2014-02-12
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Sue Folley and Joanna Koulouriotis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. I also extend a warm welcome to a young girl who got out of her sick bed so she could see her father at work in the Chamber. Eleanor Elferink, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Continued from 5 December 2013.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the opposition regarding the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Bill 2013. I was offered two briefings; I was able to attend one and someone else attended the other one. I thank the minister’s office for this. The briefings helped us understand the bill a little more.
The opposition supports this bill and the overarching objective behind it. However, as shadow minister, I have some genuine concerns and questions about the bill, which I would like to discuss.
We support the main purpose of this bill, which is to reform the way the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is run, the board, and the way it receives and administers funding. We have heard the minister speak. Boards have been discussed in debate, as has their ability to gain financial and in-kind support from philanthropic organisations. The creation of a new board, operating outside the Department of Arts and Museums, was something the previous government was moving toward, in line with a number of other states, for the benefits we have discussed.
I accept the notion that formation of this board and the removal of control over MAGNT from the Department of Arts and Museums will give the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory greater scope for collecting donations, both financial and material, from corporate, philanthropic and private sectors. This is an important aspect of building our museums in the Territory.
It is important to note that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is not just the main museum at Bullocky Point. It incorporates a number of other facilities, including the Old Fannie Bay Gaol site and Lyons Cottage, along with other historical museum venues.
In essence, MAGNT will stand to benefit from more donations, especially more money. However, we have concerns about the cuts already seen in museums and art galleries in the Territory. The government talks about supporting museums and art galleries, yet we have seen services cut. The museum photographer was axed, and curators, so we have particular concerns that this legislation may fill a void of government cuts.
It is logical that sectors would be more inclined to contribute to the Museum and Art Gallery if it was an independent organisation, rather than a government organisation. We have talked about it numerous times in this House, and I do not need to recap. When governments knock on the door for support, people are a little disinclined, but if it is an NGO or a board organisation, they feel more comfortable. If the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory had a board separate to government there would be more chance of receiving donations. That is the convention within the industry, and the opposition can see the logic behind it.
I had concerns about the bill and its drafting which, when working with the minister’s office and the department, have been cleared up, but I would like to flag them. How would increased donations and contributions from the private and philanthropic sectors affect existing sponsorship? We discussed one of the flagship events for the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Telstra’s ongoing sponsorship of the Indigenous art awards. We discussed whether a conflict would arise if somebody wanted to donate from a company and that conflicted with Telstra’s sponsorship. However, kind departmental staff informed me every effort would be made to avoid such clashes. It has not been a historical problem interstate, but it was something we felt was important to raise.
Within the Territory, the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award is one of our leading events, and we would hate to see things like that jeopardised by legislative change.
Another main concern was the effect the board would have on the content of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is whether the content of the museum, the artefacts and displays offered would be affected by the private sector’s ability to donate. When we go into the committee stage, I will ask the minister some questions about that to ensure we do not see an influence over collections at the museum.
I flagged this a little earlier, but I am concerned about the effect this new arrangement will have on current funding arrangements with government. I am wary of the possibility of government not using additional financial contributions from other sources to provide extra revenue, but to cut government funding. We have already seen cuts within the area and are concerned that might be a front for cutting funding and replacing, not further extending, the museum’s ability.
We had some genuine concerns about the composition of the board. The bill guarantees very little about who will be on the board, what skills they will have and representations of interests. We would like to see as many Territorians as possible on the board. We worry there is opportunity for the board to be shaped and not truly reflect the Territory. Given the large proportion of Indigenous works and artefacts on display at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, I would like a guarantee of Indigenous representation on the board written into this bill. I look forward to hearing from our bush colleagues – as we refer to them – our Indigenous members of this Chamber and their thoughts on this bill.
I know the member for Namatjira has strong and legitimate concerns about certain displays and their opportunity to be displayed, and the respecting of cultural aspects. How can we guarantee boards will continue to have this level of cultural respect with this bill? I know there are paintings in the Papunya Boards collection that are not suitable for public display. It would have been interesting to see some of that information in this bill. This material is hugely important culturally, and there are sensitivities around this material which do not apply to other material in the gallery. I would be happy for the minister to clarify whether he expects the board to have strong Indigenous representation, in the committee stage.
Further to this, I would like to see a number of Territorians on the board. We have some great talent in the Territory, but so often we see interstaters - without being disrespectful - taking key places on the board. It would be really good, in growing the Territory’s museum and art galleries, for us to ensure Indigenous and Territorian representation on the board in this bill. They would be members who have a strong connection to our local private sector and, therefore, a greater capacity to obtain donations. Does the government have a plan to maintain strong levels of local and Indigenous representation on the board?
We raised other concerns during the briefing about the composition of skills on the board. The bill states an appointee to a board should be a person who:
We know people must be qualified to be on the board, but it is not clear what qualifications are required – a mixture of skills. We want to make sure the board that will lead the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory into the future has a fair representation of cultural, artistic and required business qualifications. If the minister could outline what skills and experiences appointees would be required to have to best serve on the board, it would be appreciated. As an opposition, we hoped it was in a little more detail within the bill.
As I have said, apart from these concerns, the opposition supports the bill. The previous Labor government, which I was not part of, but I have spoken to my colleagues – was considering a similar move. We realise this is a necessary way in which museums and art galleries within Australia and the world have gone. In doing research, I have looked at other galleries around Australia; they very much follow this style of board makeup to lead them.
The minister, in Question Time, spoke about investment, yet it is important we flag on the Parliamentary Record that we have had no investment in museums and art galleries in the Territory. We have another 10% cut being flagged by our Treasurer. It really concerns me that we have seen services, curators and the photographer cut. We are talking about investment, yet all we see is a pulling back of government funding. That certainly concerns us and it would be interesting.
I have a few other questions I would like to flag. I am not sure if the minister will address them in his speech or in the committee stage. In considering the experience of other places, what is the department’s analysis of the key risks in managing transition into the new arrangements? Arrangements are being proposed for a new board of corporate governance, but will some members, for example, the chair, be required to have qualifications related to knowledge and understanding of corporate directorship responsibilities? What changes will there be in salary payment arrangements for board members with the new role? Will the board chair be a full-time position? Will we see a change from the current board to a completely new board? We certainly have some questions about the bill. It allows for ministerial directions to the board, so if any ministerial directions are made, will they be published through annual reports? How will we ensure there is some transparency and accountability around this? These are genuine questions that people within this area have asked us during our consultation on this bill.
What arrangements are being proposed regarding transparency of board decisions? Will board minutes and decisions be regularly posted on a website? This is the Territory’s museum and art gllery, it is not something for the government or the board; it is for all Territorians. There will be some people lucky enough to be on that board who have an intricate knowledge of what is happening, but for others who have a genuine interest in arts and culture, what opportunity will there be for them to read board minutes and decisions?
In your second reading speech, you suggested that the aim of the bill and the new role for the board is to add value, that is, have more capacity to add on and develop collections. Have you thought of including a requirement for a government guarantee of minimum funding to ensure collections are maintained appropriately and that any new revenues are value-adding, as stated? As I said, we do not want to see a pull back on government funding to be replaced by corporate funding. We would like to see that add on. What arrangements will be in place for the management of sensitive Indigenous cultural items? I previously referred to some, but will the board be making independent decisions? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the Indigenous members of this parliament. How will we ensure we maintain cultural sensitivity?
I raised some genuine concerns in the briefing, which I would like the minister to address, about the board making decisions about disposable assets. The sale of collection items is something the general public has been very concerned about. For example, people donate things to the museum and art gallery, but what happens if they are sold to make a profit? Secondly, in the briefing I was assured the disposal of art collections is rare, but there is not really anywhere in the legislation – I would be happy for you to point it out to me. What happens if we decide we do not really like a collection? Is it kept forever? What are the processes for disposal of assets and sale of items, or actually getting rid of them?
Another question the general public has raised with me is if the board hasthe capacity to set entry and other fees for the use of MAGNT facilities, independent of government? I know at the moment the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and its associated venues are free, but there are obviously fees for special collections and displays, and we also had some questions around commercial revenues. Obviously, the Bullocky Point site is beautiful. It currently has a caf within its grounds, but what is the process for commercial revenues collected? Will we see – there is quite a lot of land there – other commercial venues built there? People have a number of questions, and when you are taking this asset away from such tight government control, they are some of the questions that could arise.
Can the department talk us through the changes that might affect the commercialisation? Also in that area, it is currently a government department and follows processes, but by transferring or changing the board’s structure, will we see the outsourcing of functions? Will it be used to bypass normal process? These are some of the questions we have come across in preparing for this bill.
As I said previously, the former government was working towards this arrangement, and most museums and galleries around Australia have been changing to this structure. We very much hope the new arrangement does not affect current funding arrangements with government and, like I said, we would be very much in favour of strong local and Indigenous representation on the board. The museum and art gallery in Darwin is an impressive facility. It is certainly the first thing you tell visitors to the Territory or Darwin to visit. It has lovely displays and is very informative. I am sure this is aimed at improving the experience for visitors and Territorians alike, but we are conscious that by changing the structure of the board, this may not happen. We also look forward to some of the other facilities, apart from the flagship museum and art gallery, possibly seeing improvements.
As I said, the opposition supports this bill and thanks the minister for bringing this bill to the House. I again thank his department for the briefings and the visit to the archive site. We certainly have very important cultural and historical venues in Darwin and the Territory, and it is important that we use this bill to strengthen them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. I thank the minister’s staff for giving me some good information about concerns I raised. I am certainly no expert on museums and art galleries, but I occasionally go into them because they are important parts of our culture. It is very important they be maintained for generations to come. Even though there have been some concerns raised, I would still like to quote from a former MAGNT board chairman, Colin McDonald. In the NT News, he also said the MAGNT board act was welcome. He said:
I went to the MAGNT the other day. I was impressed by all of the displays. I know there are some parts of the museum that are being done up. The Southeast Asian display came to a bit of a dead end, and then I realised they were painting the new rooms, but it was a very attractive area. I was talking to some of the visitors there. I did not say who I was, I was just talking as if I was a tourist. They were very complimentary about the displays, especially the Cyclone Tracy display. Of course, Sweetheart attracts people, no matter where you are from; it is always a very impressive display. I found some of the displays that had the birds and snakes, and an area called the irritating arthropods, which reminded me of people in parliament sometimes. They were nicely preserved and it was a really impressive display. If you wanted to find out what that bird, snake or insect was, the information was professionally done in such a way that the ordinary person could immediately find out what was there.
Of course, there is the Aboriginal art and one of the most impressive things I learnt when I was there was about the Wallace collection. To be honest with you, I had not heard about Mr Wallace and I now feel very guilty about that. He is probably equivalent to Charles Darwin and may be even more important. I would need to spend a day there to really appreciate the Wallace exhibition. If you want to see something and learn something about a gentleman who visited Southeast Asian – there has been a lot of talk about how our museum should be connected with the Southeast Asian region. That is certainly shown by having the Wallace exhibition there.
I will just quickly say what is on the Wallace website because the display got me looking at it:
I raise that because it gives me an opportunity – if people have not been to the museum to see a very impressive display about a person I think many people do not know about. I will try to get there again and look at a bit more of it. I say that because although we are discussing the implementation of an independent board, some of the objectives of that board are:
Clause 10 discusses ministerial control. What does that mean? I know it means the minister has control over the museum, but if the minister said, ‘I do not like the Wallace exhibition; it has to go’, can he do that? What are the limitations on that ministerial control?
The other issue is clause 9(4)(b). Mr McDonald also spoke about that – to ensure the art collection is not sold off. I received an answer from the department and I will read it out:
I appreciate that is the advice given and I accept it, but there is nothing in the legislation to back that. I do not know if the board has its own code of conduct which gives it some guidance as to how it operates, especially in circumstances like deaccessioning. I would like to know if the board has a code of conduct so these things can be written down and a process would have to occur.
