s mismanagement. This problem is caused by the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory, her incompetence; her inability to recognise when things were going downhill and make amends, and there is absolutely no question about it.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): If I am standing I am wrapping up, so if the Chief Minister wants to speak - I am conscious of the time that is all.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): As I was when we were trying to get through that bill. It has been a very important debate that we have revisited. To reinforce the fine contribution of the Deputy Chief Minister, when we look at the graph that represents the widening gap between what we have by way of income versus expenditure, the gap emerges at almost exactly the same time as we had a new Treasurer in the Northern Territory, the member for Karama. The member for Karama endeavours to hide beneath the global financial crisis but that cannot conceal the obligation that anyone who is responsible for the managing of valuable resources such as taxpayers’ contributions for us to acquit has a responsibility to make adjustments.
The only adjustment that was made by the former Treasurer was an adjustment of language not of attitude. The underlying attitude is one of entitlement; that we are owed a benefit from others who work hard. That is the status of a mendicant. The adjustment of language was that peculiar phrase which struck me and I have heard it often repeated, that we ‘made a downward adjustment in our forward expectations’ which was: we thought we would get more but we got less even though it still was more but not as much as we thought we would get, and we are accustomed so much to spending that we can only adjust our language, we cannot exercise any discipline. That would make us unpopular and after all it is all about how we appear and we are the centre of this little universe we have created – fool’s paradise.
I found it astonishing that the Opposition Leader would reveal a strategy when there was no semblance of a structured plan of any kind to close that gap which began to widen at the point the member for Karama took the helm managing the ship of Treasury.
That debt mountain grew, compounded year upon year and without a change of attitude. The breathtaking audacity in lecturing us about the fine state of the Territory’s affairs was amazing. However, we had revealed, fortunately, yesterday, there was a plan to bring down debt over time and we were waiting for the structure of that plan and what was it? It was an expectation the GST income would increase so we would make an upward adjustment of our forward expectations and then find, somehow, those magical years would return when we always received more than we expected. That was the plan and it is nothing to build a future on. That is a fool’s paradise. Thank God it is over.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, in the interests of time I will keep my speech brief. I support this motion and urge the government to rethink its ill-thought decision to raise power prices by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%. These increases will hurt Territorians. They are already causing great stress to Territorians who are worrying about how they will pay the bills in five weeks’ time.
Power and water are essential services. We live in a harsh climate; we need to use our air conditioners to get our children to sleep during the day and night. Our back yards and recreation are often based around pools and water. We need to use pool pumps to keep our water clean and safe. I will briefly share the stories I have been told since this announcement. The corner store cannot handle a $3000 per month increase to its power bill, nor can the fish and chip shop. Businesses in my electorate are concerned this will be the straw that breaks their back.
I have had phone calls from a pensioner who uses a CPAP machine at night to breathe. He cannot turn this off as he needs the machine to live. I spoke to a lady who lives in the rural area. Her garden is her pride and joy. She grows vegetables and fruit. Her water bill will near double. She is distraught. What you have announced is not fair. People are asking what they can do. They feel helpless. It is not about turning their air conditioners off a bit more to save the difference. It will hurt and will change their lives. I spoke to a lady who was nearly in tears as she explained she lives from week to week and what you have proposed is stressing her deeply. She does not know what she will do. She is a valuable citizen performing a fantastic job. How can a government cause this stress to its people? This will affect so many people and being so close to Christmas just adds to the stress.
In social media people are suggesting boycotting Christmas lights this year. Although this seems a little light-hearted, it shows how helpless people feel. They are hurt.
Financial pressure causes great stress in families. For a government to put this much stress on their people shows it does not understand. We heard the NGO sector speak up this week and today we hear from our private and Catholic schools and private enterprise. As a former teacher, I feel that schools are well-placed to state they are not enterprises. If we do not assist them with the impact of this rise it will only impact on the quality of the education our children receive.
For some communities it is not a choice. In some remote communities Catholic schools are the only schools. What do childcare centres do? Many set their budgets, as they should, for the financial year in May to give families notice of any fee increases. To throw this on people with six to seven weeks notice, mid-financial year, is bad practice. To try to blame this fee increase on the new quality framework is wrong. I have no problem in paying fee increases that support my child’s learning and gives a fair wage to the hard-working educators who care for my children. However, to blame it on that is not fair.
Like the member for Port Darwin opposite, I too have played a role in my child’s childcare centre committee as well as other community and sporting groups. We expect these committee members to follow procedure and abide by the Associations Act yet we throw increases at them with no support or time to manage. Sporting groups across the Territory are wondering how they will pay for the air conditioning to power the basketball stadium or water for the football oval. To have the members opposite give us calculations why it is better to say 30% in a hit rather ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am pointing out it is 9 pm. We have business to get back to.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, I am glad you have a good sense of the time, member for Port Darwin. Member for Nightcliff, it is 9 pm. We are resuming debate. Do you wish to adjourn to a later stage?
Ms FYLES: I am not sure what the agreement was with the Leader of the Opposition but, yes, if that is what you suggest.
Debate adjourned.
PLANNING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 6)
(Serial 6)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I am interested in the amendment which provides for the Planning Commission to consider whether any Crown land will be suitable for a proposed development. This will be an important decision-making process. It reminds me of the example of Myilly Point and what I coined as the Bennelong Point of Darwin. When the CLP was in opposition it was continually pushing development of that Crown land. The government of the day’s argument was it should not be sold off or used as a proposed development at that stage because of the global financial crisis and because real estate prices were flat. Therefore, it would not provide the best return to the Territory taxpayer, to the Crown.
I am interested in the criteria around decision-making on Crown land because in that particular example there was no doubt the opposition had it wrong and the government had it right. Have you put in criteria around those decision-making processes where Crown land will be used for what I assume are significant development proposals?
Mr MILLS: Only those which are described in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: How would that factor in the pressure the opposition could bring to bear on the sale or allocation of Crown land to a proposal? Would the act be sufficient?
Mr MILLS: You would have full access to the process. It is an open process of community consultation. Nothing is hidden; your voices should be heard.
Mr McCARTHY: It was an interesting time though. Do you remember the debate in parliament where this was used more as a political strategy? It showed quite an irresponsible opposition that was really trying to use a political strategy. Should the government have followed that advice, the Crown would have lost considerably on the sale of that land. I am concerned. You are assuring us all of those safeguards are there?
Mr MILLS: As you did not receive a briefing – unfortunately, you were in Tennant Creek and spent a bit of time on the weekend in my electorate, unable to accept the opportunity. We would have made ourselves available on the weekend no problem.
Because you did not receive the briefing, obviously, you are missing the point of this. We are describing a mechanism whereby these decisions can be made. This is a policy discussion not a political discussion and reminiscing about events of the past. We are talking about a bill; this is the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY: Next question, minister. No doubt you will be providing developers with briefings and developers will be providing you with briefings?
Mr MILLS: I am always available. We have an act to guide us. Are you concerned about some weakness within the act? Is this what you are suggesting? You need to be aware we are talking about an amendment to the Planning Act, so which aspect of the act would you be describing as deficient that may cause some kind of breach in this area? Is that your concern or do you want to have a conversation?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I will move to clause 50C. As stated in the explanatory statement:
- When significant development report may be requested
Proposed section 50C deals with the situation where:
a development application has been made
- the consent authority considers the proposed development may be a significant development proposal, and
the Commission has not given the Minister a report in relation to the proposal.
This situation is considered unlikely because most significant developments would have been identified before the development application has been lodged.
Once again, I ask you, will you be providing the developer with briefings and the developer providing you with briefings? The second part of the question is, will you provide the shadow minister with the briefing?
Mr MILLS: It is contingent on the first part of your question: will I be providing personal briefings to a developer? There are normal processes. You have already identified one process you are particularly proud of and that was the pre-lodgment support which will still be there.
You have already acknowledged this is an unlikely occurrence because you would assume anyone going down this path would have availed themselves with the adequate processes and the work of the Planning Commission. If all of these events conspire that there is a briefing provided by the department to a developer, which is in the normal course of events, of course that would be available to you. All you have to do is ask, as you could have asked last time to have a briefing on this act which you are debating at length.
Mr McCARTHY: Interesting answer. We will move on to 81B Functions as described in the explanatory statement:
- Proposed section 81B outlines the functions of the Commission and includes reviewing the NT Planning Scheme at regular intervals – clause 81B(a). Reviewing the planning scheme may involve a complete review or may involve a review of specific requirements like the car parking requirements or the building setback requirements.
The Commission is required to undertake community consultation before preparing integrated strategic plans, guidelines and assessment criteria - proposed section 81B(d).
What is determined as undertaking good community consultation?
Mr MILLS: Good community consultation.
Mr McCARTHY: It is good to get this on the public record, our new Planning minister of the Northern Territory.
With respect to the objects of the act:
- The Commission is required to provide advice to the minister or the DCA or both about matters within the objects of the Planning Act (proposed section 81B(e)) The objects of the Act are to plan for, and provide a framework of controls for, the orderly use and development of land (section 2A). Section 2A(2) states the objects are to be achieved by:
(a) strategic planning of land use and development and for the sustainable use of resources;
(b) strategic planning of transport corridors and other public infrastructure;
(c) effective controls and guidelines for the appropriate use of land having regard to its capabilities and limitations;
(d) control of development to provide protection over the natural environment, including by sustainable use of land and water resources;
(e) minimising adverse impacts of development on existing amenity and, wherever possible, ensuring that amenity is enhanced as a result of development;
(f) ensuring, as far as possible, that planning reflects the wishes and needs of the community through appropriate public consultation and input in both the formulation and implementation of planning schemes; and
(g) fair and open decision making and appeals processes.
