2012-11-01
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Tanya Harvey and Mrs Adelle Gould. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and visit here today.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Mr Rick Collister and Mrs Kirrily Jones. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and visit here with us.
Also in the gallery, I welcome the electoral officers from various electoral offices around Darwin and the regions.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not give notice of this but I did say yesterday, in response to a question regarding the provision of the requested details around salaries, entitlements and so on of the RMB - I have no problem with tabling those for the Opposition Leader and the opposition - for anyone to see. We are not hiding anything.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Before I move on, I extend a particularly warm welcome to the young ones from the Larrakeyah Primary School. My two young daughters go to Larrakeyah Primary School and it is a very fine school.
I tip my hat to the outgoing principal of the school, Mr Graham Chadwick, and his staff. They do an extraordinary job with the kids there. Welcome to my workplace. Good to see you.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act to provide for an R 18+ computer games classification. The question as to whether it is appropriate to introduce an R 18+ classification for computer games has been the subject of extensive public consultation and has received widespread support throughout Australia. The amendments give effect to the decision made by all jurisdictions to introduce an R 18+ classification category for such games in Australia.
Pursuant to the 1995 Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship, classification and censorship matters in Australia are to be regulated under a cooperative legislative scheme known as the National Classification Scheme. The process for classification of computer games in Australia and the guidelines for the different classification levels for computer games, as well as films and publications, are governed by the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games.
The Classification Code has been negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It sets out the principles to be followed in classification decisions and the general criteria for all classification categories. The Classification Board and the Review Board, which decide appropriate classifications for individual films and computer games, are also established under the Commonwealth legislation. Procedures to enforce classifications are set out in state and territory laws. For the Northern Territory, this is through the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act.
Unlike films, computer games can presently be only classified as: G - general, which signifies the content is very mild; PG - parental guidance, which signifies the content as mild; M - mature, which signifies the content as moderate; and MA 15+ - mature accompanied, which signifies the content as strong. The RC, or refuse classification, signifies the content is not suitable for classification and the item is not to be sold or displayed in Australia.
Until now, there has been no classification for computer games equivalent to the R 18+ rating for films that would allow games appropriate for adults to be legally available in Australia.
In 2010, the Commonwealth, in consultation with the states and territories, undertook extensive Australia-wide public consultation. More than 58 000 individuals and organisations nationwide provided written submissions to a discussion paper early in 2010. Of those, 98%, thought an R 18+ rating should be introduced and 80% of the 2000 Australians polled later in 2010 agreed, including 76% of adults from households with children under 18.
This is important as we know parents are increasingly playing computer games with their children as a way of spending time with them, as well as supervising the material they make available to their children. I am one of those parents.
Following the public consultation process, a decision was made at the July 2011 meeting of the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, now the Standing Council on Law and Justice, to introduce an R18+ classification category for computer games in Australia.
The Commonwealth parliament has subsequently passed the Classification (Publications, Films, Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Act 2012, which is due to commence on 1 January 2013. The Commonwealth act is the mechanism by which the R 18+ category is activated in relation to computer games for all other jurisdictions.
The Australian Capital Territory has also passed the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Act and other jurisdictions are either working towards introducing amendment bills or have introduced amendment bills in time for the commencement of the R 18+ computer games in the National Classification Scheme on 1 January 2013.
This bill will amend the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act and reflects the legislation to be implemented in other Australian states and territories. It will introduce provisions into the Northern Territory enforcement regime that will permit and regulate the sale, delivery, and exhibition of computer games that have been classified as R 18+ and create associated offences.
The bill amends the classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act by inserting a new section 65A to provide an offence to demonstrate R 18+ computer games in a public place.
Section 67 (demonstration of unclassified, Refused Classification and MA 15+ computer games where it can be seen from a public place); and section 68 (private demonstration of Refused Classification computer games in the presence of a child) are also amended to include an offence for the R 18+ computer game.
The purpose of the new section 65A and amendments to section 67 and 68 is to protect children from viewing the content of computer games classified as R 18+ in the same manner they are protected from viewing Refused Classification and MA 15+ computer games, and to ensure that demonstrations of games classified R 18+ can only be conducted in a controlled area in the same way that MA 15+ games are.
Section 71 (sale or delivery of certain computer games to a child) and section 73 (leaving computer games in certain places) are both amended to include an offence for R 18+ computer games. The purpose of these amendments is to add R 18+ computer games to the offences so that it is an offence to sell, deliver or make available computer games to a child if the computer game is classified Refused Classification or R 18+.
Similar to section 50 in the classification of the Publications, Films and Computer Games Act which deals with films, the offence does not apply if the game is classified R 18+, the child is at least 15 years of age, and the person who sells or delivers the game to the child is the parent or guardian of the child. A defence to a prosecution is also available in circumstances where the defendant believed, on reasonable grounds, that the child was an adult (for example identification is provided by the child showing they are over the age of 18) or the child was employed by the defendant, and the delivery of the computer game was undertaken in the course of employment.
The introduction of an R 18+ category for computer games in Australia will provide government with a greater ability to control the distribution of these games. Providing an R 18+ classification for computer games will result in a greater protection for children from violent computer games - with some material moving from the M 15+ classification to the new R 18+ classification - whilst still allowing adult gamers to access computer games containing adult content that will fall within the R 18+ classification. It will also provide adult purchasers with greater information to allow them to determine whether the computer game is something they truly want to view or use, or whether it is appropriate material for younger members of their family.
Opponents to the introduction of the category have argued that the R 18+ classification will suddenly introduce prohibited and offensive games to Australia. This is not correct. These new provisions call for a reclassification of existing computer games whilst retaining the Refused Classification category. The Attorney-General of any jurisdiction may request the classification of a particular game to be reconsidered if they are concerned about the content of the game.
An R 18+ classification for computer games will bring the treatment of computer games into line with the treatment of films, and it will make the Australian regime more consistent with international standards. Introducing the R18+ rating reflects the principles that underpin the National Classification Scheme: that adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want, while protecting minors from material likely to harm or disturb them. It takes account of community concerns about the content that condones or incites violence - particularly sexual violence - or portrays people in a demeaning manner, and it will protect adults from being unwittingly exposed to unsolicited material that may offend them.
The R 18+ computer game debate has been going on for many years. This bill is a product of a consultative process involving all jurisdictions agreeing to their current approach with the general support of the Australian public.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK: (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker , I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial No 2) passing through all stages in the first week of the November/December 2012 parliamentary sittings period.
The reason we seek this motion, as explained yesterday in relation to other bills, is this bill now falls within the 30-day turnaround time period required by Standing Orders for its passage. This matter has been discussed with the leader of opposition business and they have indicated their assent to proceeding down this path. It just means that this notice will lay on the table for, I think, 28 days rather than the requisite 30.
Mr GUNNER: (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, as indicated yesterday, we thank the Leader of Government Business for the notice. For a technical urgency like this we are happy to work with the government to have this bill debated within what is only a slighter shorter time frame than is normal, so we are very happy to support the urgency motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the urgency motion in this case because the minister has given a clear reason why he needs that and it fits within the parameters of the debate that we had the other day. It still gives us a gap between these sittings and the next sittings and that is really the issue. I know it is 30 days normally but the practical implications are that we do at least get enough time between these sittings and the next sittings to debate the issue. Although it is a matter of urgency to be agreed to, in this case it makes common sense. Thank you
Motion agreed to
Continued from 24 October.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 (Serial 1).
As a new member of the House for this Twelfth Assembly I asked to be briefed on the history of this important reform to the law of evidence in the Northern Territory so that I was clear on where it had been left by the honourable members of the Eleventh Assembly.
As a lawyer in private practice in the Territory I received a number of briefings on some of the practical changes that were to flow from this proposed reform which, as I was then informed, was before the parliament. At that time I was informed the new uniform legislation would come into effect in the Northern Territory in September 2012. I know that a large number of workshops, continuing professional development seminars and internal firm training sessions took place across the profession in preparation for this reform.
Unfortunately, due to a combination of parliamentary workload and, one might infer, the former government’s restriction on sitting hours, this legislation never made it through as anticipated. It is now in this Twelfth Assembly that we find ourselves again in a position to pass this legislation - legislation that has bipartisan support.
I understand from my briefings and conversation in this House from staff in the minister’s office that this reform is important and necessary. I am told by the Department of the Attorney-General and the drafts-people that this legislation is a long overdue reform to unify the Territory’s evidence laws with those of many of our state and territory counterparts.
But being a new member of the House, and a lawyer and an advocate at heart, I wanted to know why we needed this reform. I wanted to know why the profession wants it, and how it achieved bipartisan support, so I did some research.
This is a dry topic, I will be honest. I found myself frequently rereading sentences in an attempt to grasp the language. Unfortunately, the use of legalese and the failure to construct reports and papers in plain English, as they should be, meant a simple answer was hard to find.
My aim today is to outline a couple of the benefits of this legislation in practical terms, as well as why the legal profession as a whole has endorsed and embraced this uniform direction for evidence law.
Before I get into the detail, it should be noted that this bill is before the House on urgency. There is a very good reason for this. The reform needs to be introduced for the commencement of 1 January 2013 to fit with the work of the courts of the Northern Territory. To introduce it at any point past these sittings would see the objective lost. This is an important introduction date to meet as the case management of Supreme Court trials generally follows the calendar year and largely accounts for the highly transient nature of the Territory’s population during the major holiday periods of the year.
Therefore, the period of December is traditionally light with new trials commencing for 2013 after the Christmas and New Year break. On this bill passing the House, as I hope it will, the Department of the Attorney-General will move quickly to see it introduced into the Bench Books for the Justices and the magistrates of the courts, and legal practitioners across all areas of practice will be informed of its commencement date.
Trials commencing after 1 January 2013 will be subject to this new uniform evidence legislation. The commencement date will ensure that all 2013 trials apply the uniform evidence legislation and avoid the complications and confusion for the bench, solicitor, client, victim, defendant and the public of different systems and different rules.
Why should we, as a parliament, support this legislation and, importantly, why does the profession support it?
First, this legislation will see the Northern Territory join New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT, Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth as a uniform evidence jurisdiction. I am, however, by no means suggesting the Territory ought to follow suit of our southern counterparts for the sake of unity. There is purpose and integrity behind the reform.
It is worth noting that well over 70% of Australia’s legal practitioners come from these jurisdictions, primarily from New South Wales and Victoria. The Northern Territory has between 1% and 2% of the total legal practitioners in Australia.
I completed my law degree at Adelaide University and then returned home to Darwin to practice in the Darwin office of a national law firm. My personal experience is indicative of why uniform legislation is generally good for the legal profession.
You may have noted that South Australia is not a uniform evidence jurisdiction and, therefore, being an Adelaide law student and Darwin practitioner, I have never studied nor practised under the uniform evidence legislation.
Working in a national firm as I did, a number of specialist lawyers, barristers and other practitioners would come to Darwin to work on cases, provide advice and further litigations. Of course, these practitioners understood advocacy and case strategy irrespective of the jurisdiction; however, as far as the rules of evidence go, the Northern Territory was unlike the jurisdictions of New South Wales and Victoria.
Had this legislation been enforced then, practitioners moving between jurisdictions in the Northern Territory would have had no problem in understanding completely the laws of evidence, except when it comes to some exceptional rules specific to the Northern Territory.
So, be you the Darwin lawyer travelling to Melbourne for a case, or the Sydney barrister travelling to Alice Springs, once this legislation passes the House you can rely on the uniform evidence commentary - which I can see the Attorney-General is eagerly flipping through now ...
Mr Elferink: Never leave home without it, that is what I reckon.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: That is right, it is like the Bible. It is a compilation of case authorities and rules developed from an extensive jurisprudence developed over a number of years, whichever court you walk into.
It is important to understand the role of evidence in legal proceedings, thereby demonstrating the value in a uniform approach to it across the major jurisdictions. The rules of evidence control what material comes before a court when we are determining an issue, how the material comes before the court and how the court may use the material to determine an issue. Evidence is at the core of procedural justice in Australia.
If the procedural rules of the court do not work, or are inefficient, then access to justice for Territorians is impaired. The uniform evidence law is an established and tried and tested system of evidence and procedural laws.
I was interested to read the thoughts of Stephen Odgers, the author of the text the Attorney-General is holding, called Uniform Evidence Laws, on the common law system of evidence, which is the system this bill and other uniform evidence legislation will replace in the Northern Territory. He says, on page 2, that the common law of evidence:
This bill recognises that reform.
Some areas of reform include the areas of hearsay evidence. In an attempt to assist the House with Law 101, hearsay evidence is any evidence which does not come direct from the source. For example, if a witness states, ‘She told me he said to her XYZ’, that is hearsay. Generally, it is not admissible on the basis that it is unreliable. The person giving the evidence did not hear the key part of the evidence, they just heard about it from someone else.
Under the uniform evidence legislation, a broader range of exceptions exists to the rule against hearsay, thereby allowing more evidence to get before the court and, ultimately, helping magistrates, judges and juries in making their decisions.
Another area of important reform under the uniform evidence legislation is that of tendency and coincidence evidence. Tendency evidence is evidence of the character, reputation or conduct of a person or a tendency a person has or had. This type of evidence is put before a court to prove the person has or had a tendency to act in a particular way.
Coincidence evidence is evidence that two or more events occurred, and is put before the court to prove it is improbable the events occurred coincidentally. This area is very important, particularly with regard to sexual offence trials. The classic example is where an accused is charged with assaulting a number of children in a unique or particular way. These reforms will allow such evidence to be used to indicate it is the accused’s tendency to assault children in this way and it is likely he assaulted all of the children, given the unique type of assault alleged.
Ultimately, evidence law is complicated and even with these reforms it is not perfect. However, these reforms ensure consistency, a greater degree of certainty, and ease of access to the legal system. Rather than trawling through reams and reams of case law to work out the rule, for example, of what is credibility evidence, you can now flick to section 101A of the uniform evidence act and get a clear answer.
The legislation will make the rules of evidence easier to find, understand and cross-reference. It will simplify and condense decades of case law into a single piece of legislation whilst still allowing the Northern Territory to maintain evidence laws unique to it through the old Evidence Act.
The reform will benefit the legal professional as they have indicated it will. It will enable and foster greater cross-border legal practice, while allowing the public at large to better understand the complex laws applicable to evidence in the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has no problems with this bill and will be supporting its passage. This bill was introduced by the former Labor government but lapsed when the parliament was prorogued and we went to an election.
I congratulate the member for Drysdale on her very comprehensive overview, not only of the consequential amendments, but the bill itself which was passed a while ago, and clearly demonstrating her vast knowledge of the law. Well done to you.
It is no surprise the new Attorney-General has taken the same approach in adopting these new measures because, as the then shadow sitting over here, he was very clear about his support and that of the CLP for the bill originally proposed under Labor. In fact, during the second reading in continuation in October 2011 of the original bill, our now Attorney-General, as the shadow as he was then, was almost euphoric in his praise of the bill because it is a good reform and one which, in his view - and he was right, the member for Drysdale is right, and Labor was right - was long overdue.
Given we are all on the same page, it is no surprise the second reading speeches of the current Attorney-General and former Attorney-General are almost identical. This is no case of plagiarism but, rather, the reality of the fact that sometimes it is hard to find a different way of saying the same thing when everyone has already said it so well and explained it so clearly. As the member for Drysdale said, it is a very dry topic.
Given that the uniform evidence act has been adopted in several other jurisdictions, and not all have followed suit, it is appropriate that the Northern Territory should go down this path, not simply for the sake of following suit, as the member for Drysdale said, but rather that the previous evidence act in the Northern Territory was far from contemporary and, hence, the opportunity to pick and adopt more modern measures introduced through the national uniform evidence act was clearly an opportunity we seized on for the benefit of everyone.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office and his ministerial advisor for Justice for organising, in a very timely fashion, the opportunity for a briefing on the bill. I also thank the two officers from Justice who briefed me and were able to provide additional information after that briefing by way of a fact sheet which highlighted the relationship between the uniform evidence act and the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. This is clearly very important, and I am not going to say why because the member for Drysdale has already said it so well. I was assured during that briefing that third parties in the legal fraternity had been consulted as they had with the bill before it lapsed, and note that post-election the Law Society had written to the new Attorney-General urging the reintroduction of this bill.
This was further confirmed by the fact that the NT Law Reform Committee, following a request from the former Attorney-General, provided a report to the Attorney-General recommending the adoption of the uniform evidence act - in 2006 I think it was. I thank the Hon Austin Asche who met with me earlier this week simply by way of an introductory meeting, given he is currently the Chair of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. We spoke, amongst other things, about the report presented to the Attorney-General. I look forward to future conversations with His Honour Austin Asche; I daresay not only about the law but about literature.
I made the comment about that report on the uniform evidence act that I liked the way there were reference quotes from Dickens and Shakespeare. He leapt at that and said, ‘I wrote that’. Quite clearly, what I see about people who are in that legal profession is that much of the philosophy they draw on comes from some of our great writers. I know that to be true of our current Attorney-General and other people like Mr Tom Pauling. Anyway, I digress.
I want to make a quick comment about the urgency around the passage of this bill which the opposition has no issues with, understanding as I do the very practical reasons around wanting to see this bill enacted and operational by 1 January 2013. There are clearly some operational and practical matters for the judiciary and courts to prepare in readiness for 1 January. Also, with this commencement date, a time when criminal trials generally are not heard, it means the act will not be commenced during a hearing, which would span the old and the new act and would be most impractical.
That said, however, the opposition does not accept an open slather approach to bills on urgency - there is another one coming before the House next - unless there is a very real and demonstrated need to do so. Of course, as we know, the new government is in a position to, essentially, make that decision. I also hope, with some of the important bills we know will be coming before this House over the next four years, the Attorney-General will take the opportunity - or his colleagues, should there be bills in other ministerial areas of responsibility - to use the instrument of producing a draft exposure bill which allows people, in a much wider sense, to have a genuine opportunity to engage, scrutinise and provide feedback through that process.
Before I close, I want to make a comment on the second reading speech of the former Attorney-General, Mr Knight. Reference was made to the work being undertaken by workshops and briefings to ensure the changes were being communicated to the legal profession to enable a smooth transition, and that Professor Les McCrimmon from Charles Darwin University was involved in this as one of the country’s leading experts in this area. I asked in the briefing whether this work had been done. I was assured it had been and, having very recently met with Professor McCrimmon, I received that assurance once again, and for a third time from the member for Drysdale. A practising member of the legal fraternity herself, she confirmed she had been through all of that process. That is great news; I am very pleased to hear that.
On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill and the consequential amendments to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act to the House and I thank the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the members for Drysdale and Nhulunbuy have conspired to expose a flaw in my character to the people of the Northern Territory. The member for Drysdale had pointed out how dry this piece of legislation was and, indeed, if this was any drier, you would put a fence around it and tell everyone not to cross it because there are no oases between page 1 and page 1300 of the ‘simple’ explanation of how this legislation works. The member for Nhulunbuy then said I was euphoric in my enthusiasm for the support of this legislation, which completes the conspiracy against my character; but I have to confess it is true. I have been exposed as someone who is interested in these sorts of things but not only for esoteric reasons, actually for very practical and real reasons, as were so eloquently described by both of the members who have spoken today.
Bearing in mind, of course, what we are passing, or what we are hoping to pass today - but I suspect will pass today - is not the uniform evidence act; it is the enabling legislation. The bill that formed the act in the Northern Territory was passed in October 2011, fully a year ago. It was with some disappointment that I did not see the enabling legislation come into this place until much later. One could be forgiven, with the amount of effort that went into adopting the legislation, for being critical of the former Attorney-General who seemed to not understand the importance of bringing this legislation in. I made it my personal business to ensure the enabling legislation was brought into this place as the first item of business with a specific view to having a kick-off date of 1 January 2013, specifically for the reasons described by the member for Drysdale. This is to capture the space, if you like, created at the end of the judicial year so that this will be introduced with as little pain as possible.
Uniform evidence legislation, whilst it looks daunting to the untrained eye - and I confess a certain amount of daunt with a trained eye - it is nothing like the common law of evidence. I ask members to contemplate, if they will in their mind’s eye, a dark labyrinth and in that labyrinth there are cobwebs and twists and turns, some nasty surprises down the ends of dead-end corridors, and probably the odd Minotaur or two; that is the common law of evidence. Good luck to those people who seek to enter that labyrinth. This evidence act does not get rid of the labyrinth but at least it switches the light on.
I pick up on some of the comments, particularly in relation to what the member for Drysdale had to say about the nature of evidence, that used to be called same fact evidence in the common law - I am betraying myself now - but is now referred to as tendency or coincidence evidence. I note the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission’s comments in relation to joinders and the presumption against them where this sort of evidence may be contemplated. The Tasmanians, through their Law Reform Commission, have suggested a reversal of the presumption, so there would be a presumption in favour of joinders. That is an area where I would have cause to cast a benevolent eye, so I have asked my department to look in that direction, subject to the Cabinet approval and the next Standing Council on Law and Justice meeting. It is worth visiting.
This change to the law of evidence, and this particular bill, enables some of the functional components of how that law will work. The member for Drysdale mentioned the quagmire that is hearsay evidence. In this bill, not only will there be a better capacity for courts to deal with the difficulties of hearsay evidence but also a procedural construct which means an attempt to adduce hearsay evidence by a party will require some form of notice. That is a sensible proposition in this bill.
I thank honourable members for their support of this bill. This is a useful and functional reform of the law of the Northern Territory. It enables us to have a large body of judicial wisdom imported into the Northern Territory when it comes to considering the implications of what is in this legislation, and it means we can open the tap on a long history, of the New South Wales and Victorian judiciaries in particular, making determinations on how this act is to be interpreted. That means we are not starting from a cold start like those jurisdictions had to when uniform legislation was introduced, but there is now a significant body of jurisprudence surrounding and orbiting this legislation. That body is created by a substantial number of jurists which means the court of the Northern Territory, when having to deal with specific issues of evidence, will be able to cast a substantially wide net over the jurisprudence that has gone before them in other jurisdictions pertaining to matters of evidence particular to this legislation.
As I said, I am grateful also to the members, and I note the comments by the shadow attorney-general about her thanks to Professor McCrimmon and I add my thanks. The good professor quickly realised I was sniffing around this when I became the Attorney-General. He did not wait for a phone call from me. There is legislation dealing with stalking; nevertheless he stalked me, got me into a room and said this is a worthwhile thing that has to happen. I did not need to be convinced; nevertheless he was very kind to take some time out of his day and I express my gratitude to him.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly, pursuant to section 132 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, recommend to Her Honour the Administrator that she appoint Mr Peter Shoyer to hold the office of the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory.
Mr Shoyer is a fine and upstanding person in the Northern Territory. I have a great deal of regard for his capacity and skills, and am sure he will take on the role of the Ombudsman with the same ethics and quality he has brought to his service of the public of the Northern Territory.
The Ombudsman Act provides the appointment will be for a period of seven years. The position of the Ombudsman became vacant when the former incumbent completed her tenure on 28 August 2012. Ms Brenda Monaghan has been acting in the position of Ombudsman since that time.
The vacancy for Ombudsman for the Northern Territory was advertised nationally. Interviews were held in Darwin by an NT government executive panel. That panel submitted a report of a shortlist of applicants for consideration by the Legislative Assembly selection panel which comprised of the government representative, the Leader of the Opposition’s nominee, and an independent member of the Assembly. The panel has recommended Mr Peter Shoyer for appointment as the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
Mr Shoyer is well qualified and has demonstrated strong claims for the position. He holds a Bachelor of Laws, a Bachelor of Economics, and a Masters of Laws qualification. He is a former information commissioner in the Northern Territory government, and has experience as Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer in the then Department of Justice. Mr Shoyer currently holds appointment as an Executive Director of Court Support and Independent Officers in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. He also holds the appointment of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. In summary, Mr Shoyer has an extensive legal and public administration background as well as experience in executive positions where he has demonstrated a depth of strategic thinking and the ability to resolve challenges promptly.
I commend Mr Shoyer’s appointment as the Ombudsman and move this motion be agreed to by this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Shoyer as Ombudsman. I have had a fair amount of dealing with the Ombudsman over the last few years, especially in rural matters. It is one of the key planks of our democracy and parliamentary system.
I was asked whether governments hide figures and do all types of things, but we have systems within our parliament like the Auditor-General, the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. We also have a very important person called the Ombudsman. That is part of the structure of our democratic process in the Northern Territory and Australia which defines us as a democracy in the world. We have these positions which are designed to scrutinise governments on all levels and that is really important.
I have had a fair bit to do with the Ombudsman in the last few years. I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation which dealt with the Mataranka cattle deaths. The Ombudsman was very much involved in that. The previous Ombudsman was also very much involved in child protection and the issue of flooded blocks in the rural area. The previous Ombudsman produced a report at the end of her term recommending the government pay for the land those people had bought which is now subject to flooding.
This position gives an opportunity to anyone in our society to have recourse against what they feel is a bad decision by government, whether it is Northern Territory government or local government. I was in local government for 13 years and our council was scrutinised by the Ombudsman from time to time. It shows the Ombudsman is available to any person in the Northern Territory.
I hope the government gives Mr Peter Shoyer sufficient funds. I know they are talking about fiscal discipline; however, I hope they give the Ombudsman sufficient funds to move out into the Territory so people in the remote communities understand the role of the Ombudsman. That area certainly needs more development so people in remote communities know what their rights are when it comes to dealing with government departments. For people in the major centres, it is far easier to access the Ombudsman and, because of many of the issues the Ombudsman deals with, people in the towns and the cities have a better understanding of what the Ombudsman does. I feel in remote communities there needs to be much more work done. I am not saying the previous Ombudsman did not do that work, but the problem was there were, at times, insufficient funds to do that job better.
I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Shoyer. I know he will do a sterling job in what can be a fairly difficult position, because the Ombudsman sometimes has to tell the government it has done the wrong thing. I believe he will bring that independence, the right judgment, but also the touch of humanity that is required when an Ombudsman has to make a decision.
As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome Mr Peter Shoyer to the job. When he has settled into his job, I hope to meet with him and discuss some of those issues which are still outstanding in the rural area.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports the motion and the recommendation for the appointment of the new Ombudsman, Mr Peter Shoyer.
The Ombudsman plays a crucial role in our democratic system to receive complaints from people who feel they have been treated unfairly or inappropriately by Northern Territory government agencies, statutory authorities, local government or community councils, Northern Territory Police or Correctional Services.
The Ombudsman is a role which is apolitical and independent of government, and is there to provide rigorous transparency and scrutiny. The opposition wishes the Ombudsman well in providing this very important service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I put on the record my thanks to honourable members for their vote of confidence in Mr Shoyer’s abilities. I do not doubt for one second that Mr Shoyer will take this job on with the appropriate sense of gravity that it demands. We have filled that position with a person who carries the appropriate amount of gravitas.
Consequently, I thank honourable members for their kind support of this fine, decent and upright man. I am sure the Ombudsman will attend to his duties with dedication, thoroughness and caution.
Motion agreed to.
TOURISM NT BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, as outlined last week, we do not support the passage on urgency of this legislation and, having now seen the bill, we can now see it for what it is. It is hastily put together and unclear in its purpose, apart from providing an opportunity for the minister to claim he has delivered one part of the government’s 100-day action plan - one dubious achievement while they struggle with so many others.
At first glance, the bill seems to make hardly any difference at all to current arrangements. Tourism NT will remain as an entity with its own budget and reporting lines to the government, but the Tourism Advisory Board will be rebadged as an NT Tourism Commission. At a glance, there does not seem to be much difference at all between the current industry-based Tourism Advisory Board and the new Tourism Commission.
In an interview report in the Alice Springs News just after the election, the commissioner chair elect, Michael Bridge, was asked:
Mr Bridge replied:
Mr Bridge also said:
The bill now lies before the Legislative Assembly and we can see that the question of how the chain of command and accountabilities will work remains largely unanswered.
Last week we heard the new government aims to focus the new agency CEOs on key priorities and hold them personally accountable for progress. Today, we consider a bill that provides for a sharing of accountabilities amongst the commission and a CEO. Perhaps there is some odd logic here; the minister has raised big expectations of growth in tourism in an increasingly tough and ever-changing business environment. Perhaps this model aims to shield him from his own personal accountabilities to the industry. We can see, however, some nuances in changing the function of Tourism NT and, by association, the functions of the commission. That is a much stronger priority, given a marking - aka how taxpayers’ advertising dollar is spent.
There is a new reference to encouraging and facilitating the sustainable growth of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. Reading that purpose, you wonder if the minister has read this bill. ‘Encouraging and facilitating’ just does not seem to be the action language we might expect from this minister, given his past huffing and puffing on what should be done.
Third, the functions provide for the commission to advise the minister on all matters relating to tourism and, specifically, tourism in the Territory.
I also noted that one of the functions outlined in current legislation to encourage tourism investment in the Territory no longer features as a core function. Encouraging and supporting investment in new products - our tourism infrastructure - seems to no longer be the priority it once was. I, and many in the tourism sector, would welcome an explanation of that change.
In my discussions with the tourism industry, the hundreds of small businesses directly employing more than 10% of the Territory workforce, a key question unanswered was: what about support for industry and product development? The current role of Tourism NT in supporting industry development and its products and our place in the market now seems pushed to one side. This is short sighted and I draw on sage advice to this Assembly from one of the few Country Liberal MLAs with real practical experience in tourism.
The last time this Assembly debated change in government administrative arrangements relating to tourism, the former member for Katherine noted there were many fledgling operations throughout the Northern Territory which have great potential and need nurturing and additional assistance so they can develop. It is vitally important to the future of tourism to foster and encourage these new businesses. Where does this nurturing and support for fledgling businesses fit in minister Conlan’s new order of things? This is a very quick question that needs to be asked and answered.
The bill is also silent on how the commission will be appointed, except for an overarching power for the minister to appoint anyone who the minister believes holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and experience relating to the functions of Tourism NT.
Mr Bridge told the Alice Springs News he will be putting forward to the minister some recommendations on membership of the board of the Tourism Commission. Last week the minister told us the commission board will include the best people handpicked by him and the chairman of the commission.
On Tuesday this week, the minister told members of Tourism Top End that board membership will be announced at the upcoming Brolga Tourism Awards, but there is no information for us here today or the industry on how these persons will be selected and what interests they will represent. We already know of one who has been selected; in her excitement she put it on Facebook for everyone to see.
Minister, what has the industry said to you about how board members should be selected? Where is the transparency and accountability of government promised by your Chief Minister? With the board members handpicked by the minister and a key focus of the board making decisions on how taxpayers’ marketing dollars are spent, it is important to consider how potential conflict-of-interest issues will be addressed.
The bill, correctly, does address the potential for commercial conflict of interest amongst board members, but the industry more generally also expects some transparency and consideration of potential conflict-of-interest issues in the selection of board members.
I will now speak to one of the key concerns we have on this bill, which is the opportunity for the minister to unilaterally give direction to the board, including direction on its priorities and the allocation of funds. We do not argue with the principle of ministerial responsibility and provisions for ministerial direction, but we ask: Where is the transparency and accountability in exercising these powers?
Just last week the Chief Minister said in reply to the Administrator’s address that
Debate suspended.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members in Determination One of 2012.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at later hour.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier today.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I will kick off where I left off.
The Chief Minister has also repeated many times that his government will be a government for all Territorians, no matter where they live. We say that will be evidenced by actions, not words, and right here and now he has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to these principles.
We will propose in the committee stage that this transparency and accountability be demonstrated by requiring that the commission publish a report on any ministerial direction so they are visible and open to scrutiny.
I turn now to some further wise words from the former member for Katherine recorded in Hansard who noted:
Sadly, when I talk to the tourism sector about minister Conlan’s bungled initiatives, they say there has been nothing - no consultation, no opportunity to contribute.
Debate on urgency, using the numbers to ram this legislation through, allows even less time for consultation with the industry to help inform and shape the future arrangements meant to support their industry. This is the most disappointing thing about this bill: lack of industry consultation. The tourism sector is a diverse industry with many voices, and they all deserve to be heard.
Last week the minister told us he had consulted; that there has been plenty of discussion with industry; the consultation has been far and wide. I ask him to answer the questions put to me by many in the industry: who has he consulted with, when, and where? We do not support the bill on urgency. We acknowledge you have the numbers to ram it through so you can claim it as some sort of achievement. We have listened to the industry and heard their concerns about lack of consultation.
Madam Speaker, we ask the government members to put their egos and promises to mates aside and to follow your leader’s advice; that is, to understand and reflect on the importance of governing for all Territorians and being open and accountable in your new role as a minister of the Northern Territory government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill either, not because I am necessarily against the Tourism Commission. One reason is that it has been pushed through on urgency and it definitely does not need to go through on urgency. The second is that at the briefing I received, I was informed no one has seen the actual legislation.
Whilst it might be good to say this has been out there for 18 months, what has been out there for 18 months may not be the same as what is in the legislation. That is the key to why we do not push things through under urgency. We introduce legislation, we generally send that legislation out to those people who are affected by it, and give them time to comment on it.
The concept of a Tourism Commission is not something I am opposed to, but the process that has got us there - the inability of industry to have real input into the legislation - is lacking and, because they have not had that opportunity to comment directly on the legislation - and that is what has come from the government’s own department - then there is doubt whether this is the best piece of legislation that could be put forward. Could it be improved? I certainly think it could be improved.
Mr Conlan: How?
Mr WOOD: I will come to that, member for Greatorex. We have looked at other examples throughout Australia and the original example of a Tourist Commission in the Northern Territory. To some extent we have gone back in time, because we did have a Tourist Commission before. I will be putting some questions to the minister during the committee stage.
There were quite a few questions and the following points the current minister raised during an MPI on 11 August 2011 in relation to tourism. He said the CLP would look at things like a tourism heliport within striking distance of the CBD of Darwin; a tourism hub at Wadeye; positive pricing structures for caravan parks and roadside stops and rest stops; Alice Springs as a base hub for international airlines; money to be invested in wildlife parks in Berry Springs and Alice Springs, etcetera. During that debate there was no mention of reconstituting the Tourism Commission and there was no mention of moving the Tourism NT headquarters to Alice Springs. Only last year we had a substantial debate brought on by the then opposition, now government, in an MPI which looked at all the issues of tourism, but these two important areas were not discussed.
We have been ringing around and, generally, there is no doubt that comments are positive from Central Australian tourism operators. They hope this initiative will solve the slump in tourist numbers. We know change in tourism followed by an effect are a long way apart if you are trying to increase tourist numbers.
We received a comment about when the Mereenie Loop Road might be finished. We also received comments referred to us via the Centralian Advocate from a co-owner of the Glen Helen Resort, Shelagh O’Brien. It said a Centralian Australian tourism provider is concerned that the Northern Territory government plan to move the Tourism NT Head Office to the Alice Springs is a waste of money:
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, may I interrupt to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Hon Daryl Manzie, a previous member of this parliament.
Mr WOOD: The Centralian Advocate said:
There are other opinions when it comes to the benefits of some of the changes put forward by the government. I am not necessarily against Tourism NT going to Alice Springs. The discussion about that should be for another day, but it is worthy of debate. The minister has said they are evaluating the benefits versus the costs. If it shows up that it is more beneficial to send them to Alice Springs, well, okay. We have not seen any details to show that is the case. All we have heard is that the government has made a decision and there has not been what I call ‘a little bit of science’ behind that. Back in the old days the commission was based in Alice Springs, so I do not have anything philosophically against it; but in the times of so-called fiscal discipline, it would be nice to see what the costs would be and what the cost-benefits would be.
As I have said before, it is not an issue of whether I agree or disagree with having a Tourism Commission. Certainly one of the fundamental questions I will be asking, probably more so in committee stages, is, ‘what is the difference?’ I know what the difference is in legislation between this legislation and the new legislation, but what is the difference in reality and what difference will it make?
When it comes to having this debate on urgency, the point is we have not lost anything at the present time; you have not stopped existing. Tourism NT will continue in its present form until the new form starts up. It is not as though we are in such dire straits that if we decide to close down the existing advisory body the world would drop dead. We keep one going until the other one is in place. That is how I imagine it would work because you do not want to lose the link between the old body and the new.
My real concern is that if I support this legislation as it is, then I am saying to the industry I am happy to support legislation which, by the government’s own words in the briefing, has not gone out for consultation. The talk about the idea is fine, but it is not the legislation. The legislation is what we need to look at to see if it comes up trumps with what the government is trying to do.
The second thing is I do not support it going through on urgency because it is not urgent. It is important; it is good that the government is saying it wants tourism to get going. That is fine. Tourism is one of the three-hub policies the government has put out. That is fine, but you do not have to be a bull in a china shop to achieve what you are trying to do.
The tourism industry is important. It does take a long time for changes to be seen on the ground, as you would know. Like with trying to get airlines here - by the time you have an airline here, how do you develop – if we could get an airline to Alice Springs besides Qantas. By the time you have one there, trying to then develop the market to bring more visitors to a particular destination takes time. It will not happen overnight, so I do not believe there is any need for urgency.
Whilst I understand, through talking to the tourism industry, they support the concept; none of them have seen the legislation. That is a real failing with this legislation.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker …
Mr Wood: Haven’t you got any supporters on your side to talk about this vibrant tourism?
Mr CONLAN: Hang on. What about the supporters on your side? We all agree. This was an agreement by Cabinet. We already agree with it. We already support it. Where is everyone over there?
You are so indignant and so outraged that we are pushing something through on urgency and you spoke for 11 minutes. The shadow minister is so indignant; he is so appalled at the way we have handled this - absolutely beside himself with disgust that the government could do something like this - and he spoke for 15 minutes. Where are the rest? Where is the indignation? It is clearly feigned. Where is the former Tourism minister, the member for Casuarina? He is probably one of the better performers on the other side in tourism. Tourism had a hope with you. It had a faint glimmer of hope when you were in government, then you handed it over to the failed member for Arnhem and holy cow did she drop the ball - completely stagnant, did not do anything,
You say we are not in a hurry. You say we do not need to do anything. Have you looked at the recent data? Have you bothered to look, members for Nelson and Johnston? Have you looked at where we are as a tourism destination, and the figures and people we are attracting? Has anyone looked at the status quo? It does not look like it. Silence is golden. Unbelievable! It is an industry that is haemorrhaging.
Selective data chosen by the member for Johnston - yes, there have been some increases, some bumps, some blips. There have been plenty of dips in the recent tourism figures over the last decade, particularly, over the last five years. You say, ‘Oh, no, we could not possibly pass this on urgency because everything is okay. We are going for this advisory board. It is still there.’ The advisory board has failed. This is an industry in crisis. It needs help and urgent action, and we have to reform the way we look at tourism. The whole world in tourism has changed. This is urgent because we consider it to be a major industry and pillar of our economy.
We will take it seriously. We need to get this show on the road and it has to happen immediately. We need to form the commission as soon as possible so they can hit the ground running and start to turn the tourism sector around in the Northern Territory and start attracting airlines, visitors and get our product out there.
This is a very important but very simple bill. There is nothing really complicated about it, member for Nelson. Okay, it is coming through on urgency. You still had it last Thursday - plenty of time to look at it. There is not a great deal in the bill. In fact, we could have amended the existing bill, but it was much easier to come in with a new bill. That is the advice of Parliamentary Counsel.
The member for Johnston, and the rest of you, say this is pretty sloppy work. What is that saying about the eminent people who work in Parliamentary Counsel? They have put a great deal of work into this; we have all put a great deal of work into it. It is a pretty simple bill with not a great deal in it. It is reconstituting the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. It is not even thick - 20 or so pages. I do not have a copy with me ...
Mr Giles: They have never worked that hard in their life to read 20 pages.
Mr CONLAN: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Braitling because it leads me to something which is also very important. Very few decisions were taken with regard to tourism by the former government, particularly my immediate predecessor. Very few bold decisions were taken and that is pretty evident. One of the few things he did was disband the previous commission and form the toothless advisory board. We have seen the results of the toothless advisory board - it has not achieved. We wish it had. We wish the advisory board had achieved its goals and aims then we would not be here.
It is the same with the Arafura Games. We wish we did not have to pull the plug on the 2013 games. We would much rather go ahead with the games. We would much rather spend like drunken sailors. We wish we had plenty of money, but the reality is, there is no money, the games have lost their way, and tourism in the Northern Territory is haemorrhaging.
It is very important we make these bold decisions. These bold decisions have put you all into a state of shock because you are not used to making bold decisions. No one has any idea - oh my God! The general public is saying: ‘Holy cow, what is going on? Is this government making some decisions? Is this government governing, doing what it was elected to do and taking ministerial responsibility?’ Heaven forbid, a minister should be responsible for his own decisions and his own department!
We have seen what we were exposed to under the previous government - wheeling out the public servants, hiding behind legislation. That is exactly what you guys do; you bolster legislation to the point where the minister is not responsible. We saw it with the Hospital Management Boards Act and the former member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns, after the embarrassing fiasco with him. You had to protect him through legislation.
We are not about that; we are about accountability. We campaigned on accountability and firmly believe in accountability. You do not put it on an election flyer or stick it in everyone’s letterbox for three months up to an election. Point five: ‘be accountable’. Let me remind you of what it said:
Some of you probably still cling to that old axiom of ministerial accountability. I faintly believe the member for Casuarina, probably one of the few decent men in this Chamber on the other side who has been here for a long time and was a minister in the Martin government when first elected. He is one of the longest serving ministers we have in this parliament - 10 or 11 years...
Mr Giles: He should be the Opposition Leader.
Mr CONLAN: He should be the Opposition Leader, I am not sure what happened there; nevertheless he probably still believes ministerial responsibility is not such a bad thing ...
Mr Giles: He must have challenged. That is why he got the back seat.
Mr CONLAN: Regardless, we believe in ministerial responsibility, in being accountable, and we will be accountable and take responsibility for our decisions. We do not need to put a clause into some bill to say, ‘Look, I want to see some deliberation, I want to see what you said; I want to see what you said to the commission.’
You will know what has been said to the commission because the decisions will be there. The commission will make those decisions. It is pretty clear, it is fundamentally crystal clear.
The bill is not very complex, member for Nelson. I do not know why you want to delay it; why you have this issue with it coming through on urgency.
I can say - and I sincerely mean it - your responsibilities in this parliament have somewhat diminished. I mean that with respect because I understand, in the previous three or four years, you had an enormous amount of responsibility in a minority government - difficult at the best of times and impossible at the worst of times. And there were plenty worst of times, so to speak. You had much work to do. However, these days you do not have as much work to do, so to say you have not had time to read the bill or make a few phone calls - why can you not get on the phone and ring 25 or 50 tourism operators - you have had a week - and ask them what they are doing?
Mr Wood: Were you listening?
Mr CONLAN: I have listened to you. You came in with this survey: 95% of people do not want to go to Alice Springs. What you failed to mention is the push polling survey conducted by the CPSU. That was the survey done by the CPSU, for crying out loud. I saw the survey, it was hilarious. Questions were along the lines of, ‘Would you like to move to the end of the earth?’ No, of course not. ‘End of the earth’, insert Alice Springs according to the CPSU. Of course, the Top End because the member for Johnston does not like Alice Springs either. None of you guys like Alice Springs and, clearly, the CPSU does not like Alice Springs ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: He does not like it very much at all. How offensive is that survey to the CPSU members in Central Australia and other parts of the Northern Territory? How offensive is that?
Mrs Lambley: Very.
Mr CONLAN: Exactly. It is as if Darwin is the epicentre of the Earth and everywhere else shall perish. It is extraordinary.
If that is the only evidence you have; this fudged survey by the CPSU about their members being ‘extracted’ from their community, ripping the families apart, ripping children out of school and relocating them at their peril, if they do not go to Alice Springs. ‘You will go to Alice Springs or else your families will crumble and the sun will not come up tomorrow.’
That is the stuff that is being peddled by the CPSU, backed up 100% by the member for Johnston and, in turn, the opposition. It just shows they have nothing else to do.
The member for Nelson is a considered man, and I am surprised at his objection.
Mr Wood: Never be surprised.
Mr CONLAN: I am surprised at his objection with regard to an instrument, a tool, a mechanism to bring back the tourism industry; to resurrect the Northern Territory tourism sector. This will do just that.
I spoke at a Tourism Top End meeting the other night. I think 105 people turned out, and I answered a number of questions on paper and on the floor. People were not vehemently opposed to the move to Central Australia. People certainly were not vehemently opposed to constituting a Tourism Commission; in fact, they were very supportive of it. They can see the benefits of it, they clearly get it.
It is blatantly obvious to the industry - bleedingly obvious to us - that the member for Johnston has no idea what he is doing. He reads a pretty poor speech crafted by Peter Welllings. Peter is a pretty good speech writer usually. I am surprised he came in with that, but he is now in opposition. That is his job. He hands it to the shadow minister and the shadow minister reads it word for word, stumbles through it, probably cannot recall too much about it. All he knows is the world will end if we move the tourism sector to Alice Springs, and the sun will not come up tomorrow if we constitute a commission and pass this bill on urgency. It is pathetic and pretty ordinary to stand up here with such indignation and bleat from your opposition benches about this bill going through on urgency.
And stop the move to Alice Springs! The tourism industry will crumble if we place the bureaucracy in another jurisdiction of the Northern Territory! Yet to speak only on that for only 15 minutes maximum, member for Johnston - surely it could not have gone for more than 15 minutes - five before lunch, 10 after lunch - needed a feed to get through it.
And the member for Nelson, who as I say is a considered guy and could normally talk us all under water, but today only 10 minutes. Does this mean that we will have a really long, extended committee stage now? Will we go through clause by clause, semicolon by semicolon of a bill that is that thick, that is pretty simple? Is this the way you justify your concern for the tourism industry?
The best thing you can do for the tourism industry is get on with it and pass the bill so we can get this show on the road. That is the best thing we can do. I do not want to waste any more time. The industry is haemorrhaging, the longer I stand here the longer this bill stays before the House. It needs to be passed so we can get on with it.
Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks and look forward to getting through this committee stage as quickly as possible.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it Tourism NT Bill 2012, (Serial 8), Schedule of Amendments No 1 circulated by the member for Johnston, Mr Vowles.
Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: Can I get clarification there? If we take it as a whole can we work through it and deal with some general issues and clause issues as we come to them?
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you want to speak to specific clauses we can take it clause by clause.
Mr WOOD: I have some general questions about the legislation and some specific questions about the clauses. The opposition spokesman for Tourism may want to speak first. I am just letting you know that is how I want to approach it. If I were to support the bill taken as a whole would it allow me to do that?
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think so.
Mr ELFERINK: If I may assist the House, Mr Chairman, perhaps by way of guidance. Do you have any amendments to make yourself?
Mr WOOD: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so there is only the one amendment that was circulated. Perhaps, Mr Chairman, if we take the bill as a whole that will enable the member for Nelson to talk about what he wants to talk about and within that structure the amendment could be moved without having to go through it clause by clause. If that would suit and assist the House the whole thing would probably move a little more smoothly through that process.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I am not sure whether the opposition shadow minister wants to talk on any other issues but when we get to clause 28 we can deal with that then.
Minister, I take exception to you thinking that going to the committee stage is neither here nor there and we should get on with it. As I have said before, the committee stage is one of the most important stages in this parliament because we do not have a bicameral system. It is there to scrutinise these stages.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Mr Chairman! I do not need a lecture. Can you just get on with the question, member for Nelson. You had your half-an-hour and you failed to expand on that. Let us get to the questions please.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, as I said, this is an important stage in the development of the bill. It allows proper scrutiny of the bill and it should not be taken lightheartedly. I ask the minister for Tourism what the benefit is of having a commission compared with the current advisory board.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, that is pretty simple, it empowers the board. It is a constituted board, a remunerated board. It is at arm’s length from government, not enslaved to government like the previous advisory board was.
Mr WOOD: So, basically, under one of the sections here regarding the powers of the minister, you still have the same powers as when there was an advisory board. Is that correct? This is in the existing legislation:
In the new legislation that is exactly the same. It is subject to the direction of the minister in the performance of its functions to exercise it powers. What benefits do you get when you still have powers over both the commission and the advisory board?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I know it is a foreign concept for some in this House but yes, the minister will retain powers and have ultimate ministerial control.
Mr WOOD: In the explanatory statement you say the commission will be responsible for all major aspects, the policy and strategic development and the consequential operational outcomes. The authority and responsibility for performance, external accountability and corporate governance will be vested with a number of persons instead of one individual who is the Chief Executive Officer.
In the second reading you said:
and went on:
How does this act make the commission responsible for the policy and strategic development and the consequential operational outcomes?
Before you answer that question, minister, what I am referring to is that in Victoria, in conjunction with their commission, there is a written determination of the performance targets to be obtained by the commission. Why do we not have something like performance targets built into the bill so someone can take responsibility for the consequential operational outcomes?
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, it is not good practice to start enshrining that sort of stuff in the legislation. I am not sure what they are doing in Victoria but in the Northern Territory we are empowering the minister with accountability and responsibility. This board is about governance. This board will have some control. It will be able to do things, for lack of a better word, where the previous advisory board was just that, they offered advice.
Mr WOOD: I do not think you should be flippant about other governments because they have been in the business a long time too. You said this is about governance. It is more than governance, it is to market the Territory as a desirable visitor destination. It is to encourage and facilitate the sustainable growth.
They are matters which will need some consequential operational outcomes. There is nothing in here to make the commission responsible for what it is doing - to have goals. Where are the goals to say we will increase visitor destination numbers by 10% this year and this is how we are going to do it? How do we ensure those goals are achieved?’
Mr CONLAN: Those goals will be set out clearly in the corporate plan. Why would you put KPIs and such targets into legislation? Do you suggest we go back to Parliamentary Counsel and redraft another bill every time the targets change? Every time we need to respond to new developments and the targets change we have to go back and change the legislation. It is hardly productive. That is a hallmark of the previous government. We are about being responsive and being able to move with times and change as we need to, but those targets will be clearly defined in the corporate plan.
Mr WOOD: We cannot find anything in the act for remuneration of commissioners. Could you tell us where, or if, commissioners will be remunerated? If there is legislation, what legislation will show that?
Mr CONLAN: I did not hear the end of the question, but you are talking about remuneration. It is set down in the Remuneration Act, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: In relation to Division 2, Functions and Powers, the first clause, 7(a), is:
What do you regard as the definition of ‘desirable’ in this case?
Mr CONLAN: It would be something someone wants to look at, member for Nelson. It would be something someone would pay money to see, visit, tour and explore. That, to me, would be desirable.
Mr WOOD: Part of clause (a) the words ‘to market the Territory’ will be, I presume, an additional responsibility of the commission in comparison to the existing advisory board. Will there be extra money put in the budget to cover that new function of marketing?
Mr CONLAN: That will be revealed in the mini-budget, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of whether it is revealed - I do not have to ask you for a dollar figure - will there be additional funding for marketing?
Mr CONLAN: We take tourism seriously and I will do everything I can to ensure there are increases, where possible, for tourism. However, you will find there will be a strong focus on marketing. This is about marketing the Northern Territory in times of trouble. We need to have a strong focus on marketing in the current climate. There will be substantial money for marketing. Whether there is any new money for marketing, we will wait for the mini-budget.
Mr WOOD: Functions clause 7(b) is: to encourage and facilitate the sustainable growth of the tourism industry. What do you define as sustainable growth of the tourist industry?
Mr CONLAN: Sustainable growth is just that, growing in a sustainable fashion, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: This is one of the functions you have required Tourism NT to take up. It is beholden to at least give your view of sustainable growth so they have some guidelines as to what this means in the act.
Mr CONLAN: It is growth that continues - continued growth. Growth means up or expanding. We do not want a shrinking or diminishing industry; we want an industry which grows and continues to grow. The legislative term for that is sustainable growth.
Mr WOOD: You also say you will encourage and facilitate sustainable growth. How do you see you will be able to facilitate sustainable growth?
Mr CONLAN: Sustainable growth will be facilitated by Cabinet. Clear directions will be set by Cabinet. Cabinet will set the direction and the industry, or Tourism NT, will implement that direction.
Mr WOOD: I know you might not think other jurisdictions may be relevant, but other jurisdictions have some specific functions that could have been included in the functions for Tourism NT. They are things such as: contribute to preparation and implementation of economic development plans for tourism; prepare plans, formulate policies and strategies for implementation; assist regional tourism bodies; increase visitor numbers and amount of travel into the Territory; and improve developed tourist facilities.
Do you think the number of functions there goes wide enough, and why could some of those functions I have just given you not be included to broaden the functions of Tourism Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: I might take that as a statement. Was there a question?
Mr WOOD: Yes, there was a question, minister. I said to you that some other acts in Australia - and that is why you need time to look at these things - include other functions which would be very useful. They were: contribute to preparation and implementation of economic development plans for tourism; prepare plans, formulate policies and strategies for implementation; assist regional tourism bodies; increase visitor numbers and amount of travel into the Territory and improve and develop tourist facilities.
All I am saying is there are other functions which would be beneficial to the Functions and Powers section of this act. Do you think there could have been more functions for Tourism NT?
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, I do not think there should be any more - whatever it is you are suggesting - enshrined into the legislation. We are not going to bog down our legislation. It is the same argument with the KPIs, member for Nelson. We will not enshrine into legislation these strict incumbencies on the bill. The bill needs to be fluid, it needs to give the commission room. It is incumbent on the organisation to set or implement that direction, and Cabinet to set that direction. That will be laid out in the corporate plan.
We are not going to bog down the legislation each time we have a change in direction, there is a new strategic plan, or there is a new KPI, or whatever it might be.
Mr WOOD: Under clause 8, Powers, will the commission be able to appoint agents or receive fees or commission? If so, where would I find that power within the legislation?
Mr CONLAN: You will find that in the Interpretation Act, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Would that include the establishment of committees? I thought if you wanted a subcommittee you would need to have something in the legislation to give the Tourism NT the power to do that.
Mr CONLAN: It is all clearly spelled out in the Interpretation Act, member for Nelson. But, yes, there is the provision to form committees.
Mr WOOD: In the Interpretation Act or in this act?
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, what was the last part of your question again?
Mr WOOD: I would have thought it was normal. Forgetting the Interpretation Act, with any act that had a body, they would have had the power to set up subcommittees. Usually, in constitutions I have seen, those powers of delegation are clearly written down. There are no powers in this legislation to say this body can form a committee. If it can form a committee, what are its functions and powers?
Mr CONLAN: Again, member for Nelson, I have to refer you to the Interpretation Act. It is pretty simple. You need to go back and have a look at that. It is under clause 8 (1) Powers:
It says in clause 8(1) Tourism NT has the powers if it is necessary or convenient to performing its functions to form a committee then it has the powers to do that. This is the way legislation is crafted these days, member for Nelson. Parliamentary Counsel is pretty good at keeping things quite simple and that explains why, if you have a look at the act from 1977 you will see it is very wordy. But no, it says it right there:
Mr WOOD: Minister, moving onto Division 3 regarding the constitution and commissioners. In section one, it says that there will be a chief executive officer and at least six other commissioners appointed in writing by the minister. Then it goes onto say:
In the older Tourist Commission composition, there was, for instance, someone representing the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory; one person appointed by the minister from a panel of three names submitted by persons or any association of persons who in the opinion of the minister represented the persons engaged in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory and who operated from the Alice Springs region. There was also one person from the Darwin region, Katherine region, and Tennant Creek region. There was one person appointed from the Northern Territory University and two persons appointed by the minister, being persons who in the opinion of the minister possessed knowledge and experience of the tourism industry.
Minister, why did you not look at bringing into the description of who could be on this commission something similar to what was there originally so there could be a guarantee we would have people from the regions and from Parks and Wildlife? When you consider the number of parks in the Northern Territory and how important a part they play in the tourism industry you would have thought that perhaps there would be a permanent position for someone from Parks and Wildlife on the commission.
Mr CONLAN: We are not interested in restricting ourselves in that capacity, member for Nelson. The board members will be chosen by me with the guidance of Cabinet in the best interests of tourism for the Northern Territory. We do not think it good practice to start restricting yourself in legislation to that end; and who is to say there will not be someone from Parks and Wildlife on the commission?
Mr WOOD: The other side to that question is, who is to say there will? If you look at the old legislation it did allow the minister to appoint people. It just said there were certain members of this commission, which had 11 members at that time, who had to be from certain areas of the Territory and there were certain people the minister appointed. I move on.
Mr GUNNER: Just before you move on, member for Nelson, could we ask a question in that same space? Minister, through the Chair, you were just talking about the appointment of commissioners. Could you please explain how you might appoint commissioners? Will you be advertising, for example?
Mr CONLAN: No, essentially they will be hand-picked by me and Cabinet.
Mr GUNNER: And do you know when you will be picking your commissioners? Has that happened yet?
Mr CONLAN: We are in the process of doing that and the commissioners will be announced on 17 November at the Brolga Awards.
Mr GUNNER: Would you mind explaining what skills you are looking for in a commissioner? You are going through the process now of picking them. Obviously, there will not be an advertisement so we will not be able to see in an advertisement what you think the skills are or what you might ask people to apply to. Could you please explain, if you are picking them yourself, what specific things you are looking at in the commissioners you are choosing?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly. We are looking for people who have a vast experience in the tourism industry, marketing experience, information technology experience, and hospitality experience. We want to stack the Tourism Commission with the best minds in the tourism industry. That will be a group of people from the Northern Territory and also from interstate. We are looking at the best people we can get for the money we are prepared to pay to form the Tourism Commission.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, why would you not put out expressions of interest for people who may wish to be on the commission? You can hand-pick, but if you want to broaden the area of expertise there may be people you do not know about. Would it not be a good idea to call for expressions of interest asking for people who may have that expertise you are talking about to put their hands up?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, you leaving yourself open for another broadside here. I know you did not want to step up and be a minister when you had the power to do so. Unlike the previous government which did not put much value on ministerial responsibility, or the kudos or position of a minister of the Crown, we do. That is why we are leaving such important appointments up to the discretion of the minister.
Mr WOOD: Notwithstanding those irrelevant comments you made, minister, you would still have the right to choose. Why could you not have put out an expression of interest which would broaden the number of people you could choose from? I am not saying you should take away that right, I am asking why was an advertisement not put out in papers describing the type of person you are looking for on the commission and that you would be interested in hearing from people with those skills? You would still choose them but it broadens what can appear to be a process behind closed doors. I am not saying you should not pick them, but why did you not look at expressions of interest?