I might raise a couple of questions in the committee stage, but I will just mention them now. Going through the bill last night I noted – because I was looking at another issue – clause 28(4)(a), ‘Disclosure of personal interest’ says:
I asked questions about annual reports and have an answer. The concern was the board should be responsible for the annual report. The answer was:
There were also concerns about what would be in the annual report. Again, that was covered. I think there were concerns about the number and type of accessions and if you sold any accessions – those sorts of details and whether they would be in the report. My understanding is they would be. The e-mail also mentions:
It is good to know that already exists. I queried the length of time before the annual report is produced, and I got the answer that six months is normal. What then concerned me was clause 4(b). It says:
Are there any limitations on when the minister can say, ‘I am liable to release the report’? The minister might know I occasionally read these annual reports, especially around estimates time. I would hate to know there was not an annual report for the museum and art gallery by the time estimates came around. It is a fairly wide-open clause. I am interested to know when it would be used.
Those are just some of the issues. It does not mean I do not support what the minister is doing; it is good. The general consensus around the community is that this is a better approach to the running of the museum and art gallery.
There was one area that disappointed me yesterday; there might be good reasons for it. I went to the library yesterday, but I did not go to look at the museum. I wanted to look up some information from Dr Helen Larson, a long time marine biologist who studied out of the museum and art gallery. I emphasise that although we are talking about collections and people looking at displays, the museum is a research facility and has been for a long time. One of its major areas of research has been Darwin Harbour. As you might know – the minister for Planning obviously would know – I am passionate about maintaining the health of Darwin Harbour. When the damming of Darwin Harbour was first looked at, I went to Dr Helen Larson to get information. She was not part of the debate, by the way. I wanted information on what was in the Darwin Harbour, and I was able to get an enormous amount of information from the museum and art gallery.
Yesterday when I went there – I understand you have to make an appointment – I found out they do not have a librarian. I thought as a research library – there are other research libraries in the Northern Territory, like at the Department of Primary Industry and places like that – we would need a librarian there. There may be a reason why we do not. Maybe some of the funding cuts caused it or there is no need for a librarian. Someone might say that, but I thought if someone wants to study in that library they would need a librarian to help them. I would be interested to hear the minister explain that, if he could, in his summing up about the museum as a whole.
Once again, I know we come in here and have our odd disagreements, but having listened to what people who came from interstate yesterday had to say – they were talking amongst themselves and I could hear people making comments. I took up some discussions, especially around some of the Cyclone Tracy photographs. I did not hear anything bad about the museum. In fact I heard praise for the standard of exhibitions.
I will go back. You have got me thinking about Mr Wallace. He seems a pretty important chap. There is an Alfred Wallace website. I recommend that people do not just go and see the exhibition; he also did a lot in this area that borders on our tropics, borders on the Northern Territory. It has been said before that our museum is for the region. This person studied that region pretty thoroughly, and it is quite appropriate that we have a display that is world class.
As I said, I have to spend some time there without having to worry about whether I am going to come in here and talk about legislation and such things. It would be nice to go back and really spend the time looking at that exhibition. I congratulate the museum on that exhibition because it is truly first class. I ask other members of parliament to go and see it. It is something we should even be teaching our school children about.
We only hear about Charles Darwin. One of the issues here is that Charles Darwin is the person who spoke about these things and we find there is another person just as important, maybe even more so, and information about him is being displayed in our museum.
I do support the legislation put forward and I have some questions about it.
Mr CONLAN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to this and, in general, their support of the bill.
As I said before, this is significant legislation and it is a game changer for our cultural institutions in the Northern Territory, in particular, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
I have articulated – I believe quite well – in my speech introducing this into parliament the thrust of the bill, the intent of this bill and what it means. We have provided briefings to members of the opposition and the Independent, and it sounds to me like many of those concerns have been satisfied. The member for Nightcliff suggested she has had a couple of briefings and has come away from those quite satisfied with some of the concerns she raised.
However, in keeping with the allocation of 30 minutes or so to contribute to the debate, she has raised some of those concerns again. I am unsure whether they actually require a response from me as the member has suggested she is quite satisfied with some of those concerns she raised, as has the member for Nelson. The Telstra NATSIA exhibition is perfectly safe.
The content in the collections, funding and the board were raised as issues. I can go through some of those now. I am unsure how the opposition or the member for Nelson would like to run this. We can trawl through this in the committee stage or I can address some of those issues now. We certainly have answers for you with regard to curators, ministerial control, the disposal of collections and the annual report. You raised concerns about the library, the makeup of the board, the funding composition, the content of the collections, which the member for Nightcliff talked about, and other community assets at Bullocky Point.
I am happy to address those in committee. That might be the best way to go. I can talk about them now, but they will probably be raised again in the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 8:
Mr WOOD: I want to ask the minister about clause 8(b): ‘Functions’. The clause says:
The question I asked in my summing up was in relation to conserving and maintaining. You will obviously need curators and you will probably need conservers. Have we any idea how many people the museum employs to do that either part-time or full-time? Do you have any figures on the number of curators and details of what they do, and do you also have conservators? I also presume that with paintings and things you must have people who have the skills to make sure artworks are kept in good condition.
Mr CONLAN: We will get some of those exact figures for you, member for Nelson. This is a question you could have easily asked in any of your briefings, but I can say to you that guest curators may be engaged on a case-by-case basis to deliver specific aspects of any program. For example, the Art Award Coordinator was recently employed to deliver the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award; that is NATSIA, of course. MAGNT’s collections are cared for by a number of dedicated curatorial and collection staff, including the head of collections and collections teams, as well as six curators.
Specifically, MAGNT currently employs people for the following: annelids, molluscs, fish, earth sciences and maritime archaeology, plus an anthropologist who is responsible for the Strehlow Collection and Indigenous Repatriation Program. Recruitment is under way for the positions of Curator of Rock Art and Curator of Territory History, with the announcement of a Curator of Territory History coming very soon. So, there are a couple of positions still available, and I think they have been vacant since around October or late last year.
To care for its collections, MAGNT also employs a taxidermist/collections technical officer as well as two technical officers in the natural sciences. To conserve the collections MAGNT currently has two full-time conservators on staff.
Mr WOOD: I realise that briefings are wonderful. My briefing, I admit, was over the phone and by e-mail. I always remember the CLP when it was in opposition, maybe before your time, always said questions through the committee stage should not be replaced by briefings, because this is the stage where people can hear what is going on. I understand what you are saying, but this is just as important as a briefing. Sometimes questions might come up that could or could not have been asked at the briefing, but this is the opportunity members of parliament have to ask questions. So, thank you for that answer.
On a broader point, do you think there should have perhaps been something which reflects the museum is a public – it is not something you might say is a statutory authority, it is something owned by the public. Do you think we should have had something in there that highlights that this museum belongs to the Northern Territory? It is only an objective that might be missing from the bill.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I actually think it is quite prescriptive. It is called the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, and by virtue of its name, suggests that it belongs to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES: Mr Chair, my question is in relation to clause 8(f), which says:
What is the process around that? Will there be documents publicly available so we can see what suggestions the board is making to the government? I am just looking for something around openness and transparency there.
Mr CONLAN: I am a bit unsure of the question. How will I be advised about directions of the board, is that right?
Ms FYLES: One of the key functions of the board is to advise the minister. How will that happen?
Mr CONLAN: It could happen by telephone call, e-mail or board minutes. There is any number of ways I could be advised of the functions or undertakings of the board.
Ms FYLES: As I said, we are looking for something open and transparent so the Territory public can see the exchange between the board and the minister. Will there be publicly available board minutes?
Mr CONLAN: No, there will not. In keeping with all board minutes, particularly most board minutes from Northern Territory government boards, statutory authorities and commissions, they will not be publicly available.
Ms FYLES: Annual reports? How can members of the public track information between the board and the minister?
Mr CONLAN: I suggest there will be some information in the annual report regarding decisions of the minister, but that is exactly what the annual report is: a public document to inform the public what has transpired.
Mr CHAIR: If I can go back to the original question, and that is …
Mr WOOD: No, I am still going.
Clause 9(4)(b) was the concern I had. I said previously this was the answer I received from you during the briefing:
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, member for Nelson, what will happen?
Mr WOOD: It says the:
Clause 9(4)(b) says the board may, on behalf of the Territory:
Mr CONLAN: There is a bit of hysteria that, all of a sudden, this new board is empowered to do things willy-nilly with collections that belong to the Northern Territory. I have to stress that these collections belong to the Northern Territory; they become part of the Crown. Colin McDonald’s collection is now part of the collection of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. You follow the dotted line all the way to the Northern Territory government, all the way to the Crown.
He has donated or loaned his collections – it depends on what he has done – to the MAGNT and they become part of the collection. Any deaccessioning has to follow a process and it rests with the minister. That is why we have the minister. I do not know what you are suggesting. Do we have a wide-ranging committee that looks at all options presented to the board to say they do not particularly want a piece anymore and will dispose of it?
There is a rigorous process, there is a strong convention in place, and there is nothing different between the current process and the new process. It is exactly the same. Nothing has changed when it comes to the sale of Northern Territory government assets in the collections. It has been a long time since any piece of artwork, collection, artefact, or whatever it might be, has been deaccessioned.
These things are not done willy-nilly or on a whim. They are not done because I find a piece of artwork distasteful. The decision rests with the minister, and we had this debate, member for Nelson, with regard to forming the Tourism Commission when it came to the powers of the minister. This is ministerial control, which is the point. It is the system of government we live in.
You and I have had a bit of argy bargy when it comes to this; I firmly believe you did not step up when you had the opportunity to be a minister, but this is what being a minister is about. It is about having the authority to make these sorts of decisions, and this is the system of government we live in. It works on both sides of the House, whether it is Labor or the Country Liberal Party in power. Whoever it is, there is a system of government in place and all roads lead back to the minister - all roads lead to the Crown, if you like. Yes, the minister has the say; it entrusts a significant amount of power and authority to the minister, which is why we have a system of responsible government.
I have no qualms with a minister of the day being able to make those decisions on the recommendation of the board. The minister picks the board and puts the right people in place, and those people provide the minister with the best advice possible. This is the system we work under and the minister has the final say.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I was not querying your powers; I was working out the process which gets it to you to make a decision. Obviously, you will get advice from the board; I was making sure there is somewhere - as I mentioned, whether there is a code of conduct within the board - to set out how something should happen before it comes to you. If you went back to the board and said, ‘How did you come up with this conclusion?’ the board would hopefully have a set of guidelines as to how they got to that point.
You raised a point with me about - I do not say this very much, and I do not think people on your side ever understand – me having an opportunity to be a minister on either side. I did not think it was appropriate. I could have used those powers; I did not. I would have liked to, but I did not because I had other reasons why I did not think it appropriate. You might disagree with me. Yes, I did have the time and place, I could have been anything I wanted, but sometimes that is not the right thing to do.
Mr CONLAN: It forms part of the collections policy, to be a bit more specific about the process. By the time the decision gets to the minister of the day, it falls within the collections policy. There is a collection policy, the board will look at it and say, ‘That falls outside the current collections policy, minister, we think we should dispose or deaccession this piece of art’. The minister can still say it should be kept or moved on.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
Ms FYLES: Hopefully they do not give you that power.
Clause 7 says:
Mr CONLAN: It will and this, again, is largely the point of the bill, to empower the MAGNT to raise its own revenue.
Ms FYLES: The grounds at Bullocky Point, Lyons Cottage and Fannie Bay, for example, become the board’s, so they can raise revenue however they see fit?
Mr CONLAN: They can raise through entry fees and the shop, but they do not own the asset. The Northern Territory government still owns the asset.
Ms FYLES: The Northern Territory government still owns the asset, but the revenue goes to the board. You have led into my next question; the board has the capacity to set entry fees and other fees independent of the government?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it does.
Ms FYLES: What would be the process, for example, if they were setting fees the government did not think were appropriate?