Mr MILLS: You are taking a fair amount of time to make yourself familiar with the bill you are responsible for testing through this committee process. You would be well aware, therefore, being the former minister, that it is fully covered in the bill you are in the process of testing. You are a former minister; you know those measures already exist.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I do not think you do somehow, but I will continue with this democratic process. Unfortunately, it seems you are not very familiar with this at all. You do not want to engage in discourse. Here is a straightforward question. Does this bill accept third party appeals to consent determinations made by the minister?
Mr MILLS: You are speaking about the role of the Planning Commission, correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I believe within the amendment that you will hold the consent determination in some circumstances.
Mr MILLS: Yes, but could you ask your question again? Were you referring to the role of the Planning Commission?
Mr McCARTHY: I was referring to the role of the minister for the consent determination. Will the minister accept third party appeals?
Mr MILLS: It does not exist in the act.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In terms of staff and facilities:
- The Chief Executive of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment is responsible for providing the Commission with staff and facilities. Staff of the Commission will be public servants subject to the direction of the chairperson (section 81E(2)) only and not individual members of the Commission. It is anticipated that the Commission will be fully appointed and staffed in early 2013.
Minister, what staffing resources will be allocated by government?
Mr MILLS: To where? To whom? What are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The Planning Commission, minister.
Mr MILLS: Which staff are you referring to?
Mr McCARTHY: The staffing resources allocated by government to the Planning Commission, minister. Have you thought about it? Have you done any sort of study on it?
Mr MILLS: Yes, we have, I just want to be very clear about what you are asking.
Mr McCARTHY: Well, let us start with human resources minister.
Mr MILLS: What staff will be allocated to the Planning Commission?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, minister.
Mr MILLS: Public servants will be appointed as staff to support the commission. The CE of the department has the responsibility for providing support as required for the Planning Commission and to support the functions of the Planning Commission. But, it does not interfere with the operation of the Planning Commission.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you have not given me any aggregated figure. What about office space minister? Will the Planning Commission occupy government office space?
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is correct.
Mr McCARTHY: Do you know where they will be located, minister?
Mr MILLS: Yes, I have visited the office.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it top secret or could you outline for Territorians where it will be?
Mr MILLS: Yes, it is the fifth floor of Energy House.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, will the Planning Commission members receive sitting fees?
Mr MILLS: That discussion is occurring. Those details have not been determined yet.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you minister. Will the Planning Commission use consultancies?
Mr MILLS: Committees will be established as required that could form consultancies, I suppose, if you want to view it in those terms.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have questions on committees coming up. This was purely the use of consultancies because that will relate to a budget and to allocation of resources. Have you done any planning around that, minister?
Mr MILLS: Yes, the resourcing for the Planning Commission is found within existing allocations.
Mr McCARTHY: Sorry, minister, I missed that, can you repeat that? The question was: will there be a budget for consultancies in the first four years of the Planning Commission’s operation?
Mr MILLS: In setting the budget for the Planning Commission, the budgetary requirements will be found from within existing allocations to the department. There is no additional resourcing.
Mr McCARTHY: Did I get that right? There are no additional resources? It will be funded from within existing coffers?
Mr MILLS: We are not making an external additional allocation to the Planning Commission. It will be funded from within existing resources.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister. In relation to the integrated strategic plans, there was much discussion around community consultation with the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, or the greater Darwin plan, and the Property Council of Australia highlighted one of its criticisms, which was that it lacked a very detailed level of lands and planning information required to better integrate strategic planning policies. Can you provide examples of the detail required in such an approach for strategic plans and how the new Planning Commission will achieve this?
Mr MILLS: If you want some guidance on that you would compare the amount of money spent by the former government going through its Enquiry by Design process. It cost nearly $2.5m. You produced a document you quite correctly identified was lacking in necessary detail. You could then compare that with the favourable comments made around the document produced by the opposition. To illustrate the point, the type of detail required is the asking of real questions and providing substantive answers to those questions. What you provided was basically an outline with essential detail missing, such as how would this connect to that; you did not describe those sorts of details. Compare the two documents and you will see there is significant difference between them. Do you want me to go into some abstract discussion to satisfy something? I am not certain of exactly what you are after.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, how this would connect to that is abstract enough for me. I will remind you, with your twist in the politics, it was the Property Council of Australia’s comment. I was interested in having a discussion with you about the next level of detail required by a significant stakeholder, something we were working on in the previous government.
It must be past your bed time, minister, because you are not very comfortable answering questions and connecting this and that. It shows the Territory what sort of minister we have in control.
Anyway, we will continue on, minister ...
Mr Styles: You have already gone to bed; you are dreaming.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I will pick up on that. What was that comment from the opposition?
Mr Styles: Pay attention, there will be a test.
Mr McCARTHY: Would you like to restate that comment, member for Sanderson?
Mr Styles: Pay attention, there will be a test.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. That was a very healthy contribution to the debate. Thank you very much, sir.
Minister, in relation to committees, is there any idea of committees at this stage? How many committees, the members of committees, time frames or budgets allocated to committees?
Mr MILLS: You already know the details around the budget. You have asked that question and it has been answered. You have already asked questions about the committees and I answered those previously. To go over it again, if you missed it, there is the capacity for the Planning Commission to establish committees as required.
Mr McCARTHY: We touched on that debate around the Western Australian model and the deliberations and reporting time frames around those committees. Have you given any thought to that as a constraint to your objective of improving the time frames and cutting the red tape?
Mr MILLS: What reference? How does the reference you are making to Western Australia apply to this situation specifically?
Mr McCARTHY: The model in Western Australia has found to achieve the best research and consultation to provide government with the best decision-making process involves committee work. They found they did not really improve those time frames, which is one of the big selling points in your objective of this bill. We have established the Northern Territory Planning Commission will use committees. I have asked simply whether you have done any planning or thinking around that. I think your answer is no.
Mr MILLS: The planning and consideration around that is obvious. It is covered in the bill. The provision is there for the Planning Commissioner to be able to form committees as required. Already, the issue about the structures and the culture in Western Australia have been referred to. As I mentioned before, they will instruct and guide us in the way we would form committees as required on an as-needs basis, not to be bogged down in the process, but to use the means of a committee to help make effective decision-making. After all, it is about good recommendations, good reports to inform good decision-making, not to be bogged down in process. There are lessons, obviously, to be learnt from Western Australia. I think it was you who raised this issue before at about 5.30 pm.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have relished the opportunity to discuss this major reform with you in this House. I am not quite comfortable with your attitude, but that is okay, you are in charge. It is interesting, though, that you find this to be mundane ...
Mr MILLS: No, I do not.
Mr McCARTHY: ... or inane. The attitude you are giving me is very much, ‘Do not ask questions, go away’. Once again, it is the attitude of the minister for Tourism, that you have the numbers and you will do this no matter what we think or say. That is a bit unfortunate.
I will abbreviate this considerably and take up your offer of briefings in the future. I very much look forward to further committee stage work with government as a democratic process. I thank you for your time, minister. Sorry to be so inconvenient but we need to follow your advice. That advice is give it time; time will tell.
As a good opposition, and providing a very clear point of reference in policy, we will be travelling in parallel with you and watching this. I wish it all the success it deserves. As I said, we also shared our elements of success. I conclude now, unfortunately, not having the opportunity to ask all my questions.
Mr MILLS: You have had the opportunity.
Mr McCARTHY: No, minister, you keep making it very clear you are very uncomfortable, you are not happy, you are watching the clock. The member behind you is singing out about his interpretation of what is going on here.
A good opposition will continue to monitor legislation. That is our job and that is what we do with integrity, no matter what sort of abuse is used. Thank you very much, minister, for the opportunity to participate in the passage of this legislation.
Mr MILLS: It is our pleasure. To be honest with you, I did not sense - for the first bit I felt there was a sincere interest in this. I felt you were under instruction to consume an amount of time. That was my sense ...
Mr McCARTHY: I take offence to that!
Mr MILLS: That is fine.
Mr McCARTHY: I take offence to that!
Mr MILLS: Well, I take offence to some of that ...
Mr McCARTHY: You do not know me, and you do not judge me! If you want to continue ...
Mr CHAIR: Please be seated. Chief Minister, please be seated.
Mr McCARTHY: ... then we will continue that. We will continue, minister. I am just giving you ...
Mr CHAIR: Please be seated, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Get used to answering the questions.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Chief Minister, please proceed.
Mr MILLS: I am just giving you ...
Mr McCARTHY: No, you are not, you are playing politics.
Mr MILLS: I am not at all.
Mr McCARTHY: You do not believe that is sincere.
Mr MILLS: You can let me speak. For someone who did not take the opportunity to meet the Planning Commissioner to have that briefing or to seek out the information and have a briefing on the bill - that was the underlying concern I had. The nature of the questions to me indicated you were not particularly interested in this, but were trying to play some kind of game. But, I will take your final comments on face value. I would welcome you, as I said earlier on, to be involved in this process. It is a very important process, as you have said at points along the way, and I take you at your word on that. You have made comment to me; I make comment back to you. If you cannot hack it, bad luck.