Mr CONLAN: We are looking at six people, and I know more than six people who are eminently qualified to fill the job, as do most of my Cabinet colleagues, and probably you people as well. We do not need to go through a long-winded, exhaustive advertising, job recruiting regime. We know who we want and we will go and get them. We will put them on the board, we will pay them good money, and they will deliver for the Territory.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Would you be looking for anyone from interstate, considering that we do work with other states and countries?
Mr CONLAN: As I just elaborated to the member for Fannie Bay, yes, most certainly.
Mr WOOD: Moving on to clause 18, Termination of Employment, it says there under 18(2)(b):
you must terminate the appointment of that commissioner.
Can you give us an idea of what would be inappropriate?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, do you seriously want me to outline to this House what might be considered as inappropriate behaviour?
Mr WOOD: Well, you have put a broad word in there, which was the reason we asked. I can imagine there can be inappropriate behaviour, but it is a very broad word. But, anyway, I will move on.
In relation to clause 20:
The previous Tourist Commission went from a minimum of six meetings each year to a meeting held at least once a month every month except for January. Do you believe four meetings is enough, or do you believe the idea the previous Tourist Commission had of meeting once a month, except for January, would reflect more the important work you are saying needs to be done, the new strategies you are trying to put in place, the idea that tourism needs pushing forward?
Mr CONLAN: The four meetings a year requirement is a minimum. I hope there will be more; we will be looking for at least six. I would like them to meet every week, but that is not going to happen. We have to set a minimum requirement; there will no doubt be reasons why people cannot meet more than four times a year. While it is part of the legislation there is nothing we can do about it at the end of the day, if they only meet four times, because they are meeting their legal requirement. I would bet London to a brick these guys will be coming out of the blocks and meeting as much as possible. We are looking at six meetings and you will be hard pressed to stop them meeting more than six times a year.
However, there is a minimum requirement. It is standard practice and needs to be put into the legislation to protect those who may not, for very good reason, be able to meet more than four times a year. I would expect them to meet more and we are looking at meeting at least six times.
Mr VOWLES: Division 4, clause 24 - Records of Meetings:
Mr CONLAN: They will not be published but are available through freedom of information.
Mr WOOD: That is open and transparent.
Mr VATSKALIS: Very transparent.
Mr CONLAN: Standard practice, Kon. You should know that.
Mr WOOD: I am disappointed to hear that, minister. Why would you not allow the minutes of meetings to be open to the public?
Mr CONLAN: They are available through freedom of information. That is, you are free to access that information.
Mr WOOD: Minister, why can I not go on the website and pick up a copy of the minutes of the meeting without paying for freedom of information?
Mr CONLAN: Because it is a requirement set down by this government, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is very good, minister; however, one of the policies I have continually heard from the Chief Minister is you will be open and transparent. Getting minutes through the freedom of information process is very hard to match with that rhetoric.
Mr CONLAN: I will take that as a statement, Mr Chairman.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am on to clause 28. I have some things to discuss there. I might hand it over to the shadow minister, who has an amendment.
Mr VOWLES: If I read out the question is that the word proposed? Is that what I am reading out or just the amendment?
Mr Elferink: No, you move that the words such and such be inserted.
Mr VOWLES: I move, that after clause 28(1) insert (1A):
Mr Elferink: Now you speak to that motion and explain to the House why you think it is a good idea.
Mr VOWLES: Thanks very much, member for Port Darwin, I appreciate that.
I have only asked for a few lines in clause 28(1A) to support their promise by promising the tourism industry that reports must include the details of any directions given by the minister under section 9 during the financial year. This is to coincide with the open and transparent new government.
If the minister wants tourism to be a management board there should be consistency with bodies such as the Land Development Corporation or the Darwin Port Corporation, where any direction by the minister is tabled in the annual report. That is why I support this amendment.
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the amendment, it is an important part of the government’s strategy in relation to openness and transparency. It ensures whatever direction the minister is giving NT Tourism it is available to the public, especially to people in the tourism business.
If the emphasis has been that this government will be open and transparent, it would be very difficult to see why the government will not support this amendment.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, government will not be supporting the amendment for a couple of very simple reasons. First, this amendment arrived at 9.40 pm yesterday so we are unable to test how it might reflect on other legislation or the broader legislation of this. Second, this is a very important bill. I have stated in no uncertain terms how important this bill is to tourism and the future of the Northern Territory. We are in no way prepared to start amending this bill on the fly here in the House. We may consider something like this in the future. I suggest to the shadow minister and the opposition - even to you, member for Nelson, if it is something you really are keen to see - you bring it back to this parliament at a later stage.
Mr WOOD: The other answer to that, of course, is if this bill had not been on urgency some of these things could have been discussed in the time between this sittings and the next sittings. This is one of the problems associated with having a bill on urgency. This is the classic example of why you do not rush bills through on urgency unless they are definitively urgent. This bill is not.
I again emphasise the importance of the process we need to hold up as part of this Westminster system; that we introduce laws and give those laws, regardless of whether they are this thick – because I have seen some laws this thick cause enormous debate in this parliament, and I will refer back to the parks management bills. They need to be scrutinised. Little bills can sometimes have great ramifications. This is a classic example. If we had not had to rush this bill through, if there is an issue with the tightness of the time in relation to the government considering this amendment, then this is a classic example of why we should not have been looking at this through urgency.
Mr GUNNER: I echo many of the comments from the member for Nelson. The bill was tabled in the House on Thursday. We received a briefing, as the opposition, on the Friday, discussed it as a Caucus, the shadow Tourism minister saw Parliamentary Counsel, we got the amendment drafted and we got it to the minister yesterday, which was reasonable in the context of the urgency motion. Obviously, if there was more time we would have been able to give it to the minister with more time. However, the minister is the one who asked for this timetable and this schedule, so we are working to that and have brought the amendment before him. We think it is a little poor to say because of the time line the minister chose, therefore, we did not give enough time.
We believe it is a simple amendment; it is in other acts of the NT parliament. It is there for the Darwin Port Corporation and Land Development Corporation. We believe it is very reasonable. It goes to openness and transparency which are things the CLP ran on at the last election, and they have talked about very much today. The minister mentioned accountability in his second reading speech.
We have already heard the records of meetings are not going to be published, and we think this amendment is straightforward. We would like the government to support it. It is not too late; obviously, it has not been moved yet. The government can change its position on it and we ask them for their support.
Mr CONLAN: We can change our position on it; we are not going to at the moment. You still had a week; you got the bill last Thursday. We have had, probably, a whole - would it be? - 40 minutes of speeches you put together in the last seven days, member for Fannie Bay. It is not like you have been pressed for time. You had plenty of time to scrutinise this bill and bring this amendment on much earlier. You could have brought it on the Friday morning or the Friday night, or Monday morning. We could have had plenty of time to look at it, but 9.30 pm last night was too late. You still had a week.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: We are still on clause 28; that was only an amendment to clause 28.
In comparison to some annual reports, your legislation says:
In South Australia the annual report is given before 30 September; the NT Hospitals Network Government Council before 31 October; the Ombudsman Act within three months after the end of the financial year; the Charles Darwin University within six months of the end of the financial year; Gaming Control Community Benefit Committee within three months; and the Local Government Act must be before 15 November.
During debate on the Hospital Network Government Council 2012, where the then shadow minister for Health - you, Matt Conlan - said:
I cannot quite put the same expression there ...
Mr Elferink: No, not quite.
Mr WOOD: I know.
This act is being moved on urgency so it is very important to the wellbeing of the Territory. The reports should be in parliament for scrutiny earlier than six months after the end of the financial year.
Minister, why have you allowed the annual report to be given within six months which will mean the annual report will not be out until either February or March the following year? This is something you laughed at and opposed during the debate in 2012.
Will you change that so that you bring it in line with some of the other requirements of departments within the Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: One great thing about being in this job is that I can actually give you the answer, member for Nelson. You can speculate and pontificate, and yes, I was very upset about a number of acts and pieces of legislation that allowed annual reports to be tabled way too late.
In this case Tourism NT does not receive any of its data or research from Tourism Research Australia until late September. Tourism NT then needs to analyse all that data and that, as you can understand, is quite comprehensive and time consuming.
I do not know if you have seen too much tourism data. It did not seem to me today that anyone was prepared to quote any figures or accept the data we are seeing in the Northern Territory, but it is quite - nights stayed, nights per visit, nights per destination, it is complex data and there is a series of it.
It does not arrive into the hands of Tourism NT until mid to late September, usually late September. That gives the legislative room for that data to be fully analysed and presented to this parliament.
However, I have to add, never has that data not been made available to this House by the November sittings. It has always been available to the House and tabled in parliament during the last sittings of the year.
Mr WOOD: Thank you minister, then why put six months?
Mr CONLAN: Well I just answered it, member for Nelson. I told you they need time to analyse the data. What if there is a hitch with the data, what if there is an overwhelming amount of data? Would you rather a half-baked report come to parliament, a comprehensive report in January or February, or just a little of the data, which may not be accurate arrive, in February to suit your agenda?
What would you like? I told you the answer. That is the answer.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, before you get too upset. Was this issue, which I accept, within your second reading speech?
Mr CONLAN: Have you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr CONLAN: You have?
Mr WOOD: Was it?
Mr CONLAN: Was it in there?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Was it in there?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Did you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Did you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: Excuse me minister, I am not going to tell you what I read and did not read, I am asking you if it is in the second reading speech. Let us clarify it.
Mr CONLAN: Have a look at the second reading speech and I am sure your question will be answered. I think Mr Chairman we have wasted enough time on this issue. The member for Nelson clearly does not want the Tourism bill to pass; he does not have much interest in tourism in the Northern Territory, we have seen that, and I think we should move on.
Mr GUNNER: Member for Nelson I would like to jump in first. I am a little concerned by the minister’s attitude trying to rush through the bill. It is an important committee-stage debate, and we are interested in hearing the questions and the answers. The minister has already said he is not going to advertise for commissioners, he is not going to publish minutes of meetings, he is not going to disclose the minister’s directions to the commission and now he wants to rush through the committee stage. I think we should be open and we should be transparent, just like the CLP promised.
We should take our time during the committee stage on a bill they want to pass on urgency. Bearing in mind this is the CLP’s timetable there is no problem with the member for Nelson asking questions and the minister answering them. We should all calm down a bit here.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, could you answer the question please.
Mr CONLAN: I have no problem with answering questions either, member for Fannie Bay. I am more than happy to answer questions. We have nothing to hide. This is a simple bill, pretty straightforward and it is in keeping with most legislation that has come before this House.
There are some exceptions, but there will not be in those particular cases with this bill. If you want to bring in an amendment to this House and to this bill, you can do so at another stage. But we will not be agreeing to your amendment and we will not be facilitating that amendment - which was brought to us at 9.30 pm last night - on what we consider to be, while a very simple bill, a very important bill. You are right. We agree on one thing, that this is very important.
The member for Nelson’s questions are repetitive and inane. ‘Did you say this in the second reading speech?’ The answer is no. Why would he not ask, ‘Why didn’t you say it in the second reading speech?’ That is what I consider to be time-wasting. The member for Nelson likes to bleat. He likes the sound of his own voice. He is dragging this out unnecessarily. I am more than happy to facilitate an answer to his questions but I request, Mr Chairman, that we get on with answering the questions.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. It is sad to hear what the minister has to say. Just because people use the committee stage to ask the minister questions, it is not about bleating, it is about checking to see if the minister knows his legislation. It is the question about whether the legislation is good or bad, whether it has faults. That is what this process is about. What I hear is flippant discussion as if this is just a little discussion around the coffee table.
A member: Wasting time.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well there we go. The arrogance of some people now they have taken over. They have government, they want to take short cuts. This is the parliamentary process. It does not matter whether you are in government or this side is in government, this is more important than the lot of you.
Do not put down the committee stage of parliament because in this House it is most important. Questions for you or someone else might be flippant, they might be a waste of time, but I am entitled to ask those questions. We did them in good faith. The only question you became upset about was the last question; the other questions were questions the public needs to hear. This is not just about you and I sitting in here discussing it, this gives the public the opportunity to hear what the minister has to say in response to questions, what the tourism industry needs to hear from you.
The main reason I will not support the legislation - I am not going to oppose it because the idea of a Tourism Commission is a good one - is because you have not taken this legislation out to the industry so it could say it agrees, does not agree with this or that there should be amendments.
You just said, ‘we promised it’, but the issue is not about a promise; the issue is about what is in this piece of paper, this important bill, and it has not been scrutinised by the industry. Therefore I cannot support it for that main reason. The idea that it can be rushed through is important as well. I do not support it on urgency. I need to put on the record that you have not consulted with the industry. It is your department that said that about this legislation. Until I know the industry supports this legislation I would be a fool to support it.
Bill reported without amendments.
The Assembly divided:
Report adopted.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In the normal convention of the parliament, the Opposition Whip had asked the question regarding the order of the statements because there are three statements. We have been advised the Indigenous Advancement statement was coming on first, so I am seeking clarification of whether the order has a changed and what the new order is.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I will ‘fess up. It was originally intended to bring Indigenous Affairs on, but this one came down through the system. I apologise to the House. That is my bad.
Ms Lawrie: What is the new order, so we know?
Mr ELFERINK: It will be Arafura, Indigenous Affairs and I do not believe there will be a ministerial statement on the ...
Ms Lawrie: Can you confirm with the Whip at some stage?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I will discuss it with him.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Minister, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, this decision was not taken lightly but it was taken in the best interests of everyone involved, and to maintain the reputation - and I stress that - of the Northern Territory in the region.
Put simply, the government has taken this decision because the previous government failed to invest in the Arafura Games. The previous government failed to invest the budget required to ensure the successful games could be staged in 2013. The previous government failed to understand the potential for the games, and did not understand the role the Arafura Games plays in the engagement and relationship-building required in our immediate region.
We know there will be people affected by this decision, which includes the participants, the volunteers, the athletes, the sponsors - all of those who have played vital roles in previous games and who have been looking forward to the 2013 games; no doubt about it. I also recognise the hard-working staff of the department who go above and beyond to deliver the games on top of a range of other events. Most of the dedicated Arafura Games staff are contracted staff. We will honour those contracts and will be ask the department to work straightaway on developing a new model for this important event in our regional engagement strategies.
We will be working now to ensure the legacy of the Arafura Games is not lost. The new model that takes its place will be targeted in alignment with our engagement strategy, and increase the reputation of the Northern Territory in the region.
Despite what the opposition says, and what they might want to say or hope, this event has not been thrown away; it is simply being deferred so we can have a very good look at what is going on and what we need to achieve, and to ensure it plays a clear role in the Northern Territory’s future. The staff currently involved in the roll-out of the 2013 games will still have a role to play in that.
The Arafura Sports Festival commenced in 1991, later changing its name to the Arafura Games. The primary reason for establishing the Arafura Sports Festival was to use the vehicle of sport to establish meaningful relationships with our immediate region, particularly in Asia with countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and the Philippines. However, there were other benefits as well.
At that time, May was considered a quiet time for the accommodation sector so the visiting participants would provide a boost leading into the traditional Dry Season activity. As all members would be aware, this is changing as the gas industry, resources sector and other activities are now taking a bigger slice of the accommodation pie. Our best young athletes had limited exposure to competition, especially international ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know it is disappointing, but I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells please.
We have a quorum. Minister, please continue.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Well spotted, member for Casuarina. It is very important, isn’t it?
The Arafura Games attracted participants from the Asian Pacific region. Countries that had a significant presence included Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Singapore and Macau. Over that time other countries participated with American colleague teams, New Caledonia and Timor-Leste also taking part.
The last Arafura Games was held in 2011 with 2163 athletes attending, including 1049 competitors from overseas, 552 from interstate, and 562 from the Northern Territory. It is estimated that approximately 1100 people volunteered to assist with the Arafura Games. The 2011 games provided for 20 sports, of which four were Oceania Paralympic Championship sports.
A strategic review was undertaken after the 2011 Arafura Games. The review stated that there is a risk that if the Arafura Games focus is not clearly defined, understood or implemented, the Arafura Games will eventually lose its reputation, be unable to attract strong interest from the region and, therefore, not contribute to the Northern Territory’s overall position in the region.
This alone should have been cause for the previous government to have concern, and for the previous government to reconsider the place and positioning of the Arafura Games; however, they failed to do so.
Make no mistake; the number one reason the Arafura Games has been deferred is that the previous government failed to invest in the games financially, and strategically. The previous government was happy to let the Arafura Games struggle with a reduced budget, and that is just not good enough.
The Arafura Games cost $4.2m to run in 2010-11; revenue from ticket sales and other sources combined amounted to nearly $700 000, with $3.5m provided by the Northern Territory government. Yet only $2.8m was allocated for the games in 2012-13. It is clear the previous Treasurer did not plan for the future of the Arafura Games in 2011.
How did the previous government expect the games to be delivered with such a low funding base? With that level of funding allocated there would be a reduced opening ceremony, the likelihood of no closing ceremony and, most importantly, that level of budget did not allow for the extensive marketing and promotion that is necessary, which should already have happened over the last 18 months.
The departments had to rely on heads of delegation meetings, not the continual presence, promotion and marketing in the region that an event of this stature requires, simply because there was not enough money allocated in the budget for them to do the job. A recommendation of the review for the 2013 games was to increase the budget for the 2013 Arafura Games in 2012-13 to $5.3m. However, the previous government ignored this recommendation and, I say again, allocated only $2.8m.
Now, as a new government, with no money left because of the previous government’s incompetent management of the Territory’s finances, we find the Arafura Games has been short changed and there is no money left in its budget.
Other needs for the games, such as the use of information technology appropriate for an event of this scale, were highlighted. The report into the games noted computers and technical equipment made available for the Arafura Games were past their use-by date. This resulted in many instances of computer and printer crashes, slow Internet connection and the inability to load large files. Many mobile phones did not work. The target audiences of the Arafura Games included athletes’ technical support staff and international media. Investment in communication and marketing tools used by these target audiences was not made by the previous government; that is, i-applications, SMS messaging, Internet social pages. The department was not given the resources it needed to do the job.
Having a budget to deliver a great games is important as there is increasing competition in the region of sporting events. If you are going to attract it you need to have the budget, and we know the Asian Games is a big event and they have a budget of approximately $1.5bn. We know that one of the major regional events is the Southeast Asian Games, which has a budget of $38m. They are one of the smaller players in the region, yet their budget is $38m. Ours pales in comparison - $2.8m was allocated by the previous government.
The Arafura Games has been seen as a stepping stone for these important events, but there are other opportunities in the region that are available for athletes to seek international competition. These include the Pacific Mini Games, the Asian Beach Games, the BIMP-EAGA Friendship Games, and the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games.
With a declining budget, it is very difficult for the Arafura Games to maintain its relevance and compete with the multitude of events which are now available. As I have said previously, the Arafura Games was originally established as a vehicle for engagement in our region. Yes, it was a sporting event but it served a much broader purpose as well. Unfortunately, the previous government did not see that potential and failed to live up to the potential the Arafura Games could bring. The Arafura Games should bring together key regional stakeholders, not just in sport, but in business and government.
When we consider recent events such as the live cattle ban - the effects of the disastrous decision taken by the federal government and supported by this government - we know how important a renewed and engaged presence in our region is.
As well, the improved business and economic ties would then feed back into the games, securing its reputation and place in the regional calendar. However, we know that participation from countries such as Brunei and Singapore has declined and increasingly the event has been viewed as just a sporting contest, not a key plank if you like, in our investment in the region.
As I started, I advise the Arafura Games has been deferred. My challenge and the challenge of this government is to bring the concept of the Arafura Games as a vehicle for engagement with Asia back to the fore. It will be a big challenge. We will work with key stakeholders in the Northern Territory and the immediate region to consider the best way to reinvigorate our approach and mould it in a way that represents the changes that have taken place in the 20 years since the games were first held.
When the Arafura Games in its new form is held, it will be funded appropriately. It will build on and reinforce our reputation in the region. It will be part of a clear strategy in Asian engagement, one that is part of linking all we do together in the region.
To the volunteers who have previously assisted with the Arafura Games, I thank you for your support and involvement over time, especially those volunteers in sporting bodies who have described the strain coordinating this event places on their tight resources every two years.
I remind the staff in the department affected by this decision to defer the games of the role they have to play. Their challenge is to work with us to reinvigorate the games and assist us to develop a model that clearly fits with our strategies for our immediate region, one that builds on the Territory’s reputation.
Such a model could perhaps use sports in partnership with cultural activities and the arts to focus on mutual engagement. Such a model could include business and trade seminars, high-level government discussions, expos and trade shows to promote tourism opportunities. These activities will be worked through and explored.
In summary, our decision is to defer next year’s games. Commencing straightaway, we will look at what a remodelled approach looks like and how that will be effective. Our approach will fit with our plans for dedicated engagement and relationship- building in the region. Our approach will be adequately funded to provide the high quality expected by the community and the stakeholders.
Our approach will deliver engagement and relationship-building in the region. Our approach will ensure it delivers for all Territorians, something the previous government failed to do. I move that the statement be noted.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Arafura Games statement from the minister for Sport. As I said in this House last night, this is a very sad announcement from the government. The front page of the paper says it all - as you walk out mate.
Mr Conlan: I read it mate.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, and the back page?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, under standing orders you do not refer to any of the members in or out of the House.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It says:
I also notice that the photo is of the opening ceremony at TIO Stadium, and it is packed out. There are people in there right up to the rafters, families and children, sitting on the hill. This was an event embraced and loved by the good people of Darwin, Palmerston and even Alice Springs. So many people were supporting the games. I wonder how many opening ceremonies the minister went to, seeing as he does not have much of a concept of how good the games were.
This statement is the minister’s feeble attempt to justify why he has ripped an iconic event out of the Darwin calendar with no warning, no thought for the athletes or volunteers and - what really hurts - no thought for the Darwin businesses or the Top End tourism industry.
The minister claims he is simply deferring the games. For how long, minister? Come clean. What does ‘defer’ mean to the people of Darwin and the people of the Northern Territory? Instead of giving me nine pages about this terrible decision, why do you not come clean to the people of Darwin and tell them if the Arafura Games will be held in 2015.
He has no idea what he is doing. He should not be called the minister for Sport or the minister for Tourism, he should be called the minister for No Consultation and the minister for Bungles.
Let me inform you about sport. Athletes do not win medals by accident. Teams do not win medals by accident. Athletes, coaches and teams plan every stage of their sporting career well in advance. Athletes and their coaches are always looking forward. They map out the various events they want to compete in in the next few years, and they map out what training they will do and where they will do it.
You say defer; however, I have grave concerns about this decision. Your thoughtless actions could mean the Arafura Games is wiped out. By deferring next year and providing no certainty about when the games will be back, you are giving the athletes no choice but to assume the games is not on because, minister, these athletes need to plan. You have just pulled the rug from underneath them. They are not about to trust that the games will be back.
The athletes coming to the Arafura Games have planned this. Coaches have planned this. Athletes who see these games as a stepping stone to the next level of competition have planned this. I hate to think about the money people have already spent towards plans and flights to Darwin for the Arafura Games. You have no idea because you have not spoken with any of the sporting groups involved with the Arafura Games.
I want to read from the NT News today from the story: ‘Big Man Blasts NT Govt’ – and it was not about me – where Paul Coffa is interviewed and the article reads:
Minister for No Consultation, you were even at the Tourism Top End AGM on Tuesday night, the night before this deplorable announcement, and made no effort to consult with the tourism industry about this decision. You did not ask them what would happen to their industry if you pulled the Arafura Games. There was nothing. You did not bother to ask them how their industry would be affected. They have said this will hurt tourism in Darwin.
You have not spoken to businesses either. The NT Chamber of Commerce has said your government’s decision to cancel next year’s Arafura Games will hurt local businesses. Julie Ross, from the NT Chamber of Commerce, goes on to say this move could see a loss of $10m to the NT economy.
This government is two-thirds of the way to being in office for 100 days. Sixty-seven days have passed since this government took power. I will give credit where credit is due, the Chief Minister has been very busy in his first 100 days. Whilst I do not agree with many of his decisions, like scrapping the BDR for instance, he has been busy. Unfortunately, I am unsure if the same thing could be said for the minister for Sport. Sixty-seven days gone, 33 days from being 100 days in office, and the Minister for Sport and Major Events has not been working very hard at all. We know he has not done much consulting in that time. In fact, he is getting a reputation as the minister who does not consult.
He is becoming the minister for anti-Darwin. At the Tourism Top End meeting on Tuesday night when asked some important questions about Darwin tourism, most of his answers were along the lines of, ‘Look, we got into government because Alice Springs and the regions put us there and this is our priority.’
That is not good enough. This government is sending a clear message that it is anti-Darwin. It has moved Tourism Top End and Parks and Wildlife to Alice Springs, now it has axed the Arafura Games, an important event in the Darwin and international sporting calendar.
This is the minister for No Consultation and the minister for Anti-Darwin. You should come clean, what is next? Will you get rid of BassintheGrass or the Darwin Festival? Hang on, minister Grinch; you will probably cancel Christmas as well. I guarantee you, he will not defer the Alice Springs Masters Games - there is no chance of that happening.
The Chief Minister has called the Arafura Games a joke. I find this absolutely offensive to the athletes, the volunteers, the businesses, the tourism accommodation providers, and the people of Darwin, Palmerston and the Territory who think the Arafura Games is an important part of the Darwin and international calendar. Instead, the reality is, Chief Minister, it is not the Arafura Games that is a joke; it is the incompetent minister you have put in charge of Tourism and Sport.
Chief Minister, you should pull him into line. You must give him a directive to start consultation with the sectors his decisions are affecting and hurting. Better still, that he talks to them after he has made those decisions.
Minister, you should go ahead with the 2013 games with a review happening alongside, and reassure the sporting community that the 2015 games are going ahead.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by the Minister for Sport and Recreation with respect to the deferral of the Arafura Games. As I go through, I will probably address some of the statements which have been made by the member opposite in his contribution to this debate.
First, without putting too fine a point on it, the 2013 Arafura Games are deferred, not cancelled. As the minister for Sport pointed out, there are very good reasons for doing that. I am not going to reiterate all of those reasons.
Looking back at the history of the Arafura Games, they were a product of the former CLP government. The intention, the paradigm, around the introduction of these games was to engage with Asia, our near neighbours, so we could interact with them as our trading partners or potential partners in a way that was not really related to trade. What these games were about - and I have mentioned this before in the House and I mention it all the time in the public arena and in the media - is building relationships. The use of sport to build relationships is probably one of the most successful ways to not only establish, but maintain, those relationships over time. That happens on a number of levels.
First of all, governments have an opportunity to engage in an interplay during the lead-up to and conduct of games such as the Arafura Games. Second, of course, you have the interaction between athletes as they come across to Darwin to be engaged in good, healthy pastimes. Third, those athletes and the younger people who are involved in these types of activities go back to their native countries with a view of Australia and the Northern Territory as one of great hope for future relationships with a very positive message from the Northern Territory. That was a great strategy. That level of engagement is different from sitting around a boardroom table with Trade ministers and what have you in order to establish relationships over things we have in common.
Unfortunately, what has happened to the Arafura Games, at least in the last 10 years, is a downgrading of the importance which has been placed on the Arafura Games as a means to continue with the engagement and re-engagement of people from countries with whom we either have trade relationships or would like to have trade relationships. The former government allowing that to occur is quite consistent with what I have seen in other aspects of their administration.
If I think about the relationships that have suffered between the Northern Territory and Indonesia - I am not going to refer specifically to the live cattle ban, but sitting behind that issue was an abrogation by the former government of its responsibilities to work hard and maintain very strong ties and relationships with the Indonesian government. So there is a bit of a theme coming out of this, there is certainly a modus operandi apparent under the former Labor administration about the way in which they like to conduct business.
We said it often in the last four years from opposition that the Labor government were inward-looking and that is so true. They did not look far enough outside of the Northern Territory to grow and expand and find new opportunities. The way in which they have allowed the Arafura Games to fall into what I call a state of disrepair is evidence of that.
The Arafura Games, or the deferral of it, is not tied up around money. It is not a cut for the budget’s sake. We all know the budget is in dire straits, a legacy of the former Labor government and former Treasurer, the member for Karama, but that is not what it is about. It is about showcasing the Northern Territory in a way that is meaningful to the countries who would participate.
Right now, given the very late stage at which we are before these games, we feel that cannot be achieved. We cannot properly showcase the Northern Territory to potential attendees of the 2013 Arafura Games. We know specifically that volunteers have not been called for, as I understand it. We know the procurement process has not begun. We know that no accommodation has been booked. I do not think we even know who is coming. I do not know whether there have been any invitations sent out. Clearly, with such a short space of time between now and when the 2013 games would be scheduled, we are not going to put ourselves in a position where we just cobble something together for the sake of it.
The Arafura Games, to me, is far more than that. It is far more than just having some sort of event that you can throw together and say, ‘Look what we’ve done’. It is too important. It is too important that we get this right. If we invite a whole bunch of countries and people to come along to a substandard Arafura Games, they go home with the wrong message; perhaps that the Territory did not do it very well. What is the likelihood that those people would come back in 2015? They are the sorts of strategic things we are thinking about in making the decision we have had to take to defer the 2013 Arafura Games.
It is very interesting to see over the years how the makeup of the games has changed. I mentioned before that the focus of the games originally was to provide a field of endeavour upon which the Northern Territory and trading partners, or potential trading partners, could interact without the pressure of politics and diplomacy and everything else.
In 2011 China made up 18% of our major export destinations and Japan made up 51.2% of our major export destinations yet, in the 2011 games, China, including Chinese Taipei, contributed 103 participants in the events. That makes up less than 2%. So, we have a trading partner of 18% yet there were only 2% of attendees who came from China. In that same year, Japan had 14 participants at events, a proportion which works out to be maybe a little over 0.2% of the total participants in the 2011 Arafura Games. Given that Japan makes up 51.2% of our major trading destinations from the Territory, the disparity between those figures tells me we are not getting the right people to come along to the Arafura Games.
Remember what I said before about the focus of the Arafura Games which was about trade and engaging with our neighbours and the people we are working with. There were some people who came from the Pacific Islands to the last one. They are welcome to come to the Northern Territory, but in thinking specifically about the purpose and design of the Arafura Games, those games are intended for a fairly specific market. It has become quite clear to me that it has lost its way.
I do not believe there is too much more I can add. The decision to defer the 2013 Arafura Games was one that was taken painstakingly; this was not an easy decision to make. There was significant debate around this issue but, as I said, we felt that we were not in a position or should not cobble together the games just for the sake of it and that we wanted to do it properly, and properly we will do it in 2015.
I am a potential athlete at the Arafura Games. I have competed at the Masters before and had a ball. I could have competed at the Arafura Games; I would have loved to have been able to do that and for that to happen in 2013 so it is not …
A member: Dreaming!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You never know, I am still pretty quick off the mark, member for Brennan.
We understand the sentiment in the community that there is some disappointment around this, but we ask that the people of the Northern Territory who have been interested in these games to bear with us. Please understand that the decision to defer the games was a difficult one, and one that was not taken lightly. We understand the impact that will have on the Northern Territory but we do want to get it right for 2015 and that is what we intend to do.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I also call upon the people of the Northern Territory to remember who closed the Arafura Games down. I also want the people of the Northern Territory to remember it was a CLP government and minister Matt Conlan who closed the Arafura Games down because, irrespective of them saying, ‘we defer it’, the reality is you have not deferred the Arafura Games, you have closed it down, full stop.
Unfortunately for the government, there are people here who have a very long memory. There are people here who served as minister for Tourism and it is very pleasing to see in the advisor’s box a person who, at the time, worked with me in the Department of Tourism and went with me to the Philippines and Singapore to call people from those regions to come to the Arafura Games of 2007.
I know very well who started the Arafura Games. It was the CLP government, although it was a different CLP to the one we have today. It was a CLP government with vision which was not afraid to do things in the Territory. It was not even afraid to borrow money to do things in the Territory. What we have now is a government elected by the people of the Territory which does not govern. Who governs are faceless men and women who sit on the fourth floor of the NT House and direct what is going to happen today in this government.
I am very sad about the Arafura Games. I remember when they started in 1991. I was in Port Hedland and had many friends fly to Darwin to take part in the Arafura Games, and the games become bigger and better. The intention of the Arafura Games was to engage our Asian neighbours, but they also included many Australian competitors because it was not a competition for athletes, it was a competition for emerging athletes.
I heard the member opposite telling us the number of people went down in 2011. Should I remind the members opposite that in 2011 there was something called the global financial crisis? Should I remind members that quite a number of countries could not afford to come here because of their internal problems? Should I remind members that some of the people who did not come we no longer have trade links with, one of them namely, Brunei? Should I remind members that the number of people who came from Australia was much bigger than at any other time because, as of 2007, the Arafura Games became a place where Paralympians were qualified?
Today I am wearing a tie given to me by the first people who participated in the Arafura Games. It is a tie from the International Paralympic Committee. In 2007, I was the minister who brought the Paralympic committee here. I was very pleased to receive it, and I also wear today a presidential distinction given to me by the President of the International Paralympic Committee, Sir Philip Craven. That was at the Arafura Games.
Yesterday, the minister said clearly the reason the Arafura Games has been closed down is because it cost $3.5m. He had the audacity today to table a document which shows the government’s mates will receive $1.8m for six months’ work. This is their document; they tabled it. Neil Conn will receive $220 000 for six months work. Ken Clarke will receive $200 000 for six months work. John Gardiner $200 000 for the same time. Barry Coulter, a nice guy - I do not mind him - will receive $150 000 for six months work. Mr Freeland receives $272 000 per annum to work for the EPA, and Mr Gary Nairn will receive $183 000 for the job he will do. Of course, faceless man, Mr Col Fuller, Secretary to Cabinet is at $150 000 for six months.
The Arafura Games, $3.5m; our mates, $1.8m. No Arafura Games so we can pay our mates.
If they had any concern about the Arafura Games they would sit down and find a solution. It was easier to cut them down. It will probably give them more money to pay other mates they will bring from somewhere else.
I am talking about the Arafura Games, a very important issue; however, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not know what people opposite think, but it is a very important issue for the Territory and Australia.
You cannot just defer the Arafura Games because people will realise the Territory is not worth it any longer. At the drop of a hat the government will cancel games which are very significant not only for the region, but for Australia.
Was there any consultation? Bob Elix, from the Darwin City Council, said they did not know anything about it and were caught by surprise. Any consultation with the industry? Arafura Games happens in the shoulder season and brings 2000 athletes, plus the people who accompany them. They stay in hotels, go to restaurants, go on cruises in Darwin and provide a very important trade at a time when there are not many tourists. It is not only the trade but also the social engagement which benefits. When the people come here for the Arafura Games, they come from countries from which people living in Darwin come. If they do not have people living here in Darwin, they find out about the Darwin community, and the social norms in Australia.
I was privileged to have kids from the Philippines taking part in the Arafura Games staying in my house for three Arafura Games in a row. We have maintained links with these children. Now, they are not children; they are young adults. Also, we have formed very close links with people in the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia because of the Arafura Games.
The other thing, which is more important, is that telling people the Territory is deferring the Arafura Games because it costs us $3.5m and we cannot afford it, sends a strong message to Australia and a wrong message to the region. That was highlighted today by the editorial in the NT News. It said:
I believe that more than I believe the government’s Renewable Management Board progress report. Not only that, I will quote from the newspaper the Australian Paralympic Chief Executive, Jason Hellwig, who said his organisation had made a significant financial contribution to the games and the deferment would be an impediment to the development of the Australian athletes, not only in Australia, but in the Asia-Pacific region in general.
We have athletes coming here from other states in Australia, from the Philippines, China, and Japan. I know the member opposite said only 100 people came from China, but these are the people who wanted to qualify to the higher level of their sport. It was a qualifying game; it was not the Olympics. We knew that. How good was it? It was so good that in 2011, the Governor-General of Australia opened the Arafura Games.
As your advisor will confirm for you, we always had difficulty having people committing a year ahead of the Arafura Games to give us an indication of how many people were coming. Your advisor will also confirm we were struggling until the last moment to confirm who will come, when, and where they are going to stay. Your advisor, if you bothered to ask him, will tell you it was the last six, five, four months, we got final confirmation. This is the problem with the Territory; it is too small and people who work with us one day can be advisors to government the next. That is the reason you need to take the time to talk to your own people. They actually might give you the real story. Unfortunately, as the minister said before, I have been here for a long time and I have a long memory.
Chief Minister, the decision to defer the Arafura Games was a mistake. The decision to claim that, somehow, the Arafura Games was not economical or sustainable was a mistake. Time after time, when I was minister, we had claims for an increased budget and we gave more money, but not to the level they wanted. Surprise, surprise! Every time, the Arafura Games went bigger and better.
Chief Minister, it was the wrong message to send to our region. I heard your call about engaging Asia. This is not engaging Asia; this is disengaging Asia and our region. The Arafura Games were not the Olympics, they were the friendly games where people got together, made friends with each other and developed relationships that withstood the passage of time. Arafura Games after Arafura Games, these people came back. They came back because they knew what the Territory had to offer, what the games had to offer to their athletes.
It was a significant event for the Territory, it was significant for emerging athletes in Australia, and it was significant for Paralympians, Australian and non-Australian. I still recall the basketball played by Iran and Australian Paralympians in their wheelchairs. It was the first time I have seen something like that, and I was absolutely impressed. I will never forget the young man who was born without arms, having one small appendage in his elbow; how he used a racket in table tennis and how the crowd went crazy just watching him. Of course, there was nowhere else in Australia where a Sepak Takraw competition would take place; only in the Arafura Games.
I heard the minister say they will defer it. The reality is you may as well kiss it goodbye, because it will never come back again. The people realise you are not prepared to support it. Yes, it was a Darwin-centred event, but you have your Masters Games in Alice Springs. The reality is the message you sent is that you are prepared to close something without consultation with the local industry, local people or overseas people. It is a slap in their face and trust me, Asians will not take that lightly.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I accept that when a decision is made like this some people will be very disappointed, some will be upset, some will be angry. It is not a decision that is made lightly. As background, I have been a volunteer with the Arafura Games for many years and I have been a supporter and continue to be a supporter of the concept of what it is designed to do.
The concern is that we needed to check the Arafura Games was on a solid footing; that it was achieving its primary objective and would run well and be a magnificent showcase into the region. When we, as a new government, did an assessment, we found that the answers to those questions led us inevitably to the conclusion we have reached: that it needs to be deferred. We acknowledge that has given the opposition something to grab hold of and try to beat up the government with.
Mr Vatskalis: No, it is not that issue.
Mr MILLS: It is. That is what it has done and we will have to wear that, and all the criticism and disappointment of volunteers. I was here twenty years ago for the Arafura Games. I came to the Northern Territory because of my interest in engaging with our region. We hosted kids, supported the games as a school, as a family, and as part of a local swimming club; we have done all sorts of work to support it.
The trouble is that over the years it began to drift from its original objective. It became a sporting event disconnected from its initial purpose. Now there is an opportunity provided by the fact that there has been insufficient real effort made to add underlying strength to the games, which would have left us with having to run around trying to cobble something together with scant of the serious level of negotiation that is required to have a games like this meet its objectives. You could just about have had a games but it would not have been a worthy showcase.
So we have taken a big, important decision that we will get a lot of push-back on, but we have taken it for the right reasons. The opposition will call it the ‘axing of the games’. No, this is a deferment, a re-assessment, a re-focus to ensure we connect this exercise, this activity to its core purpose and to really do something special.
There are times for review and the time is now. Twenty years ago the region was very different. Now is the time for us to reset and to put something into the timetable that matches perfectly what goes on in our region but, more importantly, strengthens our core objective to engage meaningfully with our region. There was little real effort made by the former government to engage on a constant level and cultivate the connections within the immediate region, which leaves us with few of our core markets and regional neighbours represented and engaged within this Arafura Games. This is evidence that the underlying effort was missing, which was typical of the former Labor government.
It looked all right on the surface but we all suspected that underneath there was not much at all. There was no real care, no real hard work to actively engage and to see that this was a vehicle whereby you could build relationships. It is not just holding a games, it is a vehicle to build real relationships within the region. Our assessment is that, yes, there may be a delay and some disappointment, but the core purpose of the games has been neglected by the former government by not seeing it as a means to engage.
That being the case - confirmed by the few from our immediate region who have committed to come to the games - coming to the games is the end of the exercise. What you are meant to do along the way is build those relationships and build alignment to our core objectives, whether they be in education, business and industry, people-to-people alone, or helping to strengthen governance within the region. There are many other things that happen behind the scenes.
This superficial former government only looked at the surface and never dealt with the stuff underneath; that is the difference. We will take very seriously the objectives we will be seeking to strengthen and achieve underneath the surface. We are talking about a deferral. We are talking about a reset and a review. Mark my words, this will come back in a manner that will be better, more targeted and a games set for the new era.
It is a time for a reset. The former government would never have had the courage to do this because they did not want to make bold decisions; they were scared of the political push back, the erosion of popularity, and having to go to the markets and people berating them because they made a decision, or having the courage in their convictions to hold their ground and say, ‘Stick with me; you may not like it now but we are going somewhere.’
We are going somewhere and we will ensure the events put in place will achieve their objectives and be meaningful.
Twenty years ago this event was put in place by a former Country Liberal government which had the foresight. It was crafted around an MOU signed between the Northern Territory and Indonesia. Out of that MOU came a number of objectives. One of those was to provide vehicles for people-to-people exchange so we could work together. It was crafted as an MOU between one nation and the Northern Territory - deep and powerful stuff. Out of that came the Arafura Games.
We have forgotten the connection and we just run a sporting event. We have to remember the connection, the reason for having the games, and connect it to that reason. To use an illustration, in case members on the other side need some assistance - which I do not think they need because they do not want it - if you ask people about cracker night they will all happily call it cracker night. I make a point, and I hope other honourable members will talk about it in the same way, that cracker night is the night we celebrate self-government. That is what it is about. We gather together not to let off crackers but to recognise our achievement thus far in gaining self-government. That is why we had that special event and we should be reminding people of the purpose of that community celebration.
Having the Arafura Games as the fun games is not the objective. That is the evidence of an underlying commitment to something more important. That has ben lost and that is what is coming back with this new government; a commitment to more important things. Then we will have the celebrations on top but those celebrations will make sense and they will be powerful. That is why we are having a review, that is why it is a deferral. Stick with us.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a past Arafura Games athlete, volunteer and sports manager, I express my sadness at the cancelling of the 2013 Arafura Games. Although I have not been in the pool for a few years, my sport of swimming allowed us to compete in the age group events. Growing up it was a highlight of our Territory swimming calendar. It was not only a chance to compete but a chance for friendship and fun. In fact, when I was a volunteer at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, I met up again with some of my former Arafura Games friends. I have been involved in every games since 1993 in some capacity. I remember gathering for the opening ceremony of all the sports and countries together on the back oval at Marrara. As a competitor in a new individual sport it was great to be part of a team atmosphere and the roar as the Territory team walked into Marrara stadium is something I still remember.
Since the announcement this week of the cancellation of the games, I have received many messages of support from Darwin locals disappointed the games will no longer be.
The Arafura Games was often a platform for sports to hold a double event; for example, squash held the NT Open at the same time. I also highlight, as have my colleagues, that the Arafura Games was often a qualifying event for countries in our region for the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.
The members opposite are making jokes they could have competed in the games, but this really highlights they do not get what the Arafura Games is about. It is not a joke but a chance for top level competition amongst our region’s athletes. I wonder if the government, in making this decision to cancel the Arafura Games, consulted any sporting groups. Sports managers would have highlighted that many of the multi-event plans were well under way.
In relation to the government stating that plans had not been made, I disagree with this strongly, as many sports managers would. I also disagree with the Chief Minister that the Arafura Games moved away from its original purpose. It was a chance to not only share on the sporting field, but share sporting knowledge and sports science around a background of fun and culture. As a previous sports manager for the lifesaving events in the games, I know these plans really come together in the short months leading up to the games. The heightened activity into the Arafura Games is like any major event - it peaks in a small window before the event.
To all those people who have made the games happen in the past, and to all those who would have made the games happen next year if the government had let this happen, you are being let down.
I disagree with the comments from those opposite that no engagement had taken place in relation to the 2013 Arafura Games. The relationships are not only held within the Arafura Games office, but with individual sports and countries, and these relationships are now under threat by cancelling the games.
Some of my colleagues have based their comments on the fact the 2013 Arafura Games had not seen commitment from the correct trading partners. This comparison shows very poor judgment by members opposite about what the Arafura Games is really about. The focus is not trade, it is about sport and friendship - they are the friendly games. Many other things flow from that relationship; however, the purpose of the games is in its title, the friendly games. This purpose has been lost. I hope the government wakes up and brings back Rocky the rock wallaby and the Arafura Games.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to provide a statement on the status of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Most Australians would have an idea of those communities, whether right or wrong. Even those of us with deep knowledge have to admit how little we know because of the diversity of language and culture across this great landscape, so we approach the figures cautiously. Even so, the figures can be interesting.
In Australia, 3% of people are Indigenous. In the Territory that rises to 30%. It does not just rise; it explodes and creates a whole new society, one this nation is still coming to terms with. Nowhere else comes close. The state with the next highest proportion of Indigenous people is Tasmania, with just 4.7%. We are different.
What does it mean to be Indigenous here? Many things, of course, but some of the raw averages are interesting. It means we are young. For every non-Indigenous child in the Territory there are 4.5 non-Indigenous adults aged 20 to 59. To put that another way, there are over four adults to look after each child.
However, for an Indigenous child there are only 1.5 indigenous adults. In other words, there are far fewer adults to care for our children, to protect and inspire them, to feed and look out for them. Where are the missing adults? There is no way to put this gently: they are dead.
This is like the reverse of the old story of the Pied Piper where the children were taken away. Here it is the adults who have gone from places like Lajamanu where 29% of people are younger than nine years old. Something has spirited away many of the parents, the uncles, and the aunties.
As I say, we are different. We are also remote. In the rest of Australia 24% of Indigenous people live in remote or very remote areas. In the Territory that proportion is 81%.
When I speak of remoteness, I mean not just remote from Darwin or Alice Springs, but remote from each other. There are 527 homelands and outstations funded by my department. In many ways, this is a wonderful thing, and this government is committed to homelands and outstations. However, the extent of our remoteness is unusual, not just at the national level, but internationally.
In service delivery, remoteness makes everything harder. Take transport, with roads cut during the Wet Season and expensive public transport. A return trip from Katherine to Lajamanu costs $320 and runs just twice a week. There will never be enough money to change this, not here or anywhere else in the world. That is something we ignore, but we ignore it at our peril, again and again. I see programs that do not factor in the true cost of remoteness: the travel time needed to reach communities, and the cost of planes to access them during the Wet.
We are different, and it is time to admit difference has consequences. It has benefits and it has costs. I can put a price on those costs. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2011 update, the cost of delivering welfare and housing services in the Northern Territory is 3.4 times higher than the national average. That is the price of remoteness. It is a price the government cannot afford to pay - not fully - which is why those services are usually deficient.
That is one of the reasons for the problems we have in most communities of inadequate infrastructure and housing, poor health, and education. I point to these problems because there is no sense in denying them. There is no sense in denying our difference from the rest of Australia.
However, it is not all bad. There are problems with differences, but there are benefits too. It is to those I now turn. I turn to how difference can become strength if it is treated with respect.
This government respects the importance of cultural connections to land. We support the right of people to live on their country. One of the things this means is housing. At the moment, about 10 000 Indigenous people live in around 2400 houses in homelands and outstations. Statistically, not overcrowded but, then, people are not statistics. The reality is very different.
Under Labor, they were often forced off their country into larger communities and even towns, with disastrous results. We support their right to live where they choose, in decent housing. We also want to progress economic development in the bush.
This is why we will begin our conversation with the Australian government to establish if housing programs that fall under the national partnership agreement on remote Indigenous housing will be administered through local organisations or councils. If so, they will be expected to develop an asset management plan to include setting aside funds for future repairs and upgrades. These plans will be audited by the Department of Housing to ensure compliance. My dream is to see the day houses in these places are built, occupied, and maintained by their owners.
Of course, it is not just about housing. Another major problem is education, starting with language. In 2008, 64% of Indigenous people in remote areas of the Northern Territory spoke an Aboriginal language as their main language at home. There is nothing wrong with that; it happens with many cultures around Australia. The problem is many of those children fail to learn to speak and write English properly at school. That means they could never get mainstream jobs. That means they could never have access to opportunities for travel and living in other places, for getting better jobs in their own places.
It denies them choice, it means they do not have the choices that most Australian young people have. That is something else that shows what it means to be Indigenous in the Northern Territory: to be denied choice. It does not have to be that way, you can be different and still have choice that means being different and strong, not different and weak.
This government intends to make our Indigenous children stronger, not by providing stronger crutches, more interpreters, welfare workers, police and jailers, but by making them more independent. The first step in independence is education and the first step in education is language. All Indigenous pupils will be taught English just like the children from all other cultures in Australia. This government is committed to making education normal for all children, no matter where they live - real education for real jobs.
There will be more boarding school places, more School of the Air, more experienced teachers everywhere. We are different to the rest of Australia in where we live, but we have to be identical in what we learn. That sort of difference builds strength, not weakness. It creates choice not limitations. The jobs are there, or they could be. They are there in the market gardens that existed decades ago in communities around the country and could exist again. They are there at this moment in the national parks.
Anyone with dark skin has to have a head start going for a job in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. Let us face it, the tourists have not come here to go to the opera or for shopping. They are here in large part because of Indigenous culture, the landscape and art, animals and plants that our people know intimately.
Who better to share it with them than us? Some Indigenous people work in that industry already and there could be so many more. And of course there is mining. Big companies are desperate for the opportunity to pay Indigenous people over $100 00 a year to work for them. Of course, we need education first if we are to go for those jobs but the jobs are there and that is a huge piece of good fortune.
Australia is going through some economic good times. According to the Commonwealth government’s new report on Asia, those good times are likely to continue. Indigenous people need to be part of that by improving basic education. This government is determined that many more Indigenous children will be able to get real jobs and take advantage of this prosperity and break the welfare cycle.
I admit that sometimes I despair at the reluctance of some Indigenous people to take the jobs which are already there. I look at the men of Yirrkala and ask why they will not drive the 20 km to Nhulunbuy to earn excellent money in the mine and the processing plant there. These are the kinds of questions the rest of Australia has been asking for years as it tries to connect the dots and understand why a long-running mining boom can exist literally next door to a culture of entitlement and welfare dependency.
As I travel around with the Cabinet subcommittee I will be listening, but I will be asking questions too and that will be one of them. I will be asking why so many Indigenous communities have become welfare traps where, somewhere along the way from poverty to prosperity, we took a side road and got stuck in a hell from where there seems to be no escape.
It is not good to live off welfare for ever, just as it is not good to live off mining royalties if it means you do not work. This applies to people around the world not just us. In the 21st century people need paid jobs, particularly men. It is not just about the money although the money is good. It is about status and respect, about responsibility and dignity. It is also about growing up and not being a child any more, about becoming an adult, so that children - real children - can depend on you. We need more of such adults in our Indigenous communities.
When I am out bush on my own and as a member of the Cabinet subcommittee I hope this is one of the things many people want to talk about: how we can help people grow up. I will not just be listening. Sometimes in Indigenous matters we can despair because it can seem like we are always starting from scratch, never making any progress. This government has policies that will work. The most important for me is fixing the schools to improve the quality of our teachers and their teaching.
I have spoken before here, just a week ago, about the need to teach English so the education a child receives here will be as good as that in Sydney or Brisbane. I know the majority of kids in remote communities do not begin school with the same level of English as kids in our cities, and I know we need to work with the language that kids come into the classroom with to bring them up to the speed in English as quickly as possible.
This is not controversial, this is common sense. This is about our kids having a proper grasp of English and receiving the same standard of education as any other kid in Australia - real education and real jobs. This government will listen a lot and fix a lot. Even if we only made progress in the schools it would be something to be proud of. It would be much more than has been achieved in many decades.
There is another type of conversation where I grow impatient. I have been talking about complaints - this culture of complaint that hangs over so many Indigenous communities. We have to be wary of that, but we also have to be wary of many of the solutions offered.
I spoke earlier of the frequent failures of the NGOs because they do not understand the communities where they work. I spoke of the need for more culturally appropriate delivery of services by Indigenous people themselves. I stand by that, but let me make one thing perfectly clear: that does not mean simply throwing dollars at communities and telling them to fix the problems themselves. There has been some of that over the years and we know that, too often, it does not work.
I want to say a few words about how we know what works and what does not. It seems to me that despite all that has been written about efforts to help Indigenous people, all the evaluations and the reports, we do not know very much about what works. Too often we read something that tells us a real project worked and should be introduced everywhere.
But why did it work well in that one place? Was it for some local reason? It will not necessarily work in other places. We are almost never told. There are too many anecdotes in public policy-making for Indigenous people and not enough data. Some people have calculated that thousands of pages of evaluations, reports and submissions are now written each week on Indigenous Australia - literally thousands of pages. Never has so much been written for so little result.
The quantity is enormous, but the quality is poor. We have been let down by too many of our advisors, bureaucrats and academics. I will always listen but I am getting sick of the poor-quality research and poor-quality evaluations. There is too much noise and not enough content. As minister I am looking forward to evidence of what works. I say to all Indigenous people, I will be talking to you over the coming years. Let us talk but let our talk be about the facts.
Here is an evaluation that will not need a doctoral thesis. People with jobs: 100% employed. People on welfare: 100% unemployed. We have all been avoiding the facts for too long now - avoiding the evidence of thinking it was not necessary because Indigenous people were different or because we were scared of what the facts might show.
The time for that is over. One thing we do know is that such an approach does not work. We have proved that by now and the rest of Australia knows it too. Government does not always get it right in Perth and Melbourne, but they have a much better track record than we do because they usually apply policies which have been tried and tested and honestly evaluated.
I ask the NGOs and bureaucrats from those places to come here and apply the same standard to us as they apply back home. When you write your reports and your evaluations, be as tough as you would be if you were evaluating progress in your own communities.
This is one of the reasons I spent so much of my last speech talking about education. The evidence is in on education. The facts are clear and we know what works. What works are teachers and schools, like those in Bunbury, Port Augusta, Bathurst and Gladstone. The same approach to education works everywhere and it is time we tried it here in every school in the Territory.
That is why I will continue to talk so much about schools. I support my colleague, the Minister for Education, because with education the evidence is well and truly in. We know what works and we know what has to be done to make it work here. Much is uncertain, but not that.
I travel a great deal. I have visited so many remote communities and too often they are like nursing homes, full of illness, complaints and death. Too often they are places where nothing gets done, no toilet is unblocked, no child taken to school unless someone from outside does it. I say they are like nursing homes; perhaps I should say nurseries - everyone is a child there, even the adults.
It is time to change that for the sake of our respect and our dignity. It is not as though the system we have works well. The non-Indigenous NGOs, or not-for-profits, are easy for government to deal with, especially the Commonwealth government, which takes a long view all the way from Canberra. Often these NGOs are bright and shiny, run like clockwork, and they fill in all the paperwork perfectly. They are good at lobbying and writing submissions. I do not mock that; however, I suggest they are not as good at providing services because they do not understand the communities they go into. Like so many non-Indigenous advisors over the years, so many experts, they are cursed by the combination of noble intentions and utter ignorance.
I suggest a greater role for Indigenous organisations. There is growing evidence that community-based and controlled organisations can do better. We need to judge them by the same high standards we apply to the non-Indigenous NGOs. However, I believe that when we do that we will find many of our own are up there with the best. There is nothing quite like local knowledge.
How do we get from here to there? What is the way forward? I offer no magic solution, no silver bullets. My basic approach is to have a few core ideas which are real education for real jobs, and to keep travelling and doing what I can to make them reality; to keep visiting and keep listening to what people tell me.
I am honoured to head the Cabinet Subcommittee on Regional Affairs which will crisscross the Territory over the next few years to ensure this government remains closely in touch with what is happening on the ground. I am sure the knowledge is out there to help us make all our lives better, but I am also sure this knowledge lies not in any one person’s head; it is dispersed among every one of us in Papunya, Baniyala, Katherine and Darwin.
I am here because I see myself as a leader. To be a leader is to be a listener, and to listen you have to move around. I invite everyone to approach us with ideas, including ideas for local business opportunities in the regions. If you want a hand up, come and talk to us. If you can create a job for yourself, that is good. If you can create jobs for a few other people too, that is even better. There is no reason Indigenous people cannot excel in schools and the workplace.
We are struggling with our history and, in some cases, with obstacles in our own hearts and minds. Much of what has happened to us is deeply unfair. Much we have witnessed and suffered has been terrible, but it is a struggle we must embark on and a struggle we can win.
I said I would listen, but that is not the same as saying I will always agree. I have been listening for a long time now to people in remote communities and I like to describe two types of conversations that are common, but dangerous. Common, perhaps even understandable, but I have come to realise, dangerous. The first is the conversation of endless complaint. They are the conversations where a person offers to do nothing for themselves and demands everything be done for them.
In the rest of Australia, people pick up the rubbish in their yards, they fix their own blocked toilets. When they turn on their TVs and see remote communities covered in litter and able-bodied men complaining about lack of maintenance of the houses they live in, they wonder why Indigenous people in these communities will not do things themselves. Of course, in many places they do, but in many places they do not – in far too many.
The rest of the world is looking and wondering why. It is wondering, if we had children, why so many Indigenous people have the sense of entitlement - the sense that everything will be done for them. I say to these people, to those in the communities and those watching, that everything will not be done by government, everything cannot be done; there are not the resources and everything should not be done by government because adults are not children. Adults are capable human beings who need to be strong so they can care for the real children, all those kids I mentioned in the start of this speech who should be safe and warm and in school.
I will be travelling and I will be listening, but I will not be accepting everything I am told. My friends will be glad to hear that, sometimes, I will still be arguing, especially with adults who refuse to grow up. Speaking of such people, I will mention a certain journalist named Russell Skelton who recently attacked this government in the local newspaper.