Mr CONLAN: The government would not empower a board in the first place if it did not think it had the responsibility and capacity to go about doing these sorts of things in a responsible manner. We are talking about hypotheticals and it is very hard. I am not going to argue or get into these sorts of debates. If it has happened, or happens, we will bring it back to this Chamber.
Ms FYLES: We are choosing a board which, independent of government, will be able to collect commercial revenues and charge entry fees to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: The answer is yes, with ministerial approval.
Ms FYLES: How does ministerial approval happen in collecting revenue or setting fees?
Mr CONLAN: The board puts up a proposal to the minister and says, ‘We would like to charge five bucks to enter the museum’, and the minister says yes or no.
Ms FYLES: Just a couple of moments ago, you said the board would set entry fees independent of government. You now say the board would put a proposal to the minister. Can I clarify which one it is, please?
Mr CONLAN: I think you know which one it is, member for Nightcliff. It is the government. I have just finished stressing this to the member for Nelson. The minister has the final say in all of this. In all of this, all roads lead back to the Northern Territory government. The whole point of this bill is giving the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory sufficient space to raise revenue as it sees fit.
You even highlighted it in your second reading response. It empowers the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory to seek donations, additional collections and the like. That is the point, but all roads still lead back to the minister. The umbilical cord has not quite been cut, but there is sufficient space to empower the board to go about the business it is required to do.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. There is a clear difference between a board seeking donations, separate to government. I can completely understand that, but you have just said to me, in one sentence, that the board has the capacity to set entry fees independent of the government, but then said it comes back to the minister. I would like some clarification around the process and policy for this.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot be any clearer. If you do not understand it, I am sorry. I am not sure what to say to you.
Ms FYLES: I am sorry I cannot understand it, so for the record, the board has the capacity to set entry fees, it has the capacity to collect commercial revenues at Bullocky Point and the other sites, and does that independently of government?
Mr CONLAN: With ministerial approval.
Ms FYLES: I want to clarify ‘with ministerial approval’. One minute you are saying it is independent, then you are saying it is with ministerial approval.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot be any clearer. I am not sure what you are trying to get to, but I have answered the question.
Ms FYLES: I have questions. The Bullocky Point site is a beautiful site. It is a key piece of real estate and there are plenty of grounds there. I know museum facilities are quite outdated in certain areas, so I am concerned that if government sets up a board that is at arm’s length from government, that site could have commercial revenue-raising buildings built on it. There is a lot of land there. We are talking about key infrastructure sites. I am clarifying this process because you are saying the board has the capacity to raise revenue and it could do that from the real estate.
Mr CONLAN: No, it cannot.
Ms FYLES: Could you clarify ‘no, it cannot’ further?
Mr CONLAN: ‘No, it cannot’ means it is unable to do it.
Ms FYLES: Just a few moments ago, you said the board has the capacity to raise commercial revenues, that is, the caf at Bullocky Point, and you are now saying it cannot. These are the questions Territorians are asking. It is great to have a board with ideals to receive monetary donations and donations of collections, but there are some real concerns around setting entry fees, collection of revenue and commercialisation of these venues. These are public assets.
Mr CONLAN: I am still unsure what you are asking. Can they charge $5.50 instead of $4.50 for a cappuccino? Yes, they can. Can they charge $5.00 entry into the museum? Yes, they can. Can they decide to charge $5.50 entry into Lyons Cottage? Yes. Can they develop a 15-storey casino on Bullocky Point? No, they cannot, not without government approval.
Ms FYLES: My questions are maybe not as unrealistic as that. There are currently no entrance fees, apart from to special events at the museum. The board can decide to charge an entry fee, it could also lease out space on its land. You said – I take you back to the point earlier – the board can decide that, but you then said it comes back to the minister. I want some clarification around that, please?
Mr CONLAN: I do not know how much clearer I can make it. Mr Chair, if the member for Nightcliff is unable to process the information we have spent the last seven minutes labouring over, that is her problem. I would like to move on if we can, please. I have answered the question.
Ms FYLES: To sum up, Mr Chair. Under this legislation the grounds, the facilities – the independent board can collect commercial revenues, that is, they can use the space there to collect commercial revenues, they can charge entry fees. This is concerning because it is the commercialisation of our museum and art galleries. Setting up this legislation is about attracting support, but now it has been revealed that we lease out parts of these buildings, and we can charge entry fees.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nightcliff, nothing has been revealed, you have not uncovered a great conspiracy in this bill. They are already leasing out parts of the buildings and, yes, they can set entry fees if they want, but there needs to be ministerial approval. That is it. There is nothing conspiratorial about what is going on here. Yes, it is the whole point by virtue of what we are trying to do to empower the board to be independent and create an independent Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is for the betterment of the collections, the betterment of the people of the Northern Territory and for the betterment of the whole cultural institution; that is the point. We can have this argument, we can argy bargy, but to suggest there is something hidden in this bill that you have uncovered about a policy that already exists is completely untrue.
Clauses 1 to 8 taken together and agreed to.
Progress reported.
Debate suspended
Continued from earlier this day.
Clauses 9 to 13:
Mr WOOD: Clause 10 is about ministerial control. The minister will say, ‘Trust me, I am the minister’, but are there any parameters that control what you can direct the board to do? Could you tell them all to wear pink tutus or to do something ridiculous? Are there any guidelines to make sure the minister does not ask the board to do something ridiculous?
Mr CONLAN: It does not matter what sort of bill it is, the clause about ministerial control is in just about every one, and you ask exactly the same question. I do not know what problem you have with ministerial authority.
As I said to you before, this is the system we operate under. With the Labor Party, Liberal Party and Country Liberal Party, democracy has operated for hundreds of years under the guise of ministerial responsibility. The minister has the authority. In this case it is me, but long after I have gone this bill will still be on the books and the relevant minister - whether it be a Labor, Independent or CLP minister - will have the authority.
If I want to say to the board, ‘I think today we should wear pink tutus’, it is a ministerial direction. Whether they choose to do it or not is a matter for them, and I do not know what repercussions there would be if they chose not to, but yes, I can issue that direction.
Ms FYLES: In relation to clause 9(1), considering experience with other places, what is the department’s analysis of the key risks in transitioning to these new arrangements in relation to powers?
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, are you referring to a specific clause?
Ms FYLES: Yes, clause 9(1) says:
Mr CONLAN: It needs to be pointed out this is not a new model. This is not something we have plucked out of nowhere. This is an established model. There is already a model in place and there are a number of others in operation right around the country. It is a tried and true model which has worked efficiently and effectively for a number of years in many jurisdictions, including this one.
Ms FYLES: In relation to clause 9(2)(a)
What arrangements will be in place for the management of sensitive, particularly Indigenous and cultural, items held in the collections, and will the board be making independent decisions about those?
Mr CONLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of – I am still a bit unclear of exactly what you would like to know. For example, you mentioned the Papunya Boards, which is obviously a collection of cultural significance. If that is where you are going, we can drill down into it. I am a bit unclear of exactly what you are asking.
Ms FYLES: Under clause 9(2)(a), acquire, hold or dispose of real and personal property, will the board be making independent decisions? What arrangements are in place for those sensitive Indigenous cultural items? It is not specifically about the Papunya items, it is about a broader Indigenous cultural aspect.
Mr CONLAN: The broader Indigenous cultural aspect will always be taken into consideration, as will parts of the collection that do not have cultural or Indigenous significance. The same will apply. We need to make it clear; it goes back to a couple of questions before. This is an independent statutory authority, but it still has ties to the Northern Territory government. It is not cut completely loose; it is not a force unto its own and would still be a part of government.
It is still tied to the government and you will see this through clause 10, under ministerial control. Everything we are talking about today and all concerns you have brought up still come back to clause 10. The minister, the government, the executive and Cabinet still have the final say on whatever is disposed of, deaccessioned, sold, bought, leased or rented. It still has the oversight of the minister. Those protections are in place. With regard to specific matters about the collection, all collection matters are dealt with under the already well-established and enshrined collections policy.
Ms FYLES: You have just said again that the board could independently do things, it could establish entry fees, and you also said the minister would sign off on everything. It is quite confusing. Can you clarify for us that if the board came to you requesting entry fees, would you sign off on that? If the board came to you, what is the process?
Mr CONLAN: I am not going to deal in hypotheticals; I already said that and if you still do not get it, that is your problem. It is very clear that the board has the authority to make these decisions. It is incumbent on the board to go ahead and make these sorts of decisions or recommendations to the minister. That is what it is there for. That is why we want it to seek these opportunities, but it still comes back for the minister to tick off on, as specified in clause 10. I do not know how much clearer that can be, and I am not sure this relates to any specific clause in this bill.
Ms FYLES: It is, because in one sense, you are saying it would make independent decisions, but you are then saying everything comes back to the minister. I am trying to get my head around this ‘with items they will obtain and dispose of for cultural purposes’. We have talked in depth about entry fees and you keep giving us a double answer. Anyway, I am happy to move on from that section now.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, please do.
Ms FYLES: Under ministerial control, if the board comes to you – you are saying the board is completely independent?
Mr CONLAN: We have moved on. I thought we had, hadn’t we?
Ms FYLES: You have been saying everything comes up under this clause, so that is why I want to talk about it now. Under clause 10, you are saying everything goes through the board; it is independent, but it then comes to you. You still have the power around entry fees, disposal of collections, is that correct?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it is.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Mr CHAIR: Are we happy to move on from Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13?
Ms FYLES: I have a question on clause 13(4): board members’ remuneration. Will there be fees paid to these board members? Will they receive a salary?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, they would receive a sitting fee.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Clauses 9 to 13, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr CONLAN: I move amendment 15.1.
Clause 14 says the board may establish a trust or entities. The proposed amendment to clause 14 will enable the board to establish a trust or a company, incorporated association or other corporate entity. The intention of the amendment is to ensure the board has a number of mechanisms it can use, if required, to enable it to apply for taxation concessions, including charity status and deductible gift recipient endorsement.
The Department of Arts and Museums has been advised that a change to the Commonwealth Charities Act 2013 in December 2013, through a new legislative instrument titled The Charities Definition of Government Entity Instrument 2013, may make it difficult for the MAGNT board to obtain charity status.
Legal advice recommended the bill be amended to enable the board to establish a trust, in order to provide it with greater flexibility to obtain charity status.
It is pretty simple; it was as a result of a late change in Commonwealth legislation, just before Christmas last year.
Ms FYLES: I have a question about types of corporate entities. Are there any examples?
Mr CONLAN: There is a foundation, for example, to raise money. If a foundation was set up to raise money, it would be considered a corporate entity.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chair, I move amendment 15.2.
Mr CHAIR: I presume that has the same explanation as previously.
Mr CONLAN: All of these amendments are as a result of that previous explanatory statement.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chair, I move amendment 15.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill:
Ms FYLES: Under cause 15, the board consists of a chairperson and six other members. With the makeup of that board, it would be important to see a guarantee of Indigenous representation. Can you clarify that?
Mr CONLAN: No. This government is not into affirmative action. Board members will be appointed on their merit and the credibility of their background. It is quite specific in the act as to members of the board. We want the best possible people on that board, much like the Tourism commission. We are seeking to have the very best people on the board who can deliver for the Northern Territory, not to have people because of their race, colour, background or gender. That is counterproductive to finding the best people.
The best people might consist of all Indigenous people; it might be all women; it might be all people from South Australia; it might be all people of Asian background. It just may happen that the very best people we can find are all from one race, creed or sex. It will likely be a mixture of people. We will not be prescriptive in the bill as to who should be on that board. That is counterproductive to getting the best out of this model.
Ms FYLES: In the makeup of the new board, will at least some members need to have qualifications related to knowledge of cultural understanding or corporate directorship responsibilities?