Mr McCARTHY: We will leave it there. If you want to judge me, then go right ahead but you do not know me from a bar of soap. I take great offence to your continual referral to the clich of the previous opposition, ‘get a briefing’. I do not live in Darwin; I do not know how many times I have to stress that. I do not have access to an unlimited travel budget and I will use every opportunity I get. As a Country Liberal Party person, maybe you should think about bringing the resources into the regions and supporting briefings there because there were many constituents who participated in the crafting of those questions as they were genuinely interested. They do not live in Darwin either. They do not live in Palmerston. You want to treat us with contempt so that is the story. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide questions.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I thought that was a lovely bit of input. I am pretty sure this was the government that was in for 11 years - talking about information and access being brought to the regions. Every time I wanted information I came to Darwin for a briefing. I had the same travel opportunities; I was not on the same salary, but I had the same travel opportunities. All the time I made sure I came here and got the information ...
A member: Yes, you were on a QantasLink flight, Adam. You jump on an aeroplane.
Mr CHAIR: Order!
May I remind members of Standing Order 191, which states we must stay on track on the clauses and the amendments of the bill?
The question is that the bill be agreed to.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have not finished.
Mr CHAIR: We need to keep it relevant.
Mr GILES: I was saying it was very important with pieces of legislation like this to get a briefing. The Chief Minister has done a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to this House, answering all the questions, making his office open and accountable, being able to provide that information at briefings. I know that when I used to travel to parliament I would quite often get a briefing on the Monday before or even the day of the legislation coming forward to make sure I was up to date on what was going on. I find it quite funny that you did not even get a briefing on the Planning Commission when you are so irate about it.
I congratulate the Chief Minister his shortness in his answers. This is an open and transparent process and to have a fully democratic process the committee stage is really important. You cannot ask the questions you should have asked in the briefing. There are common basics about how you do this.
You know how it was last time; you did not want to listen to anything. That was when the numbers were closer. It is not a numbers game, but if you want to find out the information about an important piece of legislation, get a briefing. Do not abuse the Chief Minister because you were too lazy. The Chief Minister is quite prepared ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Chair! Ask him to withdraw lazy.
Mr GILES: I will not withdraw it because you never turned up for a briefing.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr GILES: It is not an unparliamentary comment.
Mr McCARTHY: My questions relate to many people in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. That is not lazy.
Mr GILES: Then why did you not get a briefing if it was that important?
Congratulations, Chief Minister, you have my full support.
Mr McCARTHY: That is as good as it gets with you.
Mr MILLS: What betrays your position, shadow minister, is that you sought briefings and I commend you for doing that. You sought briefings from people across the region, from the people of Palmerston. You sought briefings from the people – you made a specific point - in my own electorate, but you made no effort in your time here to seek a briefing on the bill.
I commend you for getting community consultation, for getting that feedback, but the point is made very clearly that you made no effort whatsoever to get an adequate briefing. That is the point.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Chair! The point of the committee stage is the opportunity for members to question in detail the bill before the House. That is exactly what the member for Barkly has done.
Whether the member for Barkly availed himself of a briefing or not is not the process of parliament. The process of the committee stage is what we have just seen, but what we are witnessing is an irate Chief Minister who does not like being questioned; he did not like the length of time of the questions or the breadth of the questioning.
I recall that in the first term minister Ah Kit went through a four-hour committee stage. I have been through extremely long committee stages and I understand your irritation, but that is the committee stage, welcome to government. Welcome to the infinite detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is the committee stage and a member is not required to get a briefing, there is no requirement for a briefing, they can choose to have a briefing or not. Now the member for Barkly is such a hard working member, he chose to ...
Mr CHAIR: Member for Karama, can you please be seated?
Ms LAWRIE: On what basis are you gagging me, Chair of Committees?
Mr CHAIR: I am of the opinion that this discussion we are having is not relevant to the debate.
Ms LAWRIE: It is relevant to the debate. Are you gagging the Leader of the Opposition on relevance?
Mr CHAIR: My view is that the committee stage is to debate the bill and go through the bill; it is not to debate the role of the committee stage which is what is happening now. The only comments or the only call I will give will be to someone who wants to speak to a clause or an amendment to the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: We are about to put the report of the committee to the Speaker so this is at the end of the stage where you can talk to the actions within the committee stage and that is what has occurred.
Mr CHAIR: I am not sure that is the case Leader of the Opposition, I will ask.
Ms LAWRIE: I know you are not sure. We are about to put the whole of the bill.
Mr CHAIR: I have been advised that the committee stage is where we discuss the content of the bill. This is not discussing the content of the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Yet you allowed the Chief Minister to go down this path.
Mr CHAIR: I have given you some time as well but it has reached the point where this House has had time enough wasted. Could you please be seated, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms LAWRIE: You are unbelievable! You are a grub.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chairman! There is no way anyone should reflect on the Chairperson and I ask that you have this lady, the Opposition Leader, removed. She just called you a grub. That is a highly offensive comment to be made in the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory. She should be asked to leave this Chamber for 24 hours.
Mr CHAIR: Can the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw?
Mr GILES: For 24 hours you are gone, how dare you speak like that to the Chairperson!
Ms LAWRIE: I am going.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, just for clarification, you are asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the comment.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr MILLS (Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 14 Noes 8
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual
Financial Report 2011-12
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual
Financial Report 2011-12
Continued from 31 October 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to see the Treasurer’s Financial Report for the 2011-12 financial year. It is good and I am making bets with myself as to how long we will see such strong adherence to Australian Accounting Standards in the Territory. I make mention of the old boy’s renewal board progress report and the dinosaurs.
In that report there is one element which is rather concerning where they talk about the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the need to revisit that act. That act ensures the budget of the Territory complies with the Australian Accounting Standards. I would loathe seeing the day the transparent accounting of the state of the Territory’s books is altered in a retrospective and negative fashion. For all the little I think of the government, I hope they do not go that low.
Whilst we are enjoying the adherence to the Australian Accounting Standards, we see the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report handed down at this time each year.
For members, these are the accounts that require audit by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has to sign off on the actual accounts, then the Treasurer has to sign off and deliver the report to parliament. There is a slight qualification in the audit in the numbers still to roll through in SIHIP, and that is understandable - highly complex. At what stage the keys are being handed over into homes etcetera does cause difficulties in the strict adherence to accounting standards; however, it is still transparent and accountable within the books.
I note what the TAFR shows for the 2011-12 financial year is that the prediction we saw in the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook, came to bear in the TAFR, so the actuals in 2011-12 showed an improvement in the Territory’s financial position. It showed a reduction in the deficit in the 2012-13 budget. It was predicted in May that the deficit would be $491m. The actuals showed an improvement in the 2011-12 financial year, delivering a deficit of just $425m down from $491m. That improvement is certainly welcome.
If you look at the test of the Victorian government which looked to operate in surplus, the good news is there is a $175m operating surplus. The TAFR shows also that the GST receipts are still below pre-global financial crisis estimates and what the Territory would have expected to receive. We actually got $282m less than those estimates. With write-downs in GST revenue, it was a real loss of $150m in the 2011-12 financial year. When you look at $700m lost in revenue through those GFC-affected periods, we are starting to see recovery. The TAFR actuals are starting to show that improvement in the national accounts regarding the GST revenue.
GST is often consumer-led taxation. It is off those goods and services. People are spending and you get the revenues coming in. The prevailing winds of the national economy are strengthening, which we are seeing some indications of. You will see that recovery coming through. Part of the recovery for the Territory, of course, is recovery through population growth adjustments running at about $40m per annum in additional GST.
When you look at the analysis by Deloitte Access Economics, CommSec, and the ABS, they are all predicting strength in population growth as a result of the major project, the Ichthys project. What that will mean in GST, of course, is you will see strengthening growth through the population adjustments in future GST periods.
That being said, I am still looking forward to the final report by the GST review committee. I had several meetings with that committee. I know the insults will come flowing thick and fast towards me. The Treasurer wants to call me the worst ever etcetera, but I know the fulsome debates I had to hold on behalf of the Territory at the national level. I know the high regard in which I was held by treasurers around the nation, the federal Treasurer and the GST review committee. Bring on the insults because I am Territory-tough and I can take it.
The actuals are showing the improvement. I knew going into the election - adhering to the great training I have been given in understanding the Australian Accounting Standards as a Treasurer and the importance I attach to those in terms of the budget and the numbers. I applied great rigour in keeping our election commitments within the forward estimates. I knew that if only you could do a bit of extra gazing you could have seen that we would keep pegging out. I know the Chief Minister might say, ‘She was just hoping on a win of GST revenue increasing’. That is one small part of the picture, the other part they like to ignore.
They like to ignore the staffing cap. They like to ignore the efficiency dividends which the unions at the time were rallying against and no longer are because they are seeing the job cuts under the CLP. They also like to ignore that we were running counter-cyclical in capital. All of these reduced deficits to that predicted $200m-odd deficit in the 2015-16 financial year. They also like to ignore the eight surplus budgets in a row, slicing debt by $582m, but these are all inconvenient truths for the tale of woe the CLP government would like to talk about.
Yet, you get the actuals in front of you and look at 2011-12 and you can say yes, absolutely, we were on track. We were reclaiming and reducing the deficit as we said we would. It will change; there will be a mini-budget and all the figures will dramatically change. I am hearing that change will not bode too well for the Territory or Territory public servants.
It identifies those new initiatives that were going to what I refer to as demand pressure areas. That will occur and the government will grapple with the demand pressure areas that exist in the Territory. Go to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which talks about the new initiatives that were funding the high demand in the individual support packages. If you take a different approach in law and decide to change the laws of the Territory and lock up people who have a mental illness rather than have them in forensic facilities and appropriate individual support package care, you could not spend that money there and just lock them away. That would be a retrograde step and I hope we do not live in a Territory where those sorts of decisions are made, but if you will not make those decisions then you fund those individual support packages, which we did.