Mr Skelton has a history with me. He once rang my office to demand an interview and one of my staff told him I was not in. It was a white lie because I was in; I just happened to be very busy doing important work. Mr Skelton found out I was in, and he has never let me forget it. He has written thousands of words attacking me. There is nothing like a journalist whose vanity has been wounded. He does not come from these parts and he seems to find it outrageous that things do not run as smoothly here as they do in Melbourne.
Now, he has written off the whole government on the basis of the first week of parliament. That is quite a call. He does not like the fact that we do not all agree with each other; that we are open to debate on important issues. He does not like the fact some of our policies are not the ones he would implement if he was in government, so he writes us off in one week.
I make only one comment. I ask if that is responsible journalism. I ask if Mr Skelton deserves to be taken seriously - after one week he has written us off; he has nothing else left to say. Perhaps if he wishes to engage me in a contest of ideas on a level playing field, then he should stand for the seat of Namatjira at the next election and we could let the voters decide. I had a 1901, 29% swing, from me to me.
I finish on a personal note about real children. I spoke of them earlier; of how Indigenous children have far fewer adults in their lives compared with other Australian children. We owe our children everything and if we keep them at the centre of the picture we cannot go far wrong. Children need education and they need parents - dads as well as mums. Dads need jobs, not gaols, and for jobs they need education. That is why, in my mind, so much comes back to our schools. I believe if we get them right, much else will follow - not everything but a lot. That is my plan. It is a journey I intend taking over the next year as I visit as many of those 527 homelands and outstations as possible. I promise to do everything I can to make it a journey into a better future for all Indigenous people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Education) Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to the statement presented by the member for Namatjira. I thank the member for Namatjira for such an impassioned speech, talking about the status of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
We are incredibly lucky in this term of government to have such connection to the remote and regional communities of the Northern Territory, having the member for Namatjira on board. She is such an experienced politician, she has personal and political connections across the breadth and width of the Territory, and it is so reassuring she is the Minister for Regional Development and for Indigenous Advancement in the Northern Territory.
I listened very intently to what she said this evening. It is good news for Aboriginal people, knowing they have the member for Namatjira on their side, looking out for their best interests and, of course, batting for the welfare of children and families throughout the Northern Territory.
Minister Anderson, the member for Namatjira, is spot-on in her aspirations for all Northern Territory children, all Northern Territory students, including Indigenous students in remote communities to have real jobs, to have real aspirations for their future. A real job either in their own community or beyond and not welfare handouts is the only acceptable outcome. We need all of our kids to have the knowledge and skills which will allow them to get real jobs and succeed in them in the Northern Territory. They could succeed in the Territory, interstate or overseas. There should be no impediment to how our children reach out into the world and attempt to succeed and reach their potential.
One of my aspirations or philosophies of life is that we should all try to reach our potential, but some children in the Territory, as the member for Namatjira has just spoken of, never really get the opportunity to even read and write, to even have a healthy upbringing, a healthy start to life. It is tough out there. I have listened to the other members of parliament over the last couple of weeks. The stories they tell about their lives, their families and their communities are certainly not all bad, but the problems, when you hear them from the horse’s mouth, the people who know, who are connected, seem that much more powerful. It resonates that much more deeply within each and every one of us. It is amazing to have real Indigenous representation within government. As a non-Indigenous person in this government I know my colleagues and I are very proud and excited to have you all on board.
Through the conversations we are having informally and within our meetings, we are all learning a lot about how we need to move forward in the Northern Territory, addressing the education challenges, the social challenges which have been there for a long time and probably have not been addressed to any degree of satisfaction for anyone in the Northern Territory. These are the big challenges. If you want to put a road in you get the money, you put the road in. If you want to build a school you get the money from somewhere and you build a school; but if you want to address poverty and disadvantage and the poor social status of many Aboriginal children and families throughout the Territory, it is just not that easy. It is incredibly challenging.
I guess I have to recognise – as did the member for Namatjira – that many people have tried to address the social disadvantage in Indigenous communities for decades and decades and they are well intended, but too often they miss the mark. The key we have talked about is almost a theme of the last two weeks of parliament and has been spoken about numerous times now by numerous members; the key is really working with Aboriginal people. It is so obvious and yet it has not really happened, particularly over the last four years, to the extent it should have.
My original training as a young school leaver many years ago, when I went to university, studied and specialised, was in community development, believe it or not. The key principle of community development work is to ask the people, talk to the people, and you will find the answers within the communities, within the people who represent that community. That is what we are hearing very consistently from our colleagues in government. That is the key; that is what has been missing in recent times - probably for decades. It is so obvious and yet it seems to be forgotten.
Perhaps it is too hard. Perhaps it is one of those things - actually talking to people, taking the time to sit down and connect with people. Maybe that is too hard for government bureaucrats to do; we are all pressed for time, we are all time-poor, we are all much more accountable for time than we used to be.
As a young social worker I used to do case management. They still have it now but case management when I was a young social worker meant you had unlimited time to connect with people, to work with people, to reach out. You spent as much time as you needed with whoever you were helping, whether it was a mother with a new-born baby or a person suffering from schizophrenia or someone who was homeless; you made the time and did comprehensive holistic casework. You connected them with the resources they needed, you provided them with the services you could offer as an individual practitioner, and you were able to fully service the people you identified as being in need. I know from my own experiences watching my elderly parents is - they require case management; they are not well - the level of case management is not there anymore because governments have cottoned on to the fact it is expensive to provide these sorts of comprehensive intensive case management services. So, people do not receive the same level of service they require.
Maybe it is about governments doing business differently to some extent. Things are tighter. There is not enough time to sit down and talk with people, connect with them, work out what the problem is and then work out a strategy of how you will meet the needs of those people. Perhaps that is part of the missing piece when it comes to why we have been so ineffective in helping Indigenous people in remote areas in particular. That is something we have to look at. How do we do that? I have had discussions with my colleagues even today. The thought running through my head about the challenge for us as a new government, is yes, we need to get out there. We need to talk to people about things like getting kids back to school, arranging community events so they do not impact adversely on kids’ ability to attend school, so they enhance the community rather than take away from it. The challenge that was running through my head was how do you get the message out there? Who does it? Who connects with the people? How does it all happen?
Part of the problem is getting to all these communities across a vast geographical area, providing the services they require and connecting with the communities to making sure they service themselves. The answers are within those communities most of the time, I am hearing from my colleagues. The people in the communities have the answers. How you harness the strengths in a community, and how you mobilise and empower a local community to then resolve their problems is the challenge. Interstate, Arukun and other Queensland communities have been able to do that effectively. But there are examples in the Northern Territory - you do not have to go interstate – where there is strong leadership and support from the government and the local council has enabled communities to pull themselves out of difficult situations or address social problems in a way which means they can live more happily, more peacefully; the kids lead a better life, and the adults lead a better life.
It is a huge challenge but the message from the member for Namatjira is that we are working together as a new government. We are committed to listening to our Indigenous colleagues. As Minister for Education and Minister for Children and Families, these colleagues will steer me, as the member for Namatjira says, through the subcommittee specifically formed to further the interests of Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory.
I would like to paint you a picture of the unique context within which education reaches out to approximately 44 000 students across the Northern Territory and 4600 educators who benefit from attending and working in many government and non-government schools operating across 1 350 000 km2 of the Northern Territory.
We have a huge geographical area and a very sparse population. There are many challenges and my colleagues are only too aware of the logistics of travelling around. The member for Namatjira, in the six months leading up to the election, was constantly on the road travelling, as I am sure all the other members who represent remote communities were - travelling, blown tyres, faulty cars and maintaining vehicles. That is a part of life in the Territory we sometimes forget to acknowledge. It is not just about space, diversity, and sparse populations, it is also about the logistics of getting there and the cost. One of the huge costs of government is flying bureaucrats, public servants, service providers in and out of communities to ensure we are servicing people in remote areas adequately.
Engaging families and educating them about the value of schooling is integral to nurturing educated, well-rounded Territorians who can become positive members of the community. A significant number of studies have shown students who succeed in school are almost always supported by their families or have access to the social capital the wider community provides.
There has been a global shift towards parent/school, or school/community partnerships to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged or marginalised students. This government is committed to listening to the needs of community people when it comes to education.
Once again taking a community development approach, if the community believes a unique and peculiar model of education needs to be established within their community to meet their particular social and cultural needs, we will support that in any way we can. Of course, they will be required to go through a rigorous requirement regime. It is never easy to set up a school, but we will support and assist them to set up the types of school they think their children and families need.
A central aim is the engagement of parents in communities to create real, sharp and focused school/community partnership agreements, particularly in schools identified in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2011.
The ATSI Education Action Plan clearly states that:
The school/community partnerships are tailored to the individual needs and aspirations of each community. They are a formal commitment based on shared responsibilities for the education of students at the school.
Shared responsibilities is another theme from the member for Namatjira’s speech. It is not just about having the rights and demanding from government this, that, and the other; it is about taking responsibility and forming a partnership.
Additionally, the former Department of Education and Training was the first Northern Territory government organisation, and one of the first Northern Territory organisations to sign up to a Reconciliation Action Plan that creates respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. I will highlight a couple of examples in which the department is forging those closer ties through collaboration and partnership.
As many in the House are aware, the first thing we have to do to improve our educational outcomes is get our children to school - very basic. For a range of reasons, in our communities this does not always happen. There is sorry business, there are cultural obligations, there are sporting events that take people out of town.
The community of Gunbalanya in Arnhem Land recognised the drain this put on their children’s education and worked with the department to come up with an innovative idea. They decided to change the school year so school is held over the traditionally wet months of December and January. This is the time when families are often unable to leave the community because of flood waters. The flip side of this is that the school has its longest semester break in the dry mid-year months when those other events tend to take them away. This a great example of how a government agency has become flexible, has accommodated the needs and the physical environmental factors that influence a community, and has reached a collaborative decision as to how school is provided in Gunbalanya.
This was a decision that was made in consultation and partnership with the school, parents, and the wider community. This was the first year the trial was held, and the community has asked to continue the flexible school year in 2013; they want to do it again next year. Additionally, the most recent comparative figures from Term 3 of this year show student attendance numbers increase from 128 in 2010 to 147 in 2012. So, there has been an improvement in attendance - a small improvement but a significant improvement.
Another example of this collaborative approach involves a community of Baniyala, another of our schools in Arnhem Land. There was a homeland learning centre there for many years but, as with many of our remote communities, its population grew and the parents aspired to have a full school. The department and the community worked collaboratively to build a purpose-built building right on the beautiful shores of Blue Mud Bay. Baniyala Garrangali School now has regular attendance for those children who are in the community and has a number of parents employed in the classrooms.
Yet another example of this partnership approach between communities and parents is the 3-9 Program that operates in a number of schools, whereby the school is opened up for community use. This is something I have spoken to my colleagues about that we need to look further into, making sure schools are not purely for education but are a community facility. They should be used day and night if the need is there. Examples for which schools are being used under the program include classes in financial literacy, driver education, basketball, and even Zumba dancing. We know a school plays an important part in the life of a community and, therefore, the department has worked in partnerships with communities, parents, and other non-government organisations to share facilities and make schools more welcoming places for many parents who otherwise may not have had anything to do with the school.
Engaging parents is further reflected in the Families as First Teachers program which operates with schools and is designed to engage parents in the value of education, and build their children’s early learning through play-based programs. It also works to build an awareness of good health and hygiene to address the improvement of developmental outcomes for young Aboriginal children.
The Families as First Teachers program addresses school readiness through a focus on literacy and numeracy foundations, orientation to school programs, and parent engagement initiatives. All of this is done in collaboration with the community, other government agencies, both federal and local, and the non-government sector.
This focus on the value of schooling in the early years and the importance of engaging parents is also reflected in our Strong Start, Bright Future colleges. The Strong Start, Bright Future college approach that is currently in place has provided a good start, but I want to take this to a whole new level, especially in enabling local governance arrangements that will ensure a sustainable model of improvement.
We have much to learn from some of the initiatives occurring, for example, in Cape York. Momentum cannot be lost when a principal moves on or when a significant elder passes. We need a sustainable and supported governance model, one that reflects the true wishes and voice of the community.
The Strong Start, Bright Future college approach targets children and young adults along their developmental journey. This program is delivered through a series of integrated services that are dependent on the schools, collaborating with the community and a range of government and non-government agencies as well as industry partners.
Minister Anderson is spot-on in her aspirations for all Northern Territory students, including Aboriginal students in remote communities to have jobs. We need all of our kids to have the knowledge and skills that will allow them to get jobs and exceed in them in the Territory and beyond. All of our young people need to be global citizens. Parents and communities need to be champions of this aspiration.
I have asked the Department of Education and Children’s Services to work with the Department of Business to map the jobs that are available in towns and communities now and into the future. This work has already begun. I have been heartened by the lengths the Department of Education and Children’s Services has gone to with mining companies, the pastoral sector, the tourism sector and with local communities to prioritise these jobs for local students. An example includes the strong partnership at West Arnhem College with Energy Resources Australia which provides job guarantees for senior secondary students, work experience and apprenticeships.
If jobs are the goal then schools need to ensure they create focused pathways to those jobs through academic programs and innovative training programs. In the secondary years this means our remote schools focusing on improving teaching and learning opportunities within available resources. The Department of Education and Children’s Services new industry academy has been developed to support schools, especially remote schools, to ensure these training pathways to jobs exist by working directly with industry and by basing dedicated trainers in our community.
We know that many of our students arrive at formal schooling not ready to learn. The member for Namatjira has pointed out in stark terms the reality of these statistics. This is where the integration of the Department of Education and Children’s Services and the Office of Children and Families into one department, the Department of Education and Children’s Services, will come to the fore. This joined-up effort needs to build on the early success of programs such as Families as First Teachers. Parents and caregivers need to be supported in providing the best start to life for these children.
The Department of Education and Children's Services, including the Office of Children and Families, will work with the community to develop capacity, capability and local people to provide a safe and caring environment in the community. The schools will become a hub, a one-stop shop in each community where caregivers can come to be supported by local school people, supported by government.
School principals realise that a clear focus on the zero-to-four-year-old group in their community is essential. They will play a stronger role in coordination of the community and programs that support this space. Above all else we need our kids to go to school and we need everyone to pull their weight in making this happen. This is everyone’s business. School attendance is a priority. We cannot contemplate another generation of young people who should be the leaders, but are largely unemployable. Together we can do this. To drive this change I will be taking the Stronger Futures initiative and setting up trials with community input that will lead to communities driving Stronger Futures.
The examples I have outlined are indicative of the end-to-end approach and strong focus the Department of Education and Children's Services has on engagement, collaboration and partnership in remote areas in regions where it is needed the most.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I acknowledge the previous member for Millner, which I think is now Johnston, Phil Mitchell in the gallery.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Indigenous Advancement for bringing this statement before the House and I also acknowledge the contribution by our new Education minister to this debate. I enjoyed listening to her list off the many Labor initiatives in education that have been implemented since 2001.
This statement is really important. I have been waiting for it during these sittings. I thought it might have appeared before this House earlier than it has, simply because it is such an important issue and because, as we know, we have a new government as Labor lost seats in the bush. Clearly this is an incredibly important area of focus. We are talking about 30% of Territorians who are Indigenous people and that population is growing at something of a rapid rate as well.
In her opening, the minister talked about the statistics which show the huge gap in the ratio of Indigenous children to adults versus non-Indigenous children to adults. The stark reality of and the reason for those statistics is that far too many Indigenous people are passing away well ahead of non-Indigenous people. This is a fact that has been around for decades and it is not something we can allow to continue.
There is no doubt that, irrespective of party politics, whoever is in government - certainly all of us in this House representing the electorates - our focus has to be on children, the most vulnerable in our society. We have to focus on protecting those kids, ensuring they have access to homes and education, and through that to a future irrespective of where they live: Darwin, Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, the little homeland of Mirrnatja or Galiwinku - all of these places.
We are dealing with decades of deficit, decades of underfunding and were know there is a long way to go in addressing those issues. As the minister highlighted in her statement, add the remoteness factor to that as well. I am acutely aware of the remoteness factor living where I do in northeast Arnhem Land in Nhulunbuy, with a mining town at the centre and some 26 Laynhapuy homelands and the Marthakal homelands on top of that. We have island communities, issues of Wet Season access, a huge network of roads - this is not so much an issue of the volume of usage but about the necessity of those roads. It would not matter if there were a homeland with only 10 people down the road; it is not about the volume of traffic that goes through on a daily basis. What we have to recognise is the necessity of that road in providing that community with access to services.
Without a doubt, the remoteness and geographical isolation make everything harder and costlier, including the cost of delivering services and providing infrastructure. Believe me, on this side of the House, we know all about that having seen the roll-out of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and the enormous costs associated with that. There were wastages identified and I have no doubt there are better and cheaper ways of doing things so you can deliver more houses and get more bang for your buck. But that is something we will always grapple with in the Northern Territory, as do the jurisdictions of Queensland and Western Australia in their northern remote regions.
High on the minister’s agenda, as it should be, is looking to a future and a policy framework that will cater for Indigenous people in the bush, regional centres, in the larger communities and the towns. You cannot deny the fact the minister was the person responsible for rolling out the A Working Future policy under the Labor government in May 2009. This was really the first time a policy of this size had been pulled together covering so many aspects of trying to deliver services to people in our remote areas and regions, bringing together a whole-of-government approach, but also the three tiers of government working together.
The title A Working Future is no accident. It is about building capacity on communities so people who live there have ownership of their communities, ownership of decisions, and are the main people employed in the jobs in those communities, which is as it should be. I hope it is not a case of the minister throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In regard to trying to develop and deliver policy, which is all about delivering real and sustainable change to these communities, let us not go in with a wrecking ball and pull everything apart. Let us work through a change process which builds on what we have. That does not mean we have to start by scrapping - we do not have to restart things and we do not have to allow this to denigrate into a blame game. We know the minister is clearly very unhappy about how money has been spent and the fact that bureaucracy, without a doubt, needs to be trimmed so funding goes to where it is most needed.
The reality now is the minister is at the helm. She has the reigns, she has the responsibility for driving this through, and we on this side wish her luck. There is a very big agenda for the CLP to fix the bush in the next four years. In order to do that, there has to be a very targeted policy with commitment to see it delivered. However, there is one really important factor; that is, the Northern Territory government cannot do this alone. The Northern Territory government has to work with the Commonwealth government - that is an inescapable fact. It is about working in partnership remembering 80 in $1 of Territory funds comes from Commonwealth funding. It is critical that relationship be established.
I am not feeling really confident about the relationship our Minister for Indigenous Advancement has with the Commonwealth given the remarks she has thrown out to minister Macklin. However, the reality is at both levels of government there has to be a collaborative partnership and agreement about working towards the best outcomes for Indigenous people.
I had the great pleasure the other evening to attend the launch of a book called Speak for Yourself co-authored by former Chief Minister Clare Martin and a colleague of hers, Dr Mickey Dewar. It is a series of interviews, a biography of the first eight Chief Ministers of the Northern Territory. I have not read it completely yet, but it is a great read. I suspect Dr Chris Burns, who was at the launch, has probably read his book cover to cover and has probably got more tags in it than I have. I wanted to dip into it and, in the dipping I have done today, there are common themes coming through from each of the eight Chief Ministers, six from the Country Liberal Party and two from the Labor Party.
Each Chief Minister, irrespective of their political party, highlighted the enormous challenges of being the chief minister of the Northern Territory, managing that relationship with the Commonwealth, managing that ever-challenging policy area of Aboriginal affairs, and trying to manage that relationship from Canberra. One of the Chief Minister’s highlights was not so much the ministers, but dealing with the bureaucracy. I can understand, to an extent, where the member for Namatjira is coming from.
There are a couple of items I wanted to quote, and one of them is from Denis Burke who was a Country Liberal Party Chief Minister. He was talking about Aboriginal issues, and it is under the heading, ‘Aboriginal Issues Too Often Bandaid Money’:
I thought that was a really telling sign of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the Territory up until 2007 when there was one particularly damning report we are all very familiar with. If you were to read this book and not know which political party these individuals were from - these eight Chief Ministers - you would see they basically all faced the same challenges despite their political persuasion.
I will move on to the subject of homelands. It is a subject very close to my heart and one of the great challenges and great joys of the job I have had during the years I have been the local member. Whilst a resident in Nhulunbuy for many years, I did not have a huge amount of contact with the homelands and the homelands people. Unless you have those relationships, you do not necessarily travel out to these places. I have travelled endlessly out to the homelands, to the Laynhapuy Homelands and the Marthakal Homelands. I know them to be strong and healthy places, where people are strong, have an incredibly generous spirit and where, for the most part, kids are going to school.
They are productive places in various ways, with varying economies in some of these places, some more so than others. Without a doubt, the message that always comes clearly to me from the TOs at the homelands is these are their traditional clan estates, the lands of their ancestors. It is more than just a piece of land, there is a connection with that land which, perhaps, someone such as I may not fully comprehend. I certainly appreciate and respect it.
I am not sure homelands have always been treated with respect by the Commonwealth. We go back to the days of John Howard as Prime Minister, and when Amanda Vanstone, famous for her comment about homelands, calling them ‘cultural museums’. They are not; they are very dynamic communities which people call home and where they raise their children.
We need to have a look back down memory lane. If we go back to 2007 at the handover of homelands to the Northern Territory, let us remember that it was the Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who held the Territory to ransom when Clare Martin was the Chief Minister. Basically, he said, ‘I am going to hand back the responsibility for homelands to you. I am going to give you $200m that goes with it for more than 500 homelands - $200m over three years.’
The only reason funding was renewed beyond June 2012 is because the Labor members on this side of the House, of our bush Caucus, fought tooth and nail with our Commonwealth colleagues to make them provide additional funding to the Northern Territory. They could not walk away from homelands and we did not have the capacity to raise the revenue to spend on homelands that we needed. As a result, the money was secured earlier this year. It is still not enough money even with the additional $100m the Labor government had made as an election commitment. To add to that, we know the cost of running homelands and investing in the deficits of underspend is just enormous.
So it is with great interest we see how the Country Liberals, under their homelands policy, will look after the homelands, exactly what their commitment is. I am sure there is a detailed policy, more than the two pages that were put out in March last year. It says there is. It says this is a summary document only, that a comprehensive version will be released soon, and please subscribe to our new news, blah blah blah from the Country Liberals.
Conveniently or otherwise, the CLP website has been down for work or restructure, so it is very difficult to get hold of documents that were published pre-election to understand exactly what that commitment was. So it is understandable that people are asking questions. The Laynhapuy Homelands people are asking me what is happening now under this new government, what the CLP is doing for homelands. Obviously I say I cannot tell them because I am in the opposition now and it is up to the Country Liberals to communicate with them. I am aware they have written to the Chief Minister and invited him for a meeting. No doubt the minister will accompany him so they can answer those questions. There will be many questions they will want to ask and understand.
It was disappointing that when the member for Nelson asked a very honest and polite question, and one which he had given notice of, about how the promise of $5200 per occupied house in homelands and outstations would be spent, knowing that the CTC’s final report shows that there were 2425 dwellings, he was slapped down with an answer that was contemptuous and did not answer the question at all. It is incredibly disappointing when we have a new government which is all about transparency and accountability. Even if there was not an answer, there could have been some polite response to say they would get something to him, rather than just snapping at the member and advising him, ‘If you want a briefing come back and see me’. So we will see how we go from there.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the house.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells please.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know housing on homelands was probably the single biggest issue. We know other infrastructure on homelands is important - roads, power generation, facilities like schools, health clinics and so on - but housing is the most important issue homelands people raised with me. If people do not have a roof over their head, if people are in very crowded situations in places that are long overdue for maintenance then that is not a good place to be.
Indigenous home ownership is an important issue for many reasons. The Northern Territory cannot sustain the volume of public housing. I remember Ken Davies in a briefing - or maybe it was during an appearance before the Council of Territory Cooperation - talking about the fact that, per capita, we have the highest number of units ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Home ownership: governments cannot afford to keep building public housing. We know we have a much greater need in the Northern Territory, which is why we have the volume we do, but we need to work towards, over time, encouraging people to build their own houses. We have seen some examples of this on the Tiwi Islands under leasing arrangements with the Executive Director of Township Leasing.
We know that places like the homeland of Baniyala, within my electorate, have been fraught with land tenure issues. They have been fraught not only with land tenure issues, but through the finances associated with building a house and, importantly, the access government grants that go with that. The Labor government offered to support people into home ownership. That is an area that is absolutely fraught.
Clearly, one of the big areas I know the minister will be working with is the land councils and breaking through whatever the barriers are - they can be quite complex - that are preventing people from putting infrastructure in their own communities and on their own homelands.
I want to talk about education as well. Without a doubt, it is the key to any individual’s future. It gives an individual choice, self-determination and a passport out of poverty. My mother who turned 90 - her birthday was on election night, so I was the only member of the family who was unable to get to Adelaide for that special celebration - had always told my sisters and I that the most important thing in our lives was to get an education. She knew that, coming from Manchester where she was raised as a kid, where her street was bombed endlessly during World War II and where she and her brothers and her parents somehow survived World War II.
However, they were a very poor family. She lost three younger siblings; she was the oldest in the family. Simply because they were poor, they could not access health services. Her passport out of life in a factory was provided with a scholarship by her local member, which allowed her to go to a grammar school and complete her schooling, to then go on and train as a nurse. Eventually, when she was 60 and retired from nursing, she studied at university and earned herself a degree.
This is the sort of dream anyone should be able to access - not just my mother, but these kids on communities. There is nothing different about their intelligence. There should be nothing different about their opportunity, but the reality is the circumstances in which they find themselves are different to the circumstances of kids in Nhulunbuy, Darwin or Alice Springs, and it should not be that way.
We need to be getting these kids through school and into secondary education and on to those pathways through to jobs. They need to have that opportunity for choice in their communities. If they want to study law, medicine, come to Darwin and train to be police officers then that is fantastic; they should have those choices available to them. They also need to have those choices and those pathways within their own communities.
I know that no two regions in the Northern Territory are the same; different people have different aspirations. I know the people of northeast Arnhem Land want to stay on country. The elders and the kids want to stay on their country. One of the best examples I have seen in providing those pathways - the Education minister talked about it - is through schools like Shepherdson College where they have worked very hard to build those relationships between the school, the community and the prospective employers. They involve older people from the community and parents to assist building the skills, but in a culturally appropriate way and, at the same time, really pushing the fact that kids have to acquire and learn English - scaffolding in their local language, but learning English. The school is running very successfully with the 9-3 and 3-9 Programs.
Another important thing happening in education was established by the CEO of Education a couple of years ago, Gary Barnes. Gary had established NARIS, the National Association of Remote Indigenous Schools. The remote Indigenous schools in the Northern Territory are not unlike the remote Indigenous schools in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales in building that professional network to support teachers.
Promoting exchanges across jurisdictions is really positive and is about driving the agenda for quality schools and quality teachers. Normalising our schools - of course we want to see our kids have the same opportunities, but there is no escaping the fact the context within which some of these kids find themselves in communities is very different to places down south in the bigger cities. That is where teachers and communities have to work carefully and collaboratively to ensure they are building a curriculum based on the Australian curriculum which engages those kids, fulfils their education and gets them out the door at the other end as young people who are literate and numerate in English and maths and are strong in their culture as well.
Getting kids to school has always been, and continues to be, an issue. The Education minister mentioned building flexibility into our school as we have seen at Gunbalanya with the school term. That is also reliant on the flexibility of teachers and staff. However, the more we can do that and drive those types of solutions the better the results.
To be very frank, if we can see a reduction in the number of deaths in communities we will see fewer funerals. So many of our children do not get to school because they are travelling with family to funerals. It is a very sad fact of life for so many of these kids and families that travelling to funerals is a normal part of life.
The member for Stuart mentioned, when participating in debate the other day, going to 10 funerals in some months. That is way too sad.
In relation to jobs for Indigenous people, they are potentially limited by the education people have. I suggest to the minister the reason some of these Yirrkala men are not working in places like the Pacific Aluminium mine or refinery is not so much they do not want to work, although there could be an element of that, but they do not have the literacy to be able to work in these places which are, essentially, industrially, very dangerous places. Without literacy to understand and sign-off on the safety procedures you need to follow in those places, it can make it very dangerous and a very threatening environment to go into.
Not everyone wants to work a 12-hour day, four days on, four days off. However, to its credit, Pacific Aluminium has worked successfully on programs over the years, as it should, to support Indigenous people into training and jobs. Without a doubt, those jobs and opportunities that come through housing programs and other programs on communities need to be done by the people who live there. We have to build the capacity of the local people. They should be the first priority and target for taking on those jobs, not a fly-in fly-out workforce of contractors.
I heard stories of a plumber who had to take a charter to a community to fix a single tap. The cost of that charter makes it outrageous for a job that could so capably be done by someone at that community if only they were shown how to do it and encouraged to take on responsibility for doing that job, not have the expectation that someone else will be coming to do it.
Finally, whilst this statement says much and has much vision, it is lacking in detail. What we really want to know is the how. How are you going to fix the bush in this four-year term? What are the measures, what are the targets, what are the indicators? Knowing that the minister dismisses and despises reports and bureaucracy, there is no escaping the fact you have to go down that road.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of the listening tour. We may well cross paths on that listening tour, minister, because opposition members are out there as well listening to find out what it is that people want. I can already tell you they want action and things delivered ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, your time has expired.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who is actually also my Yaye, yapa, as the member for Nhulunbuy would know, in the Yolngu Matha. In doing that, I explain my hopes for Indigenous advancement in the Northern Territory.
My dream for the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory is really no different to the dreams of anyone else in the Northern Territory. I see a generation of Indigenous Territorians armed with a good education – no, not a good education, a great education – and, with that education, a much higher standard of health. It is education that promises to forge the opportunities of tomorrow for our young people.
About 30% of the Northern Territory’s population is identified as Indigenous. That is about 70 000 people from a total resident population of around 230 000 people. However, these figures tell only part of the exciting stories of Aboriginal Territorians. More than half of those 70 000 people are under 25 years of age. More than 22 000 are under the age of 14. Take, for example, Lajamanu. It is estimated that 46% of the population of that town is less than 19 years of age, and an amazing 29% are under nine years old.
Those children are an under-appreciated asset of our great Territory and, indeed, of Australia. They are waiting for us to wake up and forge them into the productive citizens of tomorrow. It was Nelson Mandela who said that education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world. That is so true. However, I do not wish to change the world; I came into this House, on this side of the House, to create the right conditions for Indigenous Territorians to compete equally in our great country and to be considered equal in our country. I want to work with the ministers to assist, develop, and implement policies that enable the young Indigenous people of the Territory to be empowered and able to move anywhere in Australia or the world with appropriate skills. With that education will come jobs - real jobs, not manufactured jobs that patronise.
There are plenty of jobs for these young people to aspire to: jobs in tourism, national parks, mining, and frontline government services. I ask members to use their imagination. I see market gardens feeding communities nourishing vegetables. I see creating cooperatives and selling to other towns. I see communities being integral members of new mining projects, playing important employment roles in development and operations. But, they are not going to win these jobs unless they attend school with real curriculums. I dream of these young people competing for these jobs and being selected because they were the best candidates.
However, to compete equally, our young must understand that employment demands discipline. It demands that ability to get up in the morning five days a week and present for work. Interestingly, these disciplines will be learnt in turning up for school every day - like good health, good education. It is the same everywhere and we do not need to debate it.
Education has the power to be a great healer. We spend millions and millions of dollars on Indigenous health, yet still our Indigenous Territorians have appalling health problems. There are, of course, special challenges we face in achieving these goals. About 44% of all Territorians live in remote or very remote areas. The figures for Indigenous Territorians are around 80% and there are 96 locations classified as either major or minor communities. These facts bring difficulties in service delivery.
Many of the roads linking major remote towns to homelands, outstations and regional centres are cut during the Wet Season. This remoteness affects the government’s ability to provide services. Based on the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2011 update, it is estimated that the per capita cost of delivering the standard level of services in the Northern Territory is about 2.15 times higher than the national average and about 3.4 times higher in relation to welfare and housing services. This does not recognise the additional effort required to significantly reduce Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory where the gap is larger than in other jurisdictions. For example, to halve the gap in three years in reading performances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, the Northern Territory is required to improve performance by 30.1%; whereas in Tasmania a 1.6% improvement must be achieved to meet the same target.
The former government abrogated its responsibility to Indigenous Territorians. It was the same old Labor-Green formula: throw them money, throw as much money as you can at the problem and let it go away. But this is not all of the former government’s policy approach. There was another element: bury your head in the sand and hope for the best. When it comes to Indigenous affairs there are a lot of chiefs but not enough Indians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to be able to participate in a debate that has been brought to this House by an Indigenous minister of the Northern Territory government. It gives me great pleasure to be able to offer my contribution; however, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement has reminded me a number of times in the debate around alcohol and child protection that I am a mere little whitefella and I have to remind myself of that, so I will try to remember that.
In this debate the minister started talking about something that made me quite emotional - loss. In the debates over the last two weeks I have talked about loss because we all suffer loss and I have stories of loss. The minister talked about parents not being around; that is an important point. My emotion directly related to the loss of elders. I have a lot of wishes but I always wished I got to the Territory about 20 years before I did. Unfortunately I did not and I made the best of what I had. It has been a fantastic ride.
The loss of elders is one of the really important points about Indigenous disadvantage. Whilst it is a natural thing, it has had a lot of unnatural causes. I reflected on that in many ways and tried to explain it. I have been lucky to be taught by elders, taken into their confidence and taught properly both ways. I remember one gentleman who was a really serious leader which he proved by being one of the pioneers of the outstation movement and starting the outstation of Nuradidgee. He came off a celebrated lifelong career in the pastoral industry. He was a respected tribal elder; he was also a very respected stockman and pastoralist who was wanted by everyone. He chose to work most of his time at Kurundi Station, and one of the last old-guard managers at Kurundi, Mr Cairns, rewarded Jabanunga with a red Dodge truck. I am not quite sure of the year, but it was an early one. Jabanunga had operated it for years and he kept that truck on the road. It was the time in the Territory where communities were getting Toyotas. Jabanunga built his outstation off the back of the truck; he would regularly appear in Tennant Creek on a Saturday morning bringing in most of the residents on the flattop.
I have written a song about it and people love it, particularly back home. They love it because it tells a story. When I reflect on the loss of elders, there is a bit of a sad first verse:
It goes on to tell the story of Jabanunga. As I saw the loss of elders and the changes in society, I saw the challenges that arrived. We are all in this together, and we are in a new world, in a post-modern world. So, without the strong tribal traditions as a base, without the discipline, then the post-modern world has impacted on the Aboriginal world and many challenges have come in that way.
The minister talked about people not being around. I would like to add to the debate. I believe, in the post-modern era, it is way more than people not being around, it is about mobility. We cannot say we have lost everyone. The statistics provided by the member for Arnhem were fascinating in terms of that young cohort, the Aboriginal community as a young community producing many children, growing and flourishing on homelands and in towns. Many of the young ones are ‘missing in action’, but it is not all because of loss, it is about mobility.
So, the days of Jabanunga with one truck and 40 people and an outstation movement led to the community of Wutunugurra which was given a truck. There were about 150 people. Then it evolved into people starting to access individual motor vehicles.
Today, we know that in a large part of the central parts of the Territory people are recycling second-hand vehicles out of South Australia. South Australia is getting rid of all the old unsafe cars, the basic cars with limited road safety initiatives fitted to them. They are channelling them up to the Territory. Indigenous people are buying them and using them. The mobility factor is really incredible.
People are moving. For example, in Ali Curung, 220 km southeast of Tennant Creek, I can show you the same car from Ali Curung in Tennant Creek twice in the same day! That is the mobility factor I am talking about. When communities are mobile then you have stability issues about sustainability, no matter what program you try to run. Build a house, get a kid educated, or get a clinic working for a patient with chronic disease that needs serious treatment - the mobility factor is impacting.
I will add another element for the minister to consider, as the minister is in the saddle now. She is back in the saddle and the ball is in the CLP court. Now they are held accountable by the bush. It was a great win, but a win is very short-lived unless you can deliver. The next element I would like to talk about is the modern Indigenous community and what I call compulsive behaviour. Compulsive behaviour means, ‘I got to do it now’; so, I put on hold the other issues in my life, because I have to do it now. I will give you an example of that: royalty payments.
There is the true story of royalty payments paid by the Central Land Council in Tennant Creek. From far and wide across an area one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria, Aboriginal family members will come for royalty payments. I have also seen occasions when it has all been gossip and innuendo. There were no royalty payments but the word went out - the message stick I call it - and hundreds of people were mobilised to come to town for their royalty payments; but it was gossip. There was no reality to it. It was not true. Yet hundreds of people had mobilised, they all ended up in a concentrated area, they did not have the resources to stay there and did not have the resources to get home. Things started to break down, social issues came to the fore, and you read about it in the newspapers and everyone bagged Tennant Creek.
That is one small example of this modern compulsive behaviour. I say, as a whitefella in this debate, I have lectured people for years and years, ‘Hey, come on, do not do that now because the kids have to go to school and Aunty Mary has to go to the clinic and everyone is doing their job here! Wait until Saturday!’
But It does not mean much when trying to challenge what has developed into this post-modern behaviour - these two worlds, two ways. If it is fair dinkum there is not a problem, but I will still ask for consideration that perhaps it should be done outside school hours, outside the operating parameters within the community that make the community functional.
You cannot pick up wheelie bins at Alpurrurulam if you do not have any blokes or girls willing to go to work. It is as simple as that. If the reason is they had to go here, there or everywhere, it will be an ad hoc service delivery, things break down, people become disillusioned and it impacts on self-esteem and you see a compounding effect.
I will take you one step further and challenge it on cultural grounds. I am now debating young men who tell me stories that they have to go here or there for cultural reasons. Because I am only a whitefella - but am very lucky to have spent some serious time in my life with traditional elders - I challenge the young men and say, ‘No, I don’t buy that. If your grandfather was still here, he wouldn’t buy that either. That is not a real excuse for you to pack up, pull up stumps and go 200 km to another place.’
Of course, I do not win because I am only a little whitefella. The compulsive behaviour wins and that person goes and we miss young people. As the minister said, we lose them, they are gone. They get side-tracked at the roadhouse or anywhere, their wife becomes jealous, their kids miss them and everything breaks down.
These are very easy things to deal with, but it will take a bit more than listening, minister. We have done much listening. I remember when you were preselected by the Labor Party and stood for the seat of Macdonnell I listened. I remember you in parliament, I listened. I remember working with you as a Labor colleague, I listened. I remember when you left to sit as an Independent, I listened. You listened, and you backed some of the Labor policy. I remember when you jumped into here in the lead-up to the next election, became a Country Liberal Party member, and are now sitting there as we have been reminded a number of times through our debates in the last few weeks, I listened.
However, back in the saddle it is the doing time. It is not just about listening, it is about the doing. In this statement I am a little disappointed there is still much talk of listening when, really - I have been following the minister’s political career, she has done much listening. She should know now there are many solutions at her fingertips and I will play a little more politics about it.
This goes back to what I was talking about the other night, with the new members opposite representing the bush in this historical change in Northern Territory politics where the conservatives have the power, driven by Indigenous members. You have to ask what happens in the Cabinet room; ask the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, minister for child protection, Education minister. Ask how the processes happen, ask how the cake is cut up, and ensure you get your fair share. Ask questions, do not always listen, go and ask questions! Find out how things are done; who is doing the cutting and shaking. You are lucky because the minister that brought this to the House is sitting right next to the cake. Do not forget.
The only way things will change is through resources. There is no doubt about it, you need resources. However, as the new Minister for Indigenous Advancement said, new ways mean doing. We will have better solutions. We will utilise those resources better. However, you will not get past go until you get your hands on a big piece of cake, let me tell you. I have been in this game, I know how it works, and you will have to fight. Good luck.
I live in the bush, and I am waiting for it in the Barkly. I honestly say to people in the Barkly I am terrified we will starve for the next four years in the Barkly because these people - and the member for Braitling summed it up in the first Question Time. We hit him with a couple of hard questions, he ducked and weaved, came out with an attack on me, ‘I am sick of you, we did not get you, we are going after you again’.
That reinforced to me that we might be going to starve in the Barkly for the next four years because the member for Braitling did not like me winning the election. He does not like that - he made it very clear. For the people in the Barkly, I will continue to fight for you, and I hope we get our bit of cake. The only way we will get our bit of cake in the bush depends on the members opposite and our new Minister for Indigenous Advancement. Thank you, minister, and please keep me and the people of the Barkly in your thoughts.
I like the story of homelands, and I love homelands. I lived in the homelands – a wonderful place. Of my two children, one was born in a homeland. It was a wonderful experience. I remember the Minister for Indigenous Advancement in the new government put together the Stronger Futures package, and I worked on that package. When we took that out there we got slapped on homelands - there was no doubt about it. I went to forums in Tennant Creek and Borroloola and up the track, and we got slapped. That policy lacked something. The minister took off, and we had to pick up the ball and keep running with it.
What I was really proud about in the lead-up to the election we just lost - that you guys have told the story of numerous times in the last weeks - was that we massaged that homeland policy, got the Commonwealth back to the table, stumped up more cash. But, we had the thing that was missing: we were going to squeeze the resource centres ...
Ms Lee: Have you?
Mr McCARTHY: No, we lost government. We were going to start to squeeze the resource centres because I was continually debating in the Cabinet and Caucus telling the story, ‘Hey! All these guys back home are running me down, running the government down because things are not being delivered.’ Government said, ‘Well, the cheques are going in the front door, but nothing is coming out the other door’.
I was getting the blame, and it was crafted into a beautiful election strategy - and you guys can tell the story about what happened. Please, when you go back to do business with the homelands, make sure you start to squeeze the resource centres, because they were the ones that were letting communities down. I can give you example after example in the Barkly.
We are going to move on because that is a traditional way of service delivery, and this minister, in her visionary statement, has said she will challenge that directly. She definitely has that in her sights. Good. Go for it and squeeze them, make them more accountable, work with them, bring them along, share your knowledge with them, and make sure that service delivery gets better. Think creatively, because when I go back in the Barkly, people from the places I lived on 30 years ago still come up to me and say they need X, Y and Z.
The minister talked about that attitude of complaining and of asking. You have to be creative in this space. I go in and have a conversation and, if I get the traditional story - because we sit around and share stories about the old days and talk about our kids and life in general - and generally that person the minister describes in her statement quite well says they want the traditional things: bullocks, fences, bore points, Toyotas, and houses.
I say, ‘Forget that. What about we go down to the coast, we catch the biggest mob of pigs, we bring them up, let them go up the creek and then I will put a little advertisement in the German bow hunting magazine and we will get all these German bow hunters over here to shoot feral pigs up the creek and we will charge them $10 000 each. They were charging them $10 000 each back in 1998, so I reckon we will charge them $15 000 in 2013. Then if we can get Nanna to sit down and make a basket and a bow hunter’s missus comes along, let us charge them $20 000.’
Now that is the creative thinking that I am pushing out in the Barkly, around homelands. Then we can go to the higher order thinking around carbon emissions trading and carbon farming and fire abatement programs and ranger programs.
You guys are in the saddle, you have the stallions and the mares, and you have to start to think creatively around homeland developments. What the minister says about challenging that stereotypical behaviour is good. You need to be creative, make the land work for the people. Everyone comes along for the ride and that has so many opportunities. I would love to be back in the saddle, but I am back in the yards, I will be raking the yards out for a while yet. I do not know for how long, but I am good with yards. I keep a clean yard and I will be back at the ranch, guys, I will be back at the ranch. But you guys certainly have lots of opportunity.
I will talk about where the minister mentions Yirrkala in the statement, because I think it was about a person, a man, driving to work. You do not have to drive to work from Yirrkala to Nhulunbuy, you can catch the bus, put on by the Labor government through the first ever transport services in the bush, the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. Yirrkala Business Enterprises took up the challenge, created a bus run and the statistics before the election …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his support as I like to speak on these issues. The Yirrkala Business Enterprise has grabbed the opportunity, started a bus run and the statistics that were coming in just before the election showed that the majority of passengers were guys going to work. I hope there were a lot of girls going to work too, because there is a wealth of opportunities in Nhulunbuy. But it was not only workers catching the bus; it was families, kids accessing services and sports, etcetera. This bus was working and is working. The challenge is - back to the cake in the Cabinet room - to keep it going, do not let it drop.
Another part of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy was the new bus service throughout Central Australia. The Minister for Transport has the opportunity now to sit down at the end of the trial and open the books because that was the deal we made with the companies. We wanted them to open the books. The word coming out of the companies was that it was good, it was making profits. The next thing I wanted to drive into that was, I wanted workers. I reckon the Indigenous mob would make great transport operators and there were a few interested in mechanics. I wanted to be creative and was advising these bus companies to put some accommodation units in town so they could cover both ends of the bus run, and with the locals working at both ends of the run it could be a really good business outcome.
These guys will open the books with your new Transport minister very shortly. You will need to get another slice of the cake to keep the bush transport developing. There was a promise by the CLP that there would be a new transport service from Tennant Creek, to Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Tara and Munkara. I know that was a promise because I fed it to CLP people. I fed it to them and I told them the story and my dream of the new passenger freight model. It was fed to the candidate, and it was created as a promise and it is a great thing. It is a great thing, but it will require another slice of the cake, where the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Education and child protection is cutting it up nicely. Make sure you guys get a piece.
While you are talking about bus services in Central Australia, do not forget the Tiwi Ferry. I rode on it the other day, I steamed on it. It was brilliant. Member for Arafura, it was my first visit to the Tiwis. I would love to come and see you there sometime. It was fantastic. I had heard about the place. I read about the place. I had seen photos of the place and we went out there. We steamed out on the ferry and the first thing people asked us – well, not the first thing but one of the common questions was had we flown there. I said, ‘No, I’ve done 300 000 km in a Toyota in the last four years and I caught the ferry out here.’
It was a very interesting opener to the conversation. I was challenged with, ‘Did you fly? You are a politician, did you fly here?’ I said, ‘No, no, we caught the ferry. The ferry is great.’
I talked to the skipper and we talked about that regional integrated transport model. You need to continue it because it is only getting a run until the end of December and then it is up for grabs. You will need to be back at that same cake - by jingo, it will have to be a big cake. But it is a cake, it is there. Get a slice for the Tiwi Ferry because it is good. I talked to many locals when I was there about the ferry and they said it is a good alternative. They did not all want to fly. They said they need a better alternative for their kids. They wanted a different boat and we talked to the skipper about that. They said the boat is good and they want that ferry to continue. So you will need to bat for that in terms of Indigenous development.
The minister’s statement drifted in and out of education. I was very disappointed that the statement did not mention one word about Indigenous teachers. I went back to my computer and I read it again thinking I must have missed it somewhere. I asked my colleagues. So, I thought I had better raise it in the House.
I have been trying as a teacher for 33 years, to work myself into unemployment. I wanted to front up at a Centrelink office, unemployed, and say that the Indigenous mob took my job, ‘They took all the teachers’ jobs’. I say this because we know if you want to achieve the visionary outcomes in the statement from the minister you will need Indigenous teachers. You will need Indigenous health workers. As a matter of fact, the member for Arnhem summed it up: you will need to take control of communities. That means do all of the jobs.
Indigenous teachers need to be mentioned in that statement and they need to be the key pin. I will share any more ideas around education with you after today. I will sulk because I was disappointed in Question Time with the contempt shown to members of this House on the other side when the Minister for Tourism set a new benchmark that is way below zero. That was arrogant; that was insulting and I am very disappointed so I decided I am going to sulk. I will not share any more ideas with you but one. That is, if you really want to improve attendance - this is the age-old saying ‘I lived it, I worked it’ - you make the school the most exciting part of that child’s life and that child will beat you to the school gate every day.
That is all you are getting. If you lose the attitude, lose that rubbish that was in opposition and start to wise up, act like ministers of the Crown, act like Territorians with real responsibility and show some manners and deportment then we might share a few more ideas with you. Your minister for Tourism and your Minister for Transport have plenty to offer.
I am afraid the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have to face her own music after that today because that was a bit disappointing. You have plenty more to offer than that. We were looking for some answers. I am really interested in the homeland story because, as I said, we got the feds to the table, the Territory government whacked in more cash, and there were many creative ideas. There are some really good outcomes for homelands, if it is done properly, of course, with the people.
Academics and research - that was an interesting point and I take that point - but I did take offence when I watched the television. I watched the live show when the member for Port Darwin did a bit of theatrics around sipping latt coffee and pushing noses up against glass windows because, as a person who has devoted more than half of my life to Indigenous development, I felt a little insulted that he was stereotyping people like me and all other good whitefellas.
Do not forget, there are many good whitefellas who have devoted their lives. The member for Arafura will know this person very well - I only got to spend about two hours with her - Sister Anne Gardiner. We talked about all types of different things, but when the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nhulunbuy had finished their research I asked the Sister to spare me 15 minutes to tell me the story of the Tiwis from the beautiful history I have read about to all the challenges today. Sister had to compress it into 20 minutes, but there is a person who has devoted her whole life to Indigenous development and advancement.
The member for Port Darwin was insulting. What the member for Port Darwin did was a classic stereotype hypocrisy of what he had been debating the previous day when he was putting down the stereotypical, socialist Labor person. The caf latt-sipping nose-against-the-glass-window was an absolute insult and bears no benefit for debate or any real moves into Indigenous advancement. Lose it. You are a minister of the Crown now and you guys are in the saddle.
The reference to toilets and unblocking toilets - Mungoobada at Robinson River, has a policy in the store where the residents are issued with toiletries and laundry products. They found it is cheaper to issue the residents with the appropriate products than to bring in plumbers to fix blocked toilets. I picked up on that issue, and that is one way of doing it.
The mother who adopted me, Bunny Nabarula, was getting up my brother the other day because he was using baby clothes in the toilet at home. She upped him! Did she give it to him! We all celebrated and I pulled him aside and said, ‘Listen, Thomas McCarthy is a plumber’, and we talked about plumbing and he got the message. That is a good, pragmatic example. Mungoobada has a very creative solution, and I am sure the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have more.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the statement to the House.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was originally going to talk about education and homelands. Before I do, I will criticise the member for Barkly for his outrageous suggestion that Aboriginal people should collect some feral pigs and let them go. As the owner of a mango farm, I am very aware of the disease and damage feral pigs can cause. I find it outrageous someone in here would suggest something like that. The next thing he will be telling us is to farm ...
Mr HIGGINS: If I could go back to education and homelands.
Mr McCarthy: Be creative. That is not creative.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HIGGINS: If I could speak about Wadeye first. Wadeye has over 600 kids who should go to school. It was interesting when visiting in the lead-up to the election, as one of the key concerns parents had which constantly came up was there was not enough kids at school. Nobody there had a simple answer to that, but some things are being done.
Last week as you know, there was some trouble at Wadeye and there were as few as 50 kids in school at Wadeye that week. Last week saw the start of a Tracks program run under the PaCE initiative. It is an attempt to get all 22 family groups at Wadeye back to their homelands. The idea is it takes them away from peer pressure from the other groups while they are in Wadeye and to try to emphasise the importance of education for these children. They are hoping when the Wet Season arrives and they are compelled to be back in Wadeye, these kids will see the importance of school.
I will go to another community, Emu Point. One of the problems we have at Emu Point is we spent a fortune on building a school but there are no houses for the teachers. This problem relates to the land council, but we have teachers going back and forth. This is another problem which existed under the previous government. As far as I can find out, they have not attempted to overcome the problem.
If I move a little further. Closer to Nauiyu and Daly where I live, there is a community called Woodycupaldiya which is a community of about 80 people. Prior to the election, when I visited this community - which I do quite often - there were 28 kids in that community and no teacher. I assisted those people in that community to write a letter to the Department of Education and Catholic Education to see if they could get a teacher assigned to that school. I am following that up at the moment.
If I look at Nauiyu and Wooliana, we have a school that was established on the development association land some 10 or so years ago for a period of two years. That temporary school is still on that land because this previous government did not develop the local town site so this school could be relocated.
Madam Speaker, my four sons, four of my seven grandsons, and my granddaughter have all been educated in the Territory; my wife is a teacher, and I know the importance of education. Education is number one in lifting Aboriginal people out of the hole they currently find themselves in. However, we need to listen to the people and decide the best way to get them there.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement. I congratulate the minister on her success and look forward to working with her to implement our hopes and desired improvements for Indigenous advancement in the Northern Territory.
I agree with my colleague, the member for Arnhem: the future of our people is with our children. Like the member for Arnhem, I see a generation of Aboriginal Territorians equipped with an education that enables them to go confidently into the employment world. For it is education that opens our children’s minds, and open minds see opportunities with boundless horizons. Seizing that opportunity gives us options to go to places that our forefathers could never dream of.
To get to these places, we need to ensure English is taught in our schools by people who well understand where we came from and what we need to do to stride into the future. We want parents and students to understand that, without English, it is impossible to take advantage of all this great country has to offer. Therefore, we want to make the schools a better place for children to come to - a welcoming area and place that is as important as festivals and sporting events.
I would like members to look at this side of the Assembly. Here are five Indigenous members who have had some education and are able to take advantage of what that education offered. We all have walked different paths to get to this place. We all have wonderful experiences in the Northern Territory, elsewhere in Australia, and overseas. What we have in common is we managed to get a good education which gave us the foundation and confidence to step up.
I have heard people say that if we teach our children English they will lose their culture. Do we look like we have lost our culture? Between us, I think we cover most of the major cultural languages spoken in the Northern Territory, in addition to English. Far from losing our culture, we continue to strive to educate others about our culture, our land, and our people. It is interesting to see who says getting an education will mean we lose our culture. It is not the parents of children living out in the country saying this, it is people who see the Aboriginal people as ones who need to be protected and looked after.
I wish people could see more when they look at us. After all, we are all human beings. The best way to get them to wake up is for more Aboriginal people to use that education and to take leadership roles in the Northern Territory, in Australia, and around the world. I look forward to the time when we have more Aboriginal leaders in this place, people fluent in English, knowledgeable in our culture who bring their education and their culture to this place for the betterment of everyone.
I respect that people can make up their own minds and some may choose other paths in this debate; but as I said, we are all human beings. Understand it is not just about becoming a leader. We need children to be educated to fully engage in today’s world on any level. I will give you a small example, but a significant one, because we all have stories as to what education means for our people and how vitally important it is. We have stories like people coming to us to ask us when they get their new phones, ‘How can we put this together? How can we do this, can you help us?’ If our people had that education and had been taught English and had been in mainstream education they would not have needed to come to us to ask us to help them put their phones together.
If they had been taught in Warlpiri they would not have that opportunity and they would never get their mobile connected. I am not having a go at Telstra. It is the same dealing with Centrelink, banks, the hospital, MVR. What it tells us is that education is very important for our people and we need to get all our kids to school. We need to help get the message across to the parents, to the teachers and to everyone else who is related to a child to make sure children get their education and they are not treated differently.
Education is the gateway to get our people involved in real decision-making. There are priorities, health, jobs, housing, transport but education of our children is the pathway to advancement. That is a priority right now. I am in this place to support the Minister for Education and the Minister for Indigenous Advancement in achieving this special priority, the future for our children.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for her statement. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate closely and it is one that I am cognisant of, having grown up in the Northern Territory, being the former member for Macdonnell, etcetera. It occurred to me that there is potentially a really useful doctoral thesis that might develop out of this debate - and for those who are not aware, my areas of major study when I did my Bachelor of Arts were history and political science and I have read a great deal of history since getting my Bachelor of Arts. I am sitting here contemplating the nature and development of European society as well as non-European society in Australia, and it occurred to me that the basis for a doctoral thesis would be a useful study of the way welfarism has grown philosophically in the West and the resultant impact on colonised societies.
The reason I go down this path is that welfarism is quite new, even in Western society. It is extraordinarily new; it is a very recent product. I ask honourable members to bear with me while I engage in a bit of reflection. If you think about any hunter-gatherer tribal society that predated any form of ploughing the fields, etcetera., the similarities to what the anthropological record tells us in Europe and what was happening in Australia and Africa are, in many respects, parallel. But one of the consistent things you would have seen through this process of examining each of these communities is that none of these communities could afford any form of welfare.
There is considerable suggestion that prior to cultivation of crops, many societies were quite harsh on the young and the old. The old were looked after as far as they possibly could be but when they ultimately became such an extreme burden their passage from the corporeal world into the next world was fairly quick, done by a myriad of means - I am talking about societies in Africa and the suggestions of what occurred in Europe – as a small group could not afford to have people waiting on them.
Then there is the addition of crops, the farming revolution of about 10 000 years ago which is really the basis for Western and Middle Eastern civilisation. Did that enable huge amounts of wealth to be generated? To a degree, yes. But even the wealth that was generated with cropping and through agricultural development over the 10 000 years prior to the rise of any of the great civilisations still did not generate sufficient wealth to have large numbers of a population dependent on the rest of the population.
Cast your mind forward and look at the Mesopotamian civilisation. You go so far as to look at the rise of civilisation in North Africa and the shape of the Egyptians. Did they generate enough wealth to have a large part of the population dependent on another part of the population? Surely there was a priesthood which enjoyed benefits of providing a service for which they were not actually productive, but it was a tiny slice of the population. So, an agrarian society, even the one that built the pyramids, could not carry much surplus in terms of carrying extra people.
A step forward in time again to about 2000 years ago, you then have the rise of – well, 2500 years ago, the Greek city-states - Rome. Even those societies, which were highly advanced and highly civilised - never seen before on the face of the earth - still could not afford to underwrite a large slice of the community being unproductive. They could support armies but only so far as those armies were generating wealth for themselves, essentially by raping and pillaging the next door neighbour; but there was insufficient surplus. In fact, Roman society was so poor at generating wealth that it continued to rely on an unpaid workforce in the form of slaves.
Wind the clock forward again and it is not until we get to the Industrial Revolution - we are now only talking about 200 years ago - even 200 years ago, Western civilisation, the rise of the British Empire; we are talking within only a few generations back, yet there was still no large or obvious welfare state being generated by the industrial revolution period. It is only in the post-Industrial Revolutionary era - I am now talking as late as the 1930s - that we start to get a sense of the rise of welfarism as a concept. Welfare as a concept, charity aside - charity has been around for a long time, but charitable acts were small acts and they were restrained because you could only demand a small amount. Even Islam was not prepared to go beyond a certain very strict set of rules about how you should conduct yourself morally in the drawdown on your personal wealth. It required moral codes, but the drawdown on personal wealth was limited.