Mr CONLAN: For the sake of the question, I will find that for you. Clauses 15 to 17 say the minister must be satisfied that the person to be appointed holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and experience relating to the function of the board. The provision allows the minister to appoint a board with a mix of expertise and knowledge that will be required to further develop the MAGNT and generate new sources of revenue including, for example, business expertise, professional training or experience such as legal or accounting, relative board experience such as other national or state level museums or art gallery boards, knowledge and expertise of the arts sector, scientific research policy, community leaders and experience or capacity to attract philanthropic and corporate support.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, where did you read from?
Mr CONLAN: I am reading from these notes and explaining to you the makeup of the board. The minister must be satisfied the person appointed holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and expertise relating to the functions of the board.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. That is stated there, but we had no idea what ‘type of qualifications’ or ‘suitable experience’ meant. I was clarifying that.
Ms FYLES: I have one further question around salary payment. Is the Chair of the board a full-time position?
Mr CONLAN: No, it is not a full-time board position but is remunerated to the tune of a sitting fee, like all other board members.
Mr WOOD: Can we keep going? Can we ask the Speaker?
Mr CHAIR: What specifically did you want to ask about?
Mr WOOD: Clause 28, which I raised during the response, and clause 36, which we raised during the response.
Ms FYLES: I had a question on clause 27.
Mr CHAIR: On the basis I have not reported, I will allow you three questions, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Can they be three questions with dots underneath?
I raised clause 28 during the response. Clause 28(4)(a) was an explanation of why:
I mentioned before, it usually says, ‘has a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter’. This has a lot more in it, in relation to:
Mr CONLAN: The reason that is expanded a little more than in other acts is when establishing a statutory authority, it has to be more prescriptive and more specific. It is common in all NT statutory authority acts – Parliamentary Counsel procedure.
Mr WOOD: My other question was on annual reports, clause 36(4)(b). Subclause 4 is about the requirement to have the annual report done within six months of the financial year, but it then says:
Mr CONLAN: I agree, and if the annual report was not compiled within six months, I am sure the government would have a lot to say about it. There would possibly be significant political heat if it was not made available by estimates. I am sure the minister of the day, and I will, while I have carriage of this, be making absolutely sure the annual report is available within that six month period.
The clause is in there because the report is consequential and subject to other annual reports. If those annual reports are not completed, the MAGNT annual report cannot be. It is a requirement. But, as I said, it is consequential to other annual reports. It gives latitude in case there is a hold up or a problem with other annual reports. It provides the scope to extend it out, rather than enshrining it in legislation. There would be nothing anyone could do if those other reports had not been tabled in parliament.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Mr Chair, I do not need the third question. I apologise for missing the spot to come in.
Mr CHAIR: There will be no credit.
Remainder of the bill, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CONLAN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 4 December 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I indicated to the minister’s office recently that the opposition supports the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Charter of Rights) Bill 2013. We welcome this bill, we support it and we recognise that the Northern Territory is the last jurisdiction to legislate for a charter of rights for children and young people in care. It is clearly the right thing to do and we recognise that. This is not to say I will not be raising some issues of concern with the minister, not only with the bill, but in broader areas of child protection. I think the minister would be surprised if I did not raise some issues.
I would ordinarily have sought a briefing on the bill, as I have done with any bill I have represented in opposition as a shadow minister. Sometimes, however, there are things so straightforward one wonders if it is worth everybody’s time gathering around the table, so I have probably saved a few bureaucrats a meeting.
To be honest with you, as the Chief Minister highlighted, I did take some leave. I took a whole 12 days, came back in January, and was kept very busy in my electorate with the crisis that is happening in Nhulunbuy. I also took the opportunity to visit Darwin and, importantly, meet with stakeholders in the area of Children and Families. I decided I would forgo a visit to the minister’s officer to seek a briefing. I will have some questions for him today. I trust the minister took a holiday; I hope he did.
Mr Wood: No, he was …
Ms WALKER: He did not? What a great shame that is. I hope he does so soon, because people cannot function if they do not have a bit of a break. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to have a break with my children. I spend a lot of time away from home and my kids miss me, my families miss me. I certainly enjoyed a bit of a break and catching up with my 91-year old mother, who I have not seen for a while.
We know this charter of rights fulfils a recommendation of the board of inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report. It is one of 147 recommendations. There are many recommendations that have not been fulfilled, but today we will see one of them fulfilled. We all know, regardless of which side of the House we are on, and people outside of this House, that, as a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect and abuse of children. It remains an incredibly challenging area for governments of all persuasions, not just in Australia, but around the world.
We only have to look to the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse set up by former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. There was no charter of rights back then for those children. There was no system to protect them, and they now try to struggle on well into adulthood as victims, carrying awful burdens from their childhood. The stories and evidence coming out of that commission are absolutely harrowing. I happened to be in the car with the ABC on last week, listening to harrowing evidence about the treatment of kids at the hands of adults in a home run by the Salvation Army. Those adults were supposed to act in the interests of caring for children and their welfare – far from it. I trust the Royal Commission will indeed bring some comfort, some closure and, I hope, some compensation for the many victims of abuse, sexual abuse in particular, over the years.
The biggest issue facing child protection in the Territory right now is, with the change of government – with the CLP now at the reins for 18 months – the dysfunction we see government delivering. We have seen three ministers in the role of Child Protection and Children and Families in a little over 12 months and, along with that, five CEOs. We have seen the chopping and changing of administrative orders, with what was a stand alone agency under Labor integrated into a massive agency in Education. It was then taken out and pushed to the side, and, thankfully, it is now back where it should be, as a stand alone agency under the Department of Children and Families.
I am pleased to see the current minister at the helm of this agency, because I honestly think he will do a better job than his predecessors. It is no doubt helpful to him that he is also the Attorney-General and Justice minister. While I do not agree with Youth sitting in the Corrections agency, the minister does have carriage of those portfolios and, with his experience, knowledge of legislative instruments and long history of how they have operated in the Northern Territory, he will do some good. I know he intends to do that. I was certainly grateful for the personal phone call he made to me last year after the opposition had announced a reshuffle and I had been announced as the member with shadow responsibility for care and protection of children. I welcome the support from the minister. I know he was very genuine when he said to me his office door is always open, and he saw it was important to keep me informed and to work with me. I thank him for that.
If we look at the annual report issued last year, we know there have been mistakes. Page 21 shows there was a $15m blowout of the out-of-home care budget; it was forecast as $70m and came in at $85m. Last year’s estimates revealed that around 120 people have left the department in the last year. I acknowledge the member for Nightcliff, who at that time had shadow responsibility for this portfolio and performed extremely well at estimates with a fairly hostile minister who was not interested in sharing information. It was probably testimony to the fact she was not running that agency particularly well, and small wonder she no longer has carriage of the portfolio.
For all of the extra money spent, an extra $15m, there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of kids in care. What is apparent here is that a large sum of money is being spent on interstate care providers for children, as there are not the foster families in the Northern Territory. We are talking about a charter of rights bill today, but I hope for some latitude in trying to paint the picture of what is happening on the ground in child protection in the Northern Territory. There are reasons why there are not enough foster families in the NT. We might talk a bit later about the demise of SAF,T, the peak body set up to support Aboriginal children in care, recognising they are over-represented in the system. We know that notification rates were close to 10 000, according to the annual report for the previous year, but 7000 the year before that. Completed investigation numbers are only around 3500. What is going on with these statistics?
The current CEO, the fifth CEO, who, like the minister, will do well in this portfolio, has years of experience in this area. She has passion and dedication but she has certainly come in to clean up a mess she inherited within the first 12 months or so under the CLP government. In talking about these numbers, she was interviewed on the ABC 7.30 Report around 1 November last year. She was asked about the numbers of children being reported and investigated, and she replied:
I do not dispute that. The reporter then asked:
If the CEO cannot identify why there has been a drop in investigations, then I hope the minister can. It is alarming that, for 18 months of CLP government, we have seen a system slipping backwards. More children – those who are vulnerable and at risk – are slipping through cracks, given that the former government had so much in place to address child protection, in recognition of earlier failings, through a board of inquiry, which became instrumental in driving change when it delivered its report. We did have a statement before this House under the first minister, the member for Araluen, not long after the 2012 change of government. This minister was also the Treasurer at that time. She slashed the budgets of all government agencies, including the Department of Children and Families and Child Protection, and further slashed the budgets of NGOs committed and contracted to supporting children and families in the child protection system, as well as the provision of preventative youth and family services. In that statement the then Minister for Child Protection committed:
The member for Nightcliff pointed out, when she spoke on that statement in late 2012, that it is not about choosing the best bits out of the board of inquiry’s report, the easy bits, or the bits that do not need much funding. The reality is this bill appears to be doing that today.
Members will recall the board of inquiry was chaired by experts respected in their field: Professor Muriel Bamblett AM from Victoria, Dr Howard Bath, our own Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner, and paediatrician, Dr Rob Roseby. They authored the two-volume report, and such was the need for them to complete their investigations, they travelled extensively around the Territory and were granted an extension of time by the then Health minister.
It was certainly wide-ranging and received more than 150 submissions from organisations and individuals. It incorporated consultation with communities and regional centres around the Northern Territory and pulled together evidence from a range of reports and experts from around Australia. It encompassed the whole system, not just specific allegations or adverse incidents as some other inquiries had done.
In response to that inquiry, the former Labor government announced an immediate response, an allocation of significant funding – $130m over five years – towards improving services and a commitment to meeting the 147 recommendations. It is long since gone, but through the Council of Territory Cooperation, which the CLP never liked and was not interested in – it was a good conduit for members and the public to hear how things were progressing.
We had the CEO of the agency, Dr Howard Bath, and Professor Graham Vimpani, who was chairing the external monitoring review committee. He would appear before the CTC at public hearings to provide evidence and updates. We were an external, at arm’s length committee of the parliament, which was holding them to account and finding out what they were doing.
People like Professor Vimpani and the external monitoring committee were sacked and, right now, perhaps apart from our Children’s Commissioner, there is no external body monitoring what is happening with the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
In looking at key initiatives, they are all important recommendations, but chapter six is about enhancing the service system to support families in the Northern Territory. It is about the preventative aspect; it is about looking after children and families and endeavouring to provide support to help families, to help parents be good parents so these kids do not become at risk. It is a huge job and requires much in the way of resources and money. The recommendations in chapter six – the philosophical basis of chapter six around that whole preventative stuff seems to have taken a back seat and been pushed to one side.
I know the board of inquiry has not been entirely dismissed by the CLP government, nor should it be. It was not a political piece of work, it was independently authored by experts and its singular purpose was to support Territory families and ensure the safety of kids, especially those who were vulnerable and most at risk.
I have already quoted from the 7.30 Report from November of last year; there was another interview on 3 June last year on the ABC News with the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath. He, as an independent statutory body, was prepared to give a frank and fearless interview about the state of child protection in the Northern Territory.
I would like to quote some of the things he said in that interview. He was asked by the journalist at the opening about the original ‘tsunami of need’, which was the phrase he has used, and if the system has improved. This was in June 2013, about ten months after the change of government.
He said:
Last year being 2012. He goes on:
The journalist asked him:
This paints the picture of where we are with the child protection system. The interview I have just quoted from was in June of last year and I would hope there has been improvement since then. It was a fairly grim picture the Children’s Commissioner was talking about at the time.
Let us move on to look broadly about what a charter of rights for children and young people in care might look like. I have a paper here titled Response to the May 2005 Department of Human Services (Victoria) Discussion Paper on A Charter of Rights for Children in Care. It was published in Australian Children’s Rights News in December 2005 and it is important to note a couple of things. One of the headings is: ‘How would the proposed charter benefit children and young people in care?’ It says:
There is a further quote within this text and it is attributed to the Committee on the Rights of the Child from 2003. It says:
I go back to the article:
I am sure the minister understands why I am reading from this document. Essentially, we want to know, if we have this charter of rights – a list of a dozen or so rights for children and young people in care in the Northern Territory – what assurances do we have that it is not just window dressing and is a statement that might be distributed, according to the bill, by the CEO to children? How do we know it will get to children? How do we know they will understand and appreciate legislation exists that protects their rights? How do we know their carers and families know this is in existence, to ensure it is not just a piece of paper and there is some meaning to it?