The other major area in the new initiatives outlined in the 2011-12 actuals was the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. That is a critical scheme in the Territory, as we know. Many of our patients come from remote areas. They have to be flown in courtesy of the tax payer. That Patient Assistance Travel Scheme is a tough scheme to get right. It has gone through serious reform and coordination in the past. Today I was shocked and appalled at the comments by the existing Health minister, describing the medi-hotel as a hotel for long grassers, which was grossly offensive. These are Territorians who are unwell, often very unwell, who have been flown in for care and need to be accommodated and supported in a medical environment.
There are also our young very pregnant mums who have come to the urban centre and need to be accommodated for obstetrician care for birthing. To describe these Territorians as long-grassers - I have never heard anything so appalling and shocking in years. For members opposite to believe this is okay and appropriate, and not have him make an apology is shocking. Extraordinary!
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme was a demand pressure recognised in 2011-12 and responded to with new initiatives in funding as identified in the TAFR. Lo and behold - look at that - within that cohort of new initiatives was the increased road maintenance for flood damaged roads. Yet, having listened to the Infrastructure minister, not a cent was put towards road maintenance and no road maintenance occurred. Listening to the Chief Minister, no road maintenance was occurring but isn’t it good to have a look at what expenditure actually occurred and when it occurred?
Also of note in 2011-12 was the $15m payment to the Land Development Corporation for the affordable housing rental company to deliver affordable rentals. It took a great deal of effort and many negotiations to get a company established in the Territory and $15m to provide a range of rentals at 20% below market rate, which is sitting within these actuals. I wish the Land Development Corporation well with that work. I have no doubt the current government will claim that work. At the end of the day, that is what incoming governments do.
At the end of the day, I am immensely proud of the work former minister Burns did in government to establish the affordable housing rental company. I am immensely proud to have been in a government that funded that initiative to give Territorians a chance to have subsidised rental options in the Territory. That is a scheme that can be expanded. In time, and with good analysis, it can be expanded into the large regional centres. They are models that have been proven to work elsewhere in Australia and we brought that model to the Territory and established it.
Again, it does not really sit with the rhetoric that we did nothing right. Overall, it shows we have continued to be in the depressed GST scenario, the high capital spending was fuelling the economy and the jobs and the actuals have shown that in 2011-12; therefore that $425m deficit sat there. I acknowledge the hard work that goes into the development of the TAFR by all the Treasury staff. I know they sweat over the details and the numbers and the very good notes throughout the report.
Not everyone wants to read through the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report but they go out of their way to make the explanations as readable as possible if you want to understand exactly where the money is and where the money is being spent. The notes spell it out in detail. I know it is pretty dry stuff to most people but I am really pleased to be in the Territory where we are applying the Australian Accounting Standards and making sure the information is there for anyone who wants to read it.
That brings me to a point that was raised earlier tonight in debate when the member for Port Darwin said they knew what the financials of Power and Water were because they had the Statement of Corporate Intent but they did not know what the financials of the government were. That is not true because all you had to do was pick up the 2012-13 budget. All you had to do was to pick up the pre-election fiscal outlook, read any of the TAFRs that has been handed down, and understand that the Australian Accounting Standards apply.
We have not had the debate on the Renewal Management Board. That was not the opposition’s decision. It was the government’s decision to withdraw the debate last sittings. That being said, the only actual data in that report was pulled directly from the PEFO. There were a couple of tables in there, but the PEFO and the rest of it were assumptions made by the old boys: assumptions that really would not be borne out had someone asked me if we were giving an extra $40m to Police for R&M. I would have said no.
The talk of $35m pressure in youth justice - no. I know what parameters I set for delivery of loan initiatives and it was not what the old boys had estimated. They had their fun with it but they were their assumptions and they certainly did not meet Australian Accounting Standards in their assumptions.
Of course the Territory has debts. The debts were acquired through the capital spend and we make no apology for that. We kept the Territory unique in economic growth. We kept people in jobs, we kept Territorians productive, we kept the industries productive and it all occurred through the global financial crisis-affected period.
To come through a global financial crisis and be the fastest growing economy in the nation is a pretty awesome feat. You do that by shouldering the load as a government, and through your capital spend and ability to score the nation’s second-largest infrastructure project in history. They are all good things for the Territory. They will prevail regardless of what decisions government make on spending now.
The Ichthys project is unaffected to an extent. Of course, you always have the regulatory environment, and there is a debate for another day over my concerns about the regulatory environment with the changes to the EPA. That is a debate we have had in the House previously; it is not a TAFR debate.
I recognise that the effects on liabilities remain in regard to the bond rate. The bond rate will ultimately adjust the extent of the Territory’s liabilities. When the bond rate gets back to a more reasonable level you will see debt levels reduce. That is not through any effort of government, it is an adjustment in the bond rate. These are some of the quirks of the Australian Accounting Standards.
You get some good times when an actuarial comes in with superannuation liabilities. It might get you a good result and, all of a sudden, you have far less debt. That is fantastic. It is an actuarial. Another actuarial - we had this happen - can change the way they view the superannuation liabilities and you get a bad result. However, everyone can have fun playing with numbers.
At the end of the day, the 2011-12 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report shows a good result. It shows a reduction in deficit and a clear area of focus on the affordable housing rental company. It shows pressures in the system in the higher demand for individual support packages, the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, and it dealt with that 12-year super Wet Season and the flood damage to roads we responded to quite appropriately.
I finish with my thanks to Treasury officials. I daresay they have been working extremely hard preparing the mini-budget. I look forward to the mini-budget meeting the Australian Accounting Standards in accountability and transparency. I recognise that within the statements there is some growth in taxation revenue which is starting to pick up. You are starting to see some growth occurring in stamp duty which is akin to the numbers in housing approvals. We will see a lull where there was three months of uncertainty with housing schemes.
I have been critical, and will continue to be, of the replacement of the stimulus packages and schemes we had. I know that at no stage during any housing debates does the government want to refer to BuildBonus or Buildstart. As stimulus schemes they delivered the goods in stamp duty revenue - good initiatives there.
That is my contribution to the TAFR. The real debate and real arguments about the governments decision-making and the cuts headed people’s way in the mini-budget will continue in here and out there.
We saw the news today about Motor Vehicle Registry hikes. I hate to think what other fees and charges Territorians will be slugged with in this mini-budget so the government can gather the dollars it wants to pay for its unfunded election commitments.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I like to give credit where credit is due and I know the former Treasurer worked hard to present our case, arguing our fair share of the GST. She was an acting member of the group of treasurers who would meet regularly and fight on behalf of their jurisdictions.
The Chief Minister and I have met, in the short period we have been in government, with the GST Review Committee and, like the former Treasurer, have fought hard to present our case to the GST Review Committee.
This document is a story about the former government. I will not go into any detail over the ins and outs of what happened in 2011-12. I will, however, say it illustrates the growing deficit we are heading towards, reinforcing the concerns we have articulated over the last couple of days about the financial situation we have been left in.
Madam Speaker, I commend this document to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Government’s Response to the Recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into Child Protection
Government’s Response to the Recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into Child Protection
Mrs LAMBLEY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, tonight I follow through on the commitment I gave during the most recent Legislative Assembly sittings to provide a statement on the government’s response to the 2010 board of inquiry report into the child protection system.
Over the last 10 years in the Northern Territory, there has been a huge increase in the number of reports of child harm which have been made to the child protection agency. In 2001-02, there were 1600 reports of child harm. In 2011-12, this number had grown to just under 8000. In that same period of time, the population of children aged 17 years and under had only increased by around 5%.
Along with this increase in reports, the number of cases which were investigated in which the child was found to have been harmed also increased significantly, from 349 cases in 2001-02 to 1705 cases in 2011-12, nearly quadrupling over a 10-year time period. The result of the increase in these numbers is the number of children who have had to be removed from their home for their safety has also increased, with approximately 700 Northern Territory children in out-of-home care at the end of the 2011-12 financial year.
At the point that a board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory was announced, the child protection system in the Northern Territory was on the verge of a total meltdown. As a result of the years of neglect by the previous Labor government, the Growing them strong, together report of the inquiry made 147 recommendations for reforming the child protection system in the Northern Territory.
This was just one of six independent reports tabled in this Northern Territory parliament during the reign of the former Labor government, contributing a total of 315 recommendations during this time. These reports identified significant systemic problems: backlogs, problems with staff recruitment and retention, grossly unmanageable workloads, lack of appropriate risk assessment, and standardised screening and assessment of child protection matters. Serious deficiencies were identified within the agency in relation to the monitoring and review of cases and the capacity to meet legislative requirements. Capacity for the system to respond to the needs of Aboriginal children was found to be inadequate. The failure of other human service agencies to respond to child safety and wellbeing issues was readily apparent.
What all these reports collectively highlight is that the former Labor government’s approach to child protection lacked vision. Their approach was so devoid of any strategic leadership that when the board of inquiry released its report in October 2010, the then Chief Minister seized upon it as a blueprint, a how-to guide for delivering child protection services in the Northern Territory. Having lost their way, and in the absence of their own vision, Labor’s singular focus was on implementing each and every one of the board’s 147 recommendations. There was no critical analysis of these recommendations. The former Chief Minister’s statement was made without considering the suitability or implications of adopting these recommendations from either a policy or financial perspective.
The former government lived and breathed the board of inquiry report. They lived and breathed each and every recommendation. In fact, the entire Children and Families agency was constructed around this report. Even as the number of children being harmed and the number of children needing foster care continued to increase, the former Labor government remained solely focused on those 147 recommendations.