The church, during the Dark Ages, would seek a tithing - a 10th of the community’s income to sustain it. That is far less than state taxes today.
It is not until you get to the 1930s and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the United States, which was a response to the Great Depression, that you start to see a massive rise in the concept of welfarism in Western civilisation. I suggest in countries that are still rising, such as India, welfarism is still only a slither of what is available because the wealth generation capacity of that country is still not sufficient to underwrite a large, non-productive component of society. The rise of machines and productivity - we only have to look around us to see what the post-Industrial Revolution can achieve. Our computers, cars, machines, telephones, manufactured goods show we live in an age of unprecedented wealth.
I will give you a comparison. China, which is the great growth nation everyone says is doing really amazingly, currently has an annual average income of about $3500. The United States has an average annual income of about $35 000. Whilst China is growing, it is coming from a really low base. Whilst it is nominally a communist state, which means it is, by its very essence, welfare-oriented to the whole community, it is still struggling to meet its fundamental obligations under a communist regime. The quality of care out of that communist state is nothing like the quality of care wealthy Western countries generate for looking after their old, young, infirm, insane and unemployed.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was a product of a capacity to make a promise the Western civilisation could not make up until the 1930s without any certainty. Certainly, there was much pressure because of the circumstances, but for the first time a command economy which he was essentially arguing for, was able to generate a protection for those people who had fallen through the net. It was able to do it because it was wealthy enough. Even in the times of the Depression there was still enough wealth being generated.
The 1930s is 70 years after the Northern Territory was originally settled by Europeans, the Germans in the Hermannsburg area. Hermannsburg - you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out this is a German town. You have Cleophas Ebataringa and Heinrich Ebataringa if memory serves me. The German connection is there.
Even where you have Anglican missions and Lutheran missions all around the Territory, many of these places were settled before there was a constructed concept of welfare. For example, in the Hermannsburg area, the Ntaria area, where the missionaries originally settled, they did not come with an idea of some form of welfare in the sense it would be this passive environment. They arrived, saying, ‘We have a new way of living. Our job is a missionary job, will convert you to Christianity, but will also organise you in such a fashion that you will be safer, more sedentary, and you will not be moving around as much as you used to do, but we still expect you to make an effort.’
Because you had people in Hermannsburg like Albrecht, and Gary Stoll in the latter years - those people who dedicated decades of their lives to their missionary work - over the generations you had a couple of things running in parallel so you had a total acceptance that you still worked.
Aboriginal people worked bloody hard before the settlement of Europeans. The reason they worked bloody hard is if they did not work hard they died; they starved to death - very straightforward investment economy. Proto-capitalism if you like; the unit of currency is the calorie.
You have 2000 calories and you invest that in going out and collecting food, if you are a lady; or as a gentleman you would go out occasionally, hunting kangaroos. If they came back with a kangaroo – huge return on investment. How many calories in a kangaroo? Probably about 20 000 - huge return on investment. However, you were not guaranteed a return on investment. If you came back empty-handed and the ladies did not do so well either, you got hungry. A successful capital investment for a pre-settlement Aboriginal person was an investment of calories which returned a profit. As a result of that profit, your lifestyle improved. You could sit down, do ceremony, take it easy for a few days; life was better.
If your return on calories was about the effort you put in, the next day the first thing you had to do was go out hunting, go out gathering again - straight up and down investment economy. Do you know what happens in an investment economy if your investment does not pay off? Your business folds or, in the case of Aboriginal people, they starve to death. But, they worked; they understood the work ethic.
When Europeans moved into the area, either through the cattle industry or through the missionary process, because there was no Western cultural predisposition to welfare, there was never a question that these people were going to work. What they were doing, what the ethic was, was different. In the case of Hermannsburg vegetables were grown, cattle was mustered, a tannery was run, the workshops were run, but you were still required to work. If you see the photographs of the people who lived there in the early 1800s – obesity? Oh, no – lean, healthy-looking, but lean people. These people were used to working and they were used to making an effort.
Of course, the Western missionaries had never heard of welfare. They had heard of charity, but not welfare. The Western missionaries did not think they were going to rescue these people by just putting them into a corner. No, come to Christ but, whilst you come to Christ, grow some vegetables, go to school. When I became the member for Macdonnell some of the very old people still had handwriting that looked like calligraphy. My handwriting looks like an epileptic spider crawled out of an ink well and then stumbled across a page; their handwriting was spectacular. The reason their handwriting was like that was because they understood what writing was for; because they sent messages. Letters, instructions were sent out to people working in the field. They were written instructions so the person at the receiving end of the instruction said, ‘I understand what this means’. There was a contextual environment in which writing could be understood, so the education meant something.
If you do not use education, you forget what it is about. When I was in high school I was really good at something called a quadratic equation. Frankly, I would not know what one looked like now, because I have not used it since the day I left high school. I use arithmetic and my literacy on a daily basis, and I am as fluent in those as I was when I was taught - and probably more fluent. Education needs an environment in which to work.
What happened in the 1930s was that the whole West - particularly after World War II, because they were all feeling guilty about World War II, and it was a big mess - had this new command economy structure working where we could then take volumes of wealth from one group of people and, in the name of equality and decency and motivated by the very good motivations that drive charity, we said to these people, ‘We have done you wrong. We have come into your country; we have stolen your country; we have taken your kids. It is time to - as Peter Garratt would say – pay it back.’
The way that was done was well-meaning; it was a deliberate decision to fix the mess that our forefathers, the colonists made. They were feeling a bit guilty about it.
It is now the early 1970s, welfarism has grown for a couple of decades after World War II. It is a new concept in the West. It has only been around for 30 years or so, but we can share some of the wealth and we are going to share it around. That is what they did. We thought we were going to build houses for these people, give them an income, build schools and health clinics.
Despite the fact our expenditure went up, up, up, our results went down, down, down. Why is it that a missionary educated kid from the 1950s and 1960s had a better level of education and a better understanding on how to survive in the world when they had bugger-all opportunities other than what they learnt at the mission school, and was 10 times better educated than what is coming out of the local Hermannsburg school now? If you look at the NAPLAN results, forget it.
What has happened, why does expenditure go up and results go down? If you look at the economics text books of the 1960s and the 1950s, there is a belief that economics and humanity are completely separate things. Economics over here, humanity is over there and use economics to get better human results. They describe it. They actually had a machine built in the 1960s with coloured fluids flowing through to teach you about economics in university. You turned this switch over here, which would be your policy switch, and you changed that policy switch over there and water would pour out that end of the machine. Economic students used to have to study this machine. Each switch would have a name. If you set the settings, water would pour out the other end. They believed that was how economics worked. So if you set all the switches for the welfare state, water would pour out over here, everyone would be happy because that is the result you wanted.
But it abandons the concept of the complexities humans bring to any environment. You cannot be that simple. So what happens next? Whilst I am speaking in generalities myself, you cannot predict outcomes the way they look in the first instance. For example, I have some money, you have no money; if I give you some of my money we will both have half the amount of money, that is true. Give it a bit of time, it is our humanity that determines whether we keep that money, increase the amount of money or lose it.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members. So, I reckon that if you got all the money in the world right now and divided it up amongst everyone equally, within a year that equality would be gone. Many people will have lost it, some will have accumulated a bit more, some will have accumulated a great deal. The chances are the people who have accumulated a great deal now will probably be the same people who accumulate a great deal again.
The fact is, we as a people, as a species if you like, have always worked. We have worked throughout all human history for all human history, with the exception of the last 200 years, for one: to survive. Work has been the difference between being alive and being dead. It is, I suggest, woven into our DNA that we must work as a species. Certainly it is woven into my personal psyche and I assume that it is woven into the personal psyche of many other people.
If you look at the motivations behind the American Revolution it was not about avoiding work, it was about avoiding oppression. The assumption throughout that whole period of the American Revolution was that you were responsible for your own actions. You were allowed to have life, liberty and you were allowed to pursue happiness. They are the words of the Declaration of Independence.
The presumption is that you work, you become responsible, so if you make it turn to rubbish, you are held to be responsible for it. But we have not done that in the last 40 or 50 years in this new age of welfarism. We have been very clumsy about it all around the world. This is not just Aboriginal people; you want to see this in Brixton, London and Harlem, New York. We say to people, ‘Do not worry about it. Just sit over there. We will give you some money we will look after you.’
Some people, a few, will accept it. I do not know what the percentage is, but a slice of that group will accept that money and sit down and be engaged in - the Aboriginal people have a great term for it - ‘sit down money’.
That then strips you - as you sit there sedentary position you start to decay. Slowly, things start to collapse. Education means less, it is no longer relevant; you do not have a job. Health does not matter so much. Can you imagine that a really healthy guy, or someone who can run a full marathon and bench-press 150 kg at Yuendemu has a chance of having a better life than the guy who has just been grog running all night and sitting at the boundary fence? There is no difference because their life is completely managed for them beyond that difference. There is no freedom in saying to people, ‘You have a choice between option A and option B, but whatever happens, whatever decision you make, option C will be the result’.
It deprives you of a reason and a capacity, to make a choice. Choices no longer matter; someone else fixes it for you. I understand what the member for Barkly is saying when he celebrates the fact - I think that is the word he used - that someone did not clog up a loo with baby clothes. You know what? We should set the benchmark a little higher than celebrating the fact that someone did not clog up the loo with baby clothes.
Look at where Aboriginal people are put under pressure. I pick up the fact that you talked about Robinson River, because I know Bill South particularly well; I remember him from Finke. He puts pressure on the people there, but he still gives them the right to make their own decisions. He will tell them what a bad decision is, but he will guide them through to good decisions. What Bill South achieves is as a result of putting pressure on people saying, ‘You have the responsibility to do this stuff’. He is great at leading this. The problem is that if he moves on from one community to the next, that community decays again. I am not criticising Bill South because, realistically, what is required to get that long-term sort of development, local management structure in place is probably intergenerational.
There are ways to advance that more quickly. This is why I argue for a change to welfare, so that welfare is worked for. I am not saying get rid of welfare, but make sure that welfare payment is still the product of some effort, so there is a link between effort and income. At the moment, that link does not exist; it is gone.
If you are able to make that change, the corrosive element of all these other government policies we pursue will also be gone. Will people like it when we ask them to work for their welfare? By the way, I argue for this on a national scale. I do not want it just to apply to a racial group and if it was to be done in the Northern Territory, I would expect it to operate in Nightcliff, in Casuarina, in Alice Springs and in Yuendemu.
If people understood they still have to make some effort for their income, it would not be long before all of the expenditure and all of the other areas would start to work. The schools would start to mean something. The houses we build would be the ones we work on and people would get used to looking after them, because there was no other choice, they had to work.
I do not want to be seen as someone who bashes up on people by saying all these people are ‘dole bludgers’ – I do not like that term. But clearly through the clumsy use of a very recent policy on a global scale in the way that Western civilisation works, its product is the antithesis of what it was trying to achieve. ‘Support and care’ was the motive; ‘death and mayhem’ has been the product. So, it is time we become realistic about the construction of welfare and how we do it. We understand economics and human conduct are inextricably linked; they are like two faces of the same coin. It is time to finesse and change the way we do these welfare payments.
I am not an advocate for the abolition of welfare, but we must start to understand the human component of effort, and the human component of self-worth is inextricably linked with the human need to be productive. I suspect it is an evolved condition. For the first time in human history, only in the last 50 or 60 years, we have allowed large numbers of humans, particularly in Western civilisation, to be unproductive. The lack of productivity has killed, I suspect, more people through their own attendant self-neglect, indifference and decay than any number of other government policies.
It is for this reason I believe, whilst there is still a capacity for any government to readjust the wealth to a degree so some people can be looked after, that ‘looking after’ does not mean a Santa Claus approach to gift giving. It means we say there is still an exchange, there is a contract which means we will give you something. We will help you with your housing, with some income, but only if you make an effort in return.
That is part of the social contract we all have with our communities, with our state as a Territory, with our state as a nation, and with each other as individuals.
If you are able to capture that through modifying what is a particularly new policy in the Western world, you would be able to get yourself to a much better place than we have achieved. It still remains to me an absolute anathema that we spend so much more than we have traditionally spent on Aboriginal people yet we continue to produce such awful and dreadful results. It does not work. Re-tweak the system, make it work whilst you acknowledge the nature of humanity - that economics and humanity are woven like the weave of fabric, and you will be astonished about the things that could be achieved.
It is something Mr Pearson has talked about in far north Queensland. The more I contemplate it, the more certain I am that sort of approach would be much more correct than what we are doing at the moment.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I place on record something that was said in Question Time today by the member for Nhulunbuy to the Chief Minister. A question was asked with some kind of implication on my CEO. I quote from Hansard the question asked by Ms Walker to the Chief Minister:
I place on the public record that I am really offended by the member for Nhulunbuy saying I have dumped security of Indigenous services on my CEO. My CEO is a hard-working public servant working with me to ensure my wishes are carried out and Indigenous Territorians receive services in a timely and efficient manner. He is not to be used for political scoring simply because the member for Nhulunbuy is desperate for a sensible argument.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will talk about science, science education in particular. I am speaking as the member for Goyder and on behalf of the schools in my electorate which are Bees Creek Primary School, Sattler Christian School, Taminmin College, St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary School, Humpty Doo Primary School, Middle Point Primary School and, to some extent, Girraween Primary School because many of the families in my electorate feed into that school.
The reason I am speaking this evening is to highlight the issues and urge the Minister for Education to reconsider one of the positions it appears may be taken away - the person with the CSIRO science education centre based near Berrimah. The minister commented in parliament yesterday there may be savings required of departments - and I accept that - the statement has been that frontline people will not be affected. The minister commented that the position at CSIRO is not a frontline service. I beg to differ, and will explain why and give evidence and documentation to demonstrate this position is a frontline position and a very important one.
If the manager position at CSIRO science education centre goes and funding for the position does not continue, there is a likelihood the CSIRO’s science education centre will be unable to function as it has done for the past 23 years, and the possibility it may close. This will mean no access for Northern Territory students and teachers to national science resources and programs delivered through the CSIRO science education centre in Darwin. There are CSIRO science education centres in all states and territories throughout Australia. The science education manager position in the Northern Territory is responsible for the implementation of the following:
1. The delivery throughout the whole of the Northern Territory, including urban, regional and remote government and non-government schools, of 19 school Hands on Science programs which includes pre- and post-teacher notes based on the Australian curriculum. In the past year, 12 000 Territory students were actively involved in these programs.
2. The Double Helix Science Club and related activities offers a range of engaging hands-on science events and activities for school-aged children from ages seven up from the education centre in Berrimah, and also in regional centres across the Northern Territory.
3. Linking teachers to the Scientists in Schools and Mathematicians in Schools programs. These programs create and support long-term partnerships between scientists or mathematicians and teachers in primary and secondary schools. The partnerships are supported by resources, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face events. This program links into the Science as a Human Endeavour strand, again, in the Australian Curriculum.
5. Professional development and support for science programs based on the Australian curriculum for all teachers in government and independent primary and secondary schools throughout the Northern Territory.
A further point: the chairman of National Science Week in the Northern Territory - the manager of the CSIRO centre - is involved in coordinating funding for National Science Week and organising community activities in the Northern Territory for students and the general public. If we do not have this person in a coordinating role at the science centre, then National Science Week will fail in the Northern Territory. That is not acceptable to schools, teachers and parents, and it should not be acceptable to the government.
Delivery of CSIRO school holiday programs involves the following organisations: Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, the City of Darwin, Palmerston Library, Darwin Waterfront Corporation and the YMCA.
Finally, the manager at the centre delivers in-kind support to the Northern Territory Space School engineering challenge, Young Scientists Awards night, sustainability school summits, school science fairs and Teddy Bears’ Picnic.
In regard to school science fairs, it was only a short while ago we had Taminmin College Science Fair, which is now in its third year. I was there. They have much sponsorship from exploration mining companies, local businesses, and ministers attend - in the past the Chief Minister has attended. It is a huge educational event which is going ahead in leaps and bounds. They link directly into the CSIRO science centre and that position. That science fair will struggle in the future if it does not have the support.
The above programs, activities and resources delivered by the CSIRO science education centre will not be available in their current form to Northern Territory students, schools, and the wider community if funding is not provided for the manager’s position. As I said, this is a frontline position.
I urge the minister, and her office, to obtain a copy of the annual report of the CSIRO education centre. I seek leave to table these three papers. The education centre delivered school programs to 8000 students across the Northern Territory. There were 12 702 participants across all Northern Territory CSIRO education centre programs. That is just an example.
During National Science Week, as I mentioned before, the Double Helix Science Club activities continue to run across the NT programs in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. Jim Findlay and Paul Lyons have toured both regional and remote schools in Alice Springs, Katherine, Jabiru, Millingimbi, the Tiwi Islands, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Non-metropolitan schools account for 44% of school visits, which was an increase of 33% on 2010. The Northern Territory CSIRO education centre continued to deliver its Dry Season holiday show at the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory.
From September onwards, manager Paul Lyons, was involved in training to present the national CSIRO education program CarbonKids. In 2012, it was hoped 15 schools throughout the NT would engage in this program; however, this is now in question.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table these three pages from the CSIRO education annual report for 2011.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: In closing, I highlight the work this centre and this one person does and how he links into schools, not only in the urban areas, but also in rural and remote areas. They work in clusters and the schools visited in 2011 came from the Dessert Storm Cluster. The minister would be interested to know schools affected by the withdrawal of this position will be: Araluen Christian School, Bradshaw Primary School, Braitling Primary School, Centralian Middle School, Larapinta Primary School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, Ross Park Primary and Tennant Creek High School. They comprise the Desert Storm Cluster.
There are also the Rivers and Arnhem Clusters. There is a rural cluster, in which I have particular interest, which is Bees Creek, Berry Springs, Girraween, Good Shepherd, Howard Springs, Litchfield and Taminmin. There is a Palmerston cluster, a Darwin city cluster and a northern suburbs cluster. These schools visited the centre in one year: nine from Alice Springs, six from Rivers and Arnhem, seven from rural, six from Palmerston, 13 from Darwin city and 14 from the northern suburbs.
This person occupies a frontline position. Science is fundamental to the future of the Northern Territory. We have a major gas project on our doorstop and want to recruit and train our own and keep them here. If we do not have people in these positions working with schools we will struggle. We will have a brain drain and people will leave the Territory and send their students to high school elsewhere if they cannot get the right programs in the Northern Territory.
It may be because departments have pressure on them to make savings, they thought one person at Berrimah did not really do too much - get rid of him. I urge the minister to take this on board. It is a serious issue; it is a frontline position and the minister should state publicly, if she could, that we will hang on to this position.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are worried that education frontline services are being compromised. Student Services, which helps teachers work with students with special needs and behavioural problems, and its support, which ensures teachers can deliver a quality education to all their students, are being compromised. All students and their families have a right to classroom support. The CLP reduced the number of staff in Student Services. In the Barkly we have heard it is going from 24 to 13, and it has split Student Services in two for efficiency. That worries us. To save money, the government is reducing support for teachers and making the job of teachers more difficult.
As well as cutting Student Services, the CLP is targeting science, an attitude beyond reason from a past century. Science education is crucial to Territory students taking on the world and taking up world-class opportunities. Today’s students have exciting science career opportunities within the Northern Territory. We live in one of the few cities in the world named after a scientist; we should be investing in science, not cutting it.
The CLP does not value education’s relationship with the CSIRO and believe it is past its use-by date. This answer confounds and worries us. Science does not have a use-by date. This attitude has seen the manager position at CSIRO education NT gone, and puts at risk the CSIRO education centre and popular science programs such as the Double Helix Science Club.
I thank the member for Goyder because, by listing the things the CSIRO education centre and the manager position do, saves me some time in what I was going to say. Science teachers, parents and kids have started a campaign against this because this frontline service helps our children learn. That is what a frontline service is all about. This is literally at the frontline teaching kids.
There is a petition against this at ipetitions.com. With the time I have, I would like to quote some of the comments from parents, teachers and science students in that petition.
We have been contacted by numerous science teachers, parents and students who all talked about the importance of the CSIRO manager position - how important that position is, what that person does, and, through that person, what the CSIRO does, how much relies on that position and what it does.
We do not believe it is too late. The new government is on a savings mission. This, clearly, should fall within the saving measures the department is taking up and the government is looking at. I hope it is not too late to save this position.
A number of science teachers, parents and students hope it is not too late to save this position and, through this person, the educational opportunities afforded to our students. If we are going to take advantage of the world-class opportunities coming to the Northern Territory at the moment - because we have world-class projects in the Northern Territory - we need to keep investing in science. We hope it is not too late to save it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I would like to respond to a few comments made earlier this evening. One is from the member for Fannie Bay about student support services. One position in the whole of the Northern Territory has moved sideways into a principal’s position - one position has been changed which was directly linked to student support services.
The presentation by the member for Fannie Bay suggested other positions have been lost. Only one Northern Territory government-funded position connected to student support services has been sacrificed as a result of the savings. The person in the position was not sacked; they were moved sideways into a principal’s position. There is some confusion because a number of Commonwealth government positions have concluded. The funding was not there to continue the positions and they have ended - no further funding from the Commonwealth.
This is a phenomenon the former government is familiar with - the fact the Commonwealth comes in very kindly, through the different programs it offers - the Stronger Futures program for example, offering a very limited funding arrangement and positions are connected with that limited funding. It is not about the Northern Territory government ceasing funding or sacking people; it is about the Commonwealth offering money on the basis it ends at a particular time.
The member for Fannie Bay has provided parliament with incorrect information when it comes to student support services. One position has been lost through the austerity measures the Department of Education and Children Service’s has had to make due to the problems inherited from the former government.
The educator’s position employed by the Department of Education and Children Service’s connected to the CSIRO has been lost through these austerity measures as the members for Fannie Bay and Goyder mentioned. There is much personal connection to this position, obviously. He listed many personal comments made to him about people’s sense of loss, frustration, sadness, even anger about the loss of this position. The information we received from the Department of Education and Children’s Services is this position has been there for a long time - decades in fact - about 20 years. It is a piece of history. However, like many things that have been around for a long time, they come to an end. The information we received was this position has reached its use-by date. It was being superseded because students and families now access information about science in many different ways.
The member for Fannie Bay was almost suggesting the CSIRO, in its entirety, is going to disappear - it is not. The CSIRO will continue to be there. One position being removed does not mean the whole establishment falls over and people stop learning from the CSIRO. That is taking things a little too far. We have been assured by the Department of Education and Children’s Services that teachers, on an individual basis, probably a school-by-school basis, will still access the resources of the CSIRO; they will still connect students, children, and families, to the resources of the CSIRO. There is absolutely no doubt, from the intelligence we are receiving, that the connection will still be there.
We are talking about one person in one position; we are not talking about the breakdown or taking away the service and the connection it may or may not have with the community. To base the success of the CSIRO in connecting with the community on an educational basis entirely on one position and one person is taking it a step too far. It is overstepping the mark. It is a sad experience for people who have had a wonderful learning journey with the manager of the CSIRO education service that it is over; it has come to an end. The stories the member for Fannie Bay told of people valuing that service, that person who was a conduit between CSIRO and education, are good stories which should be cherished. With any loss, you can assume people will have a sense of grief and sadness.
I take on board the comments made by the Member for Fannie Bay, but you have slightly exaggerated the overall impact of the loss of this position. Things will continue; people will still learn from the CSIRO. If the CSIRO felt the whole service was falling apart we would be hearing from it regarding a perceived loss of overall effectiveness and connectedness with the community. That is just not the case. I hear what you are saying, member for Fannie Bay, but I believe you are very wrong.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the people of Wanguri for putting their trust in me for a fifth time to represent them in this parliament. It is a great honour, and I thank the people of my electorate for putting their trust in me for another term. I look forward to working hard for them.
This evening I will mention a couple of things. First, Henbury School has just celebrated its 30th anniversary in Wanguri. It is an amazing school in my electorate looking after some very special kids. It is a special needs school. To the principal, Carolyn Edwards, and everyone at the school, it was a great night. I was pleased to donate the cake and celebrate the 30th anniversary with you.
At Leanyer Primary School in my electorate, we have a new principal this year, Anne Tonkin. Congratulations, Anne, on your new role and challenge leading a great school after having to take over from the incomparable Henry Gray. Those are very big shoes to fill and welcome.
I congratulate the school’s Tournament of Minds winning team. They won the regional competition. I congratulate: Connor Farmer, Zara Hollis, Lydia Gliddon, Maya Picton, Penny Battersby, Matthew Gibbon and Taylah Cochrane. Also, congratulations to the teachers who supported them: Helen Bevan, Sharon Groll and Kristy Cochrane.
Tonight I also want to put on the record tonight my surprise at the opening of this Assembly - a change of government. The Address-in-Reply speech given to parliament by our Administrator, a speech outlining the government’s priorities for the next four years, had no mention of statehood. Looking through the Hansard of the Chief Minister’s contribution to the debate, there was no mention of a pathway to continue our progression towards statehood. Tonight, I am calling on the Chief Minister, in our next sittings in November, to outline a clear path as to where this parliament is heading towards statehood.
I remind honourable members this parliament passed into law the Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill in November last year. There was much controversy about that legislation. I will not go through that again; however, there was a very clear commitment from the now Chief Minister in debate that progression towards statehood and the holding of a Constitutional Convention would be a priority for the Chief Minister if the CLP were to win government, which it has.
I will quote from the Chief Minister’s speech in the second reading. He said:
That is, statehood. He talked about Bernie Kilgariff:
These are the words of the then Opposition Leader, the now Chief Minister. He went on to say:
He went on to say:
Chief Minister, I look forward to the mini-budget on 4 December.
I say to the new Chief Minister, it was good to be at the launch of the book Speak for Yourself, where the previous eight Chief Ministers, including me, were interviewed by my predecessor, Clare Martin, and Mickey Dewar. The one thing across the political divide - apart from Paul Everingham, a CLP chief minister - all the CLP Chief Ministers, Clare Martin, me, were united that we will never be independent in the Northern Territory until we achieve statehood. For every Chief Minister, the path to statehood has to be of utmost priority.
The Chief Minister will learn over the next four years that in regard to the relationship between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth, we are always second class constitutional citizens regardless of who is in power in Canberra. If and when the political need arises in Canberra, the Territory is always there to be imposed on, intervened on, or overruled. The relationship between the Northern Territory government and the federal government in Canberra will never be on an equal footing in relation to respect for Territorians or this parliament until we achieve statehood.
To be generous to the Chief Minister, I congratulate him on winning the election. I have bumped into the Chief Minister at a number of functions and, genuinely, I give him my best wishes as Chief Minister. Perhaps it was an oversight in the excitement of achieving government, but the Chief Minister purports to be a man of his word and a man of integrity. That was tested in some of the decisions he made at the beginning of his term of office, but he has been very clear in the language I have used tonight - his words - that as early as possible, without delay, it is of the highest priority to hold a Constitutional Convention and map out, in a bipartisan way with the opposition and the member for Nelson, a path towards statehood. Of all priorities, this should not be dropped.
I urge the Chief Minister - I will be reading the book over the next few weeks - to learn from history, to learn from his peers before him, who have all stated clearly in that book the relationship between the Northern Territory government and the federal government is out of kilter. It is out of whack.
The relationship always means until we achieve statehood, we are second-class citizens in the constitution and second-class citizens as Australians. This parliament does not have the respect of whatever government is in place in Canberra. It can overturn our legislation, has done in the past and will in the future. When it needs a distraction from the national political debate, there is always an opportunity to pick on the Northern Territory as part of a political distraction. Territorians deserve statehood.
Chief Minister, I am looking forward to the mini-budget on 4 December. I know there is a budget ask there. All the work has been done to hold a Constitutional Convention. The Chief Minister’s pledge to the people of the Northern Territory:
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, on 19 October 2012, I attended the business Middys Data and Electrical at 25 Toupein Road in Yarrawonga to open its new retail lighting showroom. You will, no doubt, recognise the famous Middy’s brand by its bright pink branches, one of which is also located off Bishop Street.
The history of the pink branding is very interesting and dates back to the late 1940s when an old ex-Postmaster General’s van was purchased to run deliveries of stock. The van was a bucket of rust and in need of desperate repairs. Body bog and auto paint primer were used to cover rust spots. These large patch-ups were the start of the iconic pink branding. I understand the van looked rather ridiculous spotted with pink so the remaining auto paint primer was applied to the remainder of the vehicle, and therein lies the genesis of this highly visible, highly recognisable and highly effective branding.
I was greeted at Middy’s by Nicholas Middendorp who is a very down-to-earth and kind man. Nicholas travelled to Darwin for the opening of the showroom, an accomplishment he is tremendously proud of. It is amazing to see a man whose family has opened over 92 stores around the country still genuinely excited about the addition of a retail lighting showroom to the Yarrawonga premises. It was inspiring to see his commitment to exceptional service delivery.
This retail lighting showroom is yet another innovation of the company whereby its core customers, trades people, can bring their clients into the store for a walk through the products available on the market. These products include standard light fittings through to sensor activated lighting and, impressively, remotely activated electrical products. I spent quite some time with Nicholas and was swept up in his enthusiasm and passion for the work Middy’s do, service they provide, products they sell and, importantly, the long-term relationship they have with other businesses with which they trade, such as Pierlite, HPM and Clipsal.
It was amazing to hear the story of this family and their relationship with other electrical pioneering families of our great country. I was given a lovely book titled Middendorp Electric: 80 years in 2008 - 90 branches in 2011 and will read a couple of paragraphs from it to capture the journey of this, Australia’s largest privately-owned independent electrical wholesaler run by second and third generation Middendorps. I quote:
In 1999, Middy’s ventured to the Territory and purchased JR Lighting and Electrical, which added two new stores to its ranks. In 2007, these stores became fully incorporated into the Middy’s company.
In 2011, Middy’s employed nationally some 508 staff, and I have no doubt this number has significantly increased to date.
I will quote from several testimonials contained in the Middy’s commemorative book:
Further along:
I quote from Jim Johnson, now of HPM:
Further on:
I took away some very clear messages from my time at Middy’s Data and Electrical that day. First, Middy’s has strong core family values and, at their heart, they respect the journey Petrus took in 1928 and never lost sight of that lineage, family integrity and pride. Second, Middy’s had tremendous foresight and an ability to innovate and expand its business in a way many other Australian family businesses envy. Third, Middy’s has business confidence and confidence in the economic growth of Palmerston and the rural area, which is important and will inspire confidence in the surrounding business community.
To Nicholas, your family, and your staff, thank you for investing your family’s future in the Territory, and for having the confidence to invest in Palmerston, which gives Territory families the opportunity to gain meaningful employment, quality resources, and quality products.
In early 2002, the Board of the Australian Institute of Management Queensland and Northern Territory established a Young Manager Advisory Board. For ease of reference, I will herein refer to the Australian Institute of Management as AIM. AIM has long acknowledged the connection between the participation of young managers and the vitality and engagement of the management community it seeks to serve. It is no secret that young managers bring fresh thinking to standard issues and concerns, with a unique insight into tackling issues and creating opportunity. The formation of the Young Manager Advisory Board is a reflection of the commitment AIM has to improving the way the institute supports managers in the early stages of their careers.
After a rigorous recruitment process, and from a shortlist of more than 50 candidates, I and six others were selected to be foundation members of the board. The Young Manager Advisory Board has brought together a dynamic diverse group of outstanding next generation managers from across Queensland and the Northern Territory. Together, we possess exceptional management qualities and a positive approach to leadership but, more importantly, a passion for engaging with young managers to share our experiences and knowledge in ways which will see them shine in the future.
As an advisory board, we are charged with providing advice and counsel to the governing board of AIM on issues which relate to the development of young managers. We are encouraged to voice our opinion on the profession and challenges of management, and to identify initiatives for young managers which will benefit AIM and grow membership in the young member demographic. As a group, we have already met four times this year, including two regional locations of Cairns and Toowoomba. Next year, we will meet six times and, again, regions will focus heavily on that schedule, including a meeting in Darwin.
Ensuring the Young Manager Advisory Board is more than a token gesture of the organisation, we, the board, have identified four priorities for our first term including:
1. identifying and recalibrating an appropriate value proposition to target young members of the institute, including a review of pricing options
In the next four weeks we will be launching our second initiative, the AIM at 30 list - 30 managers under 30 making a mark. This list has already unearthed some incredible talent in young people who are actively engaging with their organisations, communities, and building their networks for the future. I am looking forward to interviewing some of these candidates in the coming weeks to find our final top 30.
However, it is not all about what we are giving to the institute and members at large. Being a member of an advisory board for an institution such as AIM has already been an excellent learning journey for each of us in our own ways. We have been exposed to some of the top managers and leaders in business across Queensland and the Northern Territory.
It is with great pride that I am involved in the Young Manager Advisory Board and represent the Northern Territory, in particular, our next generation of leaders and managers, ensuring their needs are attended to and their voices heard. I look forward to showcasing the Territory and all we have to offer to this group in 2013, and to updating you on our progress in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging the Larrakia, on whose traditional land we stand today. I also congratulate all my colleagues, old and new, for being elected as members of the Twelfth Assembly of the Northern Territory’s parliament. I also congratulate you, Madam Speaker, not only on your election as Speaker, but your election as the member for Goyder. I am sure you will rule with an iron fist and a velvet glove.
I congratulate the member for Drysdale, first because she is a very young member and, second, we share something in common - a non-English-speaking background. I have seen how proud your parents and grandparents are of you being elected to this parliament.
I thank everyone in Casuarina for electing me once again. I am humbled by the faith and confidence they have shown with the re-election, and I want to tell them I will represent every single person in Casuarina, irrespective of political affiliation, or whether they voted for me or not. I have done it in the past, and it is my intention to do it in the future.
Casuarina is a small territory, a cosmopolitan society. People work in the public service, in small business, they own their own houses and there is a small amount of public housing and units. It is a very interesting and beautiful place. As part of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, it has beautiful parks. What I really like about Casuarina is the will of the people to educate their children. When I visit different schools - Alawa, Nakara and Dripstone - at every assembly I see parents. There is nothing more important than parents supporting teachers and their own children. Now I have Nemarluk School. I am a great supporter of that school because it caters for kids with special needs.
I thank all the people who helped me during the campaign and on election day. I will not name everyone individually. I thanked them at the small function I hosted at Casuarina Surf Life Saving Club, of which I am patron.
I thank my opponent, Jane Johnson. I know Jane well; I have known her for a long time. I first met her in 2000-01, with her husband Mark when I conducted my first campaign to win the seat of Casuarina. I know Mark well because he used to be a member of the Labor Party.
Because we know each other well, in January Jane apologised because she had put her hand up for the CLP in Casuarina. I told her she must be crazy and needed to get a life. She said, ‘Well, no one else was prepared to do it. We could not have a seat without a CLP candidate’. We had an interesting time campaigning against each other and an interesting time on election day.
We are very lucky to live in Australia. We have had a change of government without anyone batting an eyelid. The other option is not a very good one. I lived through some very difficult situations in my own country where people, for seven years, lived under military rule without the letter of the law applying. People were being arrested without warrants, put into prison without going through a proper court, and killed because they opposed the ideology of the military leaders.
I am proud to be a member of the Territory parliament, proud to be an Australian by choice, and a Territorian by choice. I came here in 1993 for two years and, in January next year, I will have been in the Territory for 20 years. One of my children was born here, the other does not know any other home because he came here when he was two years old. Both children are Territorians, speak like Territorians and behave like Territorians. When there is a gathering at university in Perth, they seek each other out, stick together in the corner of the tavern and talk about Darwin.
I want to speak about several other things brought into this House this week. The first is about the after-hours super clinic. The after-hours super clinic was an initiative of the previous CLP government which, as we found out, had limited funding which was supposed to run out just after the election in 2001 and not be renewed. At the time we reviewed it there were difficulties and we stopped it. However, we realised how vital it was for Palmerston and reinstated it, opening at 6 pm and 8 am. The Commonwealth proposed providing $10m to build Palmerston Super Clinic. There was an agreement between the Commonwealth government and the then Territory government for provision of a capital grant and very limited funding for the beginning of Palmerston Super Clinic. After that, the super clinic was subcontracted to Flinders and Charles Darwin Universities to run - they do not receive any funding from the government. It was an agreement between the Territory government to provide the facility and Flinders and Charles Darwin Universities to run it.
The Minister for Health told us it was an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, or the Commonwealth and the super clinic, and it was signed by the previous CEO of the Health department. I suggest he is probably a little confused. I know he did not like reading some of the briefings we provided to him, but I strongly suggest he looks at the history of who provided the capital funding, some of the granting, and who has an agreement with who. My problem is not that they moved the opening hours of the after-hours super clinic - 6 pm to 10 pm - to Palmerston Super Clinic, it is that it was done in such a way as to disadvantage people in Palmerston.
We were negotiating with Flinders/CDU to move the after-hours super clinic, lock stock and barrel, to Palmerston Super Clinic, but part of the negotiation was the arrangement it had in place at the time would remain. People who were accessing the after-hours service at Palmerston Super Clinic would not have to pay; they would be bulkbilled. Obviously, this has not been done. The super clinic in Palmerston has done the right thing because it will be recovering some money, but it is not the right thing for the people of Palmerston.
Also, part of the negotiation was people do not lose their jobs and positions will not be lost. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. That position was lost.
I hope the minister will have a serious look at the after-hours super clinic. I suggest he has some serious negotiation with the Flinders/CDU consortium so we do not have two clinics operating in the same precinct at different times. We can have Palmerston Super Clinic operating, but we need provisions not to disadvantage pensioners or people who, at 10 pm or 11 pm, might require a doctor. If he does not do it he can expect a bigger loading in the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The last thing I want to talk about is the Renewal Management Board report tabled today by the government. We heard plenty about it. We heard plenty about who is on this board; however, we also found out today how much this board cost. This board cost about $800 000 to do six months work. The interesting thing is there is nothing about an independent board. What is really alarming is, on the second page, it clearly states:
Obviously, someone in government realised it is dangerous for this to be adopted by the government so it wants to be at arm’s length. ‘It is the Renewal Management Board’s report, nothing to do with us.’ Unfortunately, it was tabled by the government today so the government owns it.
Going through it, there are some very important issues. On page 9 it says:
...in Correctional Services, the Department advises that Youth Justice initiatives will require an additional $35 million over the next four years.
The same thing applies with police infrastructure. The police say they need money for infrastructure, major costs will be involved to remedy this infrastructure, but they are not identified yet because they have not been confirmed by further investigation. However, the board says it has not done any preliminary work, it has not been able to define what is needed for infrastructure repair and maintenance, but there is a black hole.
The other thing which really bugs me is the allegation we told the CEO of the then Department of Children and Families to recruit over 90 additional staff but we did not allocate any money for the staff. We had great difficulty recruiting staff, both locally and overseas. We had money left over which rolled into the next year - about $12m. In addition, the Labor government committed $135m over five years. There was money in the budget - they were budgeted for. How the hell, in the three months before the election, can we tell the department to recruit 90 people when we could not recruit for a whole year? It bugs me. I call upon the minister, if she holds anything with my signature or something in writing to the department suggesting it employ 90 people, to table it in this House. I dispute these allegations. Yes, we tried to recruit people. We had the money and were prepared to spend the money.
In contrast, in the minister’s statement yesterday she refused to commit to implementing the board of inquiry recommendations or maintain the same level of funding to child protection. She said, ‘We are going to have an affordable child protection service’.
That is all for me tonight. I have something which I will probably say in the next sittings.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was lucky enough last night to visit the Palmerston after-hours care service, not as a member of parliament, but because I had an infection in my leg which got out of hand. In fact, one leg looked about half as a big as the other. I thought I needed to do something about it and the Palmerston after-hours care service is on the way home to Howard Springs. I received terrific service. I had to wait for some time. I arrived at 11.30 pm and was out by 12.30 am. There were three or four people waiting or being seen by the doctor or nurses. It is a wonderful service and it concerns me that many people in Palmerston and the rural area do not realise that between 6 pm and 10 pm it will not be free.
My understanding is that several people use that service, especially at that time of night. Even though there have been several advertisements in the paper and a sign near the stairs as you go into the after-hours care service, many people do not realise what is happening. Regardless of whether there have been contractual arrangements or not, I agree with the member for Casuarina, there should have been some arrangement to allow that time at night - 6 pm to 10 pm - to be bulkbilled so the free service continued.
I thank the nurses and the doctor who looked after me last night. My leg is much better and much smaller than it was last night. Also, the nurse heard me panting a bit and said I should have an ECG. At 12.15 am I went on the ECG machine, which can be a bit painful for blokes because hairy chests and ECG equipment do not always mix so you have to be shaved. It was all done very professionally. I have to see another doctor to have that checked, but for the time I was there I was professionally looked after. You have your blood pressure checked, your temperature checked and, in this case, I had an ECG. That is a great service at that time of night. It is a very important service and we should ensure it does not decrease for the average person, especially people in Palmerston and the rural area.
I would like to say something about the election. This was probably the most difficult election I have ever been through in my life, and I have been through a few. I found it the most unpleasant election I have been through and, at times, I questioned why I would want to be in politics if getting into politics requires such nastiness and dishonesty at times. I am not talking about the candidate, I am talking generally about what was thrown at me and I wondered if it was worth it.
If people are going to do improper things during an election then stand in this parliament and say what good people we should be as members of parliament, but the method of getting here was the opposite of what they are saying, that is worrying to say the least. Be that as it may, people might say that is politics, but I find that a miserable excuse. Because you have the dress of a politician does not exclude you from what is right and wrong. The excuse, ‘it is just politics’ is a miserable one to get around bad and unbecoming behaviour.
However, my family were strong. My wife does not like politics much; however, what she saw at the Kormilda booth made her tough. My sister stood up to three members of the CLP who were deliberately taking people’s how to vote cards, pointing at my name and saying, ‘You are voting for Labor’. That is hard. I take my hat off to my sister; she told people they were telling a lie.
It was difficult and when, on election night, I had a good get-together at the Howard Springs Tavern, many of my supporters were disillusioned with what had happened, especially with the CLP. I said, ‘I understand where you are coming from, but if we lower ourselves to that level to try to defeat them we support that type of behaviour. We have to lift ourselves above that because my job is to represent people in my electorate regardless of who they are, and whether they voted for me or not’. It is my job to move on from that. People might say, ‘You are a bit soft at times’. I was brought up to forgive because, if you live with bitterness in your heart, you will become bitter.
There are things I found most unpalatable, but I move on. I am not holding anything against the people who did those things. I am saying, let us move on. We are here as politicians, as members of parliament, to work for the benefit of the Northern Territory. That is the oath we take. It is the oath I took when I had to make a decision to support either Terry Mills or Paul Henderson. What I do here is serious business. What I do here, as a member of parliament, is for the benefit of the Territory. Therefore, no matter what happened or how disappointed I was with some of that behaviour, it is the right thing to move on and not keep those things in your heart forever because that makes for a worse person. We have to rise above that in many of the things we do. That is not to say it did not hurt, but one has to pick oneself up, move on and try to show, by example, that is not the way we should be treating one another. Politics is not an excuse for that kind of behaviour.
I thank all my family, my friends who come up from down south - they come up every time there is an election - all my local supporters and, of course, the people who voted for me. One of the most wonderful feelings for me is no matter how difficult an election it was, I still had great support to win the seat of Nelson and keep it as an Independent. I thank all the people for their faith in me. I am not perfect by a long shot. I am not the greatest politician to stand in this parliament, but I try my best and believe people understand that. I never regard myself as a politician; I regard myself as a bloke who has been asked to represent people and look after matters which concern the people in my area. That is the way I have always felt. Other people might have another view, but that is the way it is.
Once again, I thank everybody for their support and will continue to do my best to stick up for people in the electorate of Nelson, and also the rural people, because we will be under pressure in the next few years listening to what the Chief Minister said. The rural lifestyle is a great lifestyle for raising families - the member for Goyder would understand - we have to ensure people do not overrun us because they have big plans. They have to recognise we have rights, a wonderful place to raise families and look after children, and we do not want to see that destroyed.
I also thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I had a chat with him last night and he has offered me briefings on anything I want. I acknowledge and welcome that, and thank him for that. I have always liked primary industry; it is something I always felt did not get recognition under the previous government. The minister said anytime I want a briefing I can come in. I thank the minister and really appreciate that.
In relation to the flooding at Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court, I am still concerned the government is twiddling its thumbs. The Ombudsman gave clear recommendations on what to do. My understanding is the previous government agreed to those recommendations; the new government agreed to those recommendations.
The government has to stick to its promise otherwise these people will go through very stressful times again. They have been going through it for over 18 months and do not need to again. I ask the Chief Minister not to listen to developers - in this case the developer who caused the problem - but take the Ombudsman’s recommendations and deal with it so people affected can move on with their lives. That is the decent thing for the government to do. Please do not listen to the economic rationalist. Please help these people. They deserve your help and it needs to be done now.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I also am honoured to be re-elected to this Twelfth Assembly. It comes with great honour, it is a privilege, but it comes with great responsibility.
There are a number of reasons I have been returned to this House to represent the people of Barkly. First, I thank the previous government, the Territory Labor government members, who I was able to work with successfully, and who recognised the need for strategic investment across the regions. Together we were able to provide significant strategic investment and real building blocks for Barkly and across the regional and remote areas.
Regarding investment in mineral exploration, public infrastructure, transport services, roads infrastructure and major infrastructure developments in police, health, and education, the first of the Territory’s innovative new era initiatives in Correctional Services, the Barkly work camp, and also the elements of town building, urban enhancement and land release, it came together as a very successful period for the Barkly and a great learning curve and great time as a local member for me.
I was first elected in 2008 and had to prove myself as a hard-working local member. I believe I was re-elected in 2012 in recognition of that work, support, and demonstrated responsibility. I thank the staff over the four years - 2008 to 2012 - I had the privilege to work with, not only departmental staff, but the staff on the fifth floor. There were too many to name in a 10-minute adjournment. To all those guys, it was a hard ending because I had to get into the bush and fight long and hard for the seat of Barkly for Labor. You guys kept the office going on the fifth floor. Some of you I have not seen since. I value and appreciate not only your work, but your friendship and the collegial atmosphere we developed together. Good luck in the future, you guys, and I hope to catch up with you. You are Territorians and, no doubt, will have interesting futures and we will share those stories together.
I also thank the people who helped me in the campaign starting with the Barkly Sub Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Many new members came on board in 2008, and they grew politically through a period of the local member in government. We learnt together, we strived together, and they rounded off that experience with a campaign. Right across the region the people who supported me represent Minyerri, Jilkminggan, Elliott, Borroloola, Alpurrurulam, through the smaller places, Tennant Creek of course, Ali Curung - not only friends and supporters but also family that had adopted me - Indigenous mob. You are way too many to name in this adjournment, but I know who you are and you know who you are. It was a real honour, and I am humbled by the support you provided in a very challenging campaign.
It has come through in a sentiment from the new government members that ‘you were put on the other side’ and the reasons ‘why you were put on the other side’ in a debate in the first sittings of the Twelfth Assembly. One common denominator which underpinned all the work we achieved in Barkly together, the work of the Territory Labor government, the campaign workers and supporters across those four years in the bush, was family.
The McCarthys came, once again, in their hordes to support me. I start with Stephen McVay, the campaign manager. Stephen is my wife’s nephew and a political animal - a great guy. I recruited him because I needed a political animal. I took a temperature test in the Territory and figured what was coming so I needed the best. He performed and had a great time doing it.
To Glen and Tracy, and Kirri and Kayla, and Eden and Brodie at Borroloola and Red Dirt Trading - a great family. You always side-stepped the politics, but there is no doubt your respect in that town and in the Gulf community translates to respect from me, my wife and family. Together, we make a good unit and you certainly keep me laughing, informed and translate very important information about the community of Borroloola and the Gulf region.
As we walk down the track, the McCarthy’s came, and Tim Morgan, my brother-in-law, Judy my sister, the kids Hannah, Daniel and Ella, to Jan McCarthy my sister, her daughter, Cecilia, Lynne McCarthy, who came down standing shoulder to shoulder with you guys in Tennant Creek. Getting sunburnt all day was certainly a big marker in the campaign. Local people saw that, valued that, and realised that element of honesty overrode any of the antics and mischief happening that day.
You guys stayed away from that and enjoyed yourself as usual. You celebrated being in Tennant Creek, you spent your money there and we really appreciate that. You are great tourists, and you always come back. That was a real honour, and a good old family trait we share which has led to many good discussions.
To Thomas McCarthy, I landed you at the Borroloola rodeo son, and you are coming back riding the bulls next year they tell me. I dead set am going to clown for you. If you ride a bull again - and your mother is going to kill both of us - I am back in the arena. We better get the Pluto brothers because that was the only way I survived. We will have to get John and Doug, you get back on a bull, my son, and I will run around and ensure you do your eight seconds and get out of there.
You landing in the Gulf country in the middle of that mischief that was going on was superb because it levelled the playing field back to honesty once again.
To Joseph McCarthy, you followed it from the sidelines, not only the rugby league sidelines of Canberra, Newcastle and Sydney, but the surfing beaches of the south coast. I appreciate the phone calls. You kept my spirit alive while you were ducking in and out of waves and knocking over those big boys from Cumberland in the west of Sydney.
To Robert and Abbi in Cobar, your well wishes were wonderful. You were monitoring things on Imparja television and I really appreciate that.
To Dawn McCarthy, my wife, who went out all guns blazing as usual and recruited some very influential and respected locals - you tested the water and realised this one was going to be driven by mischief. There are too many people to name, but those respected elders and people you shared the story with, who shared your concerns and stepped up, not so much in public, but that underground movement within the town and community is what delivered in the end.
It is a privilege to be here and to know the electorate appreciated family and its values, morals, what you have done and what the government did in its shared delivery for the Barkly.
At the end of the day I thank the voters. The majority voted for me and I am representing you once again. To those people who did not vote for me, I am representing you as well because we are all Barkly. We are a good mob; a united mob. When you add Tenant Creek to that, it is certainly a strong field.
It is going to be a difficult ride. The economic rationalism in the Territory under the CLP government is a blueprint of what is happening in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. We will have a struggle. I will do my best and am committed to holding the government to account because it realised the Barkly region and Tennant Creek represents an enormous growth area for the Territory’s future prosperity and it will not walk away from it easily. We will hold it to account and, at the end of the day, we will enjoy ourselves. Welcome to the next lap and enjoy the ride.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak briefly of another law firm in town. Since becoming Attorney-General, I have endeavoured to signal to the profession as a whole I will be an Attorney-General interested and engaged in the profession, whether it be a first year law student, all the way to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. I have met with both first year law students, the Chief Justice, and many people in between, not least of which is the crew at Ward Keller.
I place on the record my appreciation to Kevin Stephens and Leon Loganathan for taking time out to meet with me and discuss the issues facing the profession from their perspective. Like all meetings with the firms, large and small, it was a forthright and direct meeting, which is what I have come to expect, particularly from the private element of the profession. This was no exception. It was a formal meeting, but convivial nevertheless, and there was a full and complete exchange of views.
Ward Keller is particularly a Territory firm. Ward Keller was formed in 1963 when Richard Keller joined practice with Dick Ward. However, the origins of the firm go all the way back to 1910, when Ross Ibbotson and Dalton Mallum came to Darwin to practice law. Ward Keller has a head office in Darwin and regional offices in Palmerston, Casuarina, Parap, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. Around 50 staff work for the Ward Keller offices in the Northern Territory, including approximately 19 lawyers. The firm is a multicultural one with staff members able to speak fluent Greek, German, Tamil, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.
Ward Keller lawyers go on to achieve some amazing things. Some of the notable names to come out of Ward Keller are Dick Ward himself, member for Ludmilla before being appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court; Michael Maurice, a former in-house counsel, President of the Bar Association and appointed QC in 1982 before becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1984. Our current Chief Justice, Trevor Riley, joined Ward Keller following Cyclone Tracy. He was then appointed a QC before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 2010. Ward Keller is one of the finest law firms in the Northern Territory. It has a commitment Territory-wide, and you can see that in its commitment to Alice Springs - something not lost on me.
I place on the record my appreciation for both Mr Stephens and Mr Loganathan for taking time out of their busy schedules not only to have a chat with me in the conference room, but to give me a tour of the premises. I am grateful for the hospitality extended by this fine firm of lawyers. I can assure staff of Ward Keller I will be no stranger, and look forward to a fulsome future as Attorney-General with the firm.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Tanya Harvey and Mrs Adelle Gould. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and visit here today.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Mr Rick Collister and Mrs Kirrily Jones. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and visit here with us.
Also in the gallery, I welcome the electoral officers from various electoral offices around Darwin and the regions.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Renewal Management Board Progress Report
Renewal Management Board Progress Report
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not give notice of this but I did say yesterday, in response to a question regarding the provision of the requested details around salaries, entitlements and so on of the RMB - I have no problem with tabling those for the Opposition Leader and the opposition - for anyone to see. We are not hiding anything.
CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 2)
(Serial 2)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Before I move on, I extend a particularly warm welcome to the young ones from the Larrakeyah Primary School. My two young daughters go to Larrakeyah Primary School and it is a very fine school.
I tip my hat to the outgoing principal of the school, Mr Graham Chadwick, and his staff. They do an extraordinary job with the kids there. Welcome to my workplace. Good to see you.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act to provide for an R 18+ computer games classification. The question as to whether it is appropriate to introduce an R 18+ classification for computer games has been the subject of extensive public consultation and has received widespread support throughout Australia. The amendments give effect to the decision made by all jurisdictions to introduce an R 18+ classification category for such games in Australia.
Pursuant to the 1995 Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship, classification and censorship matters in Australia are to be regulated under a cooperative legislative scheme known as the National Classification Scheme. The process for classification of computer games in Australia and the guidelines for the different classification levels for computer games, as well as films and publications, are governed by the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games.
The Classification Code has been negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It sets out the principles to be followed in classification decisions and the general criteria for all classification categories. The Classification Board and the Review Board, which decide appropriate classifications for individual films and computer games, are also established under the Commonwealth legislation. Procedures to enforce classifications are set out in state and territory laws. For the Northern Territory, this is through the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act.
Unlike films, computer games can presently be only classified as: G - general, which signifies the content is very mild; PG - parental guidance, which signifies the content as mild; M - mature, which signifies the content as moderate; and MA 15+ - mature accompanied, which signifies the content as strong. The RC, or refuse classification, signifies the content is not suitable for classification and the item is not to be sold or displayed in Australia.
Until now, there has been no classification for computer games equivalent to the R 18+ rating for films that would allow games appropriate for adults to be legally available in Australia.
In 2010, the Commonwealth, in consultation with the states and territories, undertook extensive Australia-wide public consultation. More than 58 000 individuals and organisations nationwide provided written submissions to a discussion paper early in 2010. Of those, 98%, thought an R 18+ rating should be introduced and 80% of the 2000 Australians polled later in 2010 agreed, including 76% of adults from households with children under 18.
This is important as we know parents are increasingly playing computer games with their children as a way of spending time with them, as well as supervising the material they make available to their children. I am one of those parents.
Following the public consultation process, a decision was made at the July 2011 meeting of the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, now the Standing Council on Law and Justice, to introduce an R18+ classification category for computer games in Australia.
The Commonwealth parliament has subsequently passed the Classification (Publications, Films, Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Act 2012, which is due to commence on 1 January 2013. The Commonwealth act is the mechanism by which the R 18+ category is activated in relation to computer games for all other jurisdictions.
The Australian Capital Territory has also passed the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Act and other jurisdictions are either working towards introducing amendment bills or have introduced amendment bills in time for the commencement of the R 18+ computer games in the National Classification Scheme on 1 January 2013.
This bill will amend the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act and reflects the legislation to be implemented in other Australian states and territories. It will introduce provisions into the Northern Territory enforcement regime that will permit and regulate the sale, delivery, and exhibition of computer games that have been classified as R 18+ and create associated offences.
The bill amends the classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act by inserting a new section 65A to provide an offence to demonstrate R 18+ computer games in a public place.
Section 67 (demonstration of unclassified, Refused Classification and MA 15+ computer games where it can be seen from a public place); and section 68 (private demonstration of Refused Classification computer games in the presence of a child) are also amended to include an offence for the R 18+ computer game.
The purpose of the new section 65A and amendments to section 67 and 68 is to protect children from viewing the content of computer games classified as R 18+ in the same manner they are protected from viewing Refused Classification and MA 15+ computer games, and to ensure that demonstrations of games classified R 18+ can only be conducted in a controlled area in the same way that MA 15+ games are.
Section 71 (sale or delivery of certain computer games to a child) and section 73 (leaving computer games in certain places) are both amended to include an offence for R 18+ computer games. The purpose of these amendments is to add R 18+ computer games to the offences so that it is an offence to sell, deliver or make available computer games to a child if the computer game is classified Refused Classification or R 18+.
Similar to section 50 in the classification of the Publications, Films and Computer Games Act which deals with films, the offence does not apply if the game is classified R 18+, the child is at least 15 years of age, and the person who sells or delivers the game to the child is the parent or guardian of the child. A defence to a prosecution is also available in circumstances where the defendant believed, on reasonable grounds, that the child was an adult (for example identification is provided by the child showing they are over the age of 18) or the child was employed by the defendant, and the delivery of the computer game was undertaken in the course of employment.
The introduction of an R 18+ category for computer games in Australia will provide government with a greater ability to control the distribution of these games. Providing an R 18+ classification for computer games will result in a greater protection for children from violent computer games - with some material moving from the M 15+ classification to the new R 18+ classification - whilst still allowing adult gamers to access computer games containing adult content that will fall within the R 18+ classification. It will also provide adult purchasers with greater information to allow them to determine whether the computer game is something they truly want to view or use, or whether it is appropriate material for younger members of their family.
Opponents to the introduction of the category have argued that the R 18+ classification will suddenly introduce prohibited and offensive games to Australia. This is not correct. These new provisions call for a reclassification of existing computer games whilst retaining the Refused Classification category. The Attorney-General of any jurisdiction may request the classification of a particular game to be reconsidered if they are concerned about the content of the game.