We are the only jurisdiction in the country that does not have a charter of rights, so it is high time we have one. Having looked online, they all reflect similar rights for children, as you would expect. We go from, for instance, a booklet such as this from Victoria, which outlines kids’ rights. It is a 32-page booklet. There is one from Queensland as well. The one from Victoria indicates to us – the visuals ensure it is age appropriate, its primary audience is children and the illustrations indicate that. Inside, there is a sense that – there is a very clear indication this booklet is for a particular child, as with some of the books our kids have. On the front page it says, ‘This book belongs to’, and there is an opportunity for the child to put their name in there, recognising that strong sense of ownership and that the charter of rights exists for that child. That was the one from Victoria …
Mr Wood: No, Queensland.
Ms WALKER: Was that Queensland? Sorry, you are ahead of me, member for Nelson.
The one from Tasmania, again, is another one in a booklet style, another take on graphic design as to what is appropriate for kids. In a number of jurisdictions, they have divided the charter of rights into age groups. In the ACT, they have three charters of rights. They have one for under six years of age, one for the seven to 12 years age group and one for the 13 to 18 years group.
South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia all have just one. There are other jurisdictions, Victoria, ACT, as I said, New South Wales and Queensland that have at least two booklets or support documents outlining a child’s charter of rights.
We have this document which the minister’s office – your advisor – sent to me. My question will be around ...
Mr Elferink: I have this one here. It just has not been released yet, but I am happy to show it to you.
Ms WALKER: You have already answered what I was going to ask. I had anticipated that we were going to laminate this and whack it up on somebody’s wall. It is good to hear there is a proper document coming out with all the right and appropriate visuals and texts. I look forward to seeing a copy of that, knowing we have so many Indigenous kids in the system. Obviously, there needs to be visuals and text that reflects their cultural backgrounds and the fact the vast majority of those kids will not have English as their first language. That is good; I am pleased to hear there is a draft. I look forward to seeing that shortly. I want to know if this charter of rights extends further to include – it is to do with some inclusion of service system responsibilities in relation to the charter of rights.
I will quote from the document quoted from earlier, under the heading, ‘Should the charter include service system responsibility?’
I am sure the minister understands where I am coming from. When he responds in this debate, I look forward to him letting us know how that will occur within this bill.
The 12 items listed as rights for children and young people in the Northern Territory are okay. There is nothing that jumps out at me to say, ‘This is wrong’, or ‘This is missing’. Having looked at what other jurisdictions have in their charters, there are clearly common themes. Given the announcement about an Indigenous education review and the fact it is recognised that children have the right to an education, it begs the question: what rights will children have around schooling, around proposals that secondary schooling may not be offered in some communities where it currently exists? The option will be to go to boarding school. Some people who live in remote parts of the Territory, who have secondary schooling, in particular from the Laynhapuy Homelands, will want to fight the Education minister and the government tooth and nail if anyone suggests they cannot have secondary education in their school, their community, and the only way that they can do it is to be packed off to boarding school.
There is a common term I hear in my electorate in relation to boarding school. It is great that people have the choice, but we are not talking about a choice anymore. According to this Indigenous review, kids will have to go to a boarding school. For some of those homelands people, it is said when they go away, they grow away and, for them, that importance of connection to culture, which is one of the rights here – language is something. They would be horrified to think they can no longer do their secondary schooling in their community and would have to go to a boarding school. Minister, that is probably not so much for you as for the Education minister to think about.
We recognise that a charter of rights is a good thing, but how will this charter of rights, when it has passage in this House, help kids in a system we know has so many elements of dysfunction in it? We know staff have been leaving the agency in hordes, morale is at an all-time low, and the key recommendations of the board of inquiry around prevention have been pushed aside. The advice of experts has also been pushed aside, you could even say ignored.
Chapter six is all about integrating support services, supporting kids and families, helping parents to be good and better parents. It is doing what Dr Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, had referred to. It is about building a fence at the top of the cliff, rather than having an ambulance at the bottom to clean up the mess after, metaphorically, vulnerable children and those at risk have fallen off it.
What we have currently – it is not just me saying this; I met with stakeholders in this area when I visited Darwin the week before last. I spoke with NAPCAN, the CREATE Foundation and NTCOSS, and concerns were raised about the dangers of having a system focused only on investigations through a statutory process, proving a case of neglect, substantiating a case and then seeing children placed under court orders in care. What is entirely absent is family support to effect change. If we have a system that is constantly going around in circles rather than trying to address the dysfunction at grassroots level through preventive measures, through those systems which support families and children, we will never be able to break that cycle.
I referred to cuts, more than cuts; there was $1m in funding cut from SAF,T, the agency set up to operate the Aboriginal childcare agency under the board of inquiry’s recommendation. That organisation has now finished. I am aware of issues around SAF,T and how it operated, service level agreements, issues with funding and whether or not funding was spent in the best possible way. However, what disappoints me enormously is that organisation as an NGO was just let go, cut free. It was there to service Aboriginal children and families and, far from the government saying, ‘Let us sort through the issues SAF,T is having as a peak body’, it was simply cut loose and let go. Disappointing is probably not a strong enough word; nobody stood up for that organisation. I know NAAJA did. I put out a media release, for all the good it did, but the organisation was allowed to slip by. The acting CEO, Miss Jane Wilson, who stepped into a difficult role, struck me as an incredibly competent individual …
Mrs Lambley: Jane Johnson.
Ms WALKER: No, Jane Wilson was her name and she was the acting CEO of SAF,T. She must have stepped into that role in about September. She is an Indigenous Territorian by birth, with family from the Tiwi Islands and she worked for many years in the New South Wales system. She did her best; she is a very articulate woman with a clear understanding of child protection and the system. I felt disappointed that she wrote to the minister and the CEO seeking direction, wanting to have meetings, doing the best she could to repair this organisation and have it move forward and did not even receive the courtesy of a response from the CEO to e-mail requests for meetings. To this day, I am not sure they ever met, and SAF,T has now finished. It is a great shame that government was not prepared to provide some support to help it navigate through issues it might have been having. It was not about the organisation itself; it was about the fact it was fulfilling an important recommendation from the board of inquiry for a peak body for Aboriginal children and families.
We have seen funding cuts to youth services. For years in this House, I have listened to the current CLP government, when it was opposition, talk about the problems in Alice Springs and at-risk youth there. Our government acted upon community concerns. Karl Hampton was the minister at the time and he established the – quite apart from working on the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan -- YSOS, the Youth Street Outreach Service, which provided a very important and vital service for young people at risk in Alice Springs, diverting them from trouble.
YSOS was working directly with young people at risk. It was working seven days a week. We had workers on the streets looking after these kids until 3 am, trying to divert them from trouble. News came through the week before last that this service has been closed. What does this mean for youth in Alice Springs? Has crime disappeared, according to the Chief Minister, so we do not need this service? Far from it.
There was a media release from the Chief Minister, which was the waffliest example of media speak I have ever read. It was in the Centralian Advocate, and it was about the fact the street kids service is reducing; that is the title on the piece. According to the Chief Minister, who is an Alice Springs member, by the way – we have five members of the CLP who are based in Alice Springs who were very vocal when in opposition about what needed to be done for young people there. Now they are in government and sitting opposite, not one of those five members has spoken about the cuts to youth services in Alice Springs, the closing of the Youth Hub or the closing of YSOS.
This is what the Chief Minister said to the Centralian Advocate about YSOS:
What does that mean? Where was the study, the analysis of the effectiveness of the service? Everybody we have spoken to agreed it was a very effective, valuable and needed service, but somehow, the Chief Minister is going to put in:
That is a very articulate response – not!
As I said from the outset, members of the opposition support the bill, but if they cannot fix the mess they have created in child protection, then I am not sure a charter of rights for children and young people in the Northern Territory will do much more than window dress. I look forward to being convinced otherwise by the minister, and I may have some questions in the committee stage. It is a very short bill. Clause 2 states:
Clause 7 raises questions. It says:
How will assessments be made by the CEO about a child’s maturity and understanding, recognising we have a lot of kids? The vast majority of kids who are in care in the Northern Territory are Indigenous, so clearly their understanding of a written document in English will be limited. How will that clause work effectively?
I will leave it there. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. We support a charter of rights and we just hope it becomes an effective document and is not a piece of window dressing.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I speak this afternoon to support my colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, and his Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Charter of Rights) Bill 2013. I have listened with great interest to the member for Nhulunbuy and her lament of the past and her version of how wonderful child protection was under the former Labor government. Those of us on this side of the Chamber certainly do not remember it like that. I do not think the children and general public of the Northern Territory view the 11 years of disastrous mismanagement of child protection under Labor as being a good era, or golden era of child protection, as it was painted by the member for Nhulunbuy. I only wish it was. When you talk about child protection, you have to put on your most sincere hat. I have mine on today and I sincerely hope we did not waste 11 years under Labor and watch the demise of child protection through that period. Yes, the Growing them strong, together report was a critical part of that history, the dark history Labor has decided not to own in 2014, but it is their history, it is their legacy to child protection.
We are the government and have been for the last 18 months. That 18 months has been a heady time, as any new government will find, where it takes a while to settle in.
I was the shadow minister for Child Protection for approximately 12 months before coming to government, and I was the minister for Child Protection for a period when we first came to power. It was the decision of the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and me that I would hand over child protection to the member for Namatjira, because my workload was unmanageable. I had multiple portfolios and child protection was something the member for Namatjira had a great interest in.
It is now in the capable hands of the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General. He is now the minister for Child Protection. These changes were probably a little unfortunate, in trying to maintain stability within the Department of Children and Families, but given the circumstances of how our government was formed and things that have happened since, they had to be made. We are now on a very smooth and stable path in managing this department.
One of the more interesting things the member for Nhulunbuy talked about was the fact we have somehow led to a greater demise and crumbling of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. Her comments are seriously misleading; they do not acknowledge at all what we were left with when we came to government. We were left with a child protection system that, although it had been improving slightly over the two years before we came to government, was still in serious disarray. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, the Growing them strong, together report was a critical milestone in reforming the problems in the child protection system. It was delivered by the co-chairs, Professor Muriel Bamblett, Dr Howard Bath and Dr Rob Roseby to the then Hon Paul Henderson, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 18 October 2010. That is pretty close to three-and-a-half years we have been presiding over this document. It is a little outdated now, but it still holds a great deal of relevance. That is why we are here today, and that is the reason the minister for Child Protection has brought forward this amendment to the bill. It was a recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report to introduce a charter of rights for children; it was recommendation 38.
I also note this recommendation was of importance; the rating was given a two, which means it should have been implemented within the first 18 months. It should have been implemented by the former Labor government. If the member for Nhulunbuy wants to throw stones, there is a stone I am throwing at her, another failure of the former Labor government. You should have had this up and running in your term of government. Thus, here we are, three years and four months later, introducing a fairly simple but very significant amendment to the bill.
The rationale for introducing this amendment is really framed in the report as creating principles that should underpin a child protection system. One of the criticisms within the Growing them strong, together report was the fact the Northern Territory child protection system had effectively lost its way; it lacked the principles necessary to guide all the players in the child protection system. It is important that any system of significance in a society, such as the Northern Territory child protection system has a framework, a set of principles that everyone agrees to, adheres to and values.
The charter of rights was seen as essential in building a framework which underpins our child protection system. The charter of rights we have chosen is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quoting from chapter one of the Growing them strong, together report, these are listed as including:
The Growing them strong, together report also talks about the UN considerations relevant for Aboriginal children. Anyone can still grab a copy of this online. After many years, the Growing them strong, together report is still highly accessible and you can read what the authors of this report thought were the essential principles that should be guiding our child protection system in the Northern Territory.