This is not to say that the board of inquiry report did not provide a good critique of the issues facing the child protection system in the Northern Territory. However, reports like these should help to inform government to provide advice on strategies to move forward; they are not intended to be a substitute for government policy.
As a new government, we are tackling the business of child protection very differently from the former government. This government is not defined by a single report. We will set the agenda. Our approach will be a sensible one that is based on the needs of children and families, particularly those living in remote parts of the Northern Territory. A period of consolidation is needed which allows us to focus on what is really important, what we value and what we prioritise. We need to be realistic about what can be done within available resources. This is the start of a new chapter of reform of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Children and Families, I intend to develop a new policy platform driven by government not the board of inquiry, not Little Children are Sacred or any other report.
On 11 October 2012, I announced the creation of a new portfolio of Education and Children’s Services. This established the Office of Children and Families and the Department of Education and Children’s Services as key partners in providing services to children and their families. Significant work has already been undertaken to develop a joint strategic plan based on a set of core values to provide children with the best possible start in life, with families supported to raise children to their full potential. Strategic priorities and actions are being defined to focus a collective effort on the safety, wellbeing and education of children across the Territory, including:
quality services for children from birth to 12 years of age
effective responses to support vulnerable children
universal services of high quality which are accessible and appropriate for families, young people and children
a responsive service sector meeting the needs of children and families and grounded in partnership with service providers and community.
Performance measures are also being developed through which better outcomes for children and families will be monitored and reported. Goals specific to Education NT and the Office of Children and Families will be articulated through specific components of the overall plan. Early Years staff have been transitioned into Children and Families from Education, allowing for a broader range of complementary functions to children and families to be brought together with specific focus on children in the 0-4-years age group. Work to integrate various functions including policy and program design, non-government sector investment, performance reporting and investigatory functions is progressing. Work is also progressing to align services and activities aimed at:
improving school attendance
improved prevention and early intervention strategies that reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention
Through strengthening relationships between Education and Child Protection portfolios, communities will see improved services for children and families. This will result in more strongly connected programs and resources in the 0-4-years age range to better prepare families and their children for schooling. For example, remote child protection workers and community child safety and wellbeing teams will work with Families as First Teachers and community leaders. In each region we will develop a pilot site between schools, children, families and remote teams to develop best practice initiatives to improve children’s education outcomes and reduce the need for statutory intervention. Children and Families staff in remote communities will work with principals, teachers and school communities to provide responses for children about whom teachers are concerned but who do not meet the threshold for a formal child protection response - an ‘economies of scale’ through more efficient use of regional resourcing.
It is in this context that the government is reshaping child protection policy. Growing them strong, together will continue to provide a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements, but will not restrict us in what needs to be done to achieve better outcomes for children. Our priorities are:
improving the Out-of-Home Care system as a priority in 2013, including delivery of strategies to increase our foster carer pool and retention rates of carers
non-government organisations providing support for statutory service provision is key to managing demand and achieving quality outcomes for children and families
imbedding family decision-making as core frontline practice and establishing localised teams to increase kinship care placement options
taking a strengthened, regionalised focus: more staff working at the interface with clients and less staff in the central office
improving child safety and wellbeing outcomes through whole-of-government action.
The work undertaken over the past two years has provided a good start to the reform of the child protection system and the work of the board of inquiry in initiating this process is acknowledged. Some achievements since the release of the Growing them strong, together report include:
the focus on improving quality practice on the front line
support for staff through strengthened supervision practices and a culture of openness
improved staff morale.
I commend all those frontline staff who have stayed on during difficult times; have demonstrated their commitment and worked so diligently with children and families to bring about this change. Since taking office, I have directed Children and Families to reappraise all 147 recommendations made by the inquiry to assess their merit and the capacity to continue to implement the reforms in their entirety.
Specifically, I have requested advice from the office on which of the outstanding recommendations will make a significant difference to children and families and should be progressed as a priority; which recommendations can be implemented at a later date without significant detriment to children and families, which recommendations are no longer vital or applicable or can be implemented more efficiently or effectively than in the manner envisaged by the inquiry, and which recommendations were never properly funded and are beyond budget capacity to deliver?
I have been advised that 56 recommendations have been completed. A further 91 recommendations have commenced, with 69 to be progressed as intended by the inquiry; 14 of these will be completed late in 2012 or early 2013. Eleven recommendations have been superseded. The intent of the recommendations will still be implemented; however, the method of implementation has been modified. Two recommendations are at the discretion of the court. Nine are identified as not possible to complete within current budget constraints. I will address these recommendations in detail.
This government remains committed to many of the initiatives being implemented in the response to the findings of the board of inquiry. Provision of support to foster carers, children and young people in care through Foster Care NT and the CREATE Foundation continues to be an essential component of the statutory service system and the government remains committed to continuing funding these organisations. Funding to non-government organisations delivering out-of-home-care services will also be prioritised.
Prioritising spending on direct service delivery to support child protection frontline services is key, particularly to securing better outcomes for Aboriginal children who make up more than 80% of children in care.
Priority will also be given to initiatives that will further develop capacity within the system to respond to the cultural complexities and needs of Aboriginal children and their families. In addition to the development of an Aboriginal child safety and wellbeing framework, this will be achieved in partnership with Aboriginal staff from many government and non-government agencies through continued funding for the Aboriginal Collaboration, Engagement and Strategy unit.
This unit will support engagement of Aboriginal staff across agencies in a new collaborative approach to creating child-safe environments in remote communities. Cultural advisors will work within each region providing advice to case workers on how to work most effectively with Aboriginal clients. A new kinship care unit will operate from Alice Springs and Katherine, supporting kinship care recruitment and specialised assessment and support services. For all staff there will be further development of a cultural competency framework.
Based around the inquiry’s recommendations and discussions with the office and stakeholders, I have requested that a complete rewrite of the legislation be progressed which will ensure the new act better reflects contemporary approaches to child protection with distinctions between short- and long-term orders, provisions for unborn children and mediation, and is designed to specifically suit the unique circumstances and needs of the Territory and its children. It is simpler and more efficient than the current act, including mediation provisions allowing earlier resolution of child protection matters with fewer matters going to court for hearings, and shorter hearings for those that mediation does not resolve.
The legislative reform proposal will seek to introduce a new system of child protection orders with a distinction between short-term orders aimed at reunification, and long-term orders aimed at stability for the child whilst maintaining the child’s connection to family; therapeutic orders to enable admission to secure care facilities; permanent care or special guardianship orders; and provision enabling information sharing, receipt of notifications and investigations for unborn children.
This process of reform will provide an opportunity for us to lay the groundwork for a modern child protection system that delivers better outcomes for children and families. The inquiry supported a multiagency focus on child safety and wellbeing. I agree that this is essential if we are to address the upstream drivers and determinants of child abuse and neglect.
Through the Child Safety and Wellbeing Director’s network reporting to a chief executive’s task force, a whole-of-government child safety and wellbeing plan will be implemented to guide joined up service delivery and reorientation of core human services to focus on the needs of children in 2013.
Funding will also continue to support multiagency assessment and collaboration teams based at Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals, and community child safety and wellbeing team practitioners based in remote communities. I am committed to ensuring an evidence-based approach informs a roll-out of this program.
With regard to the extensive number of recommendations made by the inquiry relating to the reviews of policy, procedures and programs, recommendations considered critical to improving outcomes for children and families will be prioritised.
Other recommendations still considered important, but not of immediate consequence, will be progressed by core central office staff over a more extended time frame. Given the length of time that has passed since the inquiry handed down its report, it is not surprising a range of recommendations has been overtaken. Eleven recommendations have been superseded and will be implemented but not in the way that was originally envisaged by the inquiry report released over two years ago. For example, a series of recommendations called for policy and procedural changes. These will now be progressed through the development of an overarching child protection practice framework.
Outstanding recommendations relating to residential and alternative care have been overtaken by the required out-of-home care reforms which will be progressed as a priority in 2013.
A small number of recommendations have been identified that will not be completed. The inquiry recommended that the Care and Protection of Children Act be amended to recognise the functions of an Aboriginal childcare agency or other recognised entities. The act will, for the first time, recognise the role all non-government organisations play, and could play in the future, through more formally delegated functions.
It was recommended by the inquiry that the Northern Territory government explore, with the Commonwealth, the trial, development or expansion of existing infrastructure in remote areas to provide on-community, therapeutic, residential options for mothers and small children identified as at risk of removal. This was an ‘urgent 3’ recommendation, important but not urgent, to commence implementation within two to three years. There was never funding committed to implement this recommendation and it is clearly beyond current budget capacity.
Through aligning child protection and early year services and programs within the Office of Children and Families, this will improve service responsiveness to at-risk children and their parents in remote areas. Closer integration with Education will also see Children and Families staff working with principals, teachers and school communities to provide responses for children about whom teachers are concerned, but who do not meet the threshold for informal child protection response.
The inquiry also recommended that a significant and sustained investment be made in the development and expansion of a suite of secondary prevention, tertiary prevention, and therapeutic and reunification services for vulnerable and at-risk children, families, and communities. The inquiry recommended further that the majority of these services should be provided by the non-government sector, and investment should involve new rather than redirected funding and, within a five-year period, match or exceed departmental expenditure in statutory child protection and out-of-home care.
The inquiry anticipated new funding being invested in broad-ranging programs for children and families, as well as substance abuse treatments, parenting skills development, community development and healing. Again, no new funding was committed by the former Labor government to the office or other government agencies to achieve this recommendation.