An R 18+ classification for computer games will bring the treatment of computer games into line with the treatment of films, and it will make the Australian regime more consistent with international standards. Introducing the R18+ rating reflects the principles that underpin the National Classification Scheme: that adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want, while protecting minors from material likely to harm or disturb them. It takes account of community concerns about the content that condones or incites violence - particularly sexual violence - or portrays people in a demeaning manner, and it will protect adults from being unwittingly exposed to unsolicited material that may offend them.
The R 18+ computer game debate has been going on for many years. This bill is a product of a consultative process involving all jurisdictions agreeing to their current approach with the general support of the Australian public.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mr ELFERINK: (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker , I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial No 2) passing through all stages in the first week of the November/December 2012 parliamentary sittings period.
The reason we seek this motion, as explained yesterday in relation to other bills, is this bill now falls within the 30-day turnaround time period required by Standing Orders for its passage. This matter has been discussed with the leader of opposition business and they have indicated their assent to proceeding down this path. It just means that this notice will lay on the table for, I think, 28 days rather than the requisite 30.
Mr GUNNER: (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, as indicated yesterday, we thank the Leader of Government Business for the notice. For a technical urgency like this we are happy to work with the government to have this bill debated within what is only a slighter shorter time frame than is normal, so we are very happy to support the urgency motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the urgency motion in this case because the minister has given a clear reason why he needs that and it fits within the parameters of the debate that we had the other day. It still gives us a gap between these sittings and the next sittings and that is really the issue. I know it is 30 days normally but the practical implications are that we do at least get enough time between these sittings and the next sittings to debate the issue. Although it is a matter of urgency to be agreed to, in this case it makes common sense. Thank you
Motion agreed to
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 1)
(Serial 1)
Continued from 24 October.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 (Serial 1).
As a new member of the House for this Twelfth Assembly I asked to be briefed on the history of this important reform to the law of evidence in the Northern Territory so that I was clear on where it had been left by the honourable members of the Eleventh Assembly.
As a lawyer in private practice in the Territory I received a number of briefings on some of the practical changes that were to flow from this proposed reform which, as I was then informed, was before the parliament. At that time I was informed the new uniform legislation would come into effect in the Northern Territory in September 2012. I know that a large number of workshops, continuing professional development seminars and internal firm training sessions took place across the profession in preparation for this reform.
Unfortunately, due to a combination of parliamentary workload and, one might infer, the former government’s restriction on sitting hours, this legislation never made it through as anticipated. It is now in this Twelfth Assembly that we find ourselves again in a position to pass this legislation - legislation that has bipartisan support.
I understand from my briefings and conversation in this House from staff in the minister’s office that this reform is important and necessary. I am told by the Department of the Attorney-General and the drafts-people that this legislation is a long overdue reform to unify the Territory’s evidence laws with those of many of our state and territory counterparts.
But being a new member of the House, and a lawyer and an advocate at heart, I wanted to know why we needed this reform. I wanted to know why the profession wants it, and how it achieved bipartisan support, so I did some research.
This is a dry topic, I will be honest. I found myself frequently rereading sentences in an attempt to grasp the language. Unfortunately, the use of legalese and the failure to construct reports and papers in plain English, as they should be, meant a simple answer was hard to find.
My aim today is to outline a couple of the benefits of this legislation in practical terms, as well as why the legal profession as a whole has endorsed and embraced this uniform direction for evidence law.
Before I get into the detail, it should be noted that this bill is before the House on urgency. There is a very good reason for this. The reform needs to be introduced for the commencement of 1 January 2013 to fit with the work of the courts of the Northern Territory. To introduce it at any point past these sittings would see the objective lost. This is an important introduction date to meet as the case management of Supreme Court trials generally follows the calendar year and largely accounts for the highly transient nature of the Territory’s population during the major holiday periods of the year.
Therefore, the period of December is traditionally light with new trials commencing for 2013 after the Christmas and New Year break. On this bill passing the House, as I hope it will, the Department of the Attorney-General will move quickly to see it introduced into the Bench Books for the Justices and the magistrates of the courts, and legal practitioners across all areas of practice will be informed of its commencement date.
Trials commencing after 1 January 2013 will be subject to this new uniform evidence legislation. The commencement date will ensure that all 2013 trials apply the uniform evidence legislation and avoid the complications and confusion for the bench, solicitor, client, victim, defendant and the public of different systems and different rules.
Why should we, as a parliament, support this legislation and, importantly, why does the profession support it?
First, this legislation will see the Northern Territory join New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT, Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth as a uniform evidence jurisdiction. I am, however, by no means suggesting the Territory ought to follow suit of our southern counterparts for the sake of unity. There is purpose and integrity behind the reform.
It is worth noting that well over 70% of Australia’s legal practitioners come from these jurisdictions, primarily from New South Wales and Victoria. The Northern Territory has between 1% and 2% of the total legal practitioners in Australia.
I completed my law degree at Adelaide University and then returned home to Darwin to practice in the Darwin office of a national law firm. My personal experience is indicative of why uniform legislation is generally good for the legal profession.
You may have noted that South Australia is not a uniform evidence jurisdiction and, therefore, being an Adelaide law student and Darwin practitioner, I have never studied nor practised under the uniform evidence legislation.
Working in a national firm as I did, a number of specialist lawyers, barristers and other practitioners would come to Darwin to work on cases, provide advice and further litigations. Of course, these practitioners understood advocacy and case strategy irrespective of the jurisdiction; however, as far as the rules of evidence go, the Northern Territory was unlike the jurisdictions of New South Wales and Victoria.
Had this legislation been enforced then, practitioners moving between jurisdictions in the Northern Territory would have had no problem in understanding completely the laws of evidence, except when it comes to some exceptional rules specific to the Northern Territory.
So, be you the Darwin lawyer travelling to Melbourne for a case, or the Sydney barrister travelling to Alice Springs, once this legislation passes the House you can rely on the uniform evidence commentary - which I can see the Attorney-General is eagerly flipping through now ...
Mr Elferink: Never leave home without it, that is what I reckon.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: That is right, it is like the Bible. It is a compilation of case authorities and rules developed from an extensive jurisprudence developed over a number of years, whichever court you walk into.
It is important to understand the role of evidence in legal proceedings, thereby demonstrating the value in a uniform approach to it across the major jurisdictions. The rules of evidence control what material comes before a court when we are determining an issue, how the material comes before the court and how the court may use the material to determine an issue. Evidence is at the core of procedural justice in Australia.
If the procedural rules of the court do not work, or are inefficient, then access to justice for Territorians is impaired. The uniform evidence law is an established and tried and tested system of evidence and procedural laws.
I was interested to read the thoughts of Stephen Odgers, the author of the text the Attorney-General is holding, called Uniform Evidence Laws, on the common law system of evidence, which is the system this bill and other uniform evidence legislation will replace in the Northern Territory. He says, on page 2, that the common law of evidence:
... is the product of long historical development by the courts themselves with only limited statutory modification. As a result, they reflected a variety of principles and values; they lacked coherence and structure; they were complex, technical and difficult to find. Substantial reform was long overdue.
This bill recognises that reform.
Some areas of reform include the areas of hearsay evidence. In an attempt to assist the House with Law 101, hearsay evidence is any evidence which does not come direct from the source. For example, if a witness states, ‘She told me he said to her XYZ’, that is hearsay. Generally, it is not admissible on the basis that it is unreliable. The person giving the evidence did not hear the key part of the evidence, they just heard about it from someone else.
Under the uniform evidence legislation, a broader range of exceptions exists to the rule against hearsay, thereby allowing more evidence to get before the court and, ultimately, helping magistrates, judges and juries in making their decisions.
Another area of important reform under the uniform evidence legislation is that of tendency and coincidence evidence. Tendency evidence is evidence of the character, reputation or conduct of a person or a tendency a person has or had. This type of evidence is put before a court to prove the person has or had a tendency to act in a particular way.
Coincidence evidence is evidence that two or more events occurred, and is put before the court to prove it is improbable the events occurred coincidentally. This area is very important, particularly with regard to sexual offence trials. The classic example is where an accused is charged with assaulting a number of children in a unique or particular way. These reforms will allow such evidence to be used to indicate it is the accused’s tendency to assault children in this way and it is likely he assaulted all of the children, given the unique type of assault alleged.
Ultimately, evidence law is complicated and even with these reforms it is not perfect. However, these reforms ensure consistency, a greater degree of certainty, and ease of access to the legal system. Rather than trawling through reams and reams of case law to work out the rule, for example, of what is credibility evidence, you can now flick to section 101A of the uniform evidence act and get a clear answer.
The legislation will make the rules of evidence easier to find, understand and cross-reference. It will simplify and condense decades of case law into a single piece of legislation whilst still allowing the Northern Territory to maintain evidence laws unique to it through the old Evidence Act.
The reform will benefit the legal professional as they have indicated it will. It will enable and foster greater cross-border legal practice, while allowing the public at large to better understand the complex laws applicable to evidence in the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has no problems with this bill and will be supporting its passage. This bill was introduced by the former Labor government but lapsed when the parliament was prorogued and we went to an election.
I congratulate the member for Drysdale on her very comprehensive overview, not only of the consequential amendments, but the bill itself which was passed a while ago, and clearly demonstrating her vast knowledge of the law. Well done to you.
It is no surprise the new Attorney-General has taken the same approach in adopting these new measures because, as the then shadow sitting over here, he was very clear about his support and that of the CLP for the bill originally proposed under Labor. In fact, during the second reading in continuation in October 2011 of the original bill, our now Attorney-General, as the shadow as he was then, was almost euphoric in his praise of the bill because it is a good reform and one which, in his view - and he was right, the member for Drysdale is right, and Labor was right - was long overdue.
Given we are all on the same page, it is no surprise the second reading speeches of the current Attorney-General and former Attorney-General are almost identical. This is no case of plagiarism but, rather, the reality of the fact that sometimes it is hard to find a different way of saying the same thing when everyone has already said it so well and explained it so clearly. As the member for Drysdale said, it is a very dry topic.
Given that the uniform evidence act has been adopted in several other jurisdictions, and not all have followed suit, it is appropriate that the Northern Territory should go down this path, not simply for the sake of following suit, as the member for Drysdale said, but rather that the previous evidence act in the Northern Territory was far from contemporary and, hence, the opportunity to pick and adopt more modern measures introduced through the national uniform evidence act was clearly an opportunity we seized on for the benefit of everyone.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office and his ministerial advisor for Justice for organising, in a very timely fashion, the opportunity for a briefing on the bill. I also thank the two officers from Justice who briefed me and were able to provide additional information after that briefing by way of a fact sheet which highlighted the relationship between the uniform evidence act and the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. This is clearly very important, and I am not going to say why because the member for Drysdale has already said it so well. I was assured during that briefing that third parties in the legal fraternity had been consulted as they had with the bill before it lapsed, and note that post-election the Law Society had written to the new Attorney-General urging the reintroduction of this bill.
This was further confirmed by the fact that the NT Law Reform Committee, following a request from the former Attorney-General, provided a report to the Attorney-General recommending the adoption of the uniform evidence act - in 2006 I think it was. I thank the Hon Austin Asche who met with me earlier this week simply by way of an introductory meeting, given he is currently the Chair of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. We spoke, amongst other things, about the report presented to the Attorney-General. I look forward to future conversations with His Honour Austin Asche; I daresay not only about the law but about literature.
I made the comment about that report on the uniform evidence act that I liked the way there were reference quotes from Dickens and Shakespeare. He leapt at that and said, ‘I wrote that’. Quite clearly, what I see about people who are in that legal profession is that much of the philosophy they draw on comes from some of our great writers. I know that to be true of our current Attorney-General and other people like Mr Tom Pauling. Anyway, I digress.
I want to make a quick comment about the urgency around the passage of this bill which the opposition has no issues with, understanding as I do the very practical reasons around wanting to see this bill enacted and operational by 1 January 2013. There are clearly some operational and practical matters for the judiciary and courts to prepare in readiness for 1 January. Also, with this commencement date, a time when criminal trials generally are not heard, it means the act will not be commenced during a hearing, which would span the old and the new act and would be most impractical.
That said, however, the opposition does not accept an open slather approach to bills on urgency - there is another one coming before the House next - unless there is a very real and demonstrated need to do so. Of course, as we know, the new government is in a position to, essentially, make that decision. I also hope, with some of the important bills we know will be coming before this House over the next four years, the Attorney-General will take the opportunity - or his colleagues, should there be bills in other ministerial areas of responsibility - to use the instrument of producing a draft exposure bill which allows people, in a much wider sense, to have a genuine opportunity to engage, scrutinise and provide feedback through that process.
Before I close, I want to make a comment on the second reading speech of the former Attorney-General, Mr Knight. Reference was made to the work being undertaken by workshops and briefings to ensure the changes were being communicated to the legal profession to enable a smooth transition, and that Professor Les McCrimmon from Charles Darwin University was involved in this as one of the country’s leading experts in this area. I asked in the briefing whether this work had been done. I was assured it had been and, having very recently met with Professor McCrimmon, I received that assurance once again, and for a third time from the member for Drysdale. A practising member of the legal fraternity herself, she confirmed she had been through all of that process. That is great news; I am very pleased to hear that.
On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill and the consequential amendments to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act to the House and I thank the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the members for Drysdale and Nhulunbuy have conspired to expose a flaw in my character to the people of the Northern Territory. The member for Drysdale had pointed out how dry this piece of legislation was and, indeed, if this was any drier, you would put a fence around it and tell everyone not to cross it because there are no oases between page 1 and page 1300 of the ‘simple’ explanation of how this legislation works. The member for Nhulunbuy then said I was euphoric in my enthusiasm for the support of this legislation, which completes the conspiracy against my character; but I have to confess it is true. I have been exposed as someone who is interested in these sorts of things but not only for esoteric reasons, actually for very practical and real reasons, as were so eloquently described by both of the members who have spoken today.
Bearing in mind, of course, what we are passing, or what we are hoping to pass today - but I suspect will pass today - is not the uniform evidence act; it is the enabling legislation. The bill that formed the act in the Northern Territory was passed in October 2011, fully a year ago. It was with some disappointment that I did not see the enabling legislation come into this place until much later. One could be forgiven, with the amount of effort that went into adopting the legislation, for being critical of the former Attorney-General who seemed to not understand the importance of bringing this legislation in. I made it my personal business to ensure the enabling legislation was brought into this place as the first item of business with a specific view to having a kick-off date of 1 January 2013, specifically for the reasons described by the member for Drysdale. This is to capture the space, if you like, created at the end of the judicial year so that this will be introduced with as little pain as possible.
Uniform evidence legislation, whilst it looks daunting to the untrained eye - and I confess a certain amount of daunt with a trained eye - it is nothing like the common law of evidence. I ask members to contemplate, if they will in their mind’s eye, a dark labyrinth and in that labyrinth there are cobwebs and twists and turns, some nasty surprises down the ends of dead-end corridors, and probably the odd Minotaur or two; that is the common law of evidence. Good luck to those people who seek to enter that labyrinth. This evidence act does not get rid of the labyrinth but at least it switches the light on.
I pick up on some of the comments, particularly in relation to what the member for Drysdale had to say about the nature of evidence, that used to be called same fact evidence in the common law - I am betraying myself now - but is now referred to as tendency or coincidence evidence. I note the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission’s comments in relation to joinders and the presumption against them where this sort of evidence may be contemplated. The Tasmanians, through their Law Reform Commission, have suggested a reversal of the presumption, so there would be a presumption in favour of joinders. That is an area where I would have cause to cast a benevolent eye, so I have asked my department to look in that direction, subject to the Cabinet approval and the next Standing Council on Law and Justice meeting. It is worth visiting.
This change to the law of evidence, and this particular bill, enables some of the functional components of how that law will work. The member for Drysdale mentioned the quagmire that is hearsay evidence. In this bill, not only will there be a better capacity for courts to deal with the difficulties of hearsay evidence but also a procedural construct which means an attempt to adduce hearsay evidence by a party will require some form of notice. That is a sensible proposition in this bill.
I thank honourable members for their support of this bill. This is a useful and functional reform of the law of the Northern Territory. It enables us to have a large body of judicial wisdom imported into the Northern Territory when it comes to considering the implications of what is in this legislation, and it means we can open the tap on a long history, of the New South Wales and Victorian judiciaries in particular, making determinations on how this act is to be interpreted. That means we are not starting from a cold start like those jurisdictions had to when uniform legislation was introduced, but there is now a significant body of jurisprudence surrounding and orbiting this legislation. That body is created by a substantial number of jurists which means the court of the Northern Territory, when having to deal with specific issues of evidence, will be able to cast a substantially wide net over the jurisprudence that has gone before them in other jurisdictions pertaining to matters of evidence particular to this legislation.
As I said, I am grateful also to the members, and I note the comments by the shadow attorney-general about her thanks to Professor McCrimmon and I add my thanks. The good professor quickly realised I was sniffing around this when I became the Attorney-General. He did not wait for a phone call from me. There is legislation dealing with stalking; nevertheless he stalked me, got me into a room and said this is a worthwhile thing that has to happen. I did not need to be convinced; nevertheless he was very kind to take some time out of his day and I express my gratitude to him.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Ombudsman Appointment Recommendation
Ombudsman Appointment Recommendation
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly, pursuant to section 132 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, recommend to Her Honour the Administrator that she appoint Mr Peter Shoyer to hold the office of the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory.
Mr Shoyer is a fine and upstanding person in the Northern Territory. I have a great deal of regard for his capacity and skills, and am sure he will take on the role of the Ombudsman with the same ethics and quality he has brought to his service of the public of the Northern Territory.
The Ombudsman Act provides the appointment will be for a period of seven years. The position of the Ombudsman became vacant when the former incumbent completed her tenure on 28 August 2012. Ms Brenda Monaghan has been acting in the position of Ombudsman since that time.
The vacancy for Ombudsman for the Northern Territory was advertised nationally. Interviews were held in Darwin by an NT government executive panel. That panel submitted a report of a shortlist of applicants for consideration by the Legislative Assembly selection panel which comprised of the government representative, the Leader of the Opposition’s nominee, and an independent member of the Assembly. The panel has recommended Mr Peter Shoyer for appointment as the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
Mr Shoyer is well qualified and has demonstrated strong claims for the position. He holds a Bachelor of Laws, a Bachelor of Economics, and a Masters of Laws qualification. He is a former information commissioner in the Northern Territory government, and has experience as Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer in the then Department of Justice. Mr Shoyer currently holds appointment as an Executive Director of Court Support and Independent Officers in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. He also holds the appointment of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. In summary, Mr Shoyer has an extensive legal and public administration background as well as experience in executive positions where he has demonstrated a depth of strategic thinking and the ability to resolve challenges promptly.
I commend Mr Shoyer’s appointment as the Ombudsman and move this motion be agreed to by this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Shoyer as Ombudsman. I have had a fair amount of dealing with the Ombudsman over the last few years, especially in rural matters. It is one of the key planks of our democracy and parliamentary system.
I was asked whether governments hide figures and do all types of things, but we have systems within our parliament like the Auditor-General, the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. We also have a very important person called the Ombudsman. That is part of the structure of our democratic process in the Northern Territory and Australia which defines us as a democracy in the world. We have these positions which are designed to scrutinise governments on all levels and that is really important.
I have had a fair bit to do with the Ombudsman in the last few years. I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation which dealt with the Mataranka cattle deaths. The Ombudsman was very much involved in that. The previous Ombudsman was also very much involved in child protection and the issue of flooded blocks in the rural area. The previous Ombudsman produced a report at the end of her term recommending the government pay for the land those people had bought which is now subject to flooding.
This position gives an opportunity to anyone in our society to have recourse against what they feel is a bad decision by government, whether it is Northern Territory government or local government. I was in local government for 13 years and our council was scrutinised by the Ombudsman from time to time. It shows the Ombudsman is available to any person in the Northern Territory.
I hope the government gives Mr Peter Shoyer sufficient funds. I know they are talking about fiscal discipline; however, I hope they give the Ombudsman sufficient funds to move out into the Territory so people in the remote communities understand the role of the Ombudsman. That area certainly needs more development so people in remote communities know what their rights are when it comes to dealing with government departments. For people in the major centres, it is far easier to access the Ombudsman and, because of many of the issues the Ombudsman deals with, people in the towns and the cities have a better understanding of what the Ombudsman does. I feel in remote communities there needs to be much more work done. I am not saying the previous Ombudsman did not do that work, but the problem was there were, at times, insufficient funds to do that job better.
I welcome the appointment of Mr Peter Shoyer. I know he will do a sterling job in what can be a fairly difficult position, because the Ombudsman sometimes has to tell the government it has done the wrong thing. I believe he will bring that independence, the right judgment, but also the touch of humanity that is required when an Ombudsman has to make a decision.
As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome Mr Peter Shoyer to the job. When he has settled into his job, I hope to meet with him and discuss some of those issues which are still outstanding in the rural area.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports the motion and the recommendation for the appointment of the new Ombudsman, Mr Peter Shoyer.
The Ombudsman plays a crucial role in our democratic system to receive complaints from people who feel they have been treated unfairly or inappropriately by Northern Territory government agencies, statutory authorities, local government or community councils, Northern Territory Police or Correctional Services.
The Ombudsman is a role which is apolitical and independent of government, and is there to provide rigorous transparency and scrutiny. The opposition wishes the Ombudsman well in providing this very important service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I put on the record my thanks to honourable members for their vote of confidence in Mr Shoyer’s abilities. I do not doubt for one second that Mr Shoyer will take this job on with the appropriate sense of gravity that it demands. We have filled that position with a person who carries the appropriate amount of gravitas.
Consequently, I thank honourable members for their kind support of this fine, decent and upright man. I am sure the Ombudsman will attend to his duties with dedication, thoroughness and caution.
Motion agreed to.
TOURISM NT BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, as outlined last week, we do not support the passage on urgency of this legislation and, having now seen the bill, we can now see it for what it is. It is hastily put together and unclear in its purpose, apart from providing an opportunity for the minister to claim he has delivered one part of the government’s 100-day action plan - one dubious achievement while they struggle with so many others.
At first glance, the bill seems to make hardly any difference at all to current arrangements. Tourism NT will remain as an entity with its own budget and reporting lines to the government, but the Tourism Advisory Board will be rebadged as an NT Tourism Commission. At a glance, there does not seem to be much difference at all between the current industry-based Tourism Advisory Board and the new Tourism Commission.
In an interview report in the Alice Springs News just after the election, the commissioner chair elect, Michael Bridge, was asked:
- Is the chain of command going to be the minister followed by the commission, followed by Tourism NT?
Mr Bridge replied:
- We’re just going to have to wait to see what the terms of reference are going to be.
Mr Bridge also said:
- My role is to get a group of people together, industry experts from the Territory and around Australia, put forward some recommendations to the minister and provide some strategic direction to the executive of Tourism NT.
The bill now lies before the Legislative Assembly and we can see that the question of how the chain of command and accountabilities will work remains largely unanswered.
Last week we heard the new government aims to focus the new agency CEOs on key priorities and hold them personally accountable for progress. Today, we consider a bill that provides for a sharing of accountabilities amongst the commission and a CEO. Perhaps there is some odd logic here; the minister has raised big expectations of growth in tourism in an increasingly tough and ever-changing business environment. Perhaps this model aims to shield him from his own personal accountabilities to the industry. We can see, however, some nuances in changing the function of Tourism NT and, by association, the functions of the commission. That is a much stronger priority, given a marking - aka how taxpayers’ advertising dollar is spent.
There is a new reference to encouraging and facilitating the sustainable growth of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. Reading that purpose, you wonder if the minister has read this bill. ‘Encouraging and facilitating’ just does not seem to be the action language we might expect from this minister, given his past huffing and puffing on what should be done.
Third, the functions provide for the commission to advise the minister on all matters relating to tourism and, specifically, tourism in the Territory.
I also noted that one of the functions outlined in current legislation to encourage tourism investment in the Territory no longer features as a core function. Encouraging and supporting investment in new products - our tourism infrastructure - seems to no longer be the priority it once was. I, and many in the tourism sector, would welcome an explanation of that change.
In my discussions with the tourism industry, the hundreds of small businesses directly employing more than 10% of the Territory workforce, a key question unanswered was: what about support for industry and product development? The current role of Tourism NT in supporting industry development and its products and our place in the market now seems pushed to one side. This is short sighted and I draw on sage advice to this Assembly from one of the few Country Liberal MLAs with real practical experience in tourism.
The last time this Assembly debated change in government administrative arrangements relating to tourism, the former member for Katherine noted there were many fledgling operations throughout the Northern Territory which have great potential and need nurturing and additional assistance so they can develop. It is vitally important to the future of tourism to foster and encourage these new businesses. Where does this nurturing and support for fledgling businesses fit in minister Conlan’s new order of things? This is a very quick question that needs to be asked and answered.
The bill is also silent on how the commission will be appointed, except for an overarching power for the minister to appoint anyone who the minister believes holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and experience relating to the functions of Tourism NT.
Mr Bridge told the Alice Springs News he will be putting forward to the minister some recommendations on membership of the board of the Tourism Commission. Last week the minister told us the commission board will include the best people handpicked by him and the chairman of the commission.
On Tuesday this week, the minister told members of Tourism Top End that board membership will be announced at the upcoming Brolga Tourism Awards, but there is no information for us here today or the industry on how these persons will be selected and what interests they will represent. We already know of one who has been selected; in her excitement she put it on Facebook for everyone to see.
Minister, what has the industry said to you about how board members should be selected? Where is the transparency and accountability of government promised by your Chief Minister? With the board members handpicked by the minister and a key focus of the board making decisions on how taxpayers’ marketing dollars are spent, it is important to consider how potential conflict-of-interest issues will be addressed.
The bill, correctly, does address the potential for commercial conflict of interest amongst board members, but the industry more generally also expects some transparency and consideration of potential conflict-of-interest issues in the selection of board members.
I will now speak to one of the key concerns we have on this bill, which is the opportunity for the minister to unilaterally give direction to the board, including direction on its priorities and the allocation of funds. We do not argue with the principle of ministerial responsibility and provisions for ministerial direction, but we ask: Where is the transparency and accountability in exercising these powers?
Just last week the Chief Minister said in reply to the Administrator’s address that
- My government was elected on a promise of being open and transparent, and that is what we will be.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members in Determination One of 2012.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at later hour.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
MOTION
Print Paper – Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Print Paper – Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Note Paper – Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
TOURISM NT BILL
(Serial 8)
(Serial 8)
Continued from earlier today.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I will kick off where I left off.
The Chief Minister has also repeated many times that his government will be a government for all Territorians, no matter where they live. We say that will be evidenced by actions, not words, and right here and now he has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to these principles.
We will propose in the committee stage that this transparency and accountability be demonstrated by requiring that the commission publish a report on any ministerial direction so they are visible and open to scrutiny.
I turn now to some further wise words from the former member for Katherine recorded in Hansard who noted:
- ... the importance of ensuring that all sectors of the tourism industry were involved through consultation which led to decision-making that had achievable outcomes.
Sadly, when I talk to the tourism sector about minister Conlan’s bungled initiatives, they say there has been nothing - no consultation, no opportunity to contribute.
Debate on urgency, using the numbers to ram this legislation through, allows even less time for consultation with the industry to help inform and shape the future arrangements meant to support their industry. This is the most disappointing thing about this bill: lack of industry consultation. The tourism sector is a diverse industry with many voices, and they all deserve to be heard.
Last week the minister told us he had consulted; that there has been plenty of discussion with industry; the consultation has been far and wide. I ask him to answer the questions put to me by many in the industry: who has he consulted with, when, and where? We do not support the bill on urgency. We acknowledge you have the numbers to ram it through so you can claim it as some sort of achievement. We have listened to the industry and heard their concerns about lack of consultation.
Madam Speaker, we ask the government members to put their egos and promises to mates aside and to follow your leader’s advice; that is, to understand and reflect on the importance of governing for all Territorians and being open and accountable in your new role as a minister of the Northern Territory government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill either, not because I am necessarily against the Tourism Commission. One reason is that it has been pushed through on urgency and it definitely does not need to go through on urgency. The second is that at the briefing I received, I was informed no one has seen the actual legislation.
Whilst it might be good to say this has been out there for 18 months, what has been out there for 18 months may not be the same as what is in the legislation. That is the key to why we do not push things through under urgency. We introduce legislation, we generally send that legislation out to those people who are affected by it, and give them time to comment on it.
The concept of a Tourism Commission is not something I am opposed to, but the process that has got us there - the inability of industry to have real input into the legislation - is lacking and, because they have not had that opportunity to comment directly on the legislation - and that is what has come from the government’s own department - then there is doubt whether this is the best piece of legislation that could be put forward. Could it be improved? I certainly think it could be improved.
Mr Conlan: How?
Mr WOOD: I will come to that, member for Greatorex. We have looked at other examples throughout Australia and the original example of a Tourist Commission in the Northern Territory. To some extent we have gone back in time, because we did have a Tourist Commission before. I will be putting some questions to the minister during the committee stage.
There were quite a few questions and the following points the current minister raised during an MPI on 11 August 2011 in relation to tourism. He said the CLP would look at things like a tourism heliport within striking distance of the CBD of Darwin; a tourism hub at Wadeye; positive pricing structures for caravan parks and roadside stops and rest stops; Alice Springs as a base hub for international airlines; money to be invested in wildlife parks in Berry Springs and Alice Springs, etcetera. During that debate there was no mention of reconstituting the Tourism Commission and there was no mention of moving the Tourism NT headquarters to Alice Springs. Only last year we had a substantial debate brought on by the then opposition, now government, in an MPI which looked at all the issues of tourism, but these two important areas were not discussed.
We have been ringing around and, generally, there is no doubt that comments are positive from Central Australian tourism operators. They hope this initiative will solve the slump in tourist numbers. We know change in tourism followed by an effect are a long way apart if you are trying to increase tourist numbers.
We received a comment about when the Mereenie Loop Road might be finished. We also received comments referred to us via the Centralian Advocate from a co-owner of the Glen Helen Resort, Shelagh O’Brien. It said a Centralian Australian tourism provider is concerned that the Northern Territory government plan to move the Tourism NT Head Office to the Alice Springs is a waste of money:
- Shelagh O’Brien co-owns and manages Glen Helen Resort, 130km west of Alice Springs and says funding meant for tourism promotion will be used on relocating staff.
“This is just going to cost money that will not be spent on tourism promotion. It will be spent on paying out redundancies, it will be spent on relocating people. You will lose people with a lot of background knowledge, skills and heart for the industry, so I see this as totally unnecessary.”
Mrs O’Brien said that Tourism NT Central Australian office was managed by “outstanding” staff and that the Territory-wide focus of the body was “totally satisfactory”.
The comments come as the government looks to make cost savings, and when funding for non-profit organisations is re-evaluated.
__________________________
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Daryl Manzie
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Daryl Manzie
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, may I interrupt to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Hon Daryl Manzie, a previous member of this parliament.
__________________________
Mr WOOD: The Centralian Advocate said:
- The Minister for Tourism, Matt Conlon, said, however, that the government is positive that the benefits to be gained will far outweigh the financial costs of the relocation. He said the relocation costs were allocated from the Tourism NT budget. Tourism NT was undertaking a consultative process to determine how many of the staff would move to Alice Springs.
There are other opinions when it comes to the benefits of some of the changes put forward by the government. I am not necessarily against Tourism NT going to Alice Springs. The discussion about that should be for another day, but it is worthy of debate. The minister has said they are evaluating the benefits versus the costs. If it shows up that it is more beneficial to send them to Alice Springs, well, okay. We have not seen any details to show that is the case. All we have heard is that the government has made a decision and there has not been what I call ‘a little bit of science’ behind that. Back in the old days the commission was based in Alice Springs, so I do not have anything philosophically against it; but in the times of so-called fiscal discipline, it would be nice to see what the costs would be and what the cost-benefits would be.
As I have said before, it is not an issue of whether I agree or disagree with having a Tourism Commission. Certainly one of the fundamental questions I will be asking, probably more so in committee stages, is, ‘what is the difference?’ I know what the difference is in legislation between this legislation and the new legislation, but what is the difference in reality and what difference will it make?
When it comes to having this debate on urgency, the point is we have not lost anything at the present time; you have not stopped existing. Tourism NT will continue in its present form until the new form starts up. It is not as though we are in such dire straits that if we decide to close down the existing advisory body the world would drop dead. We keep one going until the other one is in place. That is how I imagine it would work because you do not want to lose the link between the old body and the new.
My real concern is that if I support this legislation as it is, then I am saying to the industry I am happy to support legislation which, by the government’s own words in the briefing, has not gone out for consultation. The talk about the idea is fine, but it is not the legislation. The legislation is what we need to look at to see if it comes up trumps with what the government is trying to do.
The second thing is I do not support it going through on urgency because it is not urgent. It is important; it is good that the government is saying it wants tourism to get going. That is fine. Tourism is one of the three-hub policies the government has put out. That is fine, but you do not have to be a bull in a china shop to achieve what you are trying to do.
The tourism industry is important. It does take a long time for changes to be seen on the ground, as you would know. Like with trying to get airlines here - by the time you have an airline here, how do you develop – if we could get an airline to Alice Springs besides Qantas. By the time you have one there, trying to then develop the market to bring more visitors to a particular destination takes time. It will not happen overnight, so I do not believe there is any need for urgency.
Whilst I understand, through talking to the tourism industry, they support the concept; none of them have seen the legislation. That is a real failing with this legislation.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker …
Mr Wood: Haven’t you got any supporters on your side to talk about this vibrant tourism?
Mr CONLAN: Hang on. What about the supporters on your side? We all agree. This was an agreement by Cabinet. We already agree with it. We already support it. Where is everyone over there?
You are so indignant and so outraged that we are pushing something through on urgency and you spoke for 11 minutes. The shadow minister is so indignant; he is so appalled at the way we have handled this - absolutely beside himself with disgust that the government could do something like this - and he spoke for 15 minutes. Where are the rest? Where is the indignation? It is clearly feigned. Where is the former Tourism minister, the member for Casuarina? He is probably one of the better performers on the other side in tourism. Tourism had a hope with you. It had a faint glimmer of hope when you were in government, then you handed it over to the failed member for Arnhem and holy cow did she drop the ball - completely stagnant, did not do anything,
You say we are not in a hurry. You say we do not need to do anything. Have you looked at the recent data? Have you bothered to look, members for Nelson and Johnston? Have you looked at where we are as a tourism destination, and the figures and people we are attracting? Has anyone looked at the status quo? It does not look like it. Silence is golden. Unbelievable! It is an industry that is haemorrhaging.
Selective data chosen by the member for Johnston - yes, there have been some increases, some bumps, some blips. There have been plenty of dips in the recent tourism figures over the last decade, particularly, over the last five years. You say, ‘Oh, no, we could not possibly pass this on urgency because everything is okay. We are going for this advisory board. It is still there.’ The advisory board has failed. This is an industry in crisis. It needs help and urgent action, and we have to reform the way we look at tourism. The whole world in tourism has changed. This is urgent because we consider it to be a major industry and pillar of our economy.
We will take it seriously. We need to get this show on the road and it has to happen immediately. We need to form the commission as soon as possible so they can hit the ground running and start to turn the tourism sector around in the Northern Territory and start attracting airlines, visitors and get our product out there.
This is a very important but very simple bill. There is nothing really complicated about it, member for Nelson. Okay, it is coming through on urgency. You still had it last Thursday - plenty of time to look at it. There is not a great deal in the bill. In fact, we could have amended the existing bill, but it was much easier to come in with a new bill. That is the advice of Parliamentary Counsel.
The member for Johnston, and the rest of you, say this is pretty sloppy work. What is that saying about the eminent people who work in Parliamentary Counsel? They have put a great deal of work into this; we have all put a great deal of work into it. It is a pretty simple bill with not a great deal in it. It is reconstituting the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. It is not even thick - 20 or so pages. I do not have a copy with me ...
Mr Giles: They have never worked that hard in their life to read 20 pages.
Mr CONLAN: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Braitling because it leads me to something which is also very important. Very few decisions were taken with regard to tourism by the former government, particularly my immediate predecessor. Very few bold decisions were taken and that is pretty evident. One of the few things he did was disband the previous commission and form the toothless advisory board. We have seen the results of the toothless advisory board - it has not achieved. We wish it had. We wish the advisory board had achieved its goals and aims then we would not be here.
It is the same with the Arafura Games. We wish we did not have to pull the plug on the 2013 games. We would much rather go ahead with the games. We would much rather spend like drunken sailors. We wish we had plenty of money, but the reality is, there is no money, the games have lost their way, and tourism in the Northern Territory is haemorrhaging.
It is very important we make these bold decisions. These bold decisions have put you all into a state of shock because you are not used to making bold decisions. No one has any idea - oh my God! The general public is saying: ‘Holy cow, what is going on? Is this government making some decisions? Is this government governing, doing what it was elected to do and taking ministerial responsibility?’ Heaven forbid, a minister should be responsible for his own decisions and his own department!
We have seen what we were exposed to under the previous government - wheeling out the public servants, hiding behind legislation. That is exactly what you guys do; you bolster legislation to the point where the minister is not responsible. We saw it with the Hospital Management Boards Act and the former member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns, after the embarrassing fiasco with him. You had to protect him through legislation.
We are not about that; we are about accountability. We campaigned on accountability and firmly believe in accountability. You do not put it on an election flyer or stick it in everyone’s letterbox for three months up to an election. Point five: ‘be accountable’. Let me remind you of what it said:
If we do not deliver, throw us out. There will be no more political deals. The only deal we will have is with you, to help make a better future.
Some of you probably still cling to that old axiom of ministerial accountability. I faintly believe the member for Casuarina, probably one of the few decent men in this Chamber on the other side who has been here for a long time and was a minister in the Martin government when first elected. He is one of the longest serving ministers we have in this parliament - 10 or 11 years...
Mr Giles: He should be the Opposition Leader.
Mr CONLAN: He should be the Opposition Leader, I am not sure what happened there; nevertheless he probably still believes ministerial responsibility is not such a bad thing ...
Mr Giles: He must have challenged. That is why he got the back seat.
Mr CONLAN: Regardless, we believe in ministerial responsibility, in being accountable, and we will be accountable and take responsibility for our decisions. We do not need to put a clause into some bill to say, ‘Look, I want to see some deliberation, I want to see what you said; I want to see what you said to the commission.’
You will know what has been said to the commission because the decisions will be there. The commission will make those decisions. It is pretty clear, it is fundamentally crystal clear.
The bill is not very complex, member for Nelson. I do not know why you want to delay it; why you have this issue with it coming through on urgency.
I can say - and I sincerely mean it - your responsibilities in this parliament have somewhat diminished. I mean that with respect because I understand, in the previous three or four years, you had an enormous amount of responsibility in a minority government - difficult at the best of times and impossible at the worst of times. And there were plenty worst of times, so to speak. You had much work to do. However, these days you do not have as much work to do, so to say you have not had time to read the bill or make a few phone calls - why can you not get on the phone and ring 25 or 50 tourism operators - you have had a week - and ask them what they are doing?
Mr Wood: Were you listening?
Mr CONLAN: I have listened to you. You came in with this survey: 95% of people do not want to go to Alice Springs. What you failed to mention is the push polling survey conducted by the CPSU. That was the survey done by the CPSU, for crying out loud. I saw the survey, it was hilarious. Questions were along the lines of, ‘Would you like to move to the end of the earth?’ No, of course not. ‘End of the earth’, insert Alice Springs according to the CPSU. Of course, the Top End because the member for Johnston does not like Alice Springs either. None of you guys like Alice Springs and, clearly, the CPSU does not like Alice Springs ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: He does not like it very much at all. How offensive is that survey to the CPSU members in Central Australia and other parts of the Northern Territory? How offensive is that?
Mrs Lambley: Very.
Mr CONLAN: Exactly. It is as if Darwin is the epicentre of the Earth and everywhere else shall perish. It is extraordinary.
If that is the only evidence you have; this fudged survey by the CPSU about their members being ‘extracted’ from their community, ripping the families apart, ripping children out of school and relocating them at their peril, if they do not go to Alice Springs. ‘You will go to Alice Springs or else your families will crumble and the sun will not come up tomorrow.’
That is the stuff that is being peddled by the CPSU, backed up 100% by the member for Johnston and, in turn, the opposition. It just shows they have nothing else to do.
The member for Nelson is a considered man, and I am surprised at his objection.
Mr Wood: Never be surprised.
Mr CONLAN: I am surprised at his objection with regard to an instrument, a tool, a mechanism to bring back the tourism industry; to resurrect the Northern Territory tourism sector. This will do just that.
I spoke at a Tourism Top End meeting the other night. I think 105 people turned out, and I answered a number of questions on paper and on the floor. People were not vehemently opposed to the move to Central Australia. People certainly were not vehemently opposed to constituting a Tourism Commission; in fact, they were very supportive of it. They can see the benefits of it, they clearly get it.
It is blatantly obvious to the industry - bleedingly obvious to us - that the member for Johnston has no idea what he is doing. He reads a pretty poor speech crafted by Peter Welllings. Peter is a pretty good speech writer usually. I am surprised he came in with that, but he is now in opposition. That is his job. He hands it to the shadow minister and the shadow minister reads it word for word, stumbles through it, probably cannot recall too much about it. All he knows is the world will end if we move the tourism sector to Alice Springs, and the sun will not come up tomorrow if we constitute a commission and pass this bill on urgency. It is pathetic and pretty ordinary to stand up here with such indignation and bleat from your opposition benches about this bill going through on urgency.
And stop the move to Alice Springs! The tourism industry will crumble if we place the bureaucracy in another jurisdiction of the Northern Territory! Yet to speak only on that for only 15 minutes maximum, member for Johnston - surely it could not have gone for more than 15 minutes - five before lunch, 10 after lunch - needed a feed to get through it.
And the member for Nelson, who as I say is a considered guy and could normally talk us all under water, but today only 10 minutes. Does this mean that we will have a really long, extended committee stage now? Will we go through clause by clause, semicolon by semicolon of a bill that is that thick, that is pretty simple? Is this the way you justify your concern for the tourism industry?
The best thing you can do for the tourism industry is get on with it and pass the bill so we can get this show on the road. That is the best thing we can do. I do not want to waste any more time. The industry is haemorrhaging, the longer I stand here the longer this bill stays before the House. It needs to be passed so we can get on with it.
Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks and look forward to getting through this committee stage as quickly as possible.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it Tourism NT Bill 2012, (Serial 8), Schedule of Amendments No 1 circulated by the member for Johnston, Mr Vowles.
Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr WOOD: Can I get clarification there? If we take it as a whole can we work through it and deal with some general issues and clause issues as we come to them?
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you want to speak to specific clauses we can take it clause by clause.
Mr WOOD: I have some general questions about the legislation and some specific questions about the clauses. The opposition spokesman for Tourism may want to speak first. I am just letting you know that is how I want to approach it. If I were to support the bill taken as a whole would it allow me to do that?
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think so.
Mr ELFERINK: If I may assist the House, Mr Chairman, perhaps by way of guidance. Do you have any amendments to make yourself?
Mr WOOD: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so there is only the one amendment that was circulated. Perhaps, Mr Chairman, if we take the bill as a whole that will enable the member for Nelson to talk about what he wants to talk about and within that structure the amendment could be moved without having to go through it clause by clause. If that would suit and assist the House the whole thing would probably move a little more smoothly through that process.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I am not sure whether the opposition shadow minister wants to talk on any other issues but when we get to clause 28 we can deal with that then.
Minister, I take exception to you thinking that going to the committee stage is neither here nor there and we should get on with it. As I have said before, the committee stage is one of the most important stages in this parliament because we do not have a bicameral system. It is there to scrutinise these stages.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Mr Chairman! I do not need a lecture. Can you just get on with the question, member for Nelson. You had your half-an-hour and you failed to expand on that. Let us get to the questions please.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, as I said, this is an important stage in the development of the bill. It allows proper scrutiny of the bill and it should not be taken lightheartedly. I ask the minister for Tourism what the benefit is of having a commission compared with the current advisory board.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, that is pretty simple, it empowers the board. It is a constituted board, a remunerated board. It is at arm’s length from government, not enslaved to government like the previous advisory board was.
Mr WOOD: So, basically, under one of the sections here regarding the powers of the minister, you still have the same powers as when there was an advisory board. Is that correct? This is in the existing legislation:
- Tourism NT is subject to the directions of the minister in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers.
In the new legislation that is exactly the same. It is subject to the direction of the minister in the performance of its functions to exercise it powers. What benefits do you get when you still have powers over both the commission and the advisory board?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I know it is a foreign concept for some in this House but yes, the minister will retain powers and have ultimate ministerial control.
Mr WOOD: In the explanatory statement you say the commission will be responsible for all major aspects, the policy and strategic development and the consequential operational outcomes. The authority and responsibility for performance, external accountability and corporate governance will be vested with a number of persons instead of one individual who is the Chief Executive Officer.
In the second reading you said:
- These people will have authority and responsibility for all major aspects of strategy and policy development and the consequent operational outcomes ...
and went on:
- ... the previous government put in place an advisory board ... and failed to give real responsibility.
How does this act make the commission responsible for the policy and strategic development and the consequential operational outcomes?
Before you answer that question, minister, what I am referring to is that in Victoria, in conjunction with their commission, there is a written determination of the performance targets to be obtained by the commission. Why do we not have something like performance targets built into the bill so someone can take responsibility for the consequential operational outcomes?
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, it is not good practice to start enshrining that sort of stuff in the legislation. I am not sure what they are doing in Victoria but in the Northern Territory we are empowering the minister with accountability and responsibility. This board is about governance. This board will have some control. It will be able to do things, for lack of a better word, where the previous advisory board was just that, they offered advice.
Mr WOOD: I do not think you should be flippant about other governments because they have been in the business a long time too. You said this is about governance. It is more than governance, it is to market the Territory as a desirable visitor destination. It is to encourage and facilitate the sustainable growth.
They are matters which will need some consequential operational outcomes. There is nothing in here to make the commission responsible for what it is doing - to have goals. Where are the goals to say we will increase visitor destination numbers by 10% this year and this is how we are going to do it? How do we ensure those goals are achieved?’
Mr CONLAN: Those goals will be set out clearly in the corporate plan. Why would you put KPIs and such targets into legislation? Do you suggest we go back to Parliamentary Counsel and redraft another bill every time the targets change? Every time we need to respond to new developments and the targets change we have to go back and change the legislation. It is hardly productive. That is a hallmark of the previous government. We are about being responsive and being able to move with times and change as we need to, but those targets will be clearly defined in the corporate plan.
Mr WOOD: We cannot find anything in the act for remuneration of commissioners. Could you tell us where, or if, commissioners will be remunerated? If there is legislation, what legislation will show that?
Mr CONLAN: I did not hear the end of the question, but you are talking about remuneration. It is set down in the Remuneration Act, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: In relation to Division 2, Functions and Powers, the first clause, 7(a), is:
- ... to market the Territory as a desirable visitor destination.
What do you regard as the definition of ‘desirable’ in this case?
Mr CONLAN: It would be something someone wants to look at, member for Nelson. It would be something someone would pay money to see, visit, tour and explore. That, to me, would be desirable.
Mr WOOD: Part of clause (a) the words ‘to market the Territory’ will be, I presume, an additional responsibility of the commission in comparison to the existing advisory board. Will there be extra money put in the budget to cover that new function of marketing?
Mr CONLAN: That will be revealed in the mini-budget, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of whether it is revealed - I do not have to ask you for a dollar figure - will there be additional funding for marketing?
Mr CONLAN: We take tourism seriously and I will do everything I can to ensure there are increases, where possible, for tourism. However, you will find there will be a strong focus on marketing. This is about marketing the Northern Territory in times of trouble. We need to have a strong focus on marketing in the current climate. There will be substantial money for marketing. Whether there is any new money for marketing, we will wait for the mini-budget.
Mr WOOD: Functions clause 7(b) is: to encourage and facilitate the sustainable growth of the tourism industry. What do you define as sustainable growth of the tourist industry?
Mr CONLAN: Sustainable growth is just that, growing in a sustainable fashion, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: This is one of the functions you have required Tourism NT to take up. It is beholden to at least give your view of sustainable growth so they have some guidelines as to what this means in the act.
Mr CONLAN: It is growth that continues - continued growth. Growth means up or expanding. We do not want a shrinking or diminishing industry; we want an industry which grows and continues to grow. The legislative term for that is sustainable growth.
Mr WOOD: You also say you will encourage and facilitate sustainable growth. How do you see you will be able to facilitate sustainable growth?
Mr CONLAN: Sustainable growth will be facilitated by Cabinet. Clear directions will be set by Cabinet. Cabinet will set the direction and the industry, or Tourism NT, will implement that direction.
Mr WOOD: I know you might not think other jurisdictions may be relevant, but other jurisdictions have some specific functions that could have been included in the functions for Tourism NT. They are things such as: contribute to preparation and implementation of economic development plans for tourism; prepare plans, formulate policies and strategies for implementation; assist regional tourism bodies; increase visitor numbers and amount of travel into the Territory; and improve developed tourist facilities.
Do you think the number of functions there goes wide enough, and why could some of those functions I have just given you not be included to broaden the functions of Tourism Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: I might take that as a statement. Was there a question?
Mr WOOD: Yes, there was a question, minister. I said to you that some other acts in Australia - and that is why you need time to look at these things - include other functions which would be very useful. They were: contribute to preparation and implementation of economic development plans for tourism; prepare plans, formulate policies and strategies for implementation; assist regional tourism bodies; increase visitor numbers and amount of travel into the Territory and improve and develop tourist facilities.
All I am saying is there are other functions which would be beneficial to the Functions and Powers section of this act. Do you think there could have been more functions for Tourism NT?
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, I do not think there should be any more - whatever it is you are suggesting - enshrined into the legislation. We are not going to bog down our legislation. It is the same argument with the KPIs, member for Nelson. We will not enshrine into legislation these strict incumbencies on the bill. The bill needs to be fluid, it needs to give the commission room. It is incumbent on the organisation to set or implement that direction, and Cabinet to set that direction. That will be laid out in the corporate plan.
We are not going to bog down the legislation each time we have a change in direction, there is a new strategic plan, or there is a new KPI, or whatever it might be.
Mr WOOD: Under clause 8, Powers, will the commission be able to appoint agents or receive fees or commission? If so, where would I find that power within the legislation?
Mr CONLAN: You will find that in the Interpretation Act, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Would that include the establishment of committees? I thought if you wanted a subcommittee you would need to have something in the legislation to give the Tourism NT the power to do that.
Mr CONLAN: It is all clearly spelled out in the Interpretation Act, member for Nelson. But, yes, there is the provision to form committees.
Mr WOOD: In the Interpretation Act or in this act?
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, what was the last part of your question again?
Mr WOOD: I would have thought it was normal. Forgetting the Interpretation Act, with any act that had a body, they would have had the power to set up subcommittees. Usually, in constitutions I have seen, those powers of delegation are clearly written down. There are no powers in this legislation to say this body can form a committee. If it can form a committee, what are its functions and powers?
Mr CONLAN: Again, member for Nelson, I have to refer you to the Interpretation Act. It is pretty simple. You need to go back and have a look at that. It is under clause 8 (1) Powers:
- Tourism NT has the powers necessary or convenient to perform its functions.
It says in clause 8(1) Tourism NT has the powers if it is necessary or convenient to performing its functions to form a committee then it has the powers to do that. This is the way legislation is crafted these days, member for Nelson. Parliamentary Counsel is pretty good at keeping things quite simple and that explains why, if you have a look at the act from 1977 you will see it is very wordy. But no, it says it right there:
- Tourism NT has the powers necessary or convenient to perform its functions.
Mr WOOD: Minister, moving onto Division 3 regarding the constitution and commissioners. In section one, it says that there will be a chief executive officer and at least six other commissioners appointed in writing by the minister. Then it goes onto say:
- The minister may appoint a person to be an appointed commissioner only if the minister is satisfied that the person holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge or experience relating to the functions of Tourism NT.
In the older Tourist Commission composition, there was, for instance, someone representing the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory; one person appointed by the minister from a panel of three names submitted by persons or any association of persons who in the opinion of the minister represented the persons engaged in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory and who operated from the Alice Springs region. There was also one person from the Darwin region, Katherine region, and Tennant Creek region. There was one person appointed from the Northern Territory University and two persons appointed by the minister, being persons who in the opinion of the minister possessed knowledge and experience of the tourism industry.
Minister, why did you not look at bringing into the description of who could be on this commission something similar to what was there originally so there could be a guarantee we would have people from the regions and from Parks and Wildlife? When you consider the number of parks in the Northern Territory and how important a part they play in the tourism industry you would have thought that perhaps there would be a permanent position for someone from Parks and Wildlife on the commission.
Mr CONLAN: We are not interested in restricting ourselves in that capacity, member for Nelson. The board members will be chosen by me with the guidance of Cabinet in the best interests of tourism for the Northern Territory. We do not think it good practice to start restricting yourself in legislation to that end; and who is to say there will not be someone from Parks and Wildlife on the commission?
Mr WOOD: The other side to that question is, who is to say there will? If you look at the old legislation it did allow the minister to appoint people. It just said there were certain members of this commission, which had 11 members at that time, who had to be from certain areas of the Territory and there were certain people the minister appointed. I move on.
Mr GUNNER: Just before you move on, member for Nelson, could we ask a question in that same space? Minister, through the Chair, you were just talking about the appointment of commissioners. Could you please explain how you might appoint commissioners? Will you be advertising, for example?
Mr CONLAN: No, essentially they will be hand-picked by me and Cabinet.
Mr GUNNER: And do you know when you will be picking your commissioners? Has that happened yet?
Mr CONLAN: We are in the process of doing that and the commissioners will be announced on 17 November at the Brolga Awards.
Mr GUNNER: Would you mind explaining what skills you are looking for in a commissioner? You are going through the process now of picking them. Obviously, there will not be an advertisement so we will not be able to see in an advertisement what you think the skills are or what you might ask people to apply to. Could you please explain, if you are picking them yourself, what specific things you are looking at in the commissioners you are choosing?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly. We are looking for people who have a vast experience in the tourism industry, marketing experience, information technology experience, and hospitality experience. We want to stack the Tourism Commission with the best minds in the tourism industry. That will be a group of people from the Northern Territory and also from interstate. We are looking at the best people we can get for the money we are prepared to pay to form the Tourism Commission.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, why would you not put out expressions of interest for people who may wish to be on the commission? You can hand-pick, but if you want to broaden the area of expertise there may be people you do not know about. Would it not be a good idea to call for expressions of interest asking for people who may have that expertise you are talking about to put their hands up?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, you leaving yourself open for another broadside here. I know you did not want to step up and be a minister when you had the power to do so. Unlike the previous government which did not put much value on ministerial responsibility, or the kudos or position of a minister of the Crown, we do. That is why we are leaving such important appointments up to the discretion of the minister.
Mr WOOD: Notwithstanding those irrelevant comments you made, minister, you would still have the right to choose. Why could you not have put out an expression of interest which would broaden the number of people you could choose from? I am not saying you should take away that right, I am asking why was an advertisement not put out in papers describing the type of person you are looking for on the commission and that you would be interested in hearing from people with those skills? You would still choose them but it broadens what can appear to be a process behind closed doors. I am not saying you should not pick them, but why did you not look at expressions of interest?
Mr CONLAN: We are looking at six people, and I know more than six people who are eminently qualified to fill the job, as do most of my Cabinet colleagues, and probably you people as well. We do not need to go through a long-winded, exhaustive advertising, job recruiting regime. We know who we want and we will go and get them. We will put them on the board, we will pay them good money, and they will deliver for the Territory.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Would you be looking for anyone from interstate, considering that we do work with other states and countries?
Mr CONLAN: As I just elaborated to the member for Fannie Bay, yes, most certainly.
Mr WOOD: Moving on to clause 18, Termination of Employment, it says there under 18(2)(b):
- If the commissioner is found guilty of an offence of such a nature that it would be inappropriate for the person to continue to be a commissioner ...
you must terminate the appointment of that commissioner.
Can you give us an idea of what would be inappropriate?
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, do you seriously want me to outline to this House what might be considered as inappropriate behaviour?
Mr WOOD: Well, you have put a broad word in there, which was the reason we asked. I can imagine there can be inappropriate behaviour, but it is a very broad word. But, anyway, I will move on.
In relation to clause 20:
- The chairperson may convene a meeting of Tourism NT at any time, but must convene at least four meetings each financial year.
The previous Tourist Commission went from a minimum of six meetings each year to a meeting held at least once a month every month except for January. Do you believe four meetings is enough, or do you believe the idea the previous Tourist Commission had of meeting once a month, except for January, would reflect more the important work you are saying needs to be done, the new strategies you are trying to put in place, the idea that tourism needs pushing forward?
Mr CONLAN: The four meetings a year requirement is a minimum. I hope there will be more; we will be looking for at least six. I would like them to meet every week, but that is not going to happen. We have to set a minimum requirement; there will no doubt be reasons why people cannot meet more than four times a year. While it is part of the legislation there is nothing we can do about it at the end of the day, if they only meet four times, because they are meeting their legal requirement. I would bet London to a brick these guys will be coming out of the blocks and meeting as much as possible. We are looking at six meetings and you will be hard pressed to stop them meeting more than six times a year.
However, there is a minimum requirement. It is standard practice and needs to be put into the legislation to protect those who may not, for very good reason, be able to meet more than four times a year. I would expect them to meet more and we are looking at meeting at least six times.
Mr VOWLES: Division 4, clause 24 - Records of Meetings:
- Tourism NT must keep accurate records of its meetings.
Mr CONLAN: They will not be published but are available through freedom of information.
Mr WOOD: That is open and transparent.
Mr VATSKALIS: Very transparent.
Mr CONLAN: Standard practice, Kon. You should know that.
Mr WOOD: I am disappointed to hear that, minister. Why would you not allow the minutes of meetings to be open to the public?
Mr CONLAN: They are available through freedom of information. That is, you are free to access that information.
Mr WOOD: Minister, why can I not go on the website and pick up a copy of the minutes of the meeting without paying for freedom of information?
Mr CONLAN: Because it is a requirement set down by this government, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is very good, minister; however, one of the policies I have continually heard from the Chief Minister is you will be open and transparent. Getting minutes through the freedom of information process is very hard to match with that rhetoric.
Mr CONLAN: I will take that as a statement, Mr Chairman.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am on to clause 28. I have some things to discuss there. I might hand it over to the shadow minister, who has an amendment.