Time has gone on and we now have a proposed charter of rights for young people. In our Cabinet discussion on this charter of rights, we also felt it was necessary to include the responsibilities of children going into care. They should be aware of their rights going into care, the care and the protection of the CEO of the department, but also their responsibilities. There was a lot of debate and robust discussion about this. As conservative politicians, we believe it is important for everyone, not just children, to be cognisant of their rights, but also their responsibilities to society. This alone triggers a debate around what is a right; what are we really talking about here?
I note in the consultation for this charter of rights, there was discussion within the groups of children and with the stakeholder groups about what a right is. This document refers to what children or young people can expect from their carers and, in terms of responsibilities, it is what other people can expect from these children going into the out- of-home care system.
I noted the concern the member for Nhulunbuy raised about. I think she quoted clause 7 of the legislation, which says:
We have brought this to the table. This government has brought this to parliament in good faith. We, as a Cabinet, agree that children should have an understanding of what they are entitled to. We all should, as human beings in a civilised society. We all have rights. It is not always the case that our rights are spelt out for us, but I understand this charter of rights will be consistent with all other jurisdictions around Australia; another tick for this government.
We are coming into line with the rest of Australia in terms of our legislation. Just today, I announced to the people of the Northern Territory that we will no longer tolerate adults smoking in cars with children, and we are bringing our legislation, the Tobacco Control Act, into line with all other jurisdictions around Australia. This government is really doing a lot of cleaning up from the former Labor government. They claim they were so incredibly successful in so many areas, but what we found when we came to government was tardiness. They overlooked lots of things. They took their eye off the ball. They became incredibly lazy in the last couple of years, and what we are doing is effectively cleaning up and refocusing the Northern Territory in a more positive frame.
I also listened, with great intent, to the member for Nhulunbuy’s story about our lack of support for the organisation, SAF,T. It was one of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report that an Aboriginal children and families peak body in the Northern Territory be established and, as a part of that, various Aboriginal organisations were consulted. SNAICC and AMSANT are two examples, and the organisation that came to be known as SAF,T was established as the Northern Territory equivalent of an Aboriginal childcare agency. This organisation was supported all the way through. Yes, we reduced its funding at one point, because it was given a huge amount of funding by the former Labor government and was not delivering within a timely fashion. Right to the end, to my knowledge – I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of what happened at the end of the story of SAF,T, it may not be conclusion, I am not even sure of that, but I do understand that not at any point did SAF,T, over a period of years, deliver any services to the children and families of the Northern Territory. The version of events from the member for Nhulunbuy is somewhat emotive and misinformed.
SAF,T was something we were all looking forward to seeing how it operated in the Northern Territory. Once again, it was an organisation that would have made us consistent with all other jurisdictions in Australia in having an ACCA, an Aboriginal childcare agency in the Territory. However, for many reasons, some of which I am not aware of, this organisation effectively failed, and that is a sad story. That is not something I talk about with any sense of satisfaction. No one wants to see a non-government organisation fail and no one wants to see a non-government organisation that is given a huge amount of money fail. For that money not to not go on its intended purpose of assisting the most disadvantaged children and families in the Northern Territory is a tragedy. It was a great misfortune, and I look forward to possibly one day hearing why that occurred and why this organisation failed the Northern Territory. It is a very sad and unfortunate story in the chapter of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Just to put things into perspective again – I have done this so many times in this Chamber – this government inherited a very dysfunctional child protection system. What you will not hear from the other side of the Chamber – from the members for Nhulunbuy and the member for Nightcliff, who has been very active in this space during her short time as a member of parliament – is that the Growing them strong, together report was effectively the last independent report on child protection, in a queue of many delivered to the Labor government. We had the State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which produced the Little Children are Sacred report.
We had a whole raft of reports presented to the Labor government, telling them, very clearly, that things had to improve and they could not possibly get any worse in the Northern Territory when it came to child protection. The board of inquiry said it had uncovered a:
We are still rolling out these recommendations. We are still referring to this document. Although it is somewhat outdated, there is still a lot in this document we can learn from and that we can implement as a government, and we have committed to that. I know the current Minister for Children and Families is very much aware of what we have not done to implement the recommendations of this report. I am on the record as being quite open in saying there are some recommendations that are too outdated and no longer relevant. When I was the minister, I made the decision not to implement a number of recommendations for that reason. The rights of young people are something that, possibly, people in the industry will understand; they will see it as a necessary part of the system. People outside of the child protection system, who have been fortunate enough to not have any contact with people going into the out-of-home care system or the child protection system in any way, shape or form, may not understand why we would want to do this. It could perhaps seem quite fine to Territorians listening to this discussion but, as I said earlier, it really brings us into line with the rest of the country. It is modernising our approach to child protection, and providing those important principles we need to give us focus and direction in how we proceed in our provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for Child Protection for bringing this forward. He has not been in the job for a long time, but he has embraced it. This is a simple piece of legislation that will mean a lot to children who find themselves in out-of-home care and it will most definitely mean a lot to people working in the system. I commend my colleague and I support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have been enjoying listening to the debate from both sides of the House. There were a couple of relevant issues. One was from the member for Araluen who raised the issue of responsibilities. We had the opening prayer yesterday from the Bishop of Darwin with the prayer of Saint Francis. The prayer says:
This is part of a prayer which says yes, you have a responsibility to love others as well as to be loved yourself. The member for Araluen raised an interesting point as to whether this document should be a charter of rights and responsibilities for children. If we have just one side of an argument – I have not seen the draft – that was a very good point because this says – the one I have seen is the one with the minister’s signature on the bottom:
And obviously ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The minister has just given me the draft, which says:
Mr Elferink: No, I am trying to engender a cordial and cooperative mood.
Mr WOOD: One of the good things about parliament and debate is that sometimes it is worth listening to speakers who put forward good ideas, and I have heard some of those today. The other side of the coin was that the member for Nhulunbuy said this document cannot sit idle, like many mission statements sometimes sit on walls. Clause 2 in the new legislation says:
It does not say to review it to see if the words are correct, but to see if it is being carried out or is effective. That will be the difficult part. The other part will be trying to develop words – I have only seen the original document and do not know if, in the new document, the words are different, but having words explained to some people who may have no idea, for instance, what the word ‘privacy’ means. If I am a six-year old boy at an outstation, does the word ‘privacy’ come into my logic because I might have English as a second language?
Obviously, if one of those children is in care and there is a requirement to tell that child of their rights and responsibilities, the more difficult part the department or carers will have is ensuring there is an understanding of this charter. Some terminology may not appear in the cultural thinking of that person. They may not necessarily be Aboriginal; they could be immigrants, they might be from Sudan or Iraq. Some of these freedoms we have may not exist where those people come from. That will be a challenge. It is not an impossible challenge because governments have much more difficult subjects they have to get across to people, especially in law. There are people trained to ensure people have an understanding of difficult subjects. For some young people, this may be difficult to understand, but it does fulfil a role from the point of view of recommendation 38. It has been put together by all the good people who have been mentioned before. It is, at least, in tune with other states and that is all very nice, but in reality, none of that is any good if it does not have a positive effect. That positive effect needs to be judged to see whether this document is happening or is just a nice frame or poster on the wall.
I appreciate the work that has been put into this. I go back to what I said at the beginning, and this might sound a bit too philosophical, but the reason we have this is because in some children’s lives, there is no love. Unfortunately, as it is in society, we have some children and adults who have never been loved, or if they have, it has only been for a short period in their life.
I thank the government for bringing this forward today. We will keep an eye – I do not know how often it will be reviewed. On the surface, it looks like a small document, a small piece of legislation. It is an important message the government is putting out to young people, and I congratulate the government on adding the other half of the equation: responsibilities. The, could I say, Ten Commandments of responsibilities in there are excellent as well. I hope we can get equal publicity to those responsibilities, as well as the rights; this needs to happen as well.
I congratulate the minister, the department and all the people involved in putting this together.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate today and, without expecting to go down this path, the debate proceeded in a fashion which lays on the table before me an invitation. I hear the member for Nelson is a lover, and concerned with issues of love. I am a fighter. When I say that, I do not mean it in some flippant way; I mean it in an almost literal term. The reason I refer to being invited to make comments in relation to the invitation laid before me today, is that it is worth outlining the way I see the problem I have.
My training through the years of being a police officer, etcetera - and often the training I received in management was delivered by the military - has left me with a very structured way of looking at these sorts of problems in my mind’s eye, and the problems we are faced with as a government. I know it is unusual when we are talking about child protection and social problems to discuss things in military terms. The only reason I use those terms is because it is a useful metaphor to describe the challenge before us. I find myself as a person in the position I am in, Attorney-General, and I use the title General, in a state of war. The first thing you have to know, if you read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, is who your enemy is. Speaking generally, the enemy against who I am fighting is not the Labor Party or the Independent; it is not anything other than enthropy. For those people in this Chamber who are unfamiliar with the term, it comes from the sciences, but basically it is the natural tendency for things to decay from a state of organisation to a state of disorganisation.
It has been picked up by sociologists and psychologists as a term to describe, in various ways, the human condition. All humans, spiritually, are in one fashion or another subject to the forces of enthropy and most of us, for the best part of our lives, successfully fight those forces. However, at a sociological level, the forces of enthropy have gained some ground, particularly in the Northern Territory over the past few decades. This has happened for a number of reasons, but the manifestation of those forces of enthropy ultimately become the problems we have to deal with on a social level. The force of enthropy I refer to is the enthropic principle being driven by a presumption that somehow you can purchase your way to happiness and a future. I refer to - and I know the member for Nelson agrees with me on this topic - passive welfare as one of the most destructive forces we have.
Going back to my military metaphor, I find myself with several divisions available to me. One of those is the Department of Children and Families, the other is my Attorney-Generalship. This government’s Pillars of Justice policy gives me some reach into the police force in terms of its powers and processes, as well as the Corrections system, the juvenile justice policy, which is under development, and the domestic violence policy currently under development. Any person who looks at the resources they have, any General if you like, has to ask themselves some very serious questions about the resources available and the enemy they are fighting.
In this case, I cast my eye over the resources available, and in this instance, I look at the Department of Children and Families. I listened with great care to what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say about this issue. She quoted Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, saying we would rather have a fence at the top of the hill than an ambulance at the bottom. That is true, and I understand what the good doctor was driving at. I understand what the member for Nhulunbuy is driving at. What they are driving at is that we would rather see an intervention in the family than the casualties of war, in the form of children being hurt and neglected.
When I look at the resources available to me to fight that battle, I ask myself if the Department of Children and Families is the appropriately equipped unit to send into the field. When I ask myself if the Department of Children and Families is supposed to fix families to the exclusion of all others, the answer I come up with is that, sadly, it is not well-equipped. The training does not provide for social responses that are necessarily much greater than the ones it can attend to. Its responses also have to deal with an emergency or a crisis situation of kids who are being hurt, sometimes raped, and often neglected.
I have resources in that area which are not particularly well-equipped to fight the battle against enthropy in families. I have a limited set of resources, with people who are trained and equipped to perform specific roles. To send them out and ask them to fight the battle against enthropy, exclusively and alone, will not lead to a successful outcome. No matter how many times they charge up the ramparts in an effort to create the fence, so to speak, at the top of the cliff, you have deployed your forces in a very inappropriate fashion. You have not equipped them well, nor trained them for the task you have asked them to do.
I do not doubt there is a great deal of goodwill, but when you ask forces to do that and do not equip them, and they are not trained to do what you have asked them to do, they will eventually be worn down. It is small wonder we see such a large turnover in the organisation. It is small wonder we find ourselves with troops who do not feel well supported by their commanders, because every time something goes wrong, they find themselves being blamed for the failure. The failure lies in the hands of the commanders and the Generals who oversee this thing; therefore, the failure is mine to bear.
Consequently, it is unwise to ask those troops to do anything other than what they are trained and equipped to do. For that reason, I have made it, already, a very clear part of my mission to reassure them they will be sent into the field having been properly trained and equipped to fight the fight for which they are trained and equipped. One of the first things I did was visit the trenches in Darwin, Alice Springs and a number of other places, and visit the troops to reassure them I would no longer send them over the top and leave them hanging.