The Office and the Department of Education and Children’s Services are working closely with the Australian government to plan the roll-out in communities for children in 15 additional sites. This is ensuring proper place-based planning for service provision and will reduce duplication of effort. Through Stronger Futures funding, the Commonwealth is also expanding the number of sites in which intensive family support services are being delivered. The office is leveraging off this investment, and can refer all at-risk families who do not require statutory intervention, where appropriate, to funded non-government organisations for support.
Recommendations which were never funded and will not be completed include the expansion of child and family centres beyond the five sites funded by the Australian government. Construction of the centres is set to commence in 2013. At this stage, there is no funding available to extend the initiative further and the recommendation cannot be completed in the foreseeable future as this is an Australian government area of responsibility and they did not support this recommendation with additional funding.
Creation of a community visitor scheme for children in care was also an unfunded commitment. Children and Families will continue to leverage off funding arrangements with the CREATE Foundation to ensure children in care have a voice within the system. CREATE runs an annual survey to find out about children and young people’s experience in out-of-home care and provide independent advice and analysis on any issues of concern.
Establishment of a new advice and support program for families coming into contact with child protection statutory services in the Top End and Central Australia: there are a range of services where families can already receive assistance. Frontline staff are required to provide information to families about available services and to support them to be referred. In 2013, the office will also progress the establishment of a differential response allowing Central Intake to refer families who do not meet the threshold for statutory intervention to a range of community and human services.
Work to establish a framework for rolling evaluations to measure the outcomes of the recommendations will not be progressed. At my direction, the office is consulting with the Children’s Commissioner on options for increasing his capacity to monitor the performance of the child protection system. The commissioner already has a range of powers under the Care and Protection of Children Act including the capacity to monitor the administration of the act insofar as it relates to vulnerable children. This power, or amendments to the act, could be used to allow the commissioner to report regularly to me on performance data such as child protection notifications, investigations, substantiations, and out-of-home care.
Finally, contractual arrangements for a community education campaign will not be continued due to our need to resource positions on the front line. The work undertaken by Michels Warren Mundayand its partner organisations, NAPCAN, Menzies and Captivate will not be wasted. It will form the basis for ongoing strategies within the agency to disseminate child safety and wellbeing messages and recruit foster and kinship carers.
The former Labor government made a commitment to fully implement each and every one of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry. They broke this promise within weeks of making it. It was clear from the start they never intended to keep this promise, and they did not provide the funding to implement each of the recommendations. This Country Liberals government has never made the promise that we would implement all the recommendations of the board of inquiry. This government has set a new direction for child protection within the new portfolio of Education and Children’s Services.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this statement was slid under my door earlier today with an apology for the late circulation. It was like a last-minute decision, and it seems a little half-baked.
There are reasons, minister, why we have conventions for circulating statements in advance, particularly ones as important as this which is a major shift and change in direction in child protection.
The board of inquiry review of the child protection system in the Northern Territory was the most comprehensive ever to be undertaken.
Minister, I quote from your statement to the House tonight:
- Growing them strong, together will continue to provide a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements, but will not restrict us ....
Child protection is not about choosing the best bits, the easy bits, or the bits that do not need much funding. Yet this seems to be exactly what you have done.
I am sure I do not need to remind the minister, that by comparison the board of inquiry was co-chaired by national experts in their field, Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby. It was wide-ranging, receiving more than 150 submissions from organisations and individuals. It incorporated consultations within communities and regional centres and pulled together evidence from a range of reports and reference panels of experts from around Australia. Unlike other inquires it encompassed the whole system, not just specific allegations of abuse or adverse incidents.
As a government, we announced an immediate response of an allocation of $130m over five years improving services. This was on top of an annual budget of approximately $180m. We announced key initiatives to address some of the urgent recommendations made by the inquiry, and I remind you that in 2001 when we came to office the child protection budget was around $7m; the previous government did not have a singular focus as you state, its focus was on children in a standalone department. I hope the merge of the Office of Children and Families within the Department of Education does not lose the work of child protection once again. I hope it does not make teachers into child protection officers. Teachers, by nature, care for students; that is their primary focus.
Under Labor, child protection services were expanded to include family and support services, youth services, out-of-home care services, and the Children’s Commissioner was established. The board of inquiry, which you as a government have so easily dismissed, was not a political piece of work; it was independently authored and solely aimed at supporting Territory families and ensuring the safety of our children.
The increased funding to this sector must not be cut. You said:
- A period of consolidation is needed which allows us to focus on what is really important; what we value and what we prioritise.
In this statement there was a substantial amount of needless whining and whingeing at what the previous government had and had not done. I remind you this document is yours, as a government, and you are a government for at least four years. This is your guiding document. This kind of carping is uncalled for and destructive to supporting Territory families.
Minister, in the Territory child protection issues are mainly around child neglect. As a former social worker you would know this. As a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect and behaviours. We do not have time to pause for a period of consolidation as you suggest. The Northern Territory is counting on you, particularly the children.
You talk of a new period and a new policy platform but I question just what is different about the way you intend to progress things. This ministerial statement lacks detail and there is no oversight and accountability, unlike that of the Child Protection External Reporting and Monitoring Committee. I quote from Hansard where you said:
- The Child Protection External Reporting and Monitoring Committee is a highly-esteemed, highly-professional, experienced group of individuals.
You, as a government, have scrapped this committee and left no oversight in place. I ask the question: why not let them play a role?
However, I note the vague direction to the Office of Children and Families to consult with the Children’s Commissioner on options for increasing his capacity to monitor the performance of your child protection system. You vaguely talked about performance measures being developed through which better outcomes for children and families will be monitored and reported.
Minister, where is the detail? What will you do? I look forward to, over the coming months, hearing and learning more of your plans but it must become urgent. You have requested a complete rewrite of the act with a number of new focuses and aims. Legislation in this area is particularly difficult; we are playing with children’s lives. It is not a game and I look at this request for reform with some apprehension.
The act currently recognises the Children’s Commissioner as the appropriate statutory officeholder to assess, investigate and report on issues relating to vulnerable children. It reinforces the skill and the expertise of the Children’s Commissioner in this regard, but, as you have suggested, to take this a step further for him to monitor the act and report to you on performance data such as child protection investigation, substantiations and out-of-home care - I have concern.
The Children’s Commissioner’s role is to be the voice of vulnerable children not a reporting function to you. If you choose to take this path I assume you will provide suitable funding to do so. I note the significant increase of funding to the Children’s Commissioner role when it was expanded from the recommendations of the board of inquiry.
In your statement you speak about the huge increase of reports and suspected child abuse and, as we know in the Northern Territory, every person is required to report suspected child abuse and neglect. The Office of Children and Families undertakes a number of activities to inform its staff, staff of other agencies, organisations and members of the public about this obligation to report. As I understand, these activities, including providing information about mandatory reporting obligations as part of departmental inductions, orientation processes to health, children and families staff is huge.
Every individual who attends the orientation is provided with a booklet. Reporting child abuse and neglect is everyone’s responsibility. Mandatory reporting sessions are also provided on request to staff of other departments and non-government organisations. Mandatory training was delivered to 180 external parties in 2011. When in government, we increased funding for community organisations to deliver this mandatory reporting and training. NAPCAN delivered sessions to over 200 NGOs and government employees across the NT, including many in remote locations.
The development of two mandatory reporting e-learning tools in relation to child protection and domestic violence was also developed, all extremely important work. It would be disappointing to see this cut. Ensuring members of the community, particularly those in professional roles, have access to this information is vital.
As well as this work in community education, a social marketing campaign took place which you made reference to. I note you will not continue with this but will use it as:
- ... the basis for ongoing strategies within the agency to disseminate child safety and wellbeing messages and recruit foster and kinship carers.
Again, this all seems half-baked to me. This comprehensive community education strategy to highlight key messages about child protection and wellbeing to accompany the service delivery enhancements contained in this report - the need for a broad based community education campaign - was a key recommendation of the board of inquiry yet you choose to turn your back on this advice. The consortium of companies which you spoke of: Michels Warren Munday, Menzies School of Health Research for Child Development and Education, and NAPCAN prepared work plans which covered an audit of the department’s communication approach and materials, fostering and carers’ recruitment and a community education campaign. This may seem trivial but this strategy was to have a five-year life span and be a multimodal model, including having materials translated into local languages and addressing a range of issues on child safety and wellbeing.
The community education campaign was to place strong emphasis on solutions and a community engagement approach where communities were given genuine input to decisions that affected their lives. Yet you, minister, have removed this important community education campaign.
The board of inquiry identified the need for significant development of the Aboriginal service sector to ensure children and families have access to culturally appropriate services they require. I thank you, minister, for outlining your government’s response to protecting children at risk - Aboriginal children and young people. They are the most vulnerable group in the Northern Territory experiencing poverty, exclusion, discrimination and removal from their homes and cultures at unprecedented and unsustainable rates.
To create a strong foundation for the service sector and build capacity, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT was engaged to support the development of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s youth and families peak body. In addition to its functions as a peak, SAF,T as it is known, plays a key role in identifying the service model, scope and function of the Aboriginal child care agencies - ACCAs as they are commonly known - in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Not only were ACCAs a key board of inquiry recommendation, they also exist in a number of other jurisdictions and play a critical role in the child protection system, in particular, family support services and in the placement and care of Aboriginal children. The development of ACCA-type services in Darwin and Alice Springs brings the Territory in line with other jurisdictions. In response to this, the policy framework Safe Children, Bright Futures focused on the need for early intervention and support services for vulnerable Aboriginal families as a means of ensuring the greatest chance of diverting them from entering the child protection system. It also is committed to strengthening Aboriginal non-government services and the NGO sector as the best way of ensuring these families can access culturally appropriate services to seek the assistance they so need.