Mr VOWLES: If I read out the question is that the word proposed? Is that what I am reading out or just the amendment?
Mr Elferink: No, you move that the words such and such be inserted.
Mr VOWLES: I move, that after clause 28(1) insert (1A):
- The report must include details of any directions given by the minister under section 9 during the financial year.
Mr Elferink: Now you speak to that motion and explain to the House why you think it is a good idea.
Mr VOWLES: Thanks very much, member for Port Darwin, I appreciate that.
I have only asked for a few lines in clause 28(1A) to support their promise by promising the tourism industry that reports must include the details of any directions given by the minister under section 9 during the financial year. This is to coincide with the open and transparent new government.
If the minister wants tourism to be a management board there should be consistency with bodies such as the Land Development Corporation or the Darwin Port Corporation, where any direction by the minister is tabled in the annual report. That is why I support this amendment.
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the amendment, it is an important part of the government’s strategy in relation to openness and transparency. It ensures whatever direction the minister is giving NT Tourism it is available to the public, especially to people in the tourism business.
If the emphasis has been that this government will be open and transparent, it would be very difficult to see why the government will not support this amendment.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chairman, government will not be supporting the amendment for a couple of very simple reasons. First, this amendment arrived at 9.40 pm yesterday so we are unable to test how it might reflect on other legislation or the broader legislation of this. Second, this is a very important bill. I have stated in no uncertain terms how important this bill is to tourism and the future of the Northern Territory. We are in no way prepared to start amending this bill on the fly here in the House. We may consider something like this in the future. I suggest to the shadow minister and the opposition - even to you, member for Nelson, if it is something you really are keen to see - you bring it back to this parliament at a later stage.
Mr WOOD: The other answer to that, of course, is if this bill had not been on urgency some of these things could have been discussed in the time between this sittings and the next sittings. This is one of the problems associated with having a bill on urgency. This is the classic example of why you do not rush bills through on urgency unless they are definitively urgent. This bill is not.
I again emphasise the importance of the process we need to hold up as part of this Westminster system; that we introduce laws and give those laws, regardless of whether they are this thick – because I have seen some laws this thick cause enormous debate in this parliament, and I will refer back to the parks management bills. They need to be scrutinised. Little bills can sometimes have great ramifications. This is a classic example. If we had not had to rush this bill through, if there is an issue with the tightness of the time in relation to the government considering this amendment, then this is a classic example of why we should not have been looking at this through urgency.
Mr GUNNER: I echo many of the comments from the member for Nelson. The bill was tabled in the House on Thursday. We received a briefing, as the opposition, on the Friday, discussed it as a Caucus, the shadow Tourism minister saw Parliamentary Counsel, we got the amendment drafted and we got it to the minister yesterday, which was reasonable in the context of the urgency motion. Obviously, if there was more time we would have been able to give it to the minister with more time. However, the minister is the one who asked for this timetable and this schedule, so we are working to that and have brought the amendment before him. We think it is a little poor to say because of the time line the minister chose, therefore, we did not give enough time.
We believe it is a simple amendment; it is in other acts of the NT parliament. It is there for the Darwin Port Corporation and Land Development Corporation. We believe it is very reasonable. It goes to openness and transparency which are things the CLP ran on at the last election, and they have talked about very much today. The minister mentioned accountability in his second reading speech.
We have already heard the records of meetings are not going to be published, and we think this amendment is straightforward. We would like the government to support it. It is not too late; obviously, it has not been moved yet. The government can change its position on it and we ask them for their support.
Mr CONLAN: We can change our position on it; we are not going to at the moment. You still had a week; you got the bill last Thursday. We have had, probably, a whole - would it be? - 40 minutes of speeches you put together in the last seven days, member for Fannie Bay. It is not like you have been pressed for time. You had plenty of time to scrutinise this bill and bring this amendment on much earlier. You could have brought it on the Friday morning or the Friday night, or Monday morning. We could have had plenty of time to look at it, but 9.30 pm last night was too late. You still had a week.
Amendment negatived.
Mr WOOD: We are still on clause 28; that was only an amendment to clause 28.
In comparison to some annual reports, your legislation says:
- The report must be given to the minister within six months after the end of the financial year, or such other period as the minister determines.
In South Australia the annual report is given before 30 September; the NT Hospitals Network Government Council before 31 October; the Ombudsman Act within three months after the end of the financial year; the Charles Darwin University within six months of the end of the financial year; Gaming Control Community Benefit Committee within three months; and the Local Government Act must be before 15 November.
During debate on the Hospital Network Government Council 2012, where the then shadow minister for Health - you, Matt Conlan - said:
- I would like to see the reports as soon as possible. In the previous act 30 September was good ... It meant the reports were in members’ hands in this parliament much sooner. Dragging it out until February, possibly even the March sittings, is too much.
I cannot quite put the same expression there ...
Mr Elferink: No, not quite.
Mr WOOD: I know.
This act is being moved on urgency so it is very important to the wellbeing of the Territory. The reports should be in parliament for scrutiny earlier than six months after the end of the financial year.
Minister, why have you allowed the annual report to be given within six months which will mean the annual report will not be out until either February or March the following year? This is something you laughed at and opposed during the debate in 2012.
Will you change that so that you bring it in line with some of the other requirements of departments within the Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: One great thing about being in this job is that I can actually give you the answer, member for Nelson. You can speculate and pontificate, and yes, I was very upset about a number of acts and pieces of legislation that allowed annual reports to be tabled way too late.
In this case Tourism NT does not receive any of its data or research from Tourism Research Australia until late September. Tourism NT then needs to analyse all that data and that, as you can understand, is quite comprehensive and time consuming.
I do not know if you have seen too much tourism data. It did not seem to me today that anyone was prepared to quote any figures or accept the data we are seeing in the Northern Territory, but it is quite - nights stayed, nights per visit, nights per destination, it is complex data and there is a series of it.
It does not arrive into the hands of Tourism NT until mid to late September, usually late September. That gives the legislative room for that data to be fully analysed and presented to this parliament.
However, I have to add, never has that data not been made available to this House by the November sittings. It has always been available to the House and tabled in parliament during the last sittings of the year.
Mr WOOD: Thank you minister, then why put six months?
Mr CONLAN: Well I just answered it, member for Nelson. I told you they need time to analyse the data. What if there is a hitch with the data, what if there is an overwhelming amount of data? Would you rather a half-baked report come to parliament, a comprehensive report in January or February, or just a little of the data, which may not be accurate arrive, in February to suit your agenda?
What would you like? I told you the answer. That is the answer.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, before you get too upset. Was this issue, which I accept, within your second reading speech?
Mr CONLAN: Have you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr CONLAN: You have?
Mr WOOD: Was it?
Mr CONLAN: Was it in there?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Was it in there?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Did you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: I am asking you the question.
Mr CONLAN: Did you read the second reading speech?
Mr WOOD: Excuse me minister, I am not going to tell you what I read and did not read, I am asking you if it is in the second reading speech. Let us clarify it.
Mr CONLAN: Have a look at the second reading speech and I am sure your question will be answered. I think Mr Chairman we have wasted enough time on this issue. The member for Nelson clearly does not want the Tourism bill to pass; he does not have much interest in tourism in the Northern Territory, we have seen that, and I think we should move on.
Mr GUNNER: Member for Nelson I would like to jump in first. I am a little concerned by the minister’s attitude trying to rush through the bill. It is an important committee-stage debate, and we are interested in hearing the questions and the answers. The minister has already said he is not going to advertise for commissioners, he is not going to publish minutes of meetings, he is not going to disclose the minister’s directions to the commission and now he wants to rush through the committee stage. I think we should be open and we should be transparent, just like the CLP promised.
We should take our time during the committee stage on a bill they want to pass on urgency. Bearing in mind this is the CLP’s timetable there is no problem with the member for Nelson asking questions and the minister answering them. We should all calm down a bit here.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Minister, could you answer the question please.
Mr CONLAN: I have no problem with answering questions either, member for Fannie Bay. I am more than happy to answer questions. We have nothing to hide. This is a simple bill, pretty straightforward and it is in keeping with most legislation that has come before this House.
There are some exceptions, but there will not be in those particular cases with this bill. If you want to bring in an amendment to this House and to this bill, you can do so at another stage. But we will not be agreeing to your amendment and we will not be facilitating that amendment - which was brought to us at 9.30 pm last night - on what we consider to be, while a very simple bill, a very important bill. You are right. We agree on one thing, that this is very important.
The member for Nelson’s questions are repetitive and inane. ‘Did you say this in the second reading speech?’ The answer is no. Why would he not ask, ‘Why didn’t you say it in the second reading speech?’ That is what I consider to be time-wasting. The member for Nelson likes to bleat. He likes the sound of his own voice. He is dragging this out unnecessarily. I am more than happy to facilitate an answer to his questions but I request, Mr Chairman, that we get on with answering the questions.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. It is sad to hear what the minister has to say. Just because people use the committee stage to ask the minister questions, it is not about bleating, it is about checking to see if the minister knows his legislation. It is the question about whether the legislation is good or bad, whether it has faults. That is what this process is about. What I hear is flippant discussion as if this is just a little discussion around the coffee table.
A member: Wasting time.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well there we go. The arrogance of some people now they have taken over. They have government, they want to take short cuts. This is the parliamentary process. It does not matter whether you are in government or this side is in government, this is more important than the lot of you.
Do not put down the committee stage of parliament because in this House it is most important. Questions for you or someone else might be flippant, they might be a waste of time, but I am entitled to ask those questions. We did them in good faith. The only question you became upset about was the last question; the other questions were questions the public needs to hear. This is not just about you and I sitting in here discussing it, this gives the public the opportunity to hear what the minister has to say in response to questions, what the tourism industry needs to hear from you.
The main reason I will not support the legislation - I am not going to oppose it because the idea of a Tourism Commission is a good one - is because you have not taken this legislation out to the industry so it could say it agrees, does not agree with this or that there should be amendments.
You just said, ‘we promised it’, but the issue is not about a promise; the issue is about what is in this piece of paper, this important bill, and it has not been scrutinised by the industry. Therefore I cannot support it for that main reason. The idea that it can be rushed through is important as well. I do not support it on urgency. I need to put on the record that you have not consulted with the industry. It is your department that said that about this legislation. Until I know the industry supports this legislation I would be a fool to support it.
Bill reported without amendments.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 16 Noes 8
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 Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Report adopted.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Arafura Games 2013 – Deferral
Arafura Games 2013 – Deferral
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In the normal convention of the parliament, the Opposition Whip had asked the question regarding the order of the statements because there are three statements. We have been advised the Indigenous Advancement statement was coming on first, so I am seeking clarification of whether the order has a changed and what the new order is.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I will ‘fess up. It was originally intended to bring Indigenous Affairs on, but this one came down through the system. I apologise to the House. That is my bad.
Ms Lawrie: What is the new order, so we know?
Mr ELFERINK: It will be Arafura, Indigenous Affairs and I do not believe there will be a ministerial statement on the ...
Ms Lawrie: Can you confirm with the Whip at some stage?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I will discuss it with him.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Minister, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, this decision was not taken lightly but it was taken in the best interests of everyone involved, and to maintain the reputation - and I stress that - of the Northern Territory in the region.
Put simply, the government has taken this decision because the previous government failed to invest in the Arafura Games. The previous government failed to invest the budget required to ensure the successful games could be staged in 2013. The previous government failed to understand the potential for the games, and did not understand the role the Arafura Games plays in the engagement and relationship-building required in our immediate region.
We know there will be people affected by this decision, which includes the participants, the volunteers, the athletes, the sponsors - all of those who have played vital roles in previous games and who have been looking forward to the 2013 games; no doubt about it. I also recognise the hard-working staff of the department who go above and beyond to deliver the games on top of a range of other events. Most of the dedicated Arafura Games staff are contracted staff. We will honour those contracts and will be ask the department to work straightaway on developing a new model for this important event in our regional engagement strategies.
We will be working now to ensure the legacy of the Arafura Games is not lost. The new model that takes its place will be targeted in alignment with our engagement strategy, and increase the reputation of the Northern Territory in the region.
Despite what the opposition says, and what they might want to say or hope, this event has not been thrown away; it is simply being deferred so we can have a very good look at what is going on and what we need to achieve, and to ensure it plays a clear role in the Northern Territory’s future. The staff currently involved in the roll-out of the 2013 games will still have a role to play in that.
The Arafura Sports Festival commenced in 1991, later changing its name to the Arafura Games. The primary reason for establishing the Arafura Sports Festival was to use the vehicle of sport to establish meaningful relationships with our immediate region, particularly in Asia with countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and the Philippines. However, there were other benefits as well.
At that time, May was considered a quiet time for the accommodation sector so the visiting participants would provide a boost leading into the traditional Dry Season activity. As all members would be aware, this is changing as the gas industry, resources sector and other activities are now taking a bigger slice of the accommodation pie. Our best young athletes had limited exposure to competition, especially international ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know it is disappointing, but I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells please.
We have a quorum. Minister, please continue.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Well spotted, member for Casuarina. It is very important, isn’t it?
The Arafura Games attracted participants from the Asian Pacific region. Countries that had a significant presence included Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Singapore and Macau. Over that time other countries participated with American colleague teams, New Caledonia and Timor-Leste also taking part.
The last Arafura Games was held in 2011 with 2163 athletes attending, including 1049 competitors from overseas, 552 from interstate, and 562 from the Northern Territory. It is estimated that approximately 1100 people volunteered to assist with the Arafura Games. The 2011 games provided for 20 sports, of which four were Oceania Paralympic Championship sports.
A strategic review was undertaken after the 2011 Arafura Games. The review stated that there is a risk that if the Arafura Games focus is not clearly defined, understood or implemented, the Arafura Games will eventually lose its reputation, be unable to attract strong interest from the region and, therefore, not contribute to the Northern Territory’s overall position in the region.
This alone should have been cause for the previous government to have concern, and for the previous government to reconsider the place and positioning of the Arafura Games; however, they failed to do so.
Make no mistake; the number one reason the Arafura Games has been deferred is that the previous government failed to invest in the games financially, and strategically. The previous government was happy to let the Arafura Games struggle with a reduced budget, and that is just not good enough.
The Arafura Games cost $4.2m to run in 2010-11; revenue from ticket sales and other sources combined amounted to nearly $700 000, with $3.5m provided by the Northern Territory government. Yet only $2.8m was allocated for the games in 2012-13. It is clear the previous Treasurer did not plan for the future of the Arafura Games in 2011.
How did the previous government expect the games to be delivered with such a low funding base? With that level of funding allocated there would be a reduced opening ceremony, the likelihood of no closing ceremony and, most importantly, that level of budget did not allow for the extensive marketing and promotion that is necessary, which should already have happened over the last 18 months.
The departments had to rely on heads of delegation meetings, not the continual presence, promotion and marketing in the region that an event of this stature requires, simply because there was not enough money allocated in the budget for them to do the job. A recommendation of the review for the 2013 games was to increase the budget for the 2013 Arafura Games in 2012-13 to $5.3m. However, the previous government ignored this recommendation and, I say again, allocated only $2.8m.
Now, as a new government, with no money left because of the previous government’s incompetent management of the Territory’s finances, we find the Arafura Games has been short changed and there is no money left in its budget.
Other needs for the games, such as the use of information technology appropriate for an event of this scale, were highlighted. The report into the games noted computers and technical equipment made available for the Arafura Games were past their use-by date. This resulted in many instances of computer and printer crashes, slow Internet connection and the inability to load large files. Many mobile phones did not work. The target audiences of the Arafura Games included athletes’ technical support staff and international media. Investment in communication and marketing tools used by these target audiences was not made by the previous government; that is, i-applications, SMS messaging, Internet social pages. The department was not given the resources it needed to do the job.
Having a budget to deliver a great games is important as there is increasing competition in the region of sporting events. If you are going to attract it you need to have the budget, and we know the Asian Games is a big event and they have a budget of approximately $1.5bn. We know that one of the major regional events is the Southeast Asian Games, which has a budget of $38m. They are one of the smaller players in the region, yet their budget is $38m. Ours pales in comparison - $2.8m was allocated by the previous government.
The Arafura Games has been seen as a stepping stone for these important events, but there are other opportunities in the region that are available for athletes to seek international competition. These include the Pacific Mini Games, the Asian Beach Games, the BIMP-EAGA Friendship Games, and the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games.
With a declining budget, it is very difficult for the Arafura Games to maintain its relevance and compete with the multitude of events which are now available. As I have said previously, the Arafura Games was originally established as a vehicle for engagement in our region. Yes, it was a sporting event but it served a much broader purpose as well. Unfortunately, the previous government did not see that potential and failed to live up to the potential the Arafura Games could bring. The Arafura Games should bring together key regional stakeholders, not just in sport, but in business and government.
When we consider recent events such as the live cattle ban - the effects of the disastrous decision taken by the federal government and supported by this government - we know how important a renewed and engaged presence in our region is.
As well, the improved business and economic ties would then feed back into the games, securing its reputation and place in the regional calendar. However, we know that participation from countries such as Brunei and Singapore has declined and increasingly the event has been viewed as just a sporting contest, not a key plank if you like, in our investment in the region.
As I started, I advise the Arafura Games has been deferred. My challenge and the challenge of this government is to bring the concept of the Arafura Games as a vehicle for engagement with Asia back to the fore. It will be a big challenge. We will work with key stakeholders in the Northern Territory and the immediate region to consider the best way to reinvigorate our approach and mould it in a way that represents the changes that have taken place in the 20 years since the games were first held.
When the Arafura Games in its new form is held, it will be funded appropriately. It will build on and reinforce our reputation in the region. It will be part of a clear strategy in Asian engagement, one that is part of linking all we do together in the region.
To the volunteers who have previously assisted with the Arafura Games, I thank you for your support and involvement over time, especially those volunteers in sporting bodies who have described the strain coordinating this event places on their tight resources every two years.
I remind the staff in the department affected by this decision to defer the games of the role they have to play. Their challenge is to work with us to reinvigorate the games and assist us to develop a model that clearly fits with our strategies for our immediate region, one that builds on the Territory’s reputation.
Such a model could perhaps use sports in partnership with cultural activities and the arts to focus on mutual engagement. Such a model could include business and trade seminars, high-level government discussions, expos and trade shows to promote tourism opportunities. These activities will be worked through and explored.
In summary, our decision is to defer next year’s games. Commencing straightaway, we will look at what a remodelled approach looks like and how that will be effective. Our approach will fit with our plans for dedicated engagement and relationship- building in the region. Our approach will be adequately funded to provide the high quality expected by the community and the stakeholders.
Our approach will deliver engagement and relationship-building in the region. Our approach will ensure it delivers for all Territorians, something the previous government failed to do. I move that the statement be noted.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Arafura Games statement from the minister for Sport. As I said in this House last night, this is a very sad announcement from the government. The front page of the paper says it all - as you walk out mate.
Mr Conlan: I read it mate.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, and the back page?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, under standing orders you do not refer to any of the members in or out of the House.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It says:
- Game over. Territory sporting community in shock after government scraps the Arafura Games. Fears for the future of other major events as politicians tighten the purse strings.
I also notice that the photo is of the opening ceremony at TIO Stadium, and it is packed out. There are people in there right up to the rafters, families and children, sitting on the hill. This was an event embraced and loved by the good people of Darwin, Palmerston and even Alice Springs. So many people were supporting the games. I wonder how many opening ceremonies the minister went to, seeing as he does not have much of a concept of how good the games were.
This statement is the minister’s feeble attempt to justify why he has ripped an iconic event out of the Darwin calendar with no warning, no thought for the athletes or volunteers and - what really hurts - no thought for the Darwin businesses or the Top End tourism industry.
The minister claims he is simply deferring the games. For how long, minister? Come clean. What does ‘defer’ mean to the people of Darwin and the people of the Northern Territory? Instead of giving me nine pages about this terrible decision, why do you not come clean to the people of Darwin and tell them if the Arafura Games will be held in 2015.
He has no idea what he is doing. He should not be called the minister for Sport or the minister for Tourism, he should be called the minister for No Consultation and the minister for Bungles.
Let me inform you about sport. Athletes do not win medals by accident. Teams do not win medals by accident. Athletes, coaches and teams plan every stage of their sporting career well in advance. Athletes and their coaches are always looking forward. They map out the various events they want to compete in in the next few years, and they map out what training they will do and where they will do it.
You say defer; however, I have grave concerns about this decision. Your thoughtless actions could mean the Arafura Games is wiped out. By deferring next year and providing no certainty about when the games will be back, you are giving the athletes no choice but to assume the games is not on because, minister, these athletes need to plan. You have just pulled the rug from underneath them. They are not about to trust that the games will be back.
The athletes coming to the Arafura Games have planned this. Coaches have planned this. Athletes who see these games as a stepping stone to the next level of competition have planned this. I hate to think about the money people have already spent towards plans and flights to Darwin for the Arafura Games. You have no idea because you have not spoken with any of the sporting groups involved with the Arafura Games.
I want to read from the NT News today from the story: ‘Big Man Blasts NT Govt’ – and it was not about me – where Paul Coffa is interviewed and the article reads:
- Coffa, who established weightlifting at the first Arafura Games in 1991, said the Darwin event had already produced world-class results.
- We had Oceania and Commonwealth records shattered by a young man, Itte Detenamo, who I coached, at the 2011 Arafura Games, he said.
- So the quality is definitely there and at this late stage, to be told that the games are not on here is terribly disappointing.
Particularly when the government has had plenty of time to discuss the games situation with us.
I will be speaking to the Oceania executive board expressing my disappointment at the decision and the lack of consultation.
Minister for No Consultation, you were even at the Tourism Top End AGM on Tuesday night, the night before this deplorable announcement, and made no effort to consult with the tourism industry about this decision. You did not ask them what would happen to their industry if you pulled the Arafura Games. There was nothing. You did not bother to ask them how their industry would be affected. They have said this will hurt tourism in Darwin.
You have not spoken to businesses either. The NT Chamber of Commerce has said your government’s decision to cancel next year’s Arafura Games will hurt local businesses. Julie Ross, from the NT Chamber of Commerce, goes on to say this move could see a loss of $10m to the NT economy.
This government is two-thirds of the way to being in office for 100 days. Sixty-seven days have passed since this government took power. I will give credit where credit is due, the Chief Minister has been very busy in his first 100 days. Whilst I do not agree with many of his decisions, like scrapping the BDR for instance, he has been busy. Unfortunately, I am unsure if the same thing could be said for the minister for Sport. Sixty-seven days gone, 33 days from being 100 days in office, and the Minister for Sport and Major Events has not been working very hard at all. We know he has not done much consulting in that time. In fact, he is getting a reputation as the minister who does not consult.
He is becoming the minister for anti-Darwin. At the Tourism Top End meeting on Tuesday night when asked some important questions about Darwin tourism, most of his answers were along the lines of, ‘Look, we got into government because Alice Springs and the regions put us there and this is our priority.’
That is not good enough. This government is sending a clear message that it is anti-Darwin. It has moved Tourism Top End and Parks and Wildlife to Alice Springs, now it has axed the Arafura Games, an important event in the Darwin and international sporting calendar.
This is the minister for No Consultation and the minister for Anti-Darwin. You should come clean, what is next? Will you get rid of BassintheGrass or the Darwin Festival? Hang on, minister Grinch; you will probably cancel Christmas as well. I guarantee you, he will not defer the Alice Springs Masters Games - there is no chance of that happening.
The Chief Minister has called the Arafura Games a joke. I find this absolutely offensive to the athletes, the volunteers, the businesses, the tourism accommodation providers, and the people of Darwin, Palmerston and the Territory who think the Arafura Games is an important part of the Darwin and international calendar. Instead, the reality is, Chief Minister, it is not the Arafura Games that is a joke; it is the incompetent minister you have put in charge of Tourism and Sport.
Chief Minister, you should pull him into line. You must give him a directive to start consultation with the sectors his decisions are affecting and hurting. Better still, that he talks to them after he has made those decisions.
Minister, you should go ahead with the 2013 games with a review happening alongside, and reassure the sporting community that the 2015 games are going ahead.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by the Minister for Sport and Recreation with respect to the deferral of the Arafura Games. As I go through, I will probably address some of the statements which have been made by the member opposite in his contribution to this debate.
First, without putting too fine a point on it, the 2013 Arafura Games are deferred, not cancelled. As the minister for Sport pointed out, there are very good reasons for doing that. I am not going to reiterate all of those reasons.
Looking back at the history of the Arafura Games, they were a product of the former CLP government. The intention, the paradigm, around the introduction of these games was to engage with Asia, our near neighbours, so we could interact with them as our trading partners or potential partners in a way that was not really related to trade. What these games were about - and I have mentioned this before in the House and I mention it all the time in the public arena and in the media - is building relationships. The use of sport to build relationships is probably one of the most successful ways to not only establish, but maintain, those relationships over time. That happens on a number of levels.
First of all, governments have an opportunity to engage in an interplay during the lead-up to and conduct of games such as the Arafura Games. Second, of course, you have the interaction between athletes as they come across to Darwin to be engaged in good, healthy pastimes. Third, those athletes and the younger people who are involved in these types of activities go back to their native countries with a view of Australia and the Northern Territory as one of great hope for future relationships with a very positive message from the Northern Territory. That was a great strategy. That level of engagement is different from sitting around a boardroom table with Trade ministers and what have you in order to establish relationships over things we have in common.
Unfortunately, what has happened to the Arafura Games, at least in the last 10 years, is a downgrading of the importance which has been placed on the Arafura Games as a means to continue with the engagement and re-engagement of people from countries with whom we either have trade relationships or would like to have trade relationships. The former government allowing that to occur is quite consistent with what I have seen in other aspects of their administration.
If I think about the relationships that have suffered between the Northern Territory and Indonesia - I am not going to refer specifically to the live cattle ban, but sitting behind that issue was an abrogation by the former government of its responsibilities to work hard and maintain very strong ties and relationships with the Indonesian government. So there is a bit of a theme coming out of this, there is certainly a modus operandi apparent under the former Labor administration about the way in which they like to conduct business.
We said it often in the last four years from opposition that the Labor government were inward-looking and that is so true. They did not look far enough outside of the Northern Territory to grow and expand and find new opportunities. The way in which they have allowed the Arafura Games to fall into what I call a state of disrepair is evidence of that.
The Arafura Games, or the deferral of it, is not tied up around money. It is not a cut for the budget’s sake. We all know the budget is in dire straits, a legacy of the former Labor government and former Treasurer, the member for Karama, but that is not what it is about. It is about showcasing the Northern Territory in a way that is meaningful to the countries who would participate.
Right now, given the very late stage at which we are before these games, we feel that cannot be achieved. We cannot properly showcase the Northern Territory to potential attendees of the 2013 Arafura Games. We know specifically that volunteers have not been called for, as I understand it. We know the procurement process has not begun. We know that no accommodation has been booked. I do not think we even know who is coming. I do not know whether there have been any invitations sent out. Clearly, with such a short space of time between now and when the 2013 games would be scheduled, we are not going to put ourselves in a position where we just cobble something together for the sake of it.
The Arafura Games, to me, is far more than that. It is far more than just having some sort of event that you can throw together and say, ‘Look what we’ve done’. It is too important. It is too important that we get this right. If we invite a whole bunch of countries and people to come along to a substandard Arafura Games, they go home with the wrong message; perhaps that the Territory did not do it very well. What is the likelihood that those people would come back in 2015? They are the sorts of strategic things we are thinking about in making the decision we have had to take to defer the 2013 Arafura Games.
It is very interesting to see over the years how the makeup of the games has changed. I mentioned before that the focus of the games originally was to provide a field of endeavour upon which the Northern Territory and trading partners, or potential trading partners, could interact without the pressure of politics and diplomacy and everything else.
In 2011 China made up 18% of our major export destinations and Japan made up 51.2% of our major export destinations yet, in the 2011 games, China, including Chinese Taipei, contributed 103 participants in the events. That makes up less than 2%. So, we have a trading partner of 18% yet there were only 2% of attendees who came from China. In that same year, Japan had 14 participants at events, a proportion which works out to be maybe a little over 0.2% of the total participants in the 2011 Arafura Games. Given that Japan makes up 51.2% of our major trading destinations from the Territory, the disparity between those figures tells me we are not getting the right people to come along to the Arafura Games.
Remember what I said before about the focus of the Arafura Games which was about trade and engaging with our neighbours and the people we are working with. There were some people who came from the Pacific Islands to the last one. They are welcome to come to the Northern Territory, but in thinking specifically about the purpose and design of the Arafura Games, those games are intended for a fairly specific market. It has become quite clear to me that it has lost its way.
I do not believe there is too much more I can add. The decision to defer the 2013 Arafura Games was one that was taken painstakingly; this was not an easy decision to make. There was significant debate around this issue but, as I said, we felt that we were not in a position or should not cobble together the games just for the sake of it and that we wanted to do it properly, and properly we will do it in 2015.
I am a potential athlete at the Arafura Games. I have competed at the Masters before and had a ball. I could have competed at the Arafura Games; I would have loved to have been able to do that and for that to happen in 2013 so it is not …
A member: Dreaming!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You never know, I am still pretty quick off the mark, member for Brennan.
We understand the sentiment in the community that there is some disappointment around this, but we ask that the people of the Northern Territory who have been interested in these games to bear with us. Please understand that the decision to defer the games was a difficult one, and one that was not taken lightly. We understand the impact that will have on the Northern Territory but we do want to get it right for 2015 and that is what we intend to do.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I also call upon the people of the Northern Territory to remember who closed the Arafura Games down. I also want the people of the Northern Territory to remember it was a CLP government and minister Matt Conlan who closed the Arafura Games down because, irrespective of them saying, ‘we defer it’, the reality is you have not deferred the Arafura Games, you have closed it down, full stop.
Unfortunately for the government, there are people here who have a very long memory. There are people here who served as minister for Tourism and it is very pleasing to see in the advisor’s box a person who, at the time, worked with me in the Department of Tourism and went with me to the Philippines and Singapore to call people from those regions to come to the Arafura Games of 2007.
I know very well who started the Arafura Games. It was the CLP government, although it was a different CLP to the one we have today. It was a CLP government with vision which was not afraid to do things in the Territory. It was not even afraid to borrow money to do things in the Territory. What we have now is a government elected by the people of the Territory which does not govern. Who governs are faceless men and women who sit on the fourth floor of the NT House and direct what is going to happen today in this government.
I am very sad about the Arafura Games. I remember when they started in 1991. I was in Port Hedland and had many friends fly to Darwin to take part in the Arafura Games, and the games become bigger and better. The intention of the Arafura Games was to engage our Asian neighbours, but they also included many Australian competitors because it was not a competition for athletes, it was a competition for emerging athletes.
I heard the member opposite telling us the number of people went down in 2011. Should I remind the members opposite that in 2011 there was something called the global financial crisis? Should I remind members that quite a number of countries could not afford to come here because of their internal problems? Should I remind members that some of the people who did not come we no longer have trade links with, one of them namely, Brunei? Should I remind members that the number of people who came from Australia was much bigger than at any other time because, as of 2007, the Arafura Games became a place where Paralympians were qualified?
Today I am wearing a tie given to me by the first people who participated in the Arafura Games. It is a tie from the International Paralympic Committee. In 2007, I was the minister who brought the Paralympic committee here. I was very pleased to receive it, and I also wear today a presidential distinction given to me by the President of the International Paralympic Committee, Sir Philip Craven. That was at the Arafura Games.
Yesterday, the minister said clearly the reason the Arafura Games has been closed down is because it cost $3.5m. He had the audacity today to table a document which shows the government’s mates will receive $1.8m for six months’ work. This is their document; they tabled it. Neil Conn will receive $220 000 for six months work. Ken Clarke will receive $200 000 for six months work. John Gardiner $200 000 for the same time. Barry Coulter, a nice guy - I do not mind him - will receive $150 000 for six months work. Mr Freeland receives $272 000 per annum to work for the EPA, and Mr Gary Nairn will receive $183 000 for the job he will do. Of course, faceless man, Mr Col Fuller, Secretary to Cabinet is at $150 000 for six months.
The Arafura Games, $3.5m; our mates, $1.8m. No Arafura Games so we can pay our mates.
If they had any concern about the Arafura Games they would sit down and find a solution. It was easier to cut them down. It will probably give them more money to pay other mates they will bring from somewhere else.
I am talking about the Arafura Games, a very important issue; however, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not know what people opposite think, but it is a very important issue for the Territory and Australia.
You cannot just defer the Arafura Games because people will realise the Territory is not worth it any longer. At the drop of a hat the government will cancel games which are very significant not only for the region, but for Australia.
Was there any consultation? Bob Elix, from the Darwin City Council, said they did not know anything about it and were caught by surprise. Any consultation with the industry? Arafura Games happens in the shoulder season and brings 2000 athletes, plus the people who accompany them. They stay in hotels, go to restaurants, go on cruises in Darwin and provide a very important trade at a time when there are not many tourists. It is not only the trade but also the social engagement which benefits. When the people come here for the Arafura Games, they come from countries from which people living in Darwin come. If they do not have people living here in Darwin, they find out about the Darwin community, and the social norms in Australia.
I was privileged to have kids from the Philippines taking part in the Arafura Games staying in my house for three Arafura Games in a row. We have maintained links with these children. Now, they are not children; they are young adults. Also, we have formed very close links with people in the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia because of the Arafura Games.
The other thing, which is more important, is that telling people the Territory is deferring the Arafura Games because it costs us $3.5m and we cannot afford it, sends a strong message to Australia and a wrong message to the region. That was highlighted today by the editorial in the NT News. It said:
- It will damage the Northern Territory’s image at home and abroad.
I believe that more than I believe the government’s Renewable Management Board progress report. Not only that, I will quote from the newspaper the Australian Paralympic Chief Executive, Jason Hellwig, who said his organisation had made a significant financial contribution to the games and the deferment would be an impediment to the development of the Australian athletes, not only in Australia, but in the Asia-Pacific region in general.
We have athletes coming here from other states in Australia, from the Philippines, China, and Japan. I know the member opposite said only 100 people came from China, but these are the people who wanted to qualify to the higher level of their sport. It was a qualifying game; it was not the Olympics. We knew that. How good was it? It was so good that in 2011, the Governor-General of Australia opened the Arafura Games.
As your advisor will confirm for you, we always had difficulty having people committing a year ahead of the Arafura Games to give us an indication of how many people were coming. Your advisor will also confirm we were struggling until the last moment to confirm who will come, when, and where they are going to stay. Your advisor, if you bothered to ask him, will tell you it was the last six, five, four months, we got final confirmation. This is the problem with the Territory; it is too small and people who work with us one day can be advisors to government the next. That is the reason you need to take the time to talk to your own people. They actually might give you the real story. Unfortunately, as the minister said before, I have been here for a long time and I have a long memory.
Chief Minister, the decision to defer the Arafura Games was a mistake. The decision to claim that, somehow, the Arafura Games was not economical or sustainable was a mistake. Time after time, when I was minister, we had claims for an increased budget and we gave more money, but not to the level they wanted. Surprise, surprise! Every time, the Arafura Games went bigger and better.
Chief Minister, it was the wrong message to send to our region. I heard your call about engaging Asia. This is not engaging Asia; this is disengaging Asia and our region. The Arafura Games were not the Olympics, they were the friendly games where people got together, made friends with each other and developed relationships that withstood the passage of time. Arafura Games after Arafura Games, these people came back. They came back because they knew what the Territory had to offer, what the games had to offer to their athletes.
It was a significant event for the Territory, it was significant for emerging athletes in Australia, and it was significant for Paralympians, Australian and non-Australian. I still recall the basketball played by Iran and Australian Paralympians in their wheelchairs. It was the first time I have seen something like that, and I was absolutely impressed. I will never forget the young man who was born without arms, having one small appendage in his elbow; how he used a racket in table tennis and how the crowd went crazy just watching him. Of course, there was nowhere else in Australia where a Sepak Takraw competition would take place; only in the Arafura Games.
I heard the minister say they will defer it. The reality is you may as well kiss it goodbye, because it will never come back again. The people realise you are not prepared to support it. Yes, it was a Darwin-centred event, but you have your Masters Games in Alice Springs. The reality is the message you sent is that you are prepared to close something without consultation with the local industry, local people or overseas people. It is a slap in their face and trust me, Asians will not take that lightly.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I accept that when a decision is made like this some people will be very disappointed, some will be upset, some will be angry. It is not a decision that is made lightly. As background, I have been a volunteer with the Arafura Games for many years and I have been a supporter and continue to be a supporter of the concept of what it is designed to do.
The concern is that we needed to check the Arafura Games was on a solid footing; that it was achieving its primary objective and would run well and be a magnificent showcase into the region. When we, as a new government, did an assessment, we found that the answers to those questions led us inevitably to the conclusion we have reached: that it needs to be deferred. We acknowledge that has given the opposition something to grab hold of and try to beat up the government with.
Mr Vatskalis: No, it is not that issue.
Mr MILLS: It is. That is what it has done and we will have to wear that, and all the criticism and disappointment of volunteers. I was here twenty years ago for the Arafura Games. I came to the Northern Territory because of my interest in engaging with our region. We hosted kids, supported the games as a school, as a family, and as part of a local swimming club; we have done all sorts of work to support it.
The trouble is that over the years it began to drift from its original objective. It became a sporting event disconnected from its initial purpose. Now there is an opportunity provided by the fact that there has been insufficient real effort made to add underlying strength to the games, which would have left us with having to run around trying to cobble something together with scant of the serious level of negotiation that is required to have a games like this meet its objectives. You could just about have had a games but it would not have been a worthy showcase.
So we have taken a big, important decision that we will get a lot of push-back on, but we have taken it for the right reasons. The opposition will call it the ‘axing of the games’. No, this is a deferment, a re-assessment, a re-focus to ensure we connect this exercise, this activity to its core purpose and to really do something special.
There are times for review and the time is now. Twenty years ago the region was very different. Now is the time for us to reset and to put something into the timetable that matches perfectly what goes on in our region but, more importantly, strengthens our core objective to engage meaningfully with our region. There was little real effort made by the former government to engage on a constant level and cultivate the connections within the immediate region, which leaves us with few of our core markets and regional neighbours represented and engaged within this Arafura Games. This is evidence that the underlying effort was missing, which was typical of the former Labor government.
It looked all right on the surface but we all suspected that underneath there was not much at all. There was no real care, no real hard work to actively engage and to see that this was a vehicle whereby you could build relationships. It is not just holding a games, it is a vehicle to build real relationships within the region. Our assessment is that, yes, there may be a delay and some disappointment, but the core purpose of the games has been neglected by the former government by not seeing it as a means to engage.
That being the case - confirmed by the few from our immediate region who have committed to come to the games - coming to the games is the end of the exercise. What you are meant to do along the way is build those relationships and build alignment to our core objectives, whether they be in education, business and industry, people-to-people alone, or helping to strengthen governance within the region. There are many other things that happen behind the scenes.
This superficial former government only looked at the surface and never dealt with the stuff underneath; that is the difference. We will take very seriously the objectives we will be seeking to strengthen and achieve underneath the surface. We are talking about a deferral. We are talking about a reset and a review. Mark my words, this will come back in a manner that will be better, more targeted and a games set for the new era.
It is a time for a reset. The former government would never have had the courage to do this because they did not want to make bold decisions; they were scared of the political push back, the erosion of popularity, and having to go to the markets and people berating them because they made a decision, or having the courage in their convictions to hold their ground and say, ‘Stick with me; you may not like it now but we are going somewhere.’
We are going somewhere and we will ensure the events put in place will achieve their objectives and be meaningful.
Twenty years ago this event was put in place by a former Country Liberal government which had the foresight. It was crafted around an MOU signed between the Northern Territory and Indonesia. Out of that MOU came a number of objectives. One of those was to provide vehicles for people-to-people exchange so we could work together. It was crafted as an MOU between one nation and the Northern Territory - deep and powerful stuff. Out of that came the Arafura Games.
We have forgotten the connection and we just run a sporting event. We have to remember the connection, the reason for having the games, and connect it to that reason. To use an illustration, in case members on the other side need some assistance - which I do not think they need because they do not want it - if you ask people about cracker night they will all happily call it cracker night. I make a point, and I hope other honourable members will talk about it in the same way, that cracker night is the night we celebrate self-government. That is what it is about. We gather together not to let off crackers but to recognise our achievement thus far in gaining self-government. That is why we had that special event and we should be reminding people of the purpose of that community celebration.
Having the Arafura Games as the fun games is not the objective. That is the evidence of an underlying commitment to something more important. That has ben lost and that is what is coming back with this new government; a commitment to more important things. Then we will have the celebrations on top but those celebrations will make sense and they will be powerful. That is why we are having a review, that is why it is a deferral. Stick with us.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a past Arafura Games athlete, volunteer and sports manager, I express my sadness at the cancelling of the 2013 Arafura Games. Although I have not been in the pool for a few years, my sport of swimming allowed us to compete in the age group events. Growing up it was a highlight of our Territory swimming calendar. It was not only a chance to compete but a chance for friendship and fun. In fact, when I was a volunteer at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, I met up again with some of my former Arafura Games friends. I have been involved in every games since 1993 in some capacity. I remember gathering for the opening ceremony of all the sports and countries together on the back oval at Marrara. As a competitor in a new individual sport it was great to be part of a team atmosphere and the roar as the Territory team walked into Marrara stadium is something I still remember.
Since the announcement this week of the cancellation of the games, I have received many messages of support from Darwin locals disappointed the games will no longer be.
The Arafura Games was often a platform for sports to hold a double event; for example, squash held the NT Open at the same time. I also highlight, as have my colleagues, that the Arafura Games was often a qualifying event for countries in our region for the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.
The members opposite are making jokes they could have competed in the games, but this really highlights they do not get what the Arafura Games is about. It is not a joke but a chance for top level competition amongst our region’s athletes. I wonder if the government, in making this decision to cancel the Arafura Games, consulted any sporting groups. Sports managers would have highlighted that many of the multi-event plans were well under way.
In relation to the government stating that plans had not been made, I disagree with this strongly, as many sports managers would. I also disagree with the Chief Minister that the Arafura Games moved away from its original purpose. It was a chance to not only share on the sporting field, but share sporting knowledge and sports science around a background of fun and culture. As a previous sports manager for the lifesaving events in the games, I know these plans really come together in the short months leading up to the games. The heightened activity into the Arafura Games is like any major event - it peaks in a small window before the event.
To all those people who have made the games happen in the past, and to all those who would have made the games happen next year if the government had let this happen, you are being let down.
I disagree with the comments from those opposite that no engagement had taken place in relation to the 2013 Arafura Games. The relationships are not only held within the Arafura Games office, but with individual sports and countries, and these relationships are now under threat by cancelling the games.
Some of my colleagues have based their comments on the fact the 2013 Arafura Games had not seen commitment from the correct trading partners. This comparison shows very poor judgment by members opposite about what the Arafura Games is really about. The focus is not trade, it is about sport and friendship - they are the friendly games. Many other things flow from that relationship; however, the purpose of the games is in its title, the friendly games. This purpose has been lost. I hope the government wakes up and brings back Rocky the rock wallaby and the Arafura Games.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to provide a statement on the status of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Most Australians would have an idea of those communities, whether right or wrong. Even those of us with deep knowledge have to admit how little we know because of the diversity of language and culture across this great landscape, so we approach the figures cautiously. Even so, the figures can be interesting.
In Australia, 3% of people are Indigenous. In the Territory that rises to 30%. It does not just rise; it explodes and creates a whole new society, one this nation is still coming to terms with. Nowhere else comes close. The state with the next highest proportion of Indigenous people is Tasmania, with just 4.7%. We are different.
What does it mean to be Indigenous here? Many things, of course, but some of the raw averages are interesting. It means we are young. For every non-Indigenous child in the Territory there are 4.5 non-Indigenous adults aged 20 to 59. To put that another way, there are over four adults to look after each child.
However, for an Indigenous child there are only 1.5 indigenous adults. In other words, there are far fewer adults to care for our children, to protect and inspire them, to feed and look out for them. Where are the missing adults? There is no way to put this gently: they are dead.
This is like the reverse of the old story of the Pied Piper where the children were taken away. Here it is the adults who have gone from places like Lajamanu where 29% of people are younger than nine years old. Something has spirited away many of the parents, the uncles, and the aunties.
As I say, we are different. We are also remote. In the rest of Australia 24% of Indigenous people live in remote or very remote areas. In the Territory that proportion is 81%.
When I speak of remoteness, I mean not just remote from Darwin or Alice Springs, but remote from each other. There are 527 homelands and outstations funded by my department. In many ways, this is a wonderful thing, and this government is committed to homelands and outstations. However, the extent of our remoteness is unusual, not just at the national level, but internationally.
In service delivery, remoteness makes everything harder. Take transport, with roads cut during the Wet Season and expensive public transport. A return trip from Katherine to Lajamanu costs $320 and runs just twice a week. There will never be enough money to change this, not here or anywhere else in the world. That is something we ignore, but we ignore it at our peril, again and again. I see programs that do not factor in the true cost of remoteness: the travel time needed to reach communities, and the cost of planes to access them during the Wet.
We are different, and it is time to admit difference has consequences. It has benefits and it has costs. I can put a price on those costs. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2011 update, the cost of delivering welfare and housing services in the Northern Territory is 3.4 times higher than the national average. That is the price of remoteness. It is a price the government cannot afford to pay - not fully - which is why those services are usually deficient.
That is one of the reasons for the problems we have in most communities of inadequate infrastructure and housing, poor health, and education. I point to these problems because there is no sense in denying them. There is no sense in denying our difference from the rest of Australia.
However, it is not all bad. There are problems with differences, but there are benefits too. It is to those I now turn. I turn to how difference can become strength if it is treated with respect.
This government respects the importance of cultural connections to land. We support the right of people to live on their country. One of the things this means is housing. At the moment, about 10 000 Indigenous people live in around 2400 houses in homelands and outstations. Statistically, not overcrowded but, then, people are not statistics. The reality is very different.
Under Labor, they were often forced off their country into larger communities and even towns, with disastrous results. We support their right to live where they choose, in decent housing. We also want to progress economic development in the bush.
This is why we will begin our conversation with the Australian government to establish if housing programs that fall under the national partnership agreement on remote Indigenous housing will be administered through local organisations or councils. If so, they will be expected to develop an asset management plan to include setting aside funds for future repairs and upgrades. These plans will be audited by the Department of Housing to ensure compliance. My dream is to see the day houses in these places are built, occupied, and maintained by their owners.
Of course, it is not just about housing. Another major problem is education, starting with language. In 2008, 64% of Indigenous people in remote areas of the Northern Territory spoke an Aboriginal language as their main language at home. There is nothing wrong with that; it happens with many cultures around Australia. The problem is many of those children fail to learn to speak and write English properly at school. That means they could never get mainstream jobs. That means they could never have access to opportunities for travel and living in other places, for getting better jobs in their own places.
It denies them choice, it means they do not have the choices that most Australian young people have. That is something else that shows what it means to be Indigenous in the Northern Territory: to be denied choice. It does not have to be that way, you can be different and still have choice that means being different and strong, not different and weak.
This government intends to make our Indigenous children stronger, not by providing stronger crutches, more interpreters, welfare workers, police and jailers, but by making them more independent. The first step in independence is education and the first step in education is language. All Indigenous pupils will be taught English just like the children from all other cultures in Australia. This government is committed to making education normal for all children, no matter where they live - real education for real jobs.
There will be more boarding school places, more School of the Air, more experienced teachers everywhere. We are different to the rest of Australia in where we live, but we have to be identical in what we learn. That sort of difference builds strength, not weakness. It creates choice not limitations. The jobs are there, or they could be. They are there in the market gardens that existed decades ago in communities around the country and could exist again. They are there at this moment in the national parks.
Anyone with dark skin has to have a head start going for a job in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. Let us face it, the tourists have not come here to go to the opera or for shopping. They are here in large part because of Indigenous culture, the landscape and art, animals and plants that our people know intimately.
Who better to share it with them than us? Some Indigenous people work in that industry already and there could be so many more. And of course there is mining. Big companies are desperate for the opportunity to pay Indigenous people over $100 00 a year to work for them. Of course, we need education first if we are to go for those jobs but the jobs are there and that is a huge piece of good fortune.
Australia is going through some economic good times. According to the Commonwealth government’s new report on Asia, those good times are likely to continue. Indigenous people need to be part of that by improving basic education. This government is determined that many more Indigenous children will be able to get real jobs and take advantage of this prosperity and break the welfare cycle.
I admit that sometimes I despair at the reluctance of some Indigenous people to take the jobs which are already there. I look at the men of Yirrkala and ask why they will not drive the 20 km to Nhulunbuy to earn excellent money in the mine and the processing plant there. These are the kinds of questions the rest of Australia has been asking for years as it tries to connect the dots and understand why a long-running mining boom can exist literally next door to a culture of entitlement and welfare dependency.
As I travel around with the Cabinet subcommittee I will be listening, but I will be asking questions too and that will be one of them. I will be asking why so many Indigenous communities have become welfare traps where, somewhere along the way from poverty to prosperity, we took a side road and got stuck in a hell from where there seems to be no escape.
It is not good to live off welfare for ever, just as it is not good to live off mining royalties if it means you do not work. This applies to people around the world not just us. In the 21st century people need paid jobs, particularly men. It is not just about the money although the money is good. It is about status and respect, about responsibility and dignity. It is also about growing up and not being a child any more, about becoming an adult, so that children - real children - can depend on you. We need more of such adults in our Indigenous communities.
When I am out bush on my own and as a member of the Cabinet subcommittee I hope this is one of the things many people want to talk about: how we can help people grow up. I will not just be listening. Sometimes in Indigenous matters we can despair because it can seem like we are always starting from scratch, never making any progress. This government has policies that will work. The most important for me is fixing the schools to improve the quality of our teachers and their teaching.
I have spoken before here, just a week ago, about the need to teach English so the education a child receives here will be as good as that in Sydney or Brisbane. I know the majority of kids in remote communities do not begin school with the same level of English as kids in our cities, and I know we need to work with the language that kids come into the classroom with to bring them up to the speed in English as quickly as possible.
This is not controversial, this is common sense. This is about our kids having a proper grasp of English and receiving the same standard of education as any other kid in Australia - real education and real jobs. This government will listen a lot and fix a lot. Even if we only made progress in the schools it would be something to be proud of. It would be much more than has been achieved in many decades.
There is another type of conversation where I grow impatient. I have been talking about complaints - this culture of complaint that hangs over so many Indigenous communities. We have to be wary of that, but we also have to be wary of many of the solutions offered.
I spoke earlier of the frequent failures of the NGOs because they do not understand the communities where they work. I spoke of the need for more culturally appropriate delivery of services by Indigenous people themselves. I stand by that, but let me make one thing perfectly clear: that does not mean simply throwing dollars at communities and telling them to fix the problems themselves. There has been some of that over the years and we know that, too often, it does not work.
I want to say a few words about how we know what works and what does not. It seems to me that despite all that has been written about efforts to help Indigenous people, all the evaluations and the reports, we do not know very much about what works. Too often we read something that tells us a real project worked and should be introduced everywhere.
But why did it work well in that one place? Was it for some local reason? It will not necessarily work in other places. We are almost never told. There are too many anecdotes in public policy-making for Indigenous people and not enough data. Some people have calculated that thousands of pages of evaluations, reports and submissions are now written each week on Indigenous Australia - literally thousands of pages. Never has so much been written for so little result.
The quantity is enormous, but the quality is poor. We have been let down by too many of our advisors, bureaucrats and academics. I will always listen but I am getting sick of the poor-quality research and poor-quality evaluations. There is too much noise and not enough content. As minister I am looking forward to evidence of what works. I say to all Indigenous people, I will be talking to you over the coming years. Let us talk but let our talk be about the facts.
Here is an evaluation that will not need a doctoral thesis. People with jobs: 100% employed. People on welfare: 100% unemployed. We have all been avoiding the facts for too long now - avoiding the evidence of thinking it was not necessary because Indigenous people were different or because we were scared of what the facts might show.
The time for that is over. One thing we do know is that such an approach does not work. We have proved that by now and the rest of Australia knows it too. Government does not always get it right in Perth and Melbourne, but they have a much better track record than we do because they usually apply policies which have been tried and tested and honestly evaluated.
I ask the NGOs and bureaucrats from those places to come here and apply the same standard to us as they apply back home. When you write your reports and your evaluations, be as tough as you would be if you were evaluating progress in your own communities.
This is one of the reasons I spent so much of my last speech talking about education. The evidence is in on education. The facts are clear and we know what works. What works are teachers and schools, like those in Bunbury, Port Augusta, Bathurst and Gladstone. The same approach to education works everywhere and it is time we tried it here in every school in the Territory.
That is why I will continue to talk so much about schools. I support my colleague, the Minister for Education, because with education the evidence is well and truly in. We know what works and we know what has to be done to make it work here. Much is uncertain, but not that.
I travel a great deal. I have visited so many remote communities and too often they are like nursing homes, full of illness, complaints and death. Too often they are places where nothing gets done, no toilet is unblocked, no child taken to school unless someone from outside does it. I say they are like nursing homes; perhaps I should say nurseries - everyone is a child there, even the adults.
It is time to change that for the sake of our respect and our dignity. It is not as though the system we have works well. The non-Indigenous NGOs, or not-for-profits, are easy for government to deal with, especially the Commonwealth government, which takes a long view all the way from Canberra. Often these NGOs are bright and shiny, run like clockwork, and they fill in all the paperwork perfectly. They are good at lobbying and writing submissions. I do not mock that; however, I suggest they are not as good at providing services because they do not understand the communities they go into. Like so many non-Indigenous advisors over the years, so many experts, they are cursed by the combination of noble intentions and utter ignorance.
I suggest a greater role for Indigenous organisations. There is growing evidence that community-based and controlled organisations can do better. We need to judge them by the same high standards we apply to the non-Indigenous NGOs. However, I believe that when we do that we will find many of our own are up there with the best. There is nothing quite like local knowledge.
How do we get from here to there? What is the way forward? I offer no magic solution, no silver bullets. My basic approach is to have a few core ideas which are real education for real jobs, and to keep travelling and doing what I can to make them reality; to keep visiting and keep listening to what people tell me.
I am honoured to head the Cabinet Subcommittee on Regional Affairs which will crisscross the Territory over the next few years to ensure this government remains closely in touch with what is happening on the ground. I am sure the knowledge is out there to help us make all our lives better, but I am also sure this knowledge lies not in any one person’s head; it is dispersed among every one of us in Papunya, Baniyala, Katherine and Darwin.
I am here because I see myself as a leader. To be a leader is to be a listener, and to listen you have to move around. I invite everyone to approach us with ideas, including ideas for local business opportunities in the regions. If you want a hand up, come and talk to us. If you can create a job for yourself, that is good. If you can create jobs for a few other people too, that is even better. There is no reason Indigenous people cannot excel in schools and the workplace.
We are struggling with our history and, in some cases, with obstacles in our own hearts and minds. Much of what has happened to us is deeply unfair. Much we have witnessed and suffered has been terrible, but it is a struggle we must embark on and a struggle we can win.
I said I would listen, but that is not the same as saying I will always agree. I have been listening for a long time now to people in remote communities and I like to describe two types of conversations that are common, but dangerous. Common, perhaps even understandable, but I have come to realise, dangerous. The first is the conversation of endless complaint. They are the conversations where a person offers to do nothing for themselves and demands everything be done for them.
In the rest of Australia, people pick up the rubbish in their yards, they fix their own blocked toilets. When they turn on their TVs and see remote communities covered in litter and able-bodied men complaining about lack of maintenance of the houses they live in, they wonder why Indigenous people in these communities will not do things themselves. Of course, in many places they do, but in many places they do not – in far too many.
The rest of the world is looking and wondering why. It is wondering, if we had children, why so many Indigenous people have the sense of entitlement - the sense that everything will be done for them. I say to these people, to those in the communities and those watching, that everything will not be done by government, everything cannot be done; there are not the resources and everything should not be done by government because adults are not children. Adults are capable human beings who need to be strong so they can care for the real children, all those kids I mentioned in the start of this speech who should be safe and warm and in school.
I will be travelling and I will be listening, but I will not be accepting everything I am told. My friends will be glad to hear that, sometimes, I will still be arguing, especially with adults who refuse to grow up. Speaking of such people, I will mention a certain journalist named Russell Skelton who recently attacked this government in the local newspaper.
Mr Skelton has a history with me. He once rang my office to demand an interview and one of my staff told him I was not in. It was a white lie because I was in; I just happened to be very busy doing important work. Mr Skelton found out I was in, and he has never let me forget it. He has written thousands of words attacking me. There is nothing like a journalist whose vanity has been wounded. He does not come from these parts and he seems to find it outrageous that things do not run as smoothly here as they do in Melbourne.
Now, he has written off the whole government on the basis of the first week of parliament. That is quite a call. He does not like the fact that we do not all agree with each other; that we are open to debate on important issues. He does not like the fact some of our policies are not the ones he would implement if he was in government, so he writes us off in one week.
I make only one comment. I ask if that is responsible journalism. I ask if Mr Skelton deserves to be taken seriously - after one week he has written us off; he has nothing else left to say. Perhaps if he wishes to engage me in a contest of ideas on a level playing field, then he should stand for the seat of Namatjira at the next election and we could let the voters decide. I had a 1901, 29% swing, from me to me.
I finish on a personal note about real children. I spoke of them earlier; of how Indigenous children have far fewer adults in their lives compared with other Australian children. We owe our children everything and if we keep them at the centre of the picture we cannot go far wrong. Children need education and they need parents - dads as well as mums. Dads need jobs, not gaols, and for jobs they need education. That is why, in my mind, so much comes back to our schools. I believe if we get them right, much else will follow - not everything but a lot. That is my plan. It is a journey I intend taking over the next year as I visit as many of those 527 homelands and outstations as possible. I promise to do everything I can to make it a journey into a better future for all Indigenous people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Education) Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to the statement presented by the member for Namatjira. I thank the member for Namatjira for such an impassioned speech, talking about the status of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
We are incredibly lucky in this term of government to have such connection to the remote and regional communities of the Northern Territory, having the member for Namatjira on board. She is such an experienced politician, she has personal and political connections across the breadth and width of the Territory, and it is so reassuring she is the Minister for Regional Development and for Indigenous Advancement in the Northern Territory.