I have said to every childcare worker that I expect them to make mistakes. The second thing I said to them was, ‘In spite of that, I expect you to do your job anyhow, and guess what? Even if you make a mistake, so long as you are acting in good faith, so long as you are not grossly negligent or criminal in your conduct, you will be supported by this government.’ There will be no scapegoats in that department. If people are acting in good faith, they will be supported. That is what frontline troops need to hear, and that is what I will guarantee them. If they act in good faith, without gross negligence and criminality, they will find themselves well-supported. That message was well received.
However, having made that observation, it does not remove the truth that we still have to deal with the rest of the war in which I am engaged. To make ground on the forces of enthropy, particularly in the area of family decay, the government needs policies which drive into those areas in a number of ways, and some of those ways we do literally. The Northern Territory Police Force has, under the Country Liberals government, been given instructions to become even more assertive in the area of domestic violence policy and to continue to drive the criminality of what domestic violence is. You will see more legislative instruments coming from this government to bolster and firm up that policy position. In other words, we are prepared to protect people by using the force of law and the forces available to us, quite literally, embodied in the police force. That is one way we will try to bring some peace into the family.
If a man assaults and injures his wife and makes himself subject to the laws as they operate in the Northern Territory for mandatory sentencing, then that is exactly what will occur. That person will spend time in gaol for a criminal assault. That is not something we expect child protection workers to do; that is a function of the police.
We need processes in our courts which reflect the priorities of government, and one of those priorities is to deploy our forces where they are needed. This is in the streets and in the communities where the enemy forces of enthropy can be found. We will deploy those forces in accordance with the training and equipment available to the police officers who do that work. We will also equip, train and ensure our courts are ready with systems in place to make the judicial system far more user-friendly and functional in its outcomes. The changes that will be brought into this place in the not-so-distant future will relate to the processes of the courts and refinement of the criminal justice system in such a way as we will see pre-trial conferencing and pre-trial disclosure. We do not want to see the courts become a place of unnecessary conflict. There will be processes in place which will see police officers and other public servants not being tied up in courts, but released back to their duties on the front line.
We have a corrections system which seeks to address, through an increasing number of support services into the future, as well as programs like Sentenced to a Job and a philosophy of work – this will fight the forces of enthropy as they exist in individual criminals in the corrections system.
There will be a juvenile justice policy, which will attend to juveniles and fight the forces of enthropy that exist in them, so they do not enter the criminal justice system.
There will be a domestic violence policy that will improve ways of proceeding against the forces of enthropy, in such a fashion that we will get even better use from auxiliary forces, such as NGOs. There is a clear, overarching worldview here, but what I am not prepared to do, when deploying my troops, is turn to the Department of Children and Families and say, ‘You fix it’. They have a tough enough time fighting the battle they are fighting, and, unfortunately, theirs is a triage role. This means by the time the Department of Children and Families gets involved, the damage has already been done. We cannot expect it to pre-emptively fix the damage it has to contend with, and it is unreasonable for that expectation to be placed exclusively on its shoulders.
As a good General, I also seek allies on the battlefield, and the strongest ally I could possibly build an alliance with is the federal government. That was why last week I spoke to the federal minister, Marise Payne, about how the Northern Territory government – as well as speaking for the Minister for Community Services, Bess Price – can better collectively marshal our forces to fight a common enemy. It is useless to go after a common enemy when you have two armies trying to fight for the same result with completely different tactics. By building those alliances with the federal government, we are seeking to ensure we are working with similar tactics and, therefore, not competing with each other. If one form of government, that is, the federal government, pours millions of dollars into this jurisdiction every fortnight, I do not want to be the other tier of government that spends millions of dollars every fortnight fixing the mess from the first tier of government. It is a dreadful situation and should not occur when you consider that in this fight against enthropy, we are on the same side.
It is for that reason we are structuring in the way we are. This is so we can adequately target properly equipped and trained people to do the jobs expected of them, in a fashion where we know they are working in partnership with other divisions, brigades and units which are also in the field, fighting exactly the same fight. For that reason, I have asked the Department of Children and Families to become much more singular in its purpose, and deal with the issue it must deal with: child abuse and neglect. I have asked it to focus on it, and I am singular in my purpose in that area. If one component of that process does not function, I will ask myself a single question when it comes to that skirmish: is it protecting the children of the Northern Territory? If the answer is yes, I will continue to equip, train and deploy. If the answer to that question is no, I will discontinue it. A good example of that was the SAF,T organisation, which had consumed $3m worth of resources and failed to meet even the most basic benchmarks. This was in spite of the best efforts to resurrect it.
While I understand the notion that we need to have an Aboriginal organisation looking after children, we expect it to do its job. SAF,T was not doing its job; it was a drain on resources available in the fight we are fighting, and it did not pass muster. If an organisation spends millions of dollars and does not help a single child, it is much more about the organisation than the children, and I have no time for it. That is what happened to SAF,T.
While it is unpleasant to make those tough decisions, I have plastered all over my office wall a simple line, and we all know that line in this House: for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, not for the true welfare of bureaucracies and associated organisations that have a sense of goodwill. It is about protecting children. If you do not pass muster, I will find better things to do with the resources. Similarly, I point out that YSOS falls within the same category.
I became aware and asked questions about the operation of YSOS. Repeat contacts for the December quarter in 2012 were 4704. By the December quarter in 2013, that had fallen to 1289. If you look at the number of people transported in that same quarter in 2012 to carers, family members, friends, parents – delivered to responsible people – YSOS attended to 791, continuing to consume resources within that same quarter. Twelve months later, it had dropped to 252.
The resources were simply not achieving the goals they had originally set out to achieve, and they were not part of my singular vision for this organisation and what I was asking it to do. For that reason, I made, once again, a decision which was neither pleasant, nor comfortable. This is not about my sense of personal comfort or political expedience. It remains singularly, and will be in this part of my war against enthropy, a vision for protecting kids, or rescuing kids from the disaster enthropy has visited upon them.
That is my philosophy, and I now turn to more basic issues relating to the bill. This is a charter of rights for kids taken into care. My starting position is that many of these kids are taken into care because their rights have already been violated. Their rights have been eroded, ignored and violated, in some instances deliberately for the indifference or gratification of some of the people who are supposed to extend a hand of love to them. From my perspective, these kids, when they come into care, are pre-bent, and I cannot afford them a huge amount of comfort.
The member for Casuarina has said on a number of occasions that government does not make a good parent. If you look at the history of governments in this country, and in other countries attempting to assume the role of parenthood, you see it is a history of calamity, and it is not one I particularly or necessarily want to be part of. Nevertheless, you, from time to time, have to respond to an even greater calamity than the one of governmental parenthood. That is the calamity of abuse and neglect we see all too often in our society.
It has always been there. There was a time when that sort of abuse, neglect, or, for that matter, exploitation, was a matter of course. You only have to cast your mind back 150 years and look at the industrial revolution to see how children were used for economic purposes with scant regard for their welfare.
Over time, we have found ourselves in a position where we continue to take on, as communities, a greater role of care for those kids we see in those environments of abuse and neglect. There was a time when the plight of an Aboriginal child in the Northern Territory. in this country, and dare I say anywhere in the British Empire, was not a high priority for governments of the day. Even in the 1960s or 1970s, the welfare of Aboriginal children was not as high a priority as it is today.
We have become more refined and dignified as a community in relation to the manifestation of enthropy, which is child abuse and neglect. We seek to extend that dignity to the children we take into care. I wish I could offer them more, but all I can offer them is, essentially, the protections afforded in the first tier of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In doing so, I say to those kids, ‘In offering you that much at least, we will give you some sort of written guarantee to that end’.
The manifestation of that guarantee is the subject of this bill before the House, and that is a clear and unambiguous statement that says, ‘We will extend to you certain rights’. These are rights which should have been extended to you as a child by your parents, but have not been. What will enforce those rights is not only this legislative instrument. Quite rightly, honourable members say that a legislative instrument that has no force of law behind it or force of will behind it is nothing more than a piece of paper with a staple in the corner. I do not intend to see this bill of rights become a hollow document of that nature. This bill of rights will become a force of my personal will in how it is delivered to kids who come under the care of my CEO. I will make absolutely certain this charter of rights is made available in a way that is understood by the consumer of this document.
Subordinate legislation, in the form of instructions and guidelines in the department, will determine exactly how this bill of rights is delivered. It will become the benchmark by which we will measure ourselves. I hope we will live up to the expectation that this bill demands of us as an institution, government, community and of us as a society. The CEO of the department will bring this bill of rights to life, and will make certain that every child who is capable of understanding the principles in the bill of rights understands them and has the bill of rights physically in their possession. They will also ensure the instructions, orders and guidelines of the department concur with the principles stated inside this document.
Of course, we will not go through the farcical exercise of shoving a charter of rights into the hands of a two-year old baby and saying, ‘Chew on the corner’. We will make certain that in spite of the fact the subject of the charter of rights is not capable of understanding its contents, we deliver those rights as much as we possibly can to that subject, in spite of their ignorance. This is how we will also galvanise our minds in the war against enthropy; this is how we will construct our self-image. We will say this is our benchmark, our standard, and this is what we stand for when we take a stand against the enemy. It is to that end I have brought this charter of rights into this House, and it is to that end I seek and welcome the support of all members for the advancement of this document. It is only a piece of paper, but enshrined in this piece of paper are principles and standards of decency that will be afforded to children who here unto have not enjoyed that protection. Like all casualties of war, not only will rights be extended, but we will also expect that those casualties will make efforts in their own rehabilitation. That is only necessary and addresses the issue raised by both the Health minister and the member for Nelson in terms of responsibilities being articulated.
I remain mindful that kids who come into our protection are children who have already been damaged and deprived of their rights. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as a community, a parliament, a department, and me as a minister, to make certain we do as much as we possibly can to protect those children and at least let them know there is dignity available to them, should they ask for it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam 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): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister – and it is my fault – asked me earlier whether I was going to speak for long and I indicated to him I was. I used all of my time, so I do not know what has happened, but clearly he has taken that as a bit longer. However, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I will make his comments in relation to Indigenous economic development.
During the August 2013 sittings, the Chief Minister framed the future of the Territory. Today, the Chief Minister will spell out what it means for the bush and, in particular, how his government is advancing economic development in our regional and remote areas.
All Territorians want a prosperous local economy. They want jobs to create financial wealth. It is through economic independence that Indigenous Territorians living in remote regions will be best placed to care for:
their culture, achieving a confident culture
their country, and a balanced environment
their community, leading to a strong society.
Our objectives for a prosperous economy include unlocking the potential of our regions and encouraging private investment. We want to increase the capability and capacity of Indigenous Territorians and businesses, but these are not things government can do alone. Economic development is not something that is done to you or for you, it is done by you. While government plays an important role in this, it is not the main player. That could not be truer than in the bush. We have seen the results of government being the main player: intergenerational welfare dependency, the loss of pride and the absence of purpose.
This is why the Chief Minister has instructed his department to coordinate a whole-of-government effort to give back responsibility for a number of services to local decision-makers and the community. This will be based on a careful assessment of capacity and will recognise the need to support local capacity building. Ultimately, however, this policy will see the decisions, responsibility and accountability come back to the community. These changes are already under way.
The contracts on remote housing repairs, maintenance and tenancy management were put out to tender recently. The work packages are being broken up and designed to make it possible for local Indigenous organisations to tender for the work. Further changes include restructuring the super shires into regional councils with local authorities comprised of local members and increasing the say communities have over the running of their schools.
We are also looking at how the justice system can better support communities with programs like Sentenced to a Job, community policing and locally managed alcohol rehabilitation. This policy is in development and will be wide-ranging in its implementation.