Given the significance of this and your government’s strength in representing the bush, it comes as a surprise that you, as minister, have refused any reference to this in your ministerial statement.
The peak body celebrated its first birthday in September and this was one of the first events I attended as a shadow minister. In its short lifetime the peak has promoted awareness, understanding and support for Aboriginal child safety issues and the need for the delivery of services to children and families by Aboriginal controlled organisations. The peak’s list of achievements and its contribution to child protection reforms at a Territory and Commonwealth level is extensive.
SAF,T has the full support of every major Aboriginal organisation and their membership in the Northern Territory. These include the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT, and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Indeed, every Aboriginal peak body in the NT.
I call on you, the NT government, to demonstrate your commitment to ensuring the welfare and safety of Aboriginal children in the NT by continuing to support SAF,T and their strategic priorities. In addition, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations at the national level have recognised that, over the past 12 months, safety has played a critical role in advancing a positive agenda for reform. These include the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the National Congress of Australia and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation.
They all agreed the existence of SAF,T has created significant hope amongst communities to provide a voice for marginalised Aboriginal children and youth in the Northern Territory. They described the establishment of SAF,T as a milestone event recognising for the first time that the NT has an Aboriginal body to advocate on behalf of the children, families and communities. They too call upon the NT government to value the knowledge and approach of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by continuing to support the peak body.
SAF,T has achieved much during its first year of operation. However, you, minister, may not be aware of this because, as I understand, despite being asked repeatedly for a meeting since you came to office, you have refused to meet with them. I find it disappointing that you, as a minister, have not met with the only Aboriginal community-controlled organisation specifically set up to address the needs of vulnerable Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, who stated that traditional Aboriginal people have not been given proper respect by Labor, also declined to meet with members of the board regarding its future before the mini-budget. This kind of stonewalling is a clear demonstration of the CLP government’s idea of proper respect for Aboriginal people and its sincerity and commitment to listening to them. I question that.
Minister, I now call on you to come clean and tell the parliament and the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory who voted you into government to serve their interests whether your new chapter of reform of the child protection system closes the door and the book on SAF,T. There was no mention of it in your statement.
One of the key points also in the statement is about economies of scale through more efficient use of regional resourcing. Minister, child protection is not about dollars. As parents we will do anything for our children. As the minister in charge of so many precious children’s lives, I urge you to take your Treasurer’s hat off, but I fear you will not play the role as a leader for our vulnerable children. I note the number of recommendations you have dismissed, placing them in the too hard basket.
One of the key recommendations of the board of inquiry based on the themes in modern child protection is the dual pathway model involving NGOs to support families. I also note you make one of this your priorities:
- ... non-government organisations providing support for statutory service provision is key to managing demand and achieving quality outcomes for children and families’.
Yet we have recently heard that, as a government, you have flagged funding cuts to the NGO sector. These organisations provide support and represent workers and organisations providing vital services for our most vulnerable.
Considering the statement we have heard in the media this week from the NGO sector about the tough times Territory families face, I ask you to commit that their funding remains untouched. I fear that this is a statement you give when you intend to slash and burn Children and Families. Scrapping the family group conferencing - is that the start? We do not treat the protection of our children as a business. Minister, you are turning your back on expert advice and, as an opposition, we will be carefully watching you, ensuring this body of work is not lost and, with it, the children let down by government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate adjourned
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourned
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, Jenny Nash is the Principal of Palmerston Senior College and is in the final weeks of a highly-esteemed five-year contribution to her school community.
Mr Chandler: And a good job.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Indeed. Jenny is a principal with many years experience in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Her experience spans various schooling sectors. She has been a principal at remote community schools, an agricultural high school, private schools, primary schools, and high schools.
Prior to commencement at Palmerston Senior College, she was the Principal at Howard Springs Primary School. Jenny moved to the Territory in 2006 with her husband Kevin, who is also an educator, to advance their careers. They saw the opportunity our great Territory offered and took the plunge into a new educational jurisdiction and a new life.
Jenny is passionate about education and is an active member of the Association of the Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, which is the peak advocacy association for principals in the Northern Territory. Her passion and commitment to education were immediately felt in the halls of Palmerston High School, as it was then named, receiving the winner of Excellence in Student Inclusion and Wellbeing in the inaugural Department of Education Smart Schools Awards in 2010.
In 2011, Jenny was further awarded and shared the Principal of the Year Award. She received the award for her leadership skills and continually improving the school community for all of its students, stakeholders, staff, and partners. Jenny was particularly commended for building confidence and leadership in her staff, allowing them to take on increasing responsibility.
In 2011, Jenny oversaw the transformation of Palmerston High School to a dedicated Senior Secondary College for the education of students in their final years of schooling. Under Jenny’s leadership, Palmerston Senior College has implemented an explicit improvement agenda in regard to student wellbeing and behaviour, resulting in a decrease in suspensions and increased educational pathways for students.
Palmerston Senior College has also been established as a Centre of Excellence in the Arts, with a focus on community engagement through visual arts exhibition and public performing arts events. I have seen firsthand the brilliance of the college’s community art exhibition and am heartened by the way it is inclusive of all Palmerston city schools and the general public.
Additionally, Jenny’s leadership has resulted in the school becoming an accredited Cisco academy delivering computer courses and hands-on career-orientated e-learning. The school pioneered the delivery of core subjects to students in small townships in remote areas using state-of-the-art digital technology.
Jenny was also instrumental in the success of the Clontarf program for her male students, and the Palmerston Girls Academy for female students. Just last week I was privileged to attend presentation nights for both of these initiatives and was swept up in Jenny’s passion and commitment to these programs. I commend her for her work in this area.
Jenny has also taken the school global and linked students with their counterparts in two Indian schools and one school in New York.
Jenny is a lovely woman whom I have only had the privilege of knowing for a short time. Jenny will now take on the role of Director of Senior Years within the department to provide guidance and leadership to senior secondary schools and principals. I know from discussions with her she will sorely miss all the students and staff at Palmerston Senior College. I wish her all the very best for the future and know she will make a tremendous contribution to all senior schools in her new role.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you might have noticed that I am proud to be the member for Drysdale and have six wonderful schools in my electorate. I am passionate about education for young Territorians, and it gives me great delight to attend the schools which, as I have said before, are a lovely mix of public, private, senior, primary, and special.
Tonight I will highlight some of the exemplary achievements of the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre. I thank Frankie Maclean the principal of the centre, for keeping me up to date with the activities of students.
Student enrolment numbers are expected to reach 57 at the start of 2013. This will be the largest number of students the centre has ever seen since its establishment in 1999. The renovation of one of the centre’s buildings was recently completed. The centre now has an additional two classrooms, a reception area, a quiet area and a storeroom.
I have had a tour of this extension to the centre and was impressed with its functionality and amenities. I know the teachers are very excited about this new facility. As it turns out, the centre has outgrown this extension before it even opened, and in 2013 it will also occupy another two classrooms in the mainstream areas of the Palmerston Senior College campus.
On 23 November 2012, the centre held its senior year’s dinner dance at Cazaly’s Sports Club and farewelled three students who turned 18 this year. All three are going into jobs, either full- or part-time, in the hospitality, manufacturing, or logistics industries. I wish those students the very best of luck in the future, and congratulate teachers at the centre for providing educational and real life opportunities to our special students.
The special school has a lunch program that provides life skills such as functional numeracy, menu planning, cooking, shopping, budgeting and the like. The Variety Club published in its November newsletter an article about the lunch program. As a result of this, a good Samaritan in the community made a $200 anonymous donation. The centre is utterly grateful to this generous supporter.
The centre also has an enterprise education program which gives students business skills and experiences. At the Palmerston Special Education Centre they make amazing cards which are sold to generate profit for the centre. The centre has been working tirelessly for months to fill an order of 7000 cards, which I am proud to say is the Northern Territory government order for departments to use as Christmas cards. This is a great achievement for the centre as students manufacture the cards and then deliver the finished product to the client.
Gift shops and the museum and art gallery are a strong source of revenue and always stock these beautiful cards. I could not resist ordering some to distribute through my electorate for special birthdays - 21st, 30th, 40th, 50th and so on. I have not had one complaint yet.
Five high-needs students who where non-swimmers have successfully undertaken a nine week water awareness program delivered by two staff members, an AUSTSWIM instructor and a MATE instructor. The results speak for themselves.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I participate where I can in the schools in my electorate and the Special Education Centre is no exception. I look forward to growing my relationship with the school and reporting the centre’s future achievements to this House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I commend and compliment some young pony club and equestrian riders in the rural area. About two months ago they travelled to the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events in Queensland. Some of them flew, but some of them drove, taking horse floats and horses, which was a mammoth effort.
The Territory team did extremely well, given the base we come from. The Northern Territory came fifth overall out of seven teams. We had primary teams as well as secondary teams. As often is the case with athletes and sports people in the Territory, they do tend to punch, or in this case jump, well above their weight. I put on the record the students and riders who went from the Territory but, more interestingly, reference their horses names because they certainly have interesting names. I do not quite know how they decide upon these names, but they sure are interesting.
Dressage Preliminary event: Olivia Ruzsicska on Roskyle Silver Ghost, Anna McConachy on Euston Tribute
As a consequence of the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events, Equestrian Australia received an invitation from the South African Federation for a team of four pony riders aged up until the year in which they turn 15 to compete in a borrowed horse event at the international classic for pony riders. This is a competition held in South Africa and they invited four junior riders to compete.