I listened very intently to what she said this evening. It is good news for Aboriginal people, knowing they have the member for Namatjira on their side, looking out for their best interests and, of course, batting for the welfare of children and families throughout the Northern Territory.
Minister Anderson, the member for Namatjira, is spot-on in her aspirations for all Northern Territory children, all Northern Territory students, including Indigenous students in remote communities to have real jobs, to have real aspirations for their future. A real job either in their own community or beyond and not welfare handouts is the only acceptable outcome. We need all of our kids to have the knowledge and skills which will allow them to get real jobs and succeed in them in the Northern Territory. They could succeed in the Territory, interstate or overseas. There should be no impediment to how our children reach out into the world and attempt to succeed and reach their potential.
One of my aspirations or philosophies of life is that we should all try to reach our potential, but some children in the Territory, as the member for Namatjira has just spoken of, never really get the opportunity to even read and write, to even have a healthy upbringing, a healthy start to life. It is tough out there. I have listened to the other members of parliament over the last couple of weeks. The stories they tell about their lives, their families and their communities are certainly not all bad, but the problems, when you hear them from the horse’s mouth, the people who know, who are connected, seem that much more powerful. It resonates that much more deeply within each and every one of us. It is amazing to have real Indigenous representation within government. As a non-Indigenous person in this government I know my colleagues and I are very proud and excited to have you all on board.
Through the conversations we are having informally and within our meetings, we are all learning a lot about how we need to move forward in the Northern Territory, addressing the education challenges, the social challenges which have been there for a long time and probably have not been addressed to any degree of satisfaction for anyone in the Northern Territory. These are the big challenges. If you want to put a road in you get the money, you put the road in. If you want to build a school you get the money from somewhere and you build a school; but if you want to address poverty and disadvantage and the poor social status of many Aboriginal children and families throughout the Territory, it is just not that easy. It is incredibly challenging.
I guess I have to recognise – as did the member for Namatjira – that many people have tried to address the social disadvantage in Indigenous communities for decades and decades and they are well intended, but too often they miss the mark. The key we have talked about is almost a theme of the last two weeks of parliament and has been spoken about numerous times now by numerous members; the key is really working with Aboriginal people. It is so obvious and yet it has not really happened, particularly over the last four years, to the extent it should have.
My original training as a young school leaver many years ago, when I went to university, studied and specialised, was in community development, believe it or not. The key principle of community development work is to ask the people, talk to the people, and you will find the answers within the communities, within the people who represent that community. That is what we are hearing very consistently from our colleagues in government. That is the key; that is what has been missing in recent times - probably for decades. It is so obvious and yet it seems to be forgotten.
Perhaps it is too hard. Perhaps it is one of those things - actually talking to people, taking the time to sit down and connect with people. Maybe that is too hard for government bureaucrats to do; we are all pressed for time, we are all time-poor, we are all much more accountable for time than we used to be.
As a young social worker I used to do case management. They still have it now but case management when I was a young social worker meant you had unlimited time to connect with people, to work with people, to reach out. You spent as much time as you needed with whoever you were helping, whether it was a mother with a new-born baby or a person suffering from schizophrenia or someone who was homeless; you made the time and did comprehensive holistic casework. You connected them with the resources they needed, you provided them with the services you could offer as an individual practitioner, and you were able to fully service the people you identified as being in need. I know from my own experiences watching my elderly parents is - they require case management; they are not well - the level of case management is not there anymore because governments have cottoned on to the fact it is expensive to provide these sorts of comprehensive intensive case management services. So, people do not receive the same level of service they require.
Maybe it is about governments doing business differently to some extent. Things are tighter. There is not enough time to sit down and talk with people, connect with them, work out what the problem is and then work out a strategy of how you will meet the needs of those people. Perhaps that is part of the missing piece when it comes to why we have been so ineffective in helping Indigenous people in remote areas in particular. That is something we have to look at. How do we do that? I have had discussions with my colleagues even today. The thought running through my head about the challenge for us as a new government, is yes, we need to get out there. We need to talk to people about things like getting kids back to school, arranging community events so they do not impact adversely on kids’ ability to attend school, so they enhance the community rather than take away from it. The challenge that was running through my head was how do you get the message out there? Who does it? Who connects with the people? How does it all happen?
Part of the problem is getting to all these communities across a vast geographical area, providing the services they require and connecting with the communities to making sure they service themselves. The answers are within those communities most of the time, I am hearing from my colleagues. The people in the communities have the answers. How you harness the strengths in a community, and how you mobilise and empower a local community to then resolve their problems is the challenge. Interstate, Arukun and other Queensland communities have been able to do that effectively. But there are examples in the Northern Territory - you do not have to go interstate – where there is strong leadership and support from the government and the local council has enabled communities to pull themselves out of difficult situations or address social problems in a way which means they can live more happily, more peacefully; the kids lead a better life, and the adults lead a better life.
It is a huge challenge but the message from the member for Namatjira is that we are working together as a new government. We are committed to listening to our Indigenous colleagues. As Minister for Education and Minister for Children and Families, these colleagues will steer me, as the member for Namatjira says, through the subcommittee specifically formed to further the interests of Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory.
I would like to paint you a picture of the unique context within which education reaches out to approximately 44 000 students across the Northern Territory and 4600 educators who benefit from attending and working in many government and non-government schools operating across 1 350 000 km2 of the Northern Territory.
We have a huge geographical area and a very sparse population. There are many challenges and my colleagues are only too aware of the logistics of travelling around. The member for Namatjira, in the six months leading up to the election, was constantly on the road travelling, as I am sure all the other members who represent remote communities were - travelling, blown tyres, faulty cars and maintaining vehicles. That is a part of life in the Territory we sometimes forget to acknowledge. It is not just about space, diversity, and sparse populations, it is also about the logistics of getting there and the cost. One of the huge costs of government is flying bureaucrats, public servants, service providers in and out of communities to ensure we are servicing people in remote areas adequately.
Engaging families and educating them about the value of schooling is integral to nurturing educated, well-rounded Territorians who can become positive members of the community. A significant number of studies have shown students who succeed in school are almost always supported by their families or have access to the social capital the wider community provides.
There has been a global shift towards parent/school, or school/community partnerships to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged or marginalised students. This government is committed to listening to the needs of community people when it comes to education.
Once again taking a community development approach, if the community believes a unique and peculiar model of education needs to be established within their community to meet their particular social and cultural needs, we will support that in any way we can. Of course, they will be required to go through a rigorous requirement regime. It is never easy to set up a school, but we will support and assist them to set up the types of school they think their children and families need.
A central aim is the engagement of parents in communities to create real, sharp and focused school/community partnership agreements, particularly in schools identified in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2011.
The ATSI Education Action Plan clearly states that:
- Experience has shown that improvements in the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students arise from collaborative action that is responsive to local needs.
The school/community partnerships are tailored to the individual needs and aspirations of each community. They are a formal commitment based on shared responsibilities for the education of students at the school.
Shared responsibilities is another theme from the member for Namatjira’s speech. It is not just about having the rights and demanding from government this, that, and the other; it is about taking responsibility and forming a partnership.
Additionally, the former Department of Education and Training was the first Northern Territory government organisation, and one of the first Northern Territory organisations to sign up to a Reconciliation Action Plan that creates respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians. I will highlight a couple of examples in which the department is forging those closer ties through collaboration and partnership.
As many in the House are aware, the first thing we have to do to improve our educational outcomes is get our children to school - very basic. For a range of reasons, in our communities this does not always happen. There is sorry business, there are cultural obligations, there are sporting events that take people out of town.
The community of Gunbalanya in Arnhem Land recognised the drain this put on their children’s education and worked with the department to come up with an innovative idea. They decided to change the school year so school is held over the traditionally wet months of December and January. This is the time when families are often unable to leave the community because of flood waters. The flip side of this is that the school has its longest semester break in the dry mid-year months when those other events tend to take them away. This a great example of how a government agency has become flexible, has accommodated the needs and the physical environmental factors that influence a community, and has reached a collaborative decision as to how school is provided in Gunbalanya.
This was a decision that was made in consultation and partnership with the school, parents, and the wider community. This was the first year the trial was held, and the community has asked to continue the flexible school year in 2013; they want to do it again next year. Additionally, the most recent comparative figures from Term 3 of this year show student attendance numbers increase from 128 in 2010 to 147 in 2012. So, there has been an improvement in attendance - a small improvement but a significant improvement.
Another example of this collaborative approach involves a community of Baniyala, another of our schools in Arnhem Land. There was a homeland learning centre there for many years but, as with many of our remote communities, its population grew and the parents aspired to have a full school. The department and the community worked collaboratively to build a purpose-built building right on the beautiful shores of Blue Mud Bay. Baniyala Garrangali School now has regular attendance for those children who are in the community and has a number of parents employed in the classrooms.
Yet another example of this partnership approach between communities and parents is the 3-9 Program that operates in a number of schools, whereby the school is opened up for community use. This is something I have spoken to my colleagues about that we need to look further into, making sure schools are not purely for education but are a community facility. They should be used day and night if the need is there. Examples for which schools are being used under the program include classes in financial literacy, driver education, basketball, and even Zumba dancing. We know a school plays an important part in the life of a community and, therefore, the department has worked in partnerships with communities, parents, and other non-government organisations to share facilities and make schools more welcoming places for many parents who otherwise may not have had anything to do with the school.
Engaging parents is further reflected in the Families as First Teachers program which operates with schools and is designed to engage parents in the value of education, and build their children’s early learning through play-based programs. It also works to build an awareness of good health and hygiene to address the improvement of developmental outcomes for young Aboriginal children.
The Families as First Teachers program addresses school readiness through a focus on literacy and numeracy foundations, orientation to school programs, and parent engagement initiatives. All of this is done in collaboration with the community, other government agencies, both federal and local, and the non-government sector.
This focus on the value of schooling in the early years and the importance of engaging parents is also reflected in our Strong Start, Bright Future colleges. The Strong Start, Bright Future college approach that is currently in place has provided a good start, but I want to take this to a whole new level, especially in enabling local governance arrangements that will ensure a sustainable model of improvement.
We have much to learn from some of the initiatives occurring, for example, in Cape York. Momentum cannot be lost when a principal moves on or when a significant elder passes. We need a sustainable and supported governance model, one that reflects the true wishes and voice of the community.
The Strong Start, Bright Future college approach targets children and young adults along their developmental journey. This program is delivered through a series of integrated services that are dependent on the schools, collaborating with the community and a range of government and non-government agencies as well as industry partners.
Minister Anderson is spot-on in her aspirations for all Northern Territory students, including Aboriginal students in remote communities to have jobs. We need all of our kids to have the knowledge and skills that will allow them to get jobs and exceed in them in the Territory and beyond. All of our young people need to be global citizens. Parents and communities need to be champions of this aspiration.
I have asked the Department of Education and Children’s Services to work with the Department of Business to map the jobs that are available in towns and communities now and into the future. This work has already begun. I have been heartened by the lengths the Department of Education and Children’s Services has gone to with mining companies, the pastoral sector, the tourism sector and with local communities to prioritise these jobs for local students. An example includes the strong partnership at West Arnhem College with Energy Resources Australia which provides job guarantees for senior secondary students, work experience and apprenticeships.
If jobs are the goal then schools need to ensure they create focused pathways to those jobs through academic programs and innovative training programs. In the secondary years this means our remote schools focusing on improving teaching and learning opportunities within available resources. The Department of Education and Children’s Services new industry academy has been developed to support schools, especially remote schools, to ensure these training pathways to jobs exist by working directly with industry and by basing dedicated trainers in our community.
We know that many of our students arrive at formal schooling not ready to learn. The member for Namatjira has pointed out in stark terms the reality of these statistics. This is where the integration of the Department of Education and Children’s Services and the Office of Children and Families into one department, the Department of Education and Children’s Services, will come to the fore. This joined-up effort needs to build on the early success of programs such as Families as First Teachers. Parents and caregivers need to be supported in providing the best start to life for these children.
The Department of Education and Children's Services, including the Office of Children and Families, will work with the community to develop capacity, capability and local people to provide a safe and caring environment in the community. The schools will become a hub, a one-stop shop in each community where caregivers can come to be supported by local school people, supported by government.
School principals realise that a clear focus on the zero-to-four-year-old group in their community is essential. They will play a stronger role in coordination of the community and programs that support this space. Above all else we need our kids to go to school and we need everyone to pull their weight in making this happen. This is everyone’s business. School attendance is a priority. We cannot contemplate another generation of young people who should be the leaders, but are largely unemployable. Together we can do this. To drive this change I will be taking the Stronger Futures initiative and setting up trials with community input that will lead to communities driving Stronger Futures.
The examples I have outlined are indicative of the end-to-end approach and strong focus the Department of Education and Children's Services has on engagement, collaboration and partnership in remote areas in regions where it is needed the most.
__________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Phil Mitchell
Mr Phil Mitchell
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I acknowledge the previous member for Millner, which I think is now Johnston, Phil Mitchell in the gallery.
__________________________
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Indigenous Advancement for bringing this statement before the House and I also acknowledge the contribution by our new Education minister to this debate. I enjoyed listening to her list off the many Labor initiatives in education that have been implemented since 2001.
This statement is really important. I have been waiting for it during these sittings. I thought it might have appeared before this House earlier than it has, simply because it is such an important issue and because, as we know, we have a new government as Labor lost seats in the bush. Clearly this is an incredibly important area of focus. We are talking about 30% of Territorians who are Indigenous people and that population is growing at something of a rapid rate as well.
In her opening, the minister talked about the statistics which show the huge gap in the ratio of Indigenous children to adults versus non-Indigenous children to adults. The stark reality of and the reason for those statistics is that far too many Indigenous people are passing away well ahead of non-Indigenous people. This is a fact that has been around for decades and it is not something we can allow to continue.
There is no doubt that, irrespective of party politics, whoever is in government - certainly all of us in this House representing the electorates - our focus has to be on children, the most vulnerable in our society. We have to focus on protecting those kids, ensuring they have access to homes and education, and through that to a future irrespective of where they live: Darwin, Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, the little homeland of Mirrnatja or Galiwinku - all of these places.
We are dealing with decades of deficit, decades of underfunding and were know there is a long way to go in addressing those issues. As the minister highlighted in her statement, add the remoteness factor to that as well. I am acutely aware of the remoteness factor living where I do in northeast Arnhem Land in Nhulunbuy, with a mining town at the centre and some 26 Laynhapuy homelands and the Marthakal homelands on top of that. We have island communities, issues of Wet Season access, a huge network of roads - this is not so much an issue of the volume of usage but about the necessity of those roads. It would not matter if there were a homeland with only 10 people down the road; it is not about the volume of traffic that goes through on a daily basis. What we have to recognise is the necessity of that road in providing that community with access to services.
Without a doubt, the remoteness and geographical isolation make everything harder and costlier, including the cost of delivering services and providing infrastructure. Believe me, on this side of the House, we know all about that having seen the roll-out of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and the enormous costs associated with that. There were wastages identified and I have no doubt there are better and cheaper ways of doing things so you can deliver more houses and get more bang for your buck. But that is something we will always grapple with in the Northern Territory, as do the jurisdictions of Queensland and Western Australia in their northern remote regions.
High on the minister’s agenda, as it should be, is looking to a future and a policy framework that will cater for Indigenous people in the bush, regional centres, in the larger communities and the towns. You cannot deny the fact the minister was the person responsible for rolling out the A Working Future policy under the Labor government in May 2009. This was really the first time a policy of this size had been pulled together covering so many aspects of trying to deliver services to people in our remote areas and regions, bringing together a whole-of-government approach, but also the three tiers of government working together.
The title A Working Future is no accident. It is about building capacity on communities so people who live there have ownership of their communities, ownership of decisions, and are the main people employed in the jobs in those communities, which is as it should be. I hope it is not a case of the minister throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In regard to trying to develop and deliver policy, which is all about delivering real and sustainable change to these communities, let us not go in with a wrecking ball and pull everything apart. Let us work through a change process which builds on what we have. That does not mean we have to start by scrapping - we do not have to restart things and we do not have to allow this to denigrate into a blame game. We know the minister is clearly very unhappy about how money has been spent and the fact that bureaucracy, without a doubt, needs to be trimmed so funding goes to where it is most needed.
The reality now is the minister is at the helm. She has the reigns, she has the responsibility for driving this through, and we on this side wish her luck. There is a very big agenda for the CLP to fix the bush in the next four years. In order to do that, there has to be a very targeted policy with commitment to see it delivered. However, there is one really important factor; that is, the Northern Territory government cannot do this alone. The Northern Territory government has to work with the Commonwealth government - that is an inescapable fact. It is about working in partnership remembering 80 in $1 of Territory funds comes from Commonwealth funding. It is critical that relationship be established.
I am not feeling really confident about the relationship our Minister for Indigenous Advancement has with the Commonwealth given the remarks she has thrown out to minister Macklin. However, the reality is at both levels of government there has to be a collaborative partnership and agreement about working towards the best outcomes for Indigenous people.
I had the great pleasure the other evening to attend the launch of a book called Speak for Yourself co-authored by former Chief Minister Clare Martin and a colleague of hers, Dr Mickey Dewar. It is a series of interviews, a biography of the first eight Chief Ministers of the Northern Territory. I have not read it completely yet, but it is a great read. I suspect Dr Chris Burns, who was at the launch, has probably read his book cover to cover and has probably got more tags in it than I have. I wanted to dip into it and, in the dipping I have done today, there are common themes coming through from each of the eight Chief Ministers, six from the Country Liberal Party and two from the Labor Party.
Each Chief Minister, irrespective of their political party, highlighted the enormous challenges of being the chief minister of the Northern Territory, managing that relationship with the Commonwealth, managing that ever-challenging policy area of Aboriginal affairs, and trying to manage that relationship from Canberra. One of the Chief Minister’s highlights was not so much the ministers, but dealing with the bureaucracy. I can understand, to an extent, where the member for Namatjira is coming from.
There are a couple of items I wanted to quote, and one of them is from Denis Burke who was a Country Liberal Party Chief Minister. He was talking about Aboriginal issues, and it is under the heading, ‘Aboriginal Issues Too Often Bandaid Money’:
- The impediments were getting our voice heard so that the Commonwealth would seriously address the situation. We always received a sympathetic hearing but it was bandaid money in the end. This was simply because the view is different from Canberra than on the ground, and we did not have the political representation to get their full attention. When some money flowed it was usually a result of some damning report which forced the Commonwealth to do something.
I thought that was a really telling sign of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the Territory up until 2007 when there was one particularly damning report we are all very familiar with. If you were to read this book and not know which political party these individuals were from - these eight Chief Ministers - you would see they basically all faced the same challenges despite their political persuasion.
I will move on to the subject of homelands. It is a subject very close to my heart and one of the great challenges and great joys of the job I have had during the years I have been the local member. Whilst a resident in Nhulunbuy for many years, I did not have a huge amount of contact with the homelands and the homelands people. Unless you have those relationships, you do not necessarily travel out to these places. I have travelled endlessly out to the homelands, to the Laynhapuy Homelands and the Marthakal Homelands. I know them to be strong and healthy places, where people are strong, have an incredibly generous spirit and where, for the most part, kids are going to school.
They are productive places in various ways, with varying economies in some of these places, some more so than others. Without a doubt, the message that always comes clearly to me from the TOs at the homelands is these are their traditional clan estates, the lands of their ancestors. It is more than just a piece of land, there is a connection with that land which, perhaps, someone such as I may not fully comprehend. I certainly appreciate and respect it.
I am not sure homelands have always been treated with respect by the Commonwealth. We go back to the days of John Howard as Prime Minister, and when Amanda Vanstone, famous for her comment about homelands, calling them ‘cultural museums’. They are not; they are very dynamic communities which people call home and where they raise their children.
We need to have a look back down memory lane. If we go back to 2007 at the handover of homelands to the Northern Territory, let us remember that it was the Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who held the Territory to ransom when Clare Martin was the Chief Minister. Basically, he said, ‘I am going to hand back the responsibility for homelands to you. I am going to give you $200m that goes with it for more than 500 homelands - $200m over three years.’
The only reason funding was renewed beyond June 2012 is because the Labor members on this side of the House, of our bush Caucus, fought tooth and nail with our Commonwealth colleagues to make them provide additional funding to the Northern Territory. They could not walk away from homelands and we did not have the capacity to raise the revenue to spend on homelands that we needed. As a result, the money was secured earlier this year. It is still not enough money even with the additional $100m the Labor government had made as an election commitment. To add to that, we know the cost of running homelands and investing in the deficits of underspend is just enormous.
So it is with great interest we see how the Country Liberals, under their homelands policy, will look after the homelands, exactly what their commitment is. I am sure there is a detailed policy, more than the two pages that were put out in March last year. It says there is. It says this is a summary document only, that a comprehensive version will be released soon, and please subscribe to our new news, blah blah blah from the Country Liberals.
Conveniently or otherwise, the CLP website has been down for work or restructure, so it is very difficult to get hold of documents that were published pre-election to understand exactly what that commitment was. So it is understandable that people are asking questions. The Laynhapuy Homelands people are asking me what is happening now under this new government, what the CLP is doing for homelands. Obviously I say I cannot tell them because I am in the opposition now and it is up to the Country Liberals to communicate with them. I am aware they have written to the Chief Minister and invited him for a meeting. No doubt the minister will accompany him so they can answer those questions. There will be many questions they will want to ask and understand.
It was disappointing that when the member for Nelson asked a very honest and polite question, and one which he had given notice of, about how the promise of $5200 per occupied house in homelands and outstations would be spent, knowing that the CTC’s final report shows that there were 2425 dwellings, he was slapped down with an answer that was contemptuous and did not answer the question at all. It is incredibly disappointing when we have a new government which is all about transparency and accountability. Even if there was not an answer, there could have been some polite response to say they would get something to him, rather than just snapping at the member and advising him, ‘If you want a briefing come back and see me’. So we will see how we go from there.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the house.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells please.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know housing on homelands was probably the single biggest issue. We know other infrastructure on homelands is important - roads, power generation, facilities like schools, health clinics and so on - but housing is the most important issue homelands people raised with me. If people do not have a roof over their head, if people are in very crowded situations in places that are long overdue for maintenance then that is not a good place to be.
Indigenous home ownership is an important issue for many reasons. The Northern Territory cannot sustain the volume of public housing. I remember Ken Davies in a briefing - or maybe it was during an appearance before the Council of Territory Cooperation - talking about the fact that, per capita, we have the highest number of units ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Home ownership: governments cannot afford to keep building public housing. We know we have a much greater need in the Northern Territory, which is why we have the volume we do, but we need to work towards, over time, encouraging people to build their own houses. We have seen some examples of this on the Tiwi Islands under leasing arrangements with the Executive Director of Township Leasing.
We know that places like the homeland of Baniyala, within my electorate, have been fraught with land tenure issues. They have been fraught not only with land tenure issues, but through the finances associated with building a house and, importantly, the access government grants that go with that. The Labor government offered to support people into home ownership. That is an area that is absolutely fraught.
Clearly, one of the big areas I know the minister will be working with is the land councils and breaking through whatever the barriers are - they can be quite complex - that are preventing people from putting infrastructure in their own communities and on their own homelands.
I want to talk about education as well. Without a doubt, it is the key to any individual’s future. It gives an individual choice, self-determination and a passport out of poverty. My mother who turned 90 - her birthday was on election night, so I was the only member of the family who was unable to get to Adelaide for that special celebration - had always told my sisters and I that the most important thing in our lives was to get an education. She knew that, coming from Manchester where she was raised as a kid, where her street was bombed endlessly during World War II and where she and her brothers and her parents somehow survived World War II.
However, they were a very poor family. She lost three younger siblings; she was the oldest in the family. Simply because they were poor, they could not access health services. Her passport out of life in a factory was provided with a scholarship by her local member, which allowed her to go to a grammar school and complete her schooling, to then go on and train as a nurse. Eventually, when she was 60 and retired from nursing, she studied at university and earned herself a degree.
This is the sort of dream anyone should be able to access - not just my mother, but these kids on communities. There is nothing different about their intelligence. There should be nothing different about their opportunity, but the reality is the circumstances in which they find themselves are different to the circumstances of kids in Nhulunbuy, Darwin or Alice Springs, and it should not be that way.
We need to be getting these kids through school and into secondary education and on to those pathways through to jobs. They need to have that opportunity for choice in their communities. If they want to study law, medicine, come to Darwin and train to be police officers then that is fantastic; they should have those choices available to them. They also need to have those choices and those pathways within their own communities.
I know that no two regions in the Northern Territory are the same; different people have different aspirations. I know the people of northeast Arnhem Land want to stay on country. The elders and the kids want to stay on their country. One of the best examples I have seen in providing those pathways - the Education minister talked about it - is through schools like Shepherdson College where they have worked very hard to build those relationships between the school, the community and the prospective employers. They involve older people from the community and parents to assist building the skills, but in a culturally appropriate way and, at the same time, really pushing the fact that kids have to acquire and learn English - scaffolding in their local language, but learning English. The school is running very successfully with the 9-3 and 3-9 Programs.
Another important thing happening in education was established by the CEO of Education a couple of years ago, Gary Barnes. Gary had established NARIS, the National Association of Remote Indigenous Schools. The remote Indigenous schools in the Northern Territory are not unlike the remote Indigenous schools in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales in building that professional network to support teachers.
Promoting exchanges across jurisdictions is really positive and is about driving the agenda for quality schools and quality teachers. Normalising our schools - of course we want to see our kids have the same opportunities, but there is no escaping the fact the context within which some of these kids find themselves in communities is very different to places down south in the bigger cities. That is where teachers and communities have to work carefully and collaboratively to ensure they are building a curriculum based on the Australian curriculum which engages those kids, fulfils their education and gets them out the door at the other end as young people who are literate and numerate in English and maths and are strong in their culture as well.
Getting kids to school has always been, and continues to be, an issue. The Education minister mentioned building flexibility into our school as we have seen at Gunbalanya with the school term. That is also reliant on the flexibility of teachers and staff. However, the more we can do that and drive those types of solutions the better the results.
To be very frank, if we can see a reduction in the number of deaths in communities we will see fewer funerals. So many of our children do not get to school because they are travelling with family to funerals. It is a very sad fact of life for so many of these kids and families that travelling to funerals is a normal part of life.
The member for Stuart mentioned, when participating in debate the other day, going to 10 funerals in some months. That is way too sad.
In relation to jobs for Indigenous people, they are potentially limited by the education people have. I suggest to the minister the reason some of these Yirrkala men are not working in places like the Pacific Aluminium mine or refinery is not so much they do not want to work, although there could be an element of that, but they do not have the literacy to be able to work in these places which are, essentially, industrially, very dangerous places. Without literacy to understand and sign-off on the safety procedures you need to follow in those places, it can make it very dangerous and a very threatening environment to go into.
Not everyone wants to work a 12-hour day, four days on, four days off. However, to its credit, Pacific Aluminium has worked successfully on programs over the years, as it should, to support Indigenous people into training and jobs. Without a doubt, those jobs and opportunities that come through housing programs and other programs on communities need to be done by the people who live there. We have to build the capacity of the local people. They should be the first priority and target for taking on those jobs, not a fly-in fly-out workforce of contractors.
I heard stories of a plumber who had to take a charter to a community to fix a single tap. The cost of that charter makes it outrageous for a job that could so capably be done by someone at that community if only they were shown how to do it and encouraged to take on responsibility for doing that job, not have the expectation that someone else will be coming to do it.
Finally, whilst this statement says much and has much vision, it is lacking in detail. What we really want to know is the how. How are you going to fix the bush in this four-year term? What are the measures, what are the targets, what are the indicators? Knowing that the minister dismisses and despises reports and bureaucracy, there is no escaping the fact you have to go down that road.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of the listening tour. We may well cross paths on that listening tour, minister, because opposition members are out there as well listening to find out what it is that people want. I can already tell you they want action and things delivered ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, your time has expired.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who is actually also my Yaye, yapa, as the member for Nhulunbuy would know, in the Yolngu Matha. In doing that, I explain my hopes for Indigenous advancement in the Northern Territory.
My dream for the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory is really no different to the dreams of anyone else in the Northern Territory. I see a generation of Indigenous Territorians armed with a good education – no, not a good education, a great education – and, with that education, a much higher standard of health. It is education that promises to forge the opportunities of tomorrow for our young people.
About 30% of the Northern Territory’s population is identified as Indigenous. That is about 70 000 people from a total resident population of around 230 000 people. However, these figures tell only part of the exciting stories of Aboriginal Territorians. More than half of those 70 000 people are under 25 years of age. More than 22 000 are under the age of 14. Take, for example, Lajamanu. It is estimated that 46% of the population of that town is less than 19 years of age, and an amazing 29% are under nine years old.
Those children are an under-appreciated asset of our great Territory and, indeed, of Australia. They are waiting for us to wake up and forge them into the productive citizens of tomorrow. It was Nelson Mandela who said that education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world. That is so true. However, I do not wish to change the world; I came into this House, on this side of the House, to create the right conditions for Indigenous Territorians to compete equally in our great country and to be considered equal in our country. I want to work with the ministers to assist, develop, and implement policies that enable the young Indigenous people of the Territory to be empowered and able to move anywhere in Australia or the world with appropriate skills. With that education will come jobs - real jobs, not manufactured jobs that patronise.
There are plenty of jobs for these young people to aspire to: jobs in tourism, national parks, mining, and frontline government services. I ask members to use their imagination. I see market gardens feeding communities nourishing vegetables. I see creating cooperatives and selling to other towns. I see communities being integral members of new mining projects, playing important employment roles in development and operations. But, they are not going to win these jobs unless they attend school with real curriculums. I dream of these young people competing for these jobs and being selected because they were the best candidates.
However, to compete equally, our young must understand that employment demands discipline. It demands that ability to get up in the morning five days a week and present for work. Interestingly, these disciplines will be learnt in turning up for school every day - like good health, good education. It is the same everywhere and we do not need to debate it.
Education has the power to be a great healer. We spend millions and millions of dollars on Indigenous health, yet still our Indigenous Territorians have appalling health problems. There are, of course, special challenges we face in achieving these goals. About 44% of all Territorians live in remote or very remote areas. The figures for Indigenous Territorians are around 80% and there are 96 locations classified as either major or minor communities. These facts bring difficulties in service delivery.
Many of the roads linking major remote towns to homelands, outstations and regional centres are cut during the Wet Season. This remoteness affects the government’s ability to provide services. Based on the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2011 update, it is estimated that the per capita cost of delivering the standard level of services in the Northern Territory is about 2.15 times higher than the national average and about 3.4 times higher in relation to welfare and housing services. This does not recognise the additional effort required to significantly reduce Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory where the gap is larger than in other jurisdictions. For example, to halve the gap in three years in reading performances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, the Northern Territory is required to improve performance by 30.1%; whereas in Tasmania a 1.6% improvement must be achieved to meet the same target.
The former government abrogated its responsibility to Indigenous Territorians. It was the same old Labor-Green formula: throw them money, throw as much money as you can at the problem and let it go away. But this is not all of the former government’s policy approach. There was another element: bury your head in the sand and hope for the best. When it comes to Indigenous affairs there are a lot of chiefs but not enough Indians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to be able to participate in a debate that has been brought to this House by an Indigenous minister of the Northern Territory government. It gives me great pleasure to be able to offer my contribution; however, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement has reminded me a number of times in the debate around alcohol and child protection that I am a mere little whitefella and I have to remind myself of that, so I will try to remember that.
In this debate the minister started talking about something that made me quite emotional - loss. In the debates over the last two weeks I have talked about loss because we all suffer loss and I have stories of loss. The minister talked about parents not being around; that is an important point. My emotion directly related to the loss of elders. I have a lot of wishes but I always wished I got to the Territory about 20 years before I did. Unfortunately I did not and I made the best of what I had. It has been a fantastic ride.
The loss of elders is one of the really important points about Indigenous disadvantage. Whilst it is a natural thing, it has had a lot of unnatural causes. I reflected on that in many ways and tried to explain it. I have been lucky to be taught by elders, taken into their confidence and taught properly both ways. I remember one gentleman who was a really serious leader which he proved by being one of the pioneers of the outstation movement and starting the outstation of Nuradidgee. He came off a celebrated lifelong career in the pastoral industry. He was a respected tribal elder; he was also a very respected stockman and pastoralist who was wanted by everyone. He chose to work most of his time at Kurundi Station, and one of the last old-guard managers at Kurundi, Mr Cairns, rewarded Jabanunga with a red Dodge truck. I am not quite sure of the year, but it was an early one. Jabanunga had operated it for years and he kept that truck on the road. It was the time in the Territory where communities were getting Toyotas. Jabanunga built his outstation off the back of the truck; he would regularly appear in Tennant Creek on a Saturday morning bringing in most of the residents on the flattop.
I have written a song about it and people love it, particularly back home. They love it because it tells a story. When I reflect on the loss of elders, there is a bit of a sad first verse:
- It ain’t the same on the main street Saturday morning
There’s no smiles for country when the new day’s dawning.
How I miss the old men, their laughter and their kindness.
When will my bungies see through their blindness?
Jabanunga, truck driving man.
It goes on to tell the story of Jabanunga. As I saw the loss of elders and the changes in society, I saw the challenges that arrived. We are all in this together, and we are in a new world, in a post-modern world. So, without the strong tribal traditions as a base, without the discipline, then the post-modern world has impacted on the Aboriginal world and many challenges have come in that way.
The minister talked about people not being around. I would like to add to the debate. I believe, in the post-modern era, it is way more than people not being around, it is about mobility. We cannot say we have lost everyone. The statistics provided by the member for Arnhem were fascinating in terms of that young cohort, the Aboriginal community as a young community producing many children, growing and flourishing on homelands and in towns. Many of the young ones are ‘missing in action’, but it is not all because of loss, it is about mobility.
So, the days of Jabanunga with one truck and 40 people and an outstation movement led to the community of Wutunugurra which was given a truck. There were about 150 people. Then it evolved into people starting to access individual motor vehicles.
Today, we know that in a large part of the central parts of the Territory people are recycling second-hand vehicles out of South Australia. South Australia is getting rid of all the old unsafe cars, the basic cars with limited road safety initiatives fitted to them. They are channelling them up to the Territory. Indigenous people are buying them and using them. The mobility factor is really incredible.
People are moving. For example, in Ali Curung, 220 km southeast of Tennant Creek, I can show you the same car from Ali Curung in Tennant Creek twice in the same day! That is the mobility factor I am talking about. When communities are mobile then you have stability issues about sustainability, no matter what program you try to run. Build a house, get a kid educated, or get a clinic working for a patient with chronic disease that needs serious treatment - the mobility factor is impacting.
I will add another element for the minister to consider, as the minister is in the saddle now. She is back in the saddle and the ball is in the CLP court. Now they are held accountable by the bush. It was a great win, but a win is very short-lived unless you can deliver. The next element I would like to talk about is the modern Indigenous community and what I call compulsive behaviour. Compulsive behaviour means, ‘I got to do it now’; so, I put on hold the other issues in my life, because I have to do it now. I will give you an example of that: royalty payments.
There is the true story of royalty payments paid by the Central Land Council in Tennant Creek. From far and wide across an area one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria, Aboriginal family members will come for royalty payments. I have also seen occasions when it has all been gossip and innuendo. There were no royalty payments but the word went out - the message stick I call it - and hundreds of people were mobilised to come to town for their royalty payments; but it was gossip. There was no reality to it. It was not true. Yet hundreds of people had mobilised, they all ended up in a concentrated area, they did not have the resources to stay there and did not have the resources to get home. Things started to break down, social issues came to the fore, and you read about it in the newspapers and everyone bagged Tennant Creek.
That is one small example of this modern compulsive behaviour. I say, as a whitefella in this debate, I have lectured people for years and years, ‘Hey, come on, do not do that now because the kids have to go to school and Aunty Mary has to go to the clinic and everyone is doing their job here! Wait until Saturday!’
But It does not mean much when trying to challenge what has developed into this post-modern behaviour - these two worlds, two ways. If it is fair dinkum there is not a problem, but I will still ask for consideration that perhaps it should be done outside school hours, outside the operating parameters within the community that make the community functional.
You cannot pick up wheelie bins at Alpurrurulam if you do not have any blokes or girls willing to go to work. It is as simple as that. If the reason is they had to go here, there or everywhere, it will be an ad hoc service delivery, things break down, people become disillusioned and it impacts on self-esteem and you see a compounding effect.
I will take you one step further and challenge it on cultural grounds. I am now debating young men who tell me stories that they have to go here or there for cultural reasons. Because I am only a whitefella - but am very lucky to have spent some serious time in my life with traditional elders - I challenge the young men and say, ‘No, I don’t buy that. If your grandfather was still here, he wouldn’t buy that either. That is not a real excuse for you to pack up, pull up stumps and go 200 km to another place.’
Of course, I do not win because I am only a little whitefella. The compulsive behaviour wins and that person goes and we miss young people. As the minister said, we lose them, they are gone. They get side-tracked at the roadhouse or anywhere, their wife becomes jealous, their kids miss them and everything breaks down.
These are very easy things to deal with, but it will take a bit more than listening, minister. We have done much listening. I remember when you were preselected by the Labor Party and stood for the seat of Macdonnell I listened. I remember you in parliament, I listened. I remember working with you as a Labor colleague, I listened. I remember when you left to sit as an Independent, I listened. You listened, and you backed some of the Labor policy. I remember when you jumped into here in the lead-up to the next election, became a Country Liberal Party member, and are now sitting there as we have been reminded a number of times through our debates in the last few weeks, I listened.
However, back in the saddle it is the doing time. It is not just about listening, it is about the doing. In this statement I am a little disappointed there is still much talk of listening when, really - I have been following the minister’s political career, she has done much listening. She should know now there are many solutions at her fingertips and I will play a little more politics about it.
This goes back to what I was talking about the other night, with the new members opposite representing the bush in this historical change in Northern Territory politics where the conservatives have the power, driven by Indigenous members. You have to ask what happens in the Cabinet room; ask the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, minister for child protection, Education minister. Ask how the processes happen, ask how the cake is cut up, and ensure you get your fair share. Ask questions, do not always listen, go and ask questions! Find out how things are done; who is doing the cutting and shaking. You are lucky because the minister that brought this to the House is sitting right next to the cake. Do not forget.
The only way things will change is through resources. There is no doubt about it, you need resources. However, as the new Minister for Indigenous Advancement said, new ways mean doing. We will have better solutions. We will utilise those resources better. However, you will not get past go until you get your hands on a big piece of cake, let me tell you. I have been in this game, I know how it works, and you will have to fight. Good luck.
I live in the bush, and I am waiting for it in the Barkly. I honestly say to people in the Barkly I am terrified we will starve for the next four years in the Barkly because these people - and the member for Braitling summed it up in the first Question Time. We hit him with a couple of hard questions, he ducked and weaved, came out with an attack on me, ‘I am sick of you, we did not get you, we are going after you again’.
That reinforced to me that we might be going to starve in the Barkly for the next four years because the member for Braitling did not like me winning the election. He does not like that - he made it very clear. For the people in the Barkly, I will continue to fight for you, and I hope we get our bit of cake. The only way we will get our bit of cake in the bush depends on the members opposite and our new Minister for Indigenous Advancement. Thank you, minister, and please keep me and the people of the Barkly in your thoughts.
I like the story of homelands, and I love homelands. I lived in the homelands – a wonderful place. Of my two children, one was born in a homeland. It was a wonderful experience. I remember the Minister for Indigenous Advancement in the new government put together the Stronger Futures package, and I worked on that package. When we took that out there we got slapped on homelands - there was no doubt about it. I went to forums in Tennant Creek and Borroloola and up the track, and we got slapped. That policy lacked something. The minister took off, and we had to pick up the ball and keep running with it.
What I was really proud about in the lead-up to the election we just lost - that you guys have told the story of numerous times in the last weeks - was that we massaged that homeland policy, got the Commonwealth back to the table, stumped up more cash. But, we had the thing that was missing: we were going to squeeze the resource centres ...
Ms Lee: Have you?
Mr McCARTHY: No, we lost government. We were going to start to squeeze the resource centres because I was continually debating in the Cabinet and Caucus telling the story, ‘Hey! All these guys back home are running me down, running the government down because things are not being delivered.’ Government said, ‘Well, the cheques are going in the front door, but nothing is coming out the other door’.
I was getting the blame, and it was crafted into a beautiful election strategy - and you guys can tell the story about what happened. Please, when you go back to do business with the homelands, make sure you start to squeeze the resource centres, because they were the ones that were letting communities down. I can give you example after example in the Barkly.
We are going to move on because that is a traditional way of service delivery, and this minister, in her visionary statement, has said she will challenge that directly. She definitely has that in her sights. Good. Go for it and squeeze them, make them more accountable, work with them, bring them along, share your knowledge with them, and make sure that service delivery gets better. Think creatively, because when I go back in the Barkly, people from the places I lived on 30 years ago still come up to me and say they need X, Y and Z.
The minister talked about that attitude of complaining and of asking. You have to be creative in this space. I go in and have a conversation and, if I get the traditional story - because we sit around and share stories about the old days and talk about our kids and life in general - and generally that person the minister describes in her statement quite well says they want the traditional things: bullocks, fences, bore points, Toyotas, and houses.
I say, ‘Forget that. What about we go down to the coast, we catch the biggest mob of pigs, we bring them up, let them go up the creek and then I will put a little advertisement in the German bow hunting magazine and we will get all these German bow hunters over here to shoot feral pigs up the creek and we will charge them $10 000 each. They were charging them $10 000 each back in 1998, so I reckon we will charge them $15 000 in 2013. Then if we can get Nanna to sit down and make a basket and a bow hunter’s missus comes along, let us charge them $20 000.’
Now that is the creative thinking that I am pushing out in the Barkly, around homelands. Then we can go to the higher order thinking around carbon emissions trading and carbon farming and fire abatement programs and ranger programs.
You guys are in the saddle, you have the stallions and the mares, and you have to start to think creatively around homeland developments. What the minister says about challenging that stereotypical behaviour is good. You need to be creative, make the land work for the people. Everyone comes along for the ride and that has so many opportunities. I would love to be back in the saddle, but I am back in the yards, I will be raking the yards out for a while yet. I do not know for how long, but I am good with yards. I keep a clean yard and I will be back at the ranch, guys, I will be back at the ranch. But you guys certainly have lots of opportunity.
I will talk about where the minister mentions Yirrkala in the statement, because I think it was about a person, a man, driving to work. You do not have to drive to work from Yirrkala to Nhulunbuy, you can catch the bus, put on by the Labor government through the first ever transport services in the bush, the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. Yirrkala Business Enterprises took up the challenge, created a bus run and the statistics before the election …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his support as I like to speak on these issues. The Yirrkala Business Enterprise has grabbed the opportunity, started a bus run and the statistics that were coming in just before the election showed that the majority of passengers were guys going to work. I hope there were a lot of girls going to work too, because there is a wealth of opportunities in Nhulunbuy. But it was not only workers catching the bus; it was families, kids accessing services and sports, etcetera. This bus was working and is working. The challenge is - back to the cake in the Cabinet room - to keep it going, do not let it drop.
Another part of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy was the new bus service throughout Central Australia. The Minister for Transport has the opportunity now to sit down at the end of the trial and open the books because that was the deal we made with the companies. We wanted them to open the books. The word coming out of the companies was that it was good, it was making profits. The next thing I wanted to drive into that was, I wanted workers. I reckon the Indigenous mob would make great transport operators and there were a few interested in mechanics. I wanted to be creative and was advising these bus companies to put some accommodation units in town so they could cover both ends of the bus run, and with the locals working at both ends of the run it could be a really good business outcome.
These guys will open the books with your new Transport minister very shortly. You will need to get another slice of the cake to keep the bush transport developing. There was a promise by the CLP that there would be a new transport service from Tennant Creek, to Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Tara and Munkara. I know that was a promise because I fed it to CLP people. I fed it to them and I told them the story and my dream of the new passenger freight model. It was fed to the candidate, and it was created as a promise and it is a great thing. It is a great thing, but it will require another slice of the cake, where the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Education and child protection is cutting it up nicely. Make sure you guys get a piece.
While you are talking about bus services in Central Australia, do not forget the Tiwi Ferry. I rode on it the other day, I steamed on it. It was brilliant. Member for Arafura, it was my first visit to the Tiwis. I would love to come and see you there sometime. It was fantastic. I had heard about the place. I read about the place. I had seen photos of the place and we went out there. We steamed out on the ferry and the first thing people asked us – well, not the first thing but one of the common questions was had we flown there. I said, ‘No, I’ve done 300 000 km in a Toyota in the last four years and I caught the ferry out here.’
It was a very interesting opener to the conversation. I was challenged with, ‘Did you fly? You are a politician, did you fly here?’ I said, ‘No, no, we caught the ferry. The ferry is great.’
I talked to the skipper and we talked about that regional integrated transport model. You need to continue it because it is only getting a run until the end of December and then it is up for grabs. You will need to be back at that same cake - by jingo, it will have to be a big cake. But it is a cake, it is there. Get a slice for the Tiwi Ferry because it is good. I talked to many locals when I was there about the ferry and they said it is a good alternative. They did not all want to fly. They said they need a better alternative for their kids. They wanted a different boat and we talked to the skipper about that. They said the boat is good and they want that ferry to continue. So you will need to bat for that in terms of Indigenous development.
The minister’s statement drifted in and out of education. I was very disappointed that the statement did not mention one word about Indigenous teachers. I went back to my computer and I read it again thinking I must have missed it somewhere. I asked my colleagues. So, I thought I had better raise it in the House.
I have been trying as a teacher for 33 years, to work myself into unemployment. I wanted to front up at a Centrelink office, unemployed, and say that the Indigenous mob took my job, ‘They took all the teachers’ jobs’. I say this because we know if you want to achieve the visionary outcomes in the statement from the minister you will need Indigenous teachers. You will need Indigenous health workers. As a matter of fact, the member for Arnhem summed it up: you will need to take control of communities. That means do all of the jobs.
Indigenous teachers need to be mentioned in that statement and they need to be the key pin. I will share any more ideas around education with you after today. I will sulk because I was disappointed in Question Time with the contempt shown to members of this House on the other side when the Minister for Tourism set a new benchmark that is way below zero. That was arrogant; that was insulting and I am very disappointed so I decided I am going to sulk. I will not share any more ideas with you but one. That is, if you really want to improve attendance - this is the age-old saying ‘I lived it, I worked it’ - you make the school the most exciting part of that child’s life and that child will beat you to the school gate every day.
That is all you are getting. If you lose the attitude, lose that rubbish that was in opposition and start to wise up, act like ministers of the Crown, act like Territorians with real responsibility and show some manners and deportment then we might share a few more ideas with you. Your minister for Tourism and your Minister for Transport have plenty to offer.
I am afraid the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have to face her own music after that today because that was a bit disappointing. You have plenty more to offer than that. We were looking for some answers. I am really interested in the homeland story because, as I said, we got the feds to the table, the Territory government whacked in more cash, and there were many creative ideas. There are some really good outcomes for homelands, if it is done properly, of course, with the people.
Academics and research - that was an interesting point and I take that point - but I did take offence when I watched the television. I watched the live show when the member for Port Darwin did a bit of theatrics around sipping latt coffee and pushing noses up against glass windows because, as a person who has devoted more than half of my life to Indigenous development, I felt a little insulted that he was stereotyping people like me and all other good whitefellas.
Do not forget, there are many good whitefellas who have devoted their lives. The member for Arafura will know this person very well - I only got to spend about two hours with her - Sister Anne Gardiner. We talked about all types of different things, but when the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nhulunbuy had finished their research I asked the Sister to spare me 15 minutes to tell me the story of the Tiwis from the beautiful history I have read about to all the challenges today. Sister had to compress it into 20 minutes, but there is a person who has devoted her whole life to Indigenous development and advancement.
The member for Port Darwin was insulting. What the member for Port Darwin did was a classic stereotype hypocrisy of what he had been debating the previous day when he was putting down the stereotypical, socialist Labor person. The caf latt-sipping nose-against-the-glass-window was an absolute insult and bears no benefit for debate or any real moves into Indigenous advancement. Lose it. You are a minister of the Crown now and you guys are in the saddle.
The reference to toilets and unblocking toilets - Mungoobada at Robinson River, has a policy in the store where the residents are issued with toiletries and laundry products. They found it is cheaper to issue the residents with the appropriate products than to bring in plumbers to fix blocked toilets. I picked up on that issue, and that is one way of doing it.
The mother who adopted me, Bunny Nabarula, was getting up my brother the other day because he was using baby clothes in the toilet at home. She upped him! Did she give it to him! We all celebrated and I pulled him aside and said, ‘Listen, Thomas McCarthy is a plumber’, and we talked about plumbing and he got the message. That is a good, pragmatic example. Mungoobada has a very creative solution, and I am sure the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have more.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the statement to the House.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was originally going to talk about education and homelands. Before I do, I will criticise the member for Barkly for his outrageous suggestion that Aboriginal people should collect some feral pigs and let them go. As the owner of a mango farm, I am very aware of the disease and damage feral pigs can cause. I find it outrageous someone in here would suggest something like that. The next thing he will be telling us is to farm ...
Mr HIGGINS: If I could go back to education and homelands.
Mr McCarthy: Be creative. That is not creative.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HIGGINS: If I could speak about Wadeye first. Wadeye has over 600 kids who should go to school. It was interesting when visiting in the lead-up to the election, as one of the key concerns parents had which constantly came up was there was not enough kids at school. Nobody there had a simple answer to that, but some things are being done.
Last week as you know, there was some trouble at Wadeye and there were as few as 50 kids in school at Wadeye that week. Last week saw the start of a Tracks program run under the PaCE initiative. It is an attempt to get all 22 family groups at Wadeye back to their homelands. The idea is it takes them away from peer pressure from the other groups while they are in Wadeye and to try to emphasise the importance of education for these children. They are hoping when the Wet Season arrives and they are compelled to be back in Wadeye, these kids will see the importance of school.
I will go to another community, Emu Point. One of the problems we have at Emu Point is we spent a fortune on building a school but there are no houses for the teachers. This problem relates to the land council, but we have teachers going back and forth. This is another problem which existed under the previous government. As far as I can find out, they have not attempted to overcome the problem.
If I move a little further. Closer to Nauiyu and Daly where I live, there is a community called Woodycupaldiya which is a community of about 80 people. Prior to the election, when I visited this community - which I do quite often - there were 28 kids in that community and no teacher. I assisted those people in that community to write a letter to the Department of Education and Catholic Education to see if they could get a teacher assigned to that school. I am following that up at the moment.
If I look at Nauiyu and Wooliana, we have a school that was established on the development association land some 10 or so years ago for a period of two years. That temporary school is still on that land because this previous government did not develop the local town site so this school could be relocated.
Madam Speaker, my four sons, four of my seven grandsons, and my granddaughter have all been educated in the Territory; my wife is a teacher, and I know the importance of education. Education is number one in lifting Aboriginal people out of the hole they currently find themselves in. However, we need to listen to the people and decide the best way to get them there.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement. I congratulate the minister on her success and look forward to working with her to implement our hopes and desired improvements for Indigenous advancement in the Northern Territory.
I agree with my colleague, the member for Arnhem: the future of our people is with our children. Like the member for Arnhem, I see a generation of Aboriginal Territorians equipped with an education that enables them to go confidently into the employment world. For it is education that opens our children’s minds, and open minds see opportunities with boundless horizons. Seizing that opportunity gives us options to go to places that our forefathers could never dream of.
To get to these places, we need to ensure English is taught in our schools by people who well understand where we came from and what we need to do to stride into the future. We want parents and students to understand that, without English, it is impossible to take advantage of all this great country has to offer. Therefore, we want to make the schools a better place for children to come to - a welcoming area and place that is as important as festivals and sporting events.
I would like members to look at this side of the Assembly. Here are five Indigenous members who have had some education and are able to take advantage of what that education offered. We all have walked different paths to get to this place. We all have wonderful experiences in the Northern Territory, elsewhere in Australia, and overseas. What we have in common is we managed to get a good education which gave us the foundation and confidence to step up.
I have heard people say that if we teach our children English they will lose their culture. Do we look like we have lost our culture? Between us, I think we cover most of the major cultural languages spoken in the Northern Territory, in addition to English. Far from losing our culture, we continue to strive to educate others about our culture, our land, and our people. It is interesting to see who says getting an education will mean we lose our culture. It is not the parents of children living out in the country saying this, it is people who see the Aboriginal people as ones who need to be protected and looked after.
I wish people could see more when they look at us. After all, we are all human beings. The best way to get them to wake up is for more Aboriginal people to use that education and to take leadership roles in the Northern Territory, in Australia, and around the world. I look forward to the time when we have more Aboriginal leaders in this place, people fluent in English, knowledgeable in our culture who bring their education and their culture to this place for the betterment of everyone.
I respect that people can make up their own minds and some may choose other paths in this debate; but as I said, we are all human beings. Understand it is not just about becoming a leader. We need children to be educated to fully engage in today’s world on any level. I will give you a small example, but a significant one, because we all have stories as to what education means for our people and how vitally important it is. We have stories like people coming to us to ask us when they get their new phones, ‘How can we put this together? How can we do this, can you help us?’ If our people had that education and had been taught English and had been in mainstream education they would not have needed to come to us to ask us to help them put their phones together.
If they had been taught in Warlpiri they would not have that opportunity and they would never get their mobile connected. I am not having a go at Telstra. It is the same dealing with Centrelink, banks, the hospital, MVR. What it tells us is that education is very important for our people and we need to get all our kids to school. We need to help get the message across to the parents, to the teachers and to everyone else who is related to a child to make sure children get their education and they are not treated differently.
Education is the gateway to get our people involved in real decision-making. There are priorities, health, jobs, housing, transport but education of our children is the pathway to advancement. That is a priority right now. I am in this place to support the Minister for Education and the Minister for Indigenous Advancement in achieving this special priority, the future for our children.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for her statement. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate closely and it is one that I am cognisant of, having grown up in the Northern Territory, being the former member for Macdonnell, etcetera. It occurred to me that there is potentially a really useful doctoral thesis that might develop out of this debate - and for those who are not aware, my areas of major study when I did my Bachelor of Arts were history and political science and I have read a great deal of history since getting my Bachelor of Arts. I am sitting here contemplating the nature and development of European society as well as non-European society in Australia, and it occurred to me that the basis for a doctoral thesis would be a useful study of the way welfarism has grown philosophically in the West and the resultant impact on colonised societies.
The reason I go down this path is that welfarism is quite new, even in Western society. It is extraordinarily new; it is a very recent product. I ask honourable members to bear with me while I engage in a bit of reflection. If you think about any hunter-gatherer tribal society that predated any form of ploughing the fields, etcetera., the similarities to what the anthropological record tells us in Europe and what was happening in Australia and Africa are, in many respects, parallel. But one of the consistent things you would have seen through this process of examining each of these communities is that none of these communities could afford any form of welfare.
There is considerable suggestion that prior to cultivation of crops, many societies were quite harsh on the young and the old. The old were looked after as far as they possibly could be but when they ultimately became such an extreme burden their passage from the corporeal world into the next world was fairly quick, done by a myriad of means - I am talking about societies in Africa and the suggestions of what occurred in Europe – as a small group could not afford to have people waiting on them.
Then there is the addition of crops, the farming revolution of about 10 000 years ago which is really the basis for Western and Middle Eastern civilisation. Did that enable huge amounts of wealth to be generated? To a degree, yes. But even the wealth that was generated with cropping and through agricultural development over the 10 000 years prior to the rise of any of the great civilisations still did not generate sufficient wealth to have large numbers of a population dependent on the rest of the population.
Cast your mind forward and look at the Mesopotamian civilisation. You go so far as to look at the rise of civilisation in North Africa and the shape of the Egyptians. Did they generate enough wealth to have a large part of the population dependent on another part of the population? Surely there was a priesthood which enjoyed benefits of providing a service for which they were not actually productive, but it was a tiny slice of the population. So, an agrarian society, even the one that built the pyramids, could not carry much surplus in terms of carrying extra people.
A step forward in time again to about 2000 years ago, you then have the rise of – well, 2500 years ago, the Greek city-states - Rome. Even those societies, which were highly advanced and highly civilised - never seen before on the face of the earth - still could not afford to underwrite a large slice of the community being unproductive. They could support armies but only so far as those armies were generating wealth for themselves, essentially by raping and pillaging the next door neighbour; but there was insufficient surplus. In fact, Roman society was so poor at generating wealth that it continued to rely on an unpaid workforce in the form of slaves.
Wind the clock forward again and it is not until we get to the Industrial Revolution - we are now only talking about 200 years ago - even 200 years ago, Western civilisation, the rise of the British Empire; we are talking within only a few generations back, yet there was still no large or obvious welfare state being generated by the industrial revolution period. It is only in the post-Industrial Revolutionary era - I am now talking as late as the 1930s - that we start to get a sense of the rise of welfarism as a concept. Welfare as a concept, charity aside - charity has been around for a long time, but charitable acts were small acts and they were restrained because you could only demand a small amount. Even Islam was not prepared to go beyond a certain very strict set of rules about how you should conduct yourself morally in the drawdown on your personal wealth. It required moral codes, but the drawdown on personal wealth was limited.
The church, during the Dark Ages, would seek a tithing - a 10th of the community’s income to sustain it. That is far less than state taxes today.
It is not until you get to the 1930s and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the United States, which was a response to the Great Depression, that you start to see a massive rise in the concept of welfarism in Western civilisation. I suggest in countries that are still rising, such as India, welfarism is still only a slither of what is available because the wealth generation capacity of that country is still not sufficient to underwrite a large, non-productive component of society. The rise of machines and productivity - we only have to look around us to see what the post-Industrial Revolution can achieve. Our computers, cars, machines, telephones, manufactured goods show we live in an age of unprecedented wealth.
I will give you a comparison. China, which is the great growth nation everyone says is doing really amazingly, currently has an annual average income of about $3500. The United States has an average annual income of about $35 000. Whilst China is growing, it is coming from a really low base. Whilst it is nominally a communist state, which means it is, by its very essence, welfare-oriented to the whole community, it is still struggling to meet its fundamental obligations under a communist regime. The quality of care out of that communist state is nothing like the quality of care wealthy Western countries generate for looking after their old, young, infirm, insane and unemployed.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was a product of a capacity to make a promise the Western civilisation could not make up until the 1930s without any certainty. Certainly, there was much pressure because of the circumstances, but for the first time a command economy which he was essentially arguing for, was able to generate a protection for those people who had fallen through the net. It was able to do it because it was wealthy enough. Even in the times of the Depression there was still enough wealth being generated.
The 1930s is 70 years after the Northern Territory was originally settled by Europeans, the Germans in the Hermannsburg area. Hermannsburg - you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out this is a German town. You have Cleophas Ebataringa and Heinrich Ebataringa if memory serves me. The German connection is there.
Even where you have Anglican missions and Lutheran missions all around the Territory, many of these places were settled before there was a constructed concept of welfare. For example, in the Hermannsburg area, the Ntaria area, where the missionaries originally settled, they did not come with an idea of some form of welfare in the sense it would be this passive environment. They arrived, saying, ‘We have a new way of living. Our job is a missionary job, will convert you to Christianity, but will also organise you in such a fashion that you will be safer, more sedentary, and you will not be moving around as much as you used to do, but we still expect you to make an effort.’
Because you had people in Hermannsburg like Albrecht, and Gary Stoll in the latter years - those people who dedicated decades of their lives to their missionary work - over the generations you had a couple of things running in parallel so you had a total acceptance that you still worked.
Aboriginal people worked bloody hard before the settlement of Europeans. The reason they worked bloody hard is if they did not work hard they died; they starved to death - very straightforward investment economy. Proto-capitalism if you like; the unit of currency is the calorie.
You have 2000 calories and you invest that in going out and collecting food, if you are a lady; or as a gentleman you would go out occasionally, hunting kangaroos. If they came back with a kangaroo – huge return on investment. How many calories in a kangaroo? Probably about 20 000 - huge return on investment. However, you were not guaranteed a return on investment. If you came back empty-handed and the ladies did not do so well either, you got hungry. A successful capital investment for a pre-settlement Aboriginal person was an investment of calories which returned a profit. As a result of that profit, your lifestyle improved. You could sit down, do ceremony, take it easy for a few days; life was better.
If your return on calories was about the effort you put in, the next day the first thing you had to do was go out hunting, go out gathering again - straight up and down investment economy. Do you know what happens in an investment economy if your investment does not pay off? Your business folds or, in the case of Aboriginal people, they starve to death. But, they worked; they understood the work ethic.
When Europeans moved into the area, either through the cattle industry or through the missionary process, because there was no Western cultural predisposition to welfare, there was never a question that these people were going to work. What they were doing, what the ethic was, was different. In the case of Hermannsburg vegetables were grown, cattle was mustered, a tannery was run, the workshops were run, but you were still required to work. If you see the photographs of the people who lived there in the early 1800s – obesity? Oh, no – lean, healthy-looking, but lean people. These people were used to working and they were used to making an effort.
Of course, the Western missionaries had never heard of welfare. They had heard of charity, but not welfare. The Western missionaries did not think they were going to rescue these people by just putting them into a corner. No, come to Christ but, whilst you come to Christ, grow some vegetables, go to school. When I became the member for Macdonnell some of the very old people still had handwriting that looked like calligraphy. My handwriting looks like an epileptic spider crawled out of an ink well and then stumbled across a page; their handwriting was spectacular. The reason their handwriting was like that was because they understood what writing was for; because they sent messages. Letters, instructions were sent out to people working in the field. They were written instructions so the person at the receiving end of the instruction said, ‘I understand what this means’. There was a contextual environment in which writing could be understood, so the education meant something.
If you do not use education, you forget what it is about. When I was in high school I was really good at something called a quadratic equation. Frankly, I would not know what one looked like now, because I have not used it since the day I left high school. I use arithmetic and my literacy on a daily basis, and I am as fluent in those as I was when I was taught - and probably more fluent. Education needs an environment in which to work.
What happened in the 1930s was that the whole West - particularly after World War II, because they were all feeling guilty about World War II, and it was a big mess - had this new command economy structure working where we could then take volumes of wealth from one group of people and, in the name of equality and decency and motivated by the very good motivations that drive charity, we said to these people, ‘We have done you wrong. We have come into your country; we have stolen your country; we have taken your kids. It is time to - as Peter Garratt would say – pay it back.’
The way that was done was well-meaning; it was a deliberate decision to fix the mess that our forefathers, the colonists made. They were feeling a bit guilty about it.
It is now the early 1970s, welfarism has grown for a couple of decades after World War II. It is a new concept in the West. It has only been around for 30 years or so, but we can share some of the wealth and we are going to share it around. That is what they did. We thought we were going to build houses for these people, give them an income, build schools and health clinics.
Despite the fact our expenditure went up, up, up, our results went down, down, down. Why is it that a missionary educated kid from the 1950s and 1960s had a better level of education and a better understanding on how to survive in the world when they had bugger-all opportunities other than what they learnt at the mission school, and was 10 times better educated than what is coming out of the local Hermannsburg school now? If you look at the NAPLAN results, forget it.
What has happened, why does expenditure go up and results go down? If you look at the economics text books of the 1960s and the 1950s, there is a belief that economics and humanity are completely separate things. Economics over here, humanity is over there and use economics to get better human results. They describe it. They actually had a machine built in the 1960s with coloured fluids flowing through to teach you about economics in university. You turned this switch over here, which would be your policy switch, and you changed that policy switch over there and water would pour out that end of the machine. Economic students used to have to study this machine. Each switch would have a name. If you set the settings, water would pour out the other end. They believed that was how economics worked. So if you set all the switches for the welfare state, water would pour out over here, everyone would be happy because that is the result you wanted.
But it abandons the concept of the complexities humans bring to any environment. You cannot be that simple. So what happens next? Whilst I am speaking in generalities myself, you cannot predict outcomes the way they look in the first instance. For example, I have some money, you have no money; if I give you some of my money we will both have half the amount of money, that is true. Give it a bit of time, it is our humanity that determines whether we keep that money, increase the amount of money or lose it.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members. So, I reckon that if you got all the money in the world right now and divided it up amongst everyone equally, within a year that equality would be gone. Many people will have lost it, some will have accumulated a bit more, some will have accumulated a great deal. The chances are the people who have accumulated a great deal now will probably be the same people who accumulate a great deal again.
The fact is, we as a people, as a species if you like, have always worked. We have worked throughout all human history for all human history, with the exception of the last 200 years, for one: to survive. Work has been the difference between being alive and being dead. It is, I suggest, woven into our DNA that we must work as a species. Certainly it is woven into my personal psyche and I assume that it is woven into the personal psyche of many other people.
If you look at the motivations behind the American Revolution it was not about avoiding work, it was about avoiding oppression. The assumption throughout that whole period of the American Revolution was that you were responsible for your own actions. You were allowed to have life, liberty and you were allowed to pursue happiness. They are the words of the Declaration of Independence.
The presumption is that you work, you become responsible, so if you make it turn to rubbish, you are held to be responsible for it. But we have not done that in the last 40 or 50 years in this new age of welfarism. We have been very clumsy about it all around the world. This is not just Aboriginal people; you want to see this in Brixton, London and Harlem, New York. We say to people, ‘Do not worry about it. Just sit over there. We will give you some money we will look after you.’
Some people, a few, will accept it. I do not know what the percentage is, but a slice of that group will accept that money and sit down and be engaged in - the Aboriginal people have a great term for it - ‘sit down money’.
That then strips you - as you sit there sedentary position you start to decay. Slowly, things start to collapse. Education means less, it is no longer relevant; you do not have a job. Health does not matter so much. Can you imagine that a really healthy guy, or someone who can run a full marathon and bench-press 150 kg at Yuendemu has a chance of having a better life than the guy who has just been grog running all night and sitting at the boundary fence? There is no difference because their life is completely managed for them beyond that difference. There is no freedom in saying to people, ‘You have a choice between option A and option B, but whatever happens, whatever decision you make, option C will be the result’.
It deprives you of a reason and a capacity, to make a choice. Choices no longer matter; someone else fixes it for you. I understand what the member for Barkly is saying when he celebrates the fact - I think that is the word he used - that someone did not clog up a loo with baby clothes. You know what? We should set the benchmark a little higher than celebrating the fact that someone did not clog up the loo with baby clothes.
Look at where Aboriginal people are put under pressure. I pick up the fact that you talked about Robinson River, because I know Bill South particularly well; I remember him from Finke. He puts pressure on the people there, but he still gives them the right to make their own decisions. He will tell them what a bad decision is, but he will guide them through to good decisions. What Bill South achieves is as a result of putting pressure on people saying, ‘You have the responsibility to do this stuff’. He is great at leading this. The problem is that if he moves on from one community to the next, that community decays again. I am not criticising Bill South because, realistically, what is required to get that long-term sort of development, local management structure in place is probably intergenerational.
There are ways to advance that more quickly. This is why I argue for a change to welfare, so that welfare is worked for. I am not saying get rid of welfare, but make sure that welfare payment is still the product of some effort, so there is a link between effort and income. At the moment, that link does not exist; it is gone.
If you are able to make that change, the corrosive element of all these other government policies we pursue will also be gone. Will people like it when we ask them to work for their welfare? By the way, I argue for this on a national scale. I do not want it just to apply to a racial group and if it was to be done in the Northern Territory, I would expect it to operate in Nightcliff, in Casuarina, in Alice Springs and in Yuendemu.
If people understood they still have to make some effort for their income, it would not be long before all of the expenditure and all of the other areas would start to work. The schools would start to mean something. The houses we build would be the ones we work on and people would get used to looking after them, because there was no other choice, they had to work.
I do not want to be seen as someone who bashes up on people by saying all these people are ‘dole bludgers’ – I do not like that term. But clearly through the clumsy use of a very recent policy on a global scale in the way that Western civilisation works, its product is the antithesis of what it was trying to achieve. ‘Support and care’ was the motive; ‘death and mayhem’ has been the product. So, it is time we become realistic about the construction of welfare and how we do it. We understand economics and human conduct are inextricably linked; they are like two faces of the same coin. It is time to finesse and change the way we do these welfare payments.
I am not an advocate for the abolition of welfare, but we must start to understand the human component of effort, and the human component of self-worth is inextricably linked with the human need to be productive. I suspect it is an evolved condition. For the first time in human history, only in the last 50 or 60 years, we have allowed large numbers of humans, particularly in Western civilisation, to be unproductive. The lack of productivity has killed, I suspect, more people through their own attendant self-neglect, indifference and decay than any number of other government policies.
It is for this reason I believe, whilst there is still a capacity for any government to readjust the wealth to a degree so some people can be looked after, that ‘looking after’ does not mean a Santa Claus approach to gift giving. It means we say there is still an exchange, there is a contract which means we will give you something. We will help you with your housing, with some income, but only if you make an effort in return.
That is part of the social contract we all have with our communities, with our state as a Territory, with our state as a nation, and with each other as individuals.
If you are able to capture that through modifying what is a particularly new policy in the Western world, you would be able to get yourself to a much better place than we have achieved. It still remains to me an absolute anathema that we spend so much more than we have traditionally spent on Aboriginal people yet we continue to produce such awful and dreadful results. It does not work. Re-tweak the system, make it work whilst you acknowledge the nature of humanity - that economics and humanity are woven like the weave of fabric, and you will be astonished about the things that could be achieved.
It is something Mr Pearson has talked about in far north Queensland. The more I contemplate it, the more certain I am that sort of approach would be much more correct than what we are doing at the moment.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I place on record something that was said in Question Time today by the member for Nhulunbuy to the Chief Minister. A question was asked with some kind of implication on my CEO. I quote from Hansard the question asked by Ms Walker to the Chief Minister:
- Your government axed the independent Coordinator-General for Remote Services whose job was to put services and spending addressing Indigenous disadvantage under the spotlight. That independent scrutiny has been replaced with the agency CEO working with your razor gang in NT House. It is about you and your priorities. When will you confess to Territorians the Indigenous services you will dump to pay for your unfunded election commitments?
I place on the public record that I am really offended by the member for Nhulunbuy saying I have dumped security of Indigenous services on my CEO. My CEO is a hard-working public servant working with me to ensure my wishes are carried out and Indigenous Territorians receive services in a timely and efficient manner. He is not to be used for political scoring simply because the member for Nhulunbuy is desperate for a sensible argument.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will talk about science, science education in particular. I am speaking as the member for Goyder and on behalf of the schools in my electorate which are Bees Creek Primary School, Sattler Christian School, Taminmin College, St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary School, Humpty Doo Primary School, Middle Point Primary School and, to some extent, Girraween Primary School because many of the families in my electorate feed into that school.
The reason I am speaking this evening is to highlight the issues and urge the Minister for Education to reconsider one of the positions it appears may be taken away - the person with the CSIRO science education centre based near Berrimah. The minister commented in parliament yesterday there may be savings required of departments - and I accept that - the statement has been that frontline people will not be affected. The minister commented that the position at CSIRO is not a frontline service. I beg to differ, and will explain why and give evidence and documentation to demonstrate this position is a frontline position and a very important one.
If the manager position at CSIRO science education centre goes and funding for the position does not continue, there is a likelihood the CSIRO’s science education centre will be unable to function as it has done for the past 23 years, and the possibility it may close. This will mean no access for Northern Territory students and teachers to national science resources and programs delivered through the CSIRO science education centre in Darwin. There are CSIRO science education centres in all states and territories throughout Australia. The science education manager position in the Northern Territory is responsible for the implementation of the following:
1. The delivery throughout the whole of the Northern Territory, including urban, regional and remote government and non-government schools, of 19 school Hands on Science programs which includes pre- and post-teacher notes based on the Australian curriculum. In the past year, 12 000 Territory students were actively involved in these programs.
2. The Double Helix Science Club and related activities offers a range of engaging hands-on science events and activities for school-aged children from ages seven up from the education centre in Berrimah, and also in regional centres across the Northern Territory.
3. Linking teachers to the Scientists in Schools and Mathematicians in Schools programs. These programs create and support long-term partnerships between scientists or mathematicians and teachers in primary and secondary schools. The partnerships are supported by resources, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face events. This program links into the Science as a Human Endeavour strand, again, in the Australian Curriculum.
5. Professional development and support for science programs based on the Australian curriculum for all teachers in government and independent primary and secondary schools throughout the Northern Territory.
A further point: the chairman of National Science Week in the Northern Territory - the manager of the CSIRO centre - is involved in coordinating funding for National Science Week and organising community activities in the Northern Territory for students and the general public. If we do not have this person in a coordinating role at the science centre, then National Science Week will fail in the Northern Territory. That is not acceptable to schools, teachers and parents, and it should not be acceptable to the government.
Delivery of CSIRO school holiday programs involves the following organisations: Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, the City of Darwin, Palmerston Library, Darwin Waterfront Corporation and the YMCA.
Finally, the manager at the centre delivers in-kind support to the Northern Territory Space School engineering challenge, Young Scientists Awards night, sustainability school summits, school science fairs and Teddy Bears’ Picnic.
In regard to school science fairs, it was only a short while ago we had Taminmin College Science Fair, which is now in its third year. I was there. They have much sponsorship from exploration mining companies, local businesses, and ministers attend - in the past the Chief Minister has attended. It is a huge educational event which is going ahead in leaps and bounds. They link directly into the CSIRO science centre and that position. That science fair will struggle in the future if it does not have the support.
The above programs, activities and resources delivered by the CSIRO science education centre will not be available in their current form to Northern Territory students, schools, and the wider community if funding is not provided for the manager’s position. As I said, this is a frontline position.
I urge the minister, and her office, to obtain a copy of the annual report of the CSIRO education centre. I seek leave to table these three papers. The education centre delivered school programs to 8000 students across the Northern Territory. There were 12 702 participants across all Northern Territory CSIRO education centre programs. That is just an example.
During National Science Week, as I mentioned before, the Double Helix Science Club activities continue to run across the NT programs in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. Jim Findlay and Paul Lyons have toured both regional and remote schools in Alice Springs, Katherine, Jabiru, Millingimbi, the Tiwi Islands, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Non-metropolitan schools account for 44% of school visits, which was an increase of 33% on 2010. The Northern Territory CSIRO education centre continued to deliver its Dry Season holiday show at the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory.
From September onwards, manager Paul Lyons, was involved in training to present the national CSIRO education program CarbonKids. In 2012, it was hoped 15 schools throughout the NT would engage in this program; however, this is now in question.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table these three pages from the CSIRO education annual report for 2011.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: In closing, I highlight the work this centre and this one person does and how he links into schools, not only in the urban areas, but also in rural and remote areas. They work in clusters and the schools visited in 2011 came from the Dessert Storm Cluster. The minister would be interested to know schools affected by the withdrawal of this position will be: Araluen Christian School, Bradshaw Primary School, Braitling Primary School, Centralian Middle School, Larapinta Primary School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, Ross Park Primary and Tennant Creek High School. They comprise the Desert Storm Cluster.
There are also the Rivers and Arnhem Clusters. There is a rural cluster, in which I have particular interest, which is Bees Creek, Berry Springs, Girraween, Good Shepherd, Howard Springs, Litchfield and Taminmin. There is a Palmerston cluster, a Darwin city cluster and a northern suburbs cluster. These schools visited the centre in one year: nine from Alice Springs, six from Rivers and Arnhem, seven from rural, six from Palmerston, 13 from Darwin city and 14 from the northern suburbs.
This person occupies a frontline position. Science is fundamental to the future of the Northern Territory. We have a major gas project on our doorstop and want to recruit and train our own and keep them here. If we do not have people in these positions working with schools we will struggle. We will have a brain drain and people will leave the Territory and send their students to high school elsewhere if they cannot get the right programs in the Northern Territory.
It may be because departments have pressure on them to make savings, they thought one person at Berrimah did not really do too much - get rid of him. I urge the minister to take this on board. It is a serious issue; it is a frontline position and the minister should state publicly, if she could, that we will hang on to this position.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are worried that education frontline services are being compromised. Student Services, which helps teachers work with students with special needs and behavioural problems, and its support, which ensures teachers can deliver a quality education to all their students, are being compromised. All students and their families have a right to classroom support. The CLP reduced the number of staff in Student Services. In the Barkly we have heard it is going from 24 to 13, and it has split Student Services in two for efficiency. That worries us. To save money, the government is reducing support for teachers and making the job of teachers more difficult.
As well as cutting Student Services, the CLP is targeting science, an attitude beyond reason from a past century. Science education is crucial to Territory students taking on the world and taking up world-class opportunities. Today’s students have exciting science career opportunities within the Northern Territory. We live in one of the few cities in the world named after a scientist; we should be investing in science, not cutting it.
The CLP does not value education’s relationship with the CSIRO and believe it is past its use-by date. This answer confounds and worries us. Science does not have a use-by date. This attitude has seen the manager position at CSIRO education NT gone, and puts at risk the CSIRO education centre and popular science programs such as the Double Helix Science Club.
I thank the member for Goyder because, by listing the things the CSIRO education centre and the manager position do, saves me some time in what I was going to say. Science teachers, parents and kids have started a campaign against this because this frontline service helps our children learn. That is what a frontline service is all about. This is literally at the frontline teaching kids.
There is a petition against this at ipetitions.com. With the time I have, I would like to quote some of the comments from parents, teachers and science students in that petition.
- Harry: Stop trying to dumb down my child! He loves science, worships the CSIRO and will I hope become one of the productive minds of the future who will bring Australia in dollars when we can no longer sell rocks. Invest in the future CLP. Leave science and education out of your cuts.
Gail: I have used many CSIRO educational facilities over my years as an educator from the classroom experience to the SIS program. Please reconsider.
Sarah: The CSIRO is a fantastic program offering kids in schools and outside access to hands-on science education. My kids love attending the events. This program will be a real loss for Darwin if funding is cut.
Samuel: I am 10 years old and a member of the CSIRO Double Helix Club. They have taught us a lot about science that teachers have not bothered to teach us at all. Their programs are really fun and make me want to learn more about science. Please keep CSIRO going!
Matthew: I am seven years old. CSIRO is really really fun. They teach us stuff that we don’t learn in school. I remember my first time doing robot programming. It was fun learning how to control stuff from the computer. Please cut something else NOT CSIRO!!!
Dr: I have been a member of Scientists in Schools for two years now. It is a great partnership between scientists, researchers and schools. The benefit to school students is enormous and the resource should continue in the future. NT students will be at a disadvantage if funding for this program is cut.
Vivek: I regard the program as very valuable and highly appreciative because of what it has been able to feed and nurture the young minds with and shape them as better Territorians for tomorrow. Hopefully the positions required to run the programs effectively across the Territory would be continued to operate and the goodwill prevails for ongoing good.
Kate: Positions such as this cannot be underestimated. How the newly elected government can come to this decision to cut one of the few positions that link real science to the classroom and students; supports teachers and promotes science is beyond me.
Maria: In my opinion the CSIRO Double Helix Club is very valuable in that it provides science education to interested primary school children and nurtures an interest in science in this age group. Very little science is done at primary school and by the time a child goes to middle school it may be too late, they will be exposed to anti-science (geek, nerd, etc) attitudes from their peers. My son has recently been offered a place on the Centre for Excellence Science Program at Darwin High, I don’t believe this would have happened without him going to CSIRO for many years.
Lisa: As a senior secondary teacher in Darwin I use CSIRO Ed within my classroom teaching. They offer programs and equipment we as a school cannot necessarily afford. They also offer schools without resources altogether the opportunity to showcase science - which is now a compulsory part of National Curriculum.
Sue: All four of my children had their interest in science nurtured by the CSIRO Education Centre and the Double Helix Club. We are distraught to hear that this service, which has the capacity to inspire so many future engineers and scientists, is being discontinued.
Beverley: If delivering interactive, engaging and motivating science programs for 12 000 students last year isn’t considered a frontline service that should be exempt from a cutback, as per the Chief Minister’s advice, I don’t know what is.
Anja: The CSIRO program (not the school teachers) inspired my son (age 8) so much that he wants to become a chemist! Isn’t there a shortage of scientists in Australia? Why destroy such a good and established program?
Byron: St John’s College has used the CSIRO facilities or programs over 15 times in 2012. These include the features listed below. It is a fantastic program and very well run. It would be a massive shame if this was scrapped. Currently, CSIRO through the education officer provides: in-kind support for activities to increase awareness in science education, both locally and remotely; supports activities such as the Engineering Challenge, NT Space School and Young Scientist Awards night, all of which are enjoyed by a large number of Northern Territory students; hands on programs for special needs schools; work experience for students; National Science Week community events and more; provides ‘Lab on Legs’ program to give schools the opportunity to undertake exiting science experiments they may not otherwise have access to; supports remote schools in delivering science activities; provides most Stage 2 Biology classes with the valuable opportunity to undertake experiments they could not otherwise run, for example, DNA electrophoresis microbial investigations and others; supports the activities of the Scientists in Schools program.
We have been contacted by numerous science teachers, parents and students who all talked about the importance of the CSIRO manager position - how important that position is, what that person does, and, through that person, what the CSIRO does, how much relies on that position and what it does.
We do not believe it is too late. The new government is on a savings mission. This, clearly, should fall within the saving measures the department is taking up and the government is looking at. I hope it is not too late to save this position.
A number of science teachers, parents and students hope it is not too late to save this position and, through this person, the educational opportunities afforded to our students. If we are going to take advantage of the world-class opportunities coming to the Northern Territory at the moment - because we have world-class projects in the Northern Territory - we need to keep investing in science. We hope it is not too late to save it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I would like to respond to a few comments made earlier this evening. One is from the member for Fannie Bay about student support services. One position in the whole of the Northern Territory has moved sideways into a principal’s position - one position has been changed which was directly linked to student support services.
The presentation by the member for Fannie Bay suggested other positions have been lost. Only one Northern Territory government-funded position connected to student support services has been sacrificed as a result of the savings. The person in the position was not sacked; they were moved sideways into a principal’s position. There is some confusion because a number of Commonwealth government positions have concluded. The funding was not there to continue the positions and they have ended - no further funding from the Commonwealth.
This is a phenomenon the former government is familiar with - the fact the Commonwealth comes in very kindly, through the different programs it offers - the Stronger Futures program for example, offering a very limited funding arrangement and positions are connected with that limited funding. It is not about the Northern Territory government ceasing funding or sacking people; it is about the Commonwealth offering money on the basis it ends at a particular time.
The member for Fannie Bay has provided parliament with incorrect information when it comes to student support services. One position has been lost through the austerity measures the Department of Education and Children Service’s has had to make due to the problems inherited from the former government.
The educator’s position employed by the Department of Education and Children Service’s connected to the CSIRO has been lost through these austerity measures as the members for Fannie Bay and Goyder mentioned. There is much personal connection to this position, obviously. He listed many personal comments made to him about people’s sense of loss, frustration, sadness, even anger about the loss of this position. The information we received from the Department of Education and Children’s Services is this position has been there for a long time - decades in fact - about 20 years. It is a piece of history. However, like many things that have been around for a long time, they come to an end. The information we received was this position has reached its use-by date. It was being superseded because students and families now access information about science in many different ways.
The member for Fannie Bay was almost suggesting the CSIRO, in its entirety, is going to disappear - it is not. The CSIRO will continue to be there. One position being removed does not mean the whole establishment falls over and people stop learning from the CSIRO. That is taking things a little too far. We have been assured by the Department of Education and Children’s Services that teachers, on an individual basis, probably a school-by-school basis, will still access the resources of the CSIRO; they will still connect students, children, and families, to the resources of the CSIRO. There is absolutely no doubt, from the intelligence we are receiving, that the connection will still be there.
We are talking about one person in one position; we are not talking about the breakdown or taking away the service and the connection it may or may not have with the community. To base the success of the CSIRO in connecting with the community on an educational basis entirely on one position and one person is taking it a step too far. It is overstepping the mark. It is a sad experience for people who have had a wonderful learning journey with the manager of the CSIRO education service that it is over; it has come to an end. The stories the member for Fannie Bay told of people valuing that service, that person who was a conduit between CSIRO and education, are good stories which should be cherished. With any loss, you can assume people will have a sense of grief and sadness.
I take on board the comments made by the Member for Fannie Bay, but you have slightly exaggerated the overall impact of the loss of this position. Things will continue; people will still learn from the CSIRO. If the CSIRO felt the whole service was falling apart we would be hearing from it regarding a perceived loss of overall effectiveness and connectedness with the community. That is just not the case. I hear what you are saying, member for Fannie Bay, but I believe you are very wrong.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the people of Wanguri for putting their trust in me for a fifth time to represent them in this parliament. It is a great honour, and I thank the people of my electorate for putting their trust in me for another term. I look forward to working hard for them.
This evening I will mention a couple of things. First, Henbury School has just celebrated its 30th anniversary in Wanguri. It is an amazing school in my electorate looking after some very special kids. It is a special needs school. To the principal, Carolyn Edwards, and everyone at the school, it was a great night. I was pleased to donate the cake and celebrate the 30th anniversary with you.
At Leanyer Primary School in my electorate, we have a new principal this year, Anne Tonkin. Congratulations, Anne, on your new role and challenge leading a great school after having to take over from the incomparable Henry Gray. Those are very big shoes to fill and welcome.
I congratulate the school’s Tournament of Minds winning team. They won the regional competition. I congratulate: Connor Farmer, Zara Hollis, Lydia Gliddon, Maya Picton, Penny Battersby, Matthew Gibbon and Taylah Cochrane. Also, congratulations to the teachers who supported them: Helen Bevan, Sharon Groll and Kristy Cochrane.
Tonight I also want to put on the record tonight my surprise at the opening of this Assembly - a change of government. The Address-in-Reply speech given to parliament by our Administrator, a speech outlining the government’s priorities for the next four years, had no mention of statehood. Looking through the Hansard of the Chief Minister’s contribution to the debate, there was no mention of a pathway to continue our progression towards statehood. Tonight, I am calling on the Chief Minister, in our next sittings in November, to outline a clear path as to where this parliament is heading towards statehood.
I remind honourable members this parliament passed into law the Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill in November last year. There was much controversy about that legislation. I will not go through that again; however, there was a very clear commitment from the now Chief Minister in debate that progression towards statehood and the holding of a Constitutional Convention would be a priority for the Chief Minister if the CLP were to win government, which it has.
I will quote from the Chief Minister’s speech in the second reading. He said:
- ... the obligation we now have to continue on that journey.
That is, statehood. He talked about Bernie Kilgariff:
- However, let me make it absolutely clear: the Country Liberal Party has a proud tradition, a heritage we must honour as members of the Country Liberal Party, that we fully and without reserve support statehood. We fully recognise the lessons of the past and, being participants of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we believe it was necessary we move to the phase where we now have a Constitutional Convention of elected members. We accept the conclusion of history that that Constitutional Convention must involve the citizens of the Northern Territory, and support that.
- Once the air is clear and the two issues have been settled - local government and Territory parliament - then it is the position for the Twelfth Assembly of the Territory parliament to permit, with as much space as possible and as early as possible, the next phase to occur without delay. It is of the highest priority.
These are the words of the then Opposition Leader, the now Chief Minister. He went on to say:
I have to say that would be the unreserved commitment in the Twelfth Assembly: that this matter be brought on as a matter of the highest priority and be resolved, so there is no discouragement for those who hold the view that statehood is somehow being set back when the purpose is to strengthen, protect and have it brought on as soon as we possibly can - if given that opportunity to serve in the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
He went on to say:
- ... if I am given the opportunity in the Twelfth Assembly, that matter must be resolved as soon as possible without delay.
Chief Minister, I look forward to the mini-budget on 4 December.
I say to the new Chief Minister, it was good to be at the launch of the book Speak for Yourself, where the previous eight Chief Ministers, including me, were interviewed by my predecessor, Clare Martin, and Mickey Dewar. The one thing across the political divide - apart from Paul Everingham, a CLP chief minister - all the CLP Chief Ministers, Clare Martin, me, were united that we will never be independent in the Northern Territory until we achieve statehood. For every Chief Minister, the path to statehood has to be of utmost priority.
The Chief Minister will learn over the next four years that in regard to the relationship between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth, we are always second class constitutional citizens regardless of who is in power in Canberra. If and when the political need arises in Canberra, the Territory is always there to be imposed on, intervened on, or overruled. The relationship between the Northern Territory government and the federal government in Canberra will never be on an equal footing in relation to respect for Territorians or this parliament until we achieve statehood.
To be generous to the Chief Minister, I congratulate him on winning the election. I have bumped into the Chief Minister at a number of functions and, genuinely, I give him my best wishes as Chief Minister. Perhaps it was an oversight in the excitement of achieving government, but the Chief Minister purports to be a man of his word and a man of integrity. That was tested in some of the decisions he made at the beginning of his term of office, but he has been very clear in the language I have used tonight - his words - that as early as possible, without delay, it is of the highest priority to hold a Constitutional Convention and map out, in a bipartisan way with the opposition and the member for Nelson, a path towards statehood. Of all priorities, this should not be dropped.
I urge the Chief Minister - I will be reading the book over the next few weeks - to learn from history, to learn from his peers before him, who have all stated clearly in that book the relationship between the Northern Territory government and the federal government is out of kilter. It is out of whack.
The relationship always means until we achieve statehood, we are second-class citizens in the constitution and second-class citizens as Australians. This parliament does not have the respect of whatever government is in place in Canberra. It can overturn our legislation, has done in the past and will in the future. When it needs a distraction from the national political debate, there is always an opportunity to pick on the Northern Territory as part of a political distraction. Territorians deserve statehood.
Chief Minister, I am looking forward to the mini-budget on 4 December. I know there is a budget ask there. All the work has been done to hold a Constitutional Convention. The Chief Minister’s pledge to the people of the Northern Territory:
- ... the purpose is to strengthen, protect and have it brought on as soon as we possibly can - if given that opportunity to serve in the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, on 19 October 2012, I attended the business Middys Data and Electrical at 25 Toupein Road in Yarrawonga to open its new retail lighting showroom. You will, no doubt, recognise the famous Middy’s brand by its bright pink branches, one of which is also located off Bishop Street.
The history of the pink branding is very interesting and dates back to the late 1940s when an old ex-Postmaster General’s van was purchased to run deliveries of stock. The van was a bucket of rust and in need of desperate repairs. Body bog and auto paint primer were used to cover rust spots. These large patch-ups were the start of the iconic pink branding. I understand the van looked rather ridiculous spotted with pink so the remaining auto paint primer was applied to the remainder of the vehicle, and therein lies the genesis of this highly visible, highly recognisable and highly effective branding.
I was greeted at Middy’s by Nicholas Middendorp who is a very down-to-earth and kind man. Nicholas travelled to Darwin for the opening of the showroom, an accomplishment he is tremendously proud of. It is amazing to see a man whose family has opened over 92 stores around the country still genuinely excited about the addition of a retail lighting showroom to the Yarrawonga premises. It was inspiring to see his commitment to exceptional service delivery.
This retail lighting showroom is yet another innovation of the company whereby its core customers, trades people, can bring their clients into the store for a walk through the products available on the market. These products include standard light fittings through to sensor activated lighting and, impressively, remotely activated electrical products. I spent quite some time with Nicholas and was swept up in his enthusiasm and passion for the work Middy’s do, service they provide, products they sell and, importantly, the long-term relationship they have with other businesses with which they trade, such as Pierlite, HPM and Clipsal.
It was amazing to hear the story of this family and their relationship with other electrical pioneering families of our great country. I was given a lovely book titled Middendorp Electric: 80 years in 2008 - 90 branches in 2011 and will read a couple of paragraphs from it to capture the journey of this, Australia’s largest privately-owned independent electrical wholesaler run by second and third generation Middendorps. I quote:
- Petrus Cornelius Nicolaas Middendorp (1891-1963), a Dutch immigrant arrived in Melbourne Australia in 1910 to apply his trade as cigar maker for the British American Tobacco Co.
In 1914 he returned to Europe as an honorary orderly tending to World War One Australian causalities in Paris. On returning to Australia in 1920 Petrus Middendorp was also an orderly at Melbourne’s Exhibition Buildings which was turned into a hospital for WWI soldiers.
Always enterprising, Petrus then founded the Middendorp business and 1928 signifies the very beginning of 80 years continuous service to Australia’s electrical industry.
In 1999, Middy’s ventured to the Territory and purchased JR Lighting and Electrical, which added two new stores to its ranks. In 2007, these stores became fully incorporated into the Middy’s company.
In 2011, Middy’s employed nationally some 508 staff, and I have no doubt this number has significantly increased to date.
I will quote from several testimonials contained in the Middy’s commemorative book:
Our relationship goes back many years to the very beginning when Hugh and Nick’s father had some dealings with my father Geoff. In those days the Middendorp’s made some accessories. As the years went on from the 30s to 40s and accessories went more into engineering type plastics, the Middendorp family went more into electrical wholesaling and discontinued their manufacturing. My father, however, went more from electrical wholesaling into manufacturing hence, the relationship struck up very early.
Further along:
- Through all generations they have been people of their word and strong support. When they say they will back a product in, it gets backed in ... They are a company that has a very similar history to that of the Clipsal/Gerhard Lighting Group and our forefathers must have had similar entrepreneurial ideas when they started in the 20s.
I quote from Jim Johnson, now of HPM:
- How does a person or company write a testimonial about a company that has traded together for over 40 years? Quite simply, it shows we must all be passionately committed to high quality trading between our companies to achieve a common cause, satisfying the customers.
- The Middendorp/Clipsal partnership dates back over 60 years, when we were two small family businesses trying to find a place in the Australian electrical industry.
Further on:
- Our relationship continues to be distinguished by honesty and trust, reflecting the integrity of the leadership provided by the family and the quality of the Middy’s team.
Never afraid to innovate, Middendorp has built a great business by understanding what the customer really wants. The focus on fundamentals is now ingrained into the Middy’s culture.
I took away some very clear messages from my time at Middy’s Data and Electrical that day. First, Middy’s has strong core family values and, at their heart, they respect the journey Petrus took in 1928 and never lost sight of that lineage, family integrity and pride. Second, Middy’s had tremendous foresight and an ability to innovate and expand its business in a way many other Australian family businesses envy. Third, Middy’s has business confidence and confidence in the economic growth of Palmerston and the rural area, which is important and will inspire confidence in the surrounding business community.
To Nicholas, your family, and your staff, thank you for investing your family’s future in the Territory, and for having the confidence to invest in Palmerston, which gives Territory families the opportunity to gain meaningful employment, quality resources, and quality products.
In early 2002, the Board of the Australian Institute of Management Queensland and Northern Territory established a Young Manager Advisory Board. For ease of reference, I will herein refer to the Australian Institute of Management as AIM. AIM has long acknowledged the connection between the participation of young managers and the vitality and engagement of the management community it seeks to serve. It is no secret that young managers bring fresh thinking to standard issues and concerns, with a unique insight into tackling issues and creating opportunity. The formation of the Young Manager Advisory Board is a reflection of the commitment AIM has to improving the way the institute supports managers in the early stages of their careers.
After a rigorous recruitment process, and from a shortlist of more than 50 candidates, I and six others were selected to be foundation members of the board. The Young Manager Advisory Board has brought together a dynamic diverse group of outstanding next generation managers from across Queensland and the Northern Territory. Together, we possess exceptional management qualities and a positive approach to leadership but, more importantly, a passion for engaging with young managers to share our experiences and knowledge in ways which will see them shine in the future.
As an advisory board, we are charged with providing advice and counsel to the governing board of AIM on issues which relate to the development of young managers. We are encouraged to voice our opinion on the profession and challenges of management, and to identify initiatives for young managers which will benefit AIM and grow membership in the young member demographic. As a group, we have already met four times this year, including two regional locations of Cairns and Toowoomba. Next year, we will meet six times and, again, regions will focus heavily on that schedule, including a meeting in Darwin.
Ensuring the Young Manager Advisory Board is more than a token gesture of the organisation, we, the board, have identified four priorities for our first term including:
1. identifying and recalibrating an appropriate value proposition to target young members of the institute, including a review of pricing options
In the next four weeks we will be launching our second initiative, the AIM at 30 list - 30 managers under 30 making a mark. This list has already unearthed some incredible talent in young people who are actively engaging with their organisations, communities, and building their networks for the future. I am looking forward to interviewing some of these candidates in the coming weeks to find our final top 30.
However, it is not all about what we are giving to the institute and members at large. Being a member of an advisory board for an institution such as AIM has already been an excellent learning journey for each of us in our own ways. We have been exposed to some of the top managers and leaders in business across Queensland and the Northern Territory.
It is with great pride that I am involved in the Young Manager Advisory Board and represent the Northern Territory, in particular, our next generation of leaders and managers, ensuring their needs are attended to and their voices heard. I look forward to showcasing the Territory and all we have to offer to this group in 2013, and to updating you on our progress in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging the Larrakia, on whose traditional land we stand today. I also congratulate all my colleagues, old and new, for being elected as members of the Twelfth Assembly of the Northern Territory’s parliament. I also congratulate you, Madam Speaker, not only on your election as Speaker, but your election as the member for Goyder. I am sure you will rule with an iron fist and a velvet glove.
I congratulate the member for Drysdale, first because she is a very young member and, second, we share something in common - a non-English-speaking background. I have seen how proud your parents and grandparents are of you being elected to this parliament.
I thank everyone in Casuarina for electing me once again. I am humbled by the faith and confidence they have shown with the re-election, and I want to tell them I will represent every single person in Casuarina, irrespective of political affiliation, or whether they voted for me or not. I have done it in the past, and it is my intention to do it in the future.
Casuarina is a small territory, a cosmopolitan society. People work in the public service, in small business, they own their own houses and there is a small amount of public housing and units. It is a very interesting and beautiful place. As part of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, it has beautiful parks. What I really like about Casuarina is the will of the people to educate their children. When I visit different schools - Alawa, Nakara and Dripstone - at every assembly I see parents. There is nothing more important than parents supporting teachers and their own children. Now I have Nemarluk School. I am a great supporter of that school because it caters for kids with special needs.
I thank all the people who helped me during the campaign and on election day. I will not name everyone individually. I thanked them at the small function I hosted at Casuarina Surf Life Saving Club, of which I am patron.
I thank my opponent, Jane Johnson. I know Jane well; I have known her for a long time. I first met her in 2000-01, with her husband Mark when I conducted my first campaign to win the seat of Casuarina. I know Mark well because he used to be a member of the Labor Party.
Because we know each other well, in January Jane apologised because she had put her hand up for the CLP in Casuarina. I told her she must be crazy and needed to get a life. She said, ‘Well, no one else was prepared to do it. We could not have a seat without a CLP candidate’. We had an interesting time campaigning against each other and an interesting time on election day.
We are very lucky to live in Australia. We have had a change of government without anyone batting an eyelid. The other option is not a very good one. I lived through some very difficult situations in my own country where people, for seven years, lived under military rule without the letter of the law applying. People were being arrested without warrants, put into prison without going through a proper court, and killed because they opposed the ideology of the military leaders.
I am proud to be a member of the Territory parliament, proud to be an Australian by choice, and a Territorian by choice. I came here in 1993 for two years and, in January next year, I will have been in the Territory for 20 years. One of my children was born here, the other does not know any other home because he came here when he was two years old. Both children are Territorians, speak like Territorians and behave like Territorians. When there is a gathering at university in Perth, they seek each other out, stick together in the corner of the tavern and talk about Darwin.
I want to speak about several other things brought into this House this week. The first is about the after-hours super clinic. The after-hours super clinic was an initiative of the previous CLP government which, as we found out, had limited funding which was supposed to run out just after the election in 2001 and not be renewed. At the time we reviewed it there were difficulties and we stopped it. However, we realised how vital it was for Palmerston and reinstated it, opening at 6 pm and 8 am. The Commonwealth proposed providing $10m to build Palmerston Super Clinic. There was an agreement between the Commonwealth government and the then Territory government for provision of a capital grant and very limited funding for the beginning of Palmerston Super Clinic. After that, the super clinic was subcontracted to Flinders and Charles Darwin Universities to run - they do not receive any funding from the government. It was an agreement between the Territory government to provide the facility and Flinders and Charles Darwin Universities to run it.
The Minister for Health told us it was an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, or the Commonwealth and the super clinic, and it was signed by the previous CEO of the Health department. I suggest he is probably a little confused. I know he did not like reading some of the briefings we provided to him, but I strongly suggest he looks at the history of who provided the capital funding, some of the granting, and who has an agreement with who. My problem is not that they moved the opening hours of the after-hours super clinic - 6 pm to 10 pm - to Palmerston Super Clinic, it is that it was done in such a way as to disadvantage people in Palmerston.
We were negotiating with Flinders/CDU to move the after-hours super clinic, lock stock and barrel, to Palmerston Super Clinic, but part of the negotiation was the arrangement it had in place at the time would remain. People who were accessing the after-hours service at Palmerston Super Clinic would not have to pay; they would be bulkbilled. Obviously, this has not been done. The super clinic in Palmerston has done the right thing because it will be recovering some money, but it is not the right thing for the people of Palmerston.
Also, part of the negotiation was people do not lose their jobs and positions will not be lost. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. That position was lost.
I hope the minister will have a serious look at the after-hours super clinic. I suggest he has some serious negotiation with the Flinders/CDU consortium so we do not have two clinics operating in the same precinct at different times. We can have Palmerston Super Clinic operating, but we need provisions not to disadvantage pensioners or people who, at 10 pm or 11 pm, might require a doctor. If he does not do it he can expect a bigger loading in the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The last thing I want to talk about is the Renewal Management Board report tabled today by the government. We heard plenty about it. We heard plenty about who is on this board; however, we also found out today how much this board cost. This board cost about $800 000 to do six months work. The interesting thing is there is nothing about an independent board. What is really alarming is, on the second page, it clearly states:
- The views expressed in the report are those of the RMB and not necessarily those of the government.
Obviously, someone in government realised it is dangerous for this to be adopted by the government so it wants to be at arm’s length. ‘It is the Renewal Management Board’s report, nothing to do with us.’ Unfortunately, it was tabled by the government today so the government owns it.
Going through it, there are some very important issues. On page 9 it says:
...in Correctional Services, the Department advises that Youth Justice initiatives will require an additional $35 million over the next four years.
The same thing applies with police infrastructure. The police say they need money for infrastructure, major costs will be involved to remedy this infrastructure, but they are not identified yet because they have not been confirmed by further investigation. However, the board says it has not done any preliminary work, it has not been able to define what is needed for infrastructure repair and maintenance, but there is a black hole.
The other thing which really bugs me is the allegation we told the CEO of the then Department of Children and Families to recruit over 90 additional staff but we did not allocate any money for the staff. We had great difficulty recruiting staff, both locally and overseas. We had money left over which rolled into the next year - about $12m. In addition, the Labor government committed $135m over five years. There was money in the budget - they were budgeted for. How the hell, in the three months before the election, can we tell the department to recruit 90 people when we could not recruit for a whole year? It bugs me. I call upon the minister, if she holds anything with my signature or something in writing to the department suggesting it employ 90 people, to table it in this House. I dispute these allegations. Yes, we tried to recruit people. We had the money and were prepared to spend the money.
In contrast, in the minister’s statement yesterday she refused to commit to implementing the board of inquiry recommendations or maintain the same level of funding to child protection. She said, ‘We are going to have an affordable child protection service’.
That is all for me tonight. I have something which I will probably say in the next sittings.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was lucky enough last night to visit the Palmerston after-hours care service, not as a member of parliament, but because I had an infection in my leg which got out of hand. In fact, one leg looked about half as a big as the other. I thought I needed to do something about it and the Palmerston after-hours care service is on the way home to Howard Springs. I received terrific service. I had to wait for some time. I arrived at 11.30 pm and was out by 12.30 am. There were three or four people waiting or being seen by the doctor or nurses. It is a wonderful service and it concerns me that many people in Palmerston and the rural area do not realise that between 6 pm and 10 pm it will not be free.
My understanding is that several people use that service, especially at that time of night. Even though there have been several advertisements in the paper and a sign near the stairs as you go into the after-hours care service, many people do not realise what is happening. Regardless of whether there have been contractual arrangements or not, I agree with the member for Casuarina, there should have been some arrangement to allow that time at night - 6 pm to 10 pm - to be bulkbilled so the free service continued.
I thank the nurses and the doctor who looked after me last night. My leg is much better and much smaller than it was last night. Also, the nurse heard me panting a bit and said I should have an ECG. At 12.15 am I went on the ECG machine, which can be a bit painful for blokes because hairy chests and ECG equipment do not always mix so you have to be shaved. It was all done very professionally. I have to see another doctor to have that checked, but for the time I was there I was professionally looked after. You have your blood pressure checked, your temperature checked and, in this case, I had an ECG. That is a great service at that time of night. It is a very important service and we should ensure it does not decrease for the average person, especially people in Palmerston and the rural area.
I would like to say something about the election. This was probably the most difficult election I have ever been through in my life, and I have been through a few. I found it the most unpleasant election I have been through and, at times, I questioned why I would want to be in politics if getting into politics requires such nastiness and dishonesty at times. I am not talking about the candidate, I am talking generally about what was thrown at me and I wondered if it was worth it.
If people are going to do improper things during an election then stand in this parliament and say what good people we should be as members of parliament, but the method of getting here was the opposite of what they are saying, that is worrying to say the least. Be that as it may, people might say that is politics, but I find that a miserable excuse. Because you have the dress of a politician does not exclude you from what is right and wrong. The excuse, ‘it is just politics’ is a miserable one to get around bad and unbecoming behaviour.
However, my family were strong. My wife does not like politics much; however, what she saw at the Kormilda booth made her tough. My sister stood up to three members of the CLP who were deliberately taking people’s how to vote cards, pointing at my name and saying, ‘You are voting for Labor’. That is hard. I take my hat off to my sister; she told people they were telling a lie.
It was difficult and when, on election night, I had a good get-together at the Howard Springs Tavern, many of my supporters were disillusioned with what had happened, especially with the CLP. I said, ‘I understand where you are coming from, but if we lower ourselves to that level to try to defeat them we support that type of behaviour. We have to lift ourselves above that because my job is to represent people in my electorate regardless of who they are, and whether they voted for me or not’. It is my job to move on from that. People might say, ‘You are a bit soft at times’. I was brought up to forgive because, if you live with bitterness in your heart, you will become bitter.
There are things I found most unpalatable, but I move on. I am not holding anything against the people who did those things. I am saying, let us move on. We are here as politicians, as members of parliament, to work for the benefit of the Northern Territory. That is the oath we take. It is the oath I took when I had to make a decision to support either Terry Mills or Paul Henderson. What I do here is serious business. What I do here, as a member of parliament, is for the benefit of the Territory. Therefore, no matter what happened or how disappointed I was with some of that behaviour, it is the right thing to move on and not keep those things in your heart forever because that makes for a worse person. We have to rise above that in many of the things we do. That is not to say it did not hurt, but one has to pick oneself up, move on and try to show, by example, that is not the way we should be treating one another. Politics is not an excuse for that kind of behaviour.
I thank all my family, my friends who come up from down south - they come up every time there is an election - all my local supporters and, of course, the people who voted for me. One of the most wonderful feelings for me is no matter how difficult an election it was, I still had great support to win the seat of Nelson and keep it as an Independent. I thank all the people for their faith in me. I am not perfect by a long shot. I am not the greatest politician to stand in this parliament, but I try my best and believe people understand that. I never regard myself as a politician; I regard myself as a bloke who has been asked to represent people and look after matters which concern the people in my area. That is the way I have always felt. Other people might have another view, but that is the way it is.
Once again, I thank everybody for their support and will continue to do my best to stick up for people in the electorate of Nelson, and also the rural people, because we will be under pressure in the next few years listening to what the Chief Minister said. The rural lifestyle is a great lifestyle for raising families - the member for Goyder would understand - we have to ensure people do not overrun us because they have big plans. They have to recognise we have rights, a wonderful place to raise families and look after children, and we do not want to see that destroyed.
I also thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I had a chat with him last night and he has offered me briefings on anything I want. I acknowledge and welcome that, and thank him for that. I have always liked primary industry; it is something I always felt did not get recognition under the previous government. The minister said anytime I want a briefing I can come in. I thank the minister and really appreciate that.
In relation to the flooding at Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court, I am still concerned the government is twiddling its thumbs. The Ombudsman gave clear recommendations on what to do. My understanding is the previous government agreed to those recommendations; the new government agreed to those recommendations.
The government has to stick to its promise otherwise these people will go through very stressful times again. They have been going through it for over 18 months and do not need to again. I ask the Chief Minister not to listen to developers - in this case the developer who caused the problem - but take the Ombudsman’s recommendations and deal with it so people affected can move on with their lives. That is the decent thing for the government to do. Please do not listen to the economic rationalist. Please help these people. They deserve your help and it needs to be done now.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I also am honoured to be re-elected to this Twelfth Assembly. It comes with great honour, it is a privilege, but it comes with great responsibility.
There are a number of reasons I have been returned to this House to represent the people of Barkly. First, I thank the previous government, the Territory Labor government members, who I was able to work with successfully, and who recognised the need for strategic investment across the regions. Together we were able to provide significant strategic investment and real building blocks for Barkly and across the regional and remote areas.
Regarding investment in mineral exploration, public infrastructure, transport services, roads infrastructure and major infrastructure developments in police, health, and education, the first of the Territory’s innovative new era initiatives in Correctional Services, the Barkly work camp, and also the elements of town building, urban enhancement and land release, it came together as a very successful period for the Barkly and a great learning curve and great time as a local member for me.
I was first elected in 2008 and had to prove myself as a hard-working local member. I believe I was re-elected in 2012 in recognition of that work, support, and demonstrated responsibility. I thank the staff over the four years - 2008 to 2012 - I had the privilege to work with, not only departmental staff, but the staff on the fifth floor. There were too many to name in a 10-minute adjournment. To all those guys, it was a hard ending because I had to get into the bush and fight long and hard for the seat of Barkly for Labor. You guys kept the office going on the fifth floor. Some of you I have not seen since. I value and appreciate not only your work, but your friendship and the collegial atmosphere we developed together. Good luck in the future, you guys, and I hope to catch up with you. You are Territorians and, no doubt, will have interesting futures and we will share those stories together.
I also thank the people who helped me in the campaign starting with the Barkly Sub Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Many new members came on board in 2008, and they grew politically through a period of the local member in government. We learnt together, we strived together, and they rounded off that experience with a campaign. Right across the region the people who supported me represent Minyerri, Jilkminggan, Elliott, Borroloola, Alpurrurulam, through the smaller places, Tennant Creek of course, Ali Curung - not only friends and supporters but also family that had adopted me - Indigenous mob. You are way too many to name in this adjournment, but I know who you are and you know who you are. It was a real honour, and I am humbled by the support you provided in a very challenging campaign.
It has come through in a sentiment from the new government members that ‘you were put on the other side’ and the reasons ‘why you were put on the other side’ in a debate in the first sittings of the Twelfth Assembly. One common denominator which underpinned all the work we achieved in Barkly together, the work of the Territory Labor government, the campaign workers and supporters across those four years in the bush, was family.
The McCarthys came, once again, in their hordes to support me. I start with Stephen McVay, the campaign manager. Stephen is my wife’s nephew and a political animal - a great guy. I recruited him because I needed a political animal. I took a temperature test in the Territory and figured what was coming so I needed the best. He performed and had a great time doing it.
To Glen and Tracy, and Kirri and Kayla, and Eden and Brodie at Borroloola and Red Dirt Trading - a great family. You always side-stepped the politics, but there is no doubt your respect in that town and in the Gulf community translates to respect from me, my wife and family. Together, we make a good unit and you certainly keep me laughing, informed and translate very important information about the community of Borroloola and the Gulf region.
As we walk down the track, the McCarthy’s came, and Tim Morgan, my brother-in-law, Judy my sister, the kids Hannah, Daniel and Ella, to Jan McCarthy my sister, her daughter, Cecilia, Lynne McCarthy, who came down standing shoulder to shoulder with you guys in Tennant Creek. Getting sunburnt all day was certainly a big marker in the campaign. Local people saw that, valued that, and realised that element of honesty overrode any of the antics and mischief happening that day.
You guys stayed away from that and enjoyed yourself as usual. You celebrated being in Tennant Creek, you spent your money there and we really appreciate that. You are great tourists, and you always come back. That was a real honour, and a good old family trait we share which has led to many good discussions.
To Thomas McCarthy, I landed you at the Borroloola rodeo son, and you are coming back riding the bulls next year they tell me. I dead set am going to clown for you. If you ride a bull again - and your mother is going to kill both of us - I am back in the arena. We better get the Pluto brothers because that was the only way I survived. We will have to get John and Doug, you get back on a bull, my son, and I will run around and ensure you do your eight seconds and get out of there.
You landing in the Gulf country in the middle of that mischief that was going on was superb because it levelled the playing field back to honesty once again.
To Joseph McCarthy, you followed it from the sidelines, not only the rugby league sidelines of Canberra, Newcastle and Sydney, but the surfing beaches of the south coast. I appreciate the phone calls. You kept my spirit alive while you were ducking in and out of waves and knocking over those big boys from Cumberland in the west of Sydney.
To Robert and Abbi in Cobar, your well wishes were wonderful. You were monitoring things on Imparja television and I really appreciate that.
To Dawn McCarthy, my wife, who went out all guns blazing as usual and recruited some very influential and respected locals - you tested the water and realised this one was going to be driven by mischief. There are too many people to name, but those respected elders and people you shared the story with, who shared your concerns and stepped up, not so much in public, but that underground movement within the town and community is what delivered in the end.
It is a privilege to be here and to know the electorate appreciated family and its values, morals, what you have done and what the government did in its shared delivery for the Barkly.
At the end of the day I thank the voters. The majority voted for me and I am representing you once again. To those people who did not vote for me, I am representing you as well because we are all Barkly. We are a good mob; a united mob. When you add Tenant Creek to that, it is certainly a strong field.
It is going to be a difficult ride. The economic rationalism in the Territory under the CLP government is a blueprint of what is happening in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. We will have a struggle. I will do my best and am committed to holding the government to account because it realised the Barkly region and Tennant Creek represents an enormous growth area for the Territory’s future prosperity and it will not walk away from it easily. We will hold it to account and, at the end of the day, we will enjoy ourselves. Welcome to the next lap and enjoy the ride.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak briefly of another law firm in town. Since becoming Attorney-General, I have endeavoured to signal to the profession as a whole I will be an Attorney-General interested and engaged in the profession, whether it be a first year law student, all the way to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. I have met with both first year law students, the Chief Justice, and many people in between, not least of which is the crew at Ward Keller.
I place on the record my appreciation to Kevin Stephens and Leon Loganathan for taking time out to meet with me and discuss the issues facing the profession from their perspective. Like all meetings with the firms, large and small, it was a forthright and direct meeting, which is what I have come to expect, particularly from the private element of the profession. This was no exception. It was a formal meeting, but convivial nevertheless, and there was a full and complete exchange of views.
Ward Keller is particularly a Territory firm. Ward Keller was formed in 1963 when Richard Keller joined practice with Dick Ward. However, the origins of the firm go all the way back to 1910, when Ross Ibbotson and Dalton Mallum came to Darwin to practice law. Ward Keller has a head office in Darwin and regional offices in Palmerston, Casuarina, Parap, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. Around 50 staff work for the Ward Keller offices in the Northern Territory, including approximately 19 lawyers. The firm is a multicultural one with staff members able to speak fluent Greek, German, Tamil, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.
Ward Keller lawyers go on to achieve some amazing things. Some of the notable names to come out of Ward Keller are Dick Ward himself, member for Ludmilla before being appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court; Michael Maurice, a former in-house counsel, President of the Bar Association and appointed QC in 1982 before becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1984. Our current Chief Justice, Trevor Riley, joined Ward Keller following Cyclone Tracy. He was then appointed a QC before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 2010. Ward Keller is one of the finest law firms in the Northern Territory. It has a commitment Territory-wide, and you can see that in its commitment to Alice Springs - something not lost on me.
I place on the record my appreciation for both Mr Stephens and Mr Loganathan for taking time out of their busy schedules not only to have a chat with me in the conference room, but to give me a tour of the premises. I am grateful for the hospitality extended by this fine firm of lawyers. I can assure staff of Ward Keller I will be no stranger, and look forward to a fulsome future as Attorney-General with the firm.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016