Equestrian Northern Territory had two riders selected of the four Australians to compete in South Africa: Abbey Seidel and Sarah Lock from Darwin. They were picked for the team and went to South Africa recently to represent Australia. It was a tremendous opportunity for these two young girls. I know both these young girls and their parents. They spend many hours at pony club events and dressage and equestrian events at Freds Pass Show and Darwin Show. They have competed in Territory and national school championships.
They have consolidated their riding through local pony clubs, the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club and the Litchfield Horse and Pony Club. They have spent many hours in the saddle attending clinics and competitions, going to coaching and, of course, competing and having fun.
I do not have the exact results but I can get them and perhaps I will talk about that at another stage. However, they were tremendous ambassadors for not only the Northern Territory, but Australia. I received some information that they did themselves, the Territory, and Australia proud. They won awards and did very well.
Congratulations to all the students, also the families because they are there backing up both at the National Annual Interschool Equestrian Events and the competition in South Africa.
In regard to the National Annual Interschool competition, the young rider I mentioned, Olivia Ruzsicska, who went over with her parents and a couple of her horses, wrote a little piece following her trip. This is what she said:
- My inter-school trip. Getting into inter-schools was the hardest thing of the trip because you didn’t know if you were going to get selected. On the way down to Queensland I thought it would be a breeze .... I thought Queensland was right around the corner but I realised that it takes 4 days ... to drive there. Competing at inter-schools is easier than you think, because all you’re doing is the tests you’ve been learning for months. Inter-schools made me nervous but that helped me because it made me not too excited so if I did something wrong I wouldn’t get angry at myself. Just to be 10th in Australia made me feel awesome ...
She was ranked 10th in Australia, which is a tremendous effort.
- ... but to stand on the podium and get a ribbon for 6th made me feel proud and I wouldn’t have been able to do this without my whole family. I thank my grandpa for his support and my mum and dad for driving me there, helping me with everything and getting me into this sport and I also want to thank NHPCl for teaching me the things I needed to. THANKS!!!
She sent me a photo of her on one of her horses named Bagel. That is when she came 6th in what they call phase 3.
Congratulations to all the young riders. I wish them all the best and know they will compete in many more competitions, both interstate and nationally and will do the Territory proud.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about a very important matter to do with health in remote services, specifically with the issue of patient accommodation for people from remote areas.
In his statement yesterday the new Minister for Health outlined his vision and new reforms. He also outlined some of the cuts he planned to put in place claiming, as the new government is, it just cannot afford anything, which I do not believe.
During his contribution he talked about medi-hotels and a further example, having spoken about the one at Darwin Hospital. He obviously considers it to be an incredibly extravagant and unnecessary thing and he said:
- A further example which I had to put a stop to is another medi-hotel at Gove Hospital of all places. It was proposed to build a federal Labor-funded $5.8m 12-bed patient accommodation unit without a budget to run it.
I do not believe there is no budget to run it. I do not believe this new government, in the lead-up to its mini-budget, cannot get its priorities right and listen to people in the bush, knowing they came into government on the back of support from people in the bush and on the promise they would be listening to people in the bush and would fix the bush in the next four years. The government then makes an outrageous statement that they will not support and will put a stop to a $5.8m patient accommodation facility on the campus at Gove Hospital.
It got much worse today. The Health minister clearly felt the need to talk further about why he put a stop to this medi-hotel and set up one of his colleagues, one of his bush members, the member for Arafura, to ask him a dorothy dixer during Question Time. The question was:
- Can the minister please explain the concept of the medi-hotel and how it operates?
The minister, in responding, turned this place into an uproar. The answer included:
- A medi-hotel is accommodation for people accessing health and hospital services from out of town. It is for people still requiring some medical care who are not sick enough to be in hospital. It is also a hotel for long-grassers without a home and for relatives and escorts of people in hospital. It all sounds quite wonderful.
He went on to say:
- The concept of a medi-hotel is a great idea. It should house as many patients as possible. It should house as many of their relatives as possible. It should house as many long-grassers as possible. It is something we all want to do.
At this point I saw red listening to what the Health minister had to say. It typifies his approach and lack of knowledge, respect and understanding, not only of health issues for Indigenous people but what life in the bush is like. Let me tell you as somebody who has lived in the township of Nhulunbuy for some 22 years and has had the great honour of representing the people in this electorate for the past four and a bit years, people who live in northeast Arnhem Land in remote areas who do not have a hospital nearby - they may have a health clinic - may be on a homeland where they have no immediate access to primary health care. Coming to Gove Hospital is an important part of people’s medical care and hospitalisation.
It is not just for sick people, but is for pregnant women because they cannot deliver their babies at Galiwinku, Elcho Island - the health clinic at Nalkanbuy - they are required to come into Nhulunbuy at around the 36th or 37th week of their pregnancy. Currently, when these women come in there may be space for them at the Aboriginal hostel, they may be in the hospital, they may be with family at Yirrkala, but they are invariably accompanied by a carer. Coming away from country and into hospital in a clinical environment which is foreign to people and where there may be language barriers, carers and escorts are part and parcel of the system.
Some women may also have to travel with their children because there is no one else to care for them. This visitor accommodation, medi-hotel - we are not talking about a five-star resort - is a basic part of our health care system which should be provided and is long overdue in Nhulunbuy.
To hear the Health minister suggest that not only is it not needed because people can stay at the Walkabout Lodge thank you very much, on licensed premises at a cost of about $200 a night and a good 15 minute walk from the hospital, is outrageous. Yes, there is an Aboriginal hostel in Nhulunbuy. It is frequently full and, again, it is some distance from the hospital. When the hostel is full, where do people go? Currently visitors to the hospital, when they have a relative with them, often sleep on the floor within the ward. Staff are always accommodating around that, looking after visitors who are escorting a patient by putting a mattress down.
However, the suggestion that this facility is not only not needed, but where they do exist they are abused by ‘long-grassers’, which he uses often and we understand in a derogatory sense, is so offensive I cannot begin to tell you how unhappy I am and exactly how many people I have e-mailed in my electorate this afternoon - from the clinics from Marthakal homelands, and Laynhapuy homelands. These people come in from their homeland communities which are some distance away, and I believe it is a basic right they should have access to a place where they are comfortable, safe, and where it is culturally appropriate. I am not necessarily suggesting they get it for free, there may be some fee associated with it.
For the minister to wipe it out as something not worth doing saying ‘We are not going to do, it is a waste of time’, is wrong and offensive.
I am offended on another level in that during this whole debacle not one bush member from that side and, in particular, not one Indigenous bush member from that side, seemed to think what the Health minister was suggesting was out of line. By their silence they are complicit in saying and supporting that people in remote areas and, in this instance, in the areas of northeast Arnhem Land - the member for Arnhem’s constituents come to Gove Hospital to be hospitalised, whether it be for treatment for chronic illness, to see specialists, or to have babies. The member for Arnhem’s constituents come to Gove Hospital and they need somewhere to stay, they deserve somewhere to stay. But not one of those bush members has challenged the Health Minister - if not here, clearly not in party wing. They must say, ‘Yes, that is no worries at all, minister, if you think that is a good idea’.
This comes from a minister who we know has form in this area. He has referred to remote communities as hellholes in the past, he has supported, on the record, urban drift. He says urban drift is a good thing: get people out of these remote areas and on to places closer to the Stuart Highway. I am just appalled by the contribution from the minister. I am appalled by the silence from the other ministers.
Madam Speaker, where is the Minister for Indigenous Advancement on this issue? She is the one championing the causes of Indigenous people in the Territory. They hold the majority of the bush seats and, by not challenging their own Health Minister in their own party wing, we can only assume they think it is a good idea that Indigenous people in remote areas do not deserve hospital accommodation. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of this House the achievements of a family I know quite well. This family lives at Daly River for the paying job, while they also maintain a cattle holding on the Edith River. The Fletcher family has been involved with the Daly River for over five years - probably longer; I have not been able to check that exactly.
Barry Fletcher is the current ESO Officer in Nauiyu community. While this position is pretty important, especially in the Wet Season when your power goes on and off, it is his wife, Janet, who I first concentrate my remarks on. Janet Fletcher is the managing senior nurse at the Nauiyu Clinic. She has over 35 years nursing experience and has been very involved in that community’s health outcomes for the years she has been residing there.
From my memory, for the time I have been there, she is probably the longest serving nurse to reside at that clinic. I have had to attend the clinic over my 15 years at Daly and, as you know, I am an insulin dependent diabetic. I have a son who is epileptic and I have full confidence in the skills and experience of not just Janet but all of the staff. I have also had Janet attend a car accident with me in my role of Unit Officer for the Northern Territory Emergency Services Daly River Volunteer Unit. To have her there to assist the injured is a real confidence booster.
What I am getting to here is that Janet was recognised for her dedication back in 2005 when she received the Northern Territory Local Hero of the Year Award. In the same year she won the Barnardo’s Australia Mother of the Year Award and the Remote Nurse of the Year Northern Territory Award.
The reason I raise all this background is that Janet’s son, Peter Fletcher, has received the Northern Territory Local Hero of the Year Award 2012 and will soon be amongst the nominations for the national award. Peter was born and raised in Ngukurr southeast of Katherine. He set his career path as one who aims at improving the lives of people living in remote Australia. He has a double degree in criminology and psychology and uses this knowledge, with local police, to help build a more positive relationship with young people, particularly to curb their binge drinking. Peter is dedicated to helping empower Aboriginal people to make positive change to their lives. Like AA, he takes one day at a time. I feel proud the Territory has such dedicated people.
As a footnote, Janet Fletcher wrote a book of her life which was published in 2011. That book is called Outback Calling. It is a good read and if any members want to read more about this family that is the book to get. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016