Decentralisation of decisions, responsibility and accountability goes hand in glove with economic development. Not only does decentralisation present local business opportunities, it provides for the growth of local capacity and governance, which are critical components of a prosperous economy,
Working with the willing: the Chief Minister has been saying to people if you want to pursue a different way of doing business, then go and see him. If you want to change, we will help, and the Chief Minister is receiving plenty of calls. The people in the bush want to change. We will focus our efforts on those communities that want to see change and are willing to work for it. Having communities simply give the government a shopping list does not work. What works is a process where communities drive the change and we, as a government, walk alongside, supporting them.
Why change is needed: roughly half of the land of the Territory is held by land trusts on behalf of Aboriginal people, yet they are among the most disadvantaged Territorians. A child born in a remote community has a bleak outlook, sadly, even today. An Indigenous child in a Territory community has the highest infant mortality risk in the country at 13% per 100 births, contrasted against the national average of 7.2%. That child has a reduced life expectancy compared to its non-Indigenous counterpart.
The number of Indigenous students achieving the NAPLAN minimum standard is well below the average and, as that child starts progressing through their schooling, he or she has just a 29% likelihood of holding a Year 12 certificate or equivalent qualification by the time they are in their 20s. To be job-ready as an adult, this child must escape chronic illness, including kidney disease and diabetes, which are twice as prevalent in their communities. He or she must also buck the trend of being 23 times more likely to be incarcerated as a juvenile and 13 times more likely as an adult.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework suggests strong evidence from Australia and other developed countries that low socioeconomic status is associated with poor health. Low income is associated with a wide range of disadvantages, including poor health, shorter life expectancy, poor education, substance abuse, reduced social participation, crime and violence. People with lower socioeconomic status bear a significantly higher burden of disease. The level of income inequality within a society has been identified as a determinant of differential health outcomes.
For all the indicators I have discussed, a job is key to improving outcomes, and here the tragedy deepens. Outside our urban areas, there is a 22.7% unemployment rate of Indigenous people and a participation rate of just 40.6%. That contrasts with 1.9% unemployment and 83% participation among non-Indigenous people in the same area. A survey of 20 remote communities in 2011 found there were 378 reported vacancies and 5979 Indigenous job seekers in the surveyed communities. It does not matter how you look at it, there are not enough jobs on country and not enough has been done by government, land councils, communities and private enterprise to create real work. Incredibly, these statistics generally represent an improvement on the previous reporting period.
Over the last decade, governments have invested billions. There has been an incremental change, but, fellow members of the Assembly, the Chief Minister asks you this question: does this sound like value for money? In the year 2011, the Australian government invested $2.2bn in delivering services for Indigenous Territorians. The Northern Territory government invested $2.5bn over the same period. Broken down in the Indigenous expenditure review, the Territory spent $512m on early childhood, education and training; $607m on healthy lives; $564m on the home environment; and $626m on safe and supportive communities. That equates to an estimated direct expenditure per capita for Indigenous Territorians of almost $68 000, with almost $36 000 per person coming from the Northern Territory government. Imagine if these figures were applied to Indigenous people in urban areas as opposed to remote. Yet, the fact remains that a child born in a remote community is more likely to die younger, have poorer health, suffer or perpetrate violence and be welfare dependent.
The outlook is grim, and for decades, ‘sit down’ money has destroyed the pride and purpose of our countrymen and countrywomen. It is a fundamental right of any child born in the Territory to have options and choices for their future. An Aboriginal child born in a remote community should have a brighter future in front of them. A job and the opportunity to create wealth and economic independence are the foundations not just of improved health and longevity, but also a well-maintained culture and a strong and safe society.
Aboriginal people have assets: Aboriginal people have lived on and from their land for tens of thousands of years. Today, Aboriginal people want to continue to do so, this time as a source of income and a pathway to economic independence. Beyond land, Territorians living in remote areas have other resources. They have vast Indigenous knowledge and a strong, rich and thriving culture. They have a large working-age population, and each of these resources brings opportunity. The Chief Minister and the Country Liberals government are committed to working with those communities, families and individuals who want to work towards a job, wealth and economic independence.
Key reforms: to achieve this, we are driving reform across the board. The Chief Minister has already mentioned the decentralisation of work to ensure decisions, responsibility and accountability are in the hands of local communities. To support the growth of economies and economic independence of our Indigenous Territorians, the Chief Minister is sponsoring reform in five key ways: job creation through private sector investment and activity; maximising opportunities for Indigenous businesses; focusing on and growing the bright leaders of tomorrow; mobilising the remote workforce; and, importantly, wealth creation and economic independence for Aboriginal people.
Private sector activity for job creation: the last census reported just over 34 000 people aged 15 years and above - in other words, people of working age - living outside the urban centres of Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. Of these working-age people, only four out of ten, or 40% of them, had a job. In our urban areas, it is 66%. Put simply, there are not enough jobs on country for everyone to be employed. Gone are the days when government was the only option for direct or indirect employment in a community. The private sector has a fundamental role to play. It is successful, profitable businesses which hire people, and successful, profitable businesses are created through investment and hard work.
We have been working hard to remove government barriers to business and cutting red tape. Businesses on private Aboriginal land experience additional red tape. Permits, complex leases, an expectation from landowners of high rents, which may preclude competition or further commercial activity all add burdens to businesses in the bush.
Private land is just that, it is private. The Chief Minister is not proposing that Aboriginal landowners open up their land and sacred or significant sites to any person. What the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government are saying is the fewer barriers which are in place, the better positioned a community or region is to attract investment and move towards a prosperous economy. This might be access to main roads or preferential rents where a long-term opportunity for more economic activity and more rent can be realised.
The Tiwi Islanders have a vision for development. In December, the Tiwi Land Council signed a memorandum of understanding with the Territory government to work together to sustain a prosperous economy on the Tiwi Islands. We have agreed to negotiate, in good faith, towards a partnership agreement which unlocks the potential of the Tiwi region. Both sides want to encourage new investment in the pastoral, agricultural, aquaculture and tourism sectors. The Territory government is helping to expand the possibilities open to the Tiwis by connecting them with investors interested in partnering local people to create jobs. The Chief Minister is pleased to be able to inform Territorians that the government’s focus on creating jobs in regional areas is working.
On Monday, the Tiwi Islands Plantations Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding with the giant Mitsui company to bring about a new era of economic development on the Tiwi Islands. The agreement will facilitate the development of hardwood wood chip export sales from Port Melville. It is expected the plantation will export up to $200m of hardwood wood chips over five years, creating up to 100 jobs on the island. The Tiwi people are taking control of their own future. Down the track, there will be huge opportunities for Indigenous communities to harvest buffalo from wild herds on Aboriginal land. The first shipment of buffalo left for Vietnam yesterday, marking the start of an exciting new export market for northern Australia. A conservative estimate suggests the Territory buffalo industry could supply around 1000 head a month to the live export market, drawing from 100 000 animals in the wild and 10 000 farmed animals. We need to continually create and improve opportunities for Indigenous businesses. Only the Country Liberals government is supporting Indigenous economic opportunities and fostering job creation right across the Territory.
Indigenous business opportunity: there are many successful Indigenous entrepreneurs; however, the number of Indigenous-owned businesses in the Territory is not representative, given that Indigenous people make up 29% of our population. If you look at the factors of production, Aboriginal people have access to both labour and land. What they need is capital and better business capacity or entrepreneurialism. I will talk about these concepts later. Outside of these factors of production, there is something that all businesses need, and that is opportunity. This government will strive to expose, create, link and grow opportunities for Indigenous business.
Firstly, we want Indigenous businesses to be providing more goods and services to government. A current example is the repairs and maintenance on remote public housing assets. This work is a real opportunity for remote Indigenous businesses to be engaged in their local community. The Department of Housing has recently advertised tenders for repairs and maintenance of remote housing assets. It broke the packages of work up to ensure local business was able to tender for and, based on capabilities, win some of the work.
Secondly, we will focus our efforts on linking Indigenous businesses into opportunities stemming from major projects. Using a current example, the Ichthys LNG project continues to focus on Aboriginal business engagement. This is bearing fruit, with 30 Indigenous businesses winning work and over 64 subcontract commitments so far. Importantly, through their onshore EPC contractor, JKC, the project is working closely with Aboriginal businesses to build their capacity and to facilitate direct exposure to some of the larger subcontractors. These include Leighton Contractors, BAM Clough, KHI, Laing O’Rourke and Wagners. The Ichthys project is, of course, in Darwin, but of the 15 major projects on the major project register, more than half are in regional or remote places. The opportunities from these are expansive, and we will be working with proponents to ensure local Indigenous businesses have opportunities to enter the supply chain.
Thirdly, partnerships can effectively raise the capability of business, improve knowledge and skill transfers and enhance the uptake of innovation, not to mention bring in often needed capital. We need to see more collaboration and partnering across the Territory, particularly in the bush. We need to improve the competitive position of Indigenous businesses so they can compete in any market. To this end, we invited the world renowned clustering and competitiveness expert to speak to dozens of Indigenous businesses attending an Indigenous Economic Development forum in Alice Springs last month.
The Chief Minister recently combined business support functions from separate departments into the Department of Business. Businesses can now source support from government across a range of programs from one place. It could not be simpler to access programs to help businesses innovate, compete and enhance their long-term sustainability, all of which enable them to capture that magical word ‘opportunity’.
Education is the key: leadership is fundamental to achieving change, and this government recognises that education is the key to developing the skills and capability of leaders of the future. Education is the key to growing entrepreneurs and quality employees as well as, and including, a vibrant economy.
The review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory is under way. The problems of Indigenous education are challenging and are recognised. A draft report was released last week for public consultation and the final report is expected to be delivered to government by the end of the first quarter of this year. The response of those opposite to this draft report has, thus far, been disgraceful.
If Labor had its way, it would leave every Indigenous child in the Territory subject to third-world conditions, just so it can score a few more cheap political points in the papers. Labor had a decade to tackle this problem and the nett result was nothing. The system of schooling for Indigenous communities needs a drastic overhaul, and this government will make the hard decisions to make it happen. We have to build a better future for our Indigenous population, and this Giles government will do just that.
Already, there is a strong theme emerging in relation to workforce development and providing pathways for our Indigenous children and teenagers to find pride in paid work.
Workforce mobilisation: the Chief Minister has talked about creating opportunity and business activity in the bush, which will mean more jobs over time. We have a long road ahead before we see the levels of the private sector activity in our remote communities and regions which fully employ a community. Today, we need to be innovative and follow opportunity.
There is a workforce in our remote towns which is currently unemployed or underemployed. We, together with our colleagues in the Australian government, will need to work with the people to connect them to work, wherever that may be.
In September, the Chief Minister opened the JKC Workers Village for the INPEX Ichthys project. This village is for fly-in, fly-out staff working at the onshore processing site. There are also workers camps to set up for other major Territory developments, but why can’t our fly-in fly-out workers come from remote communities instead of places like Perth?
The Department of Business is supporting a trial with KLI to link fly-in, fly-out workers from remote towns into the Ichthys project. They have, in principle, a commitment for 25 positions and have recently commenced working with communities to provide FIFO and careers information as part of the candidate selection process.
On the Tiwi Islands, KLI has had 21 people express an interest in applying for available positions, including six who have had the experience of the SIHIP construction program. People with the will and the skill to work now have real opportunities.
The final but crucial reform the Giles government wants to outline for Territorians today is the principle of wealth creation. It is unfortunate that landowners of vast tracts of the Territory cannot maximise their land for the benefit of themselves, their children and their children’s children. It is also unacceptable that traditional owners can receive significant royalty payments one week and be struggling the next. People need ways to accumulate wealth. For many Australians, that starts with saving for and purchasing their own home. They borrow the money and then pay it back over time. Home ownership is a fundamental way in which many of us build wealth for retirement or leave something to our children. Home ownership in remote communities is virtually non-existent.
It is not impossible. Indeed, there have been some cases of home ownership, particularly in Wurrumiyanga, but accessing capital is hindered by the perception that land tenure will create challenges, and that means, for most people, home ownership is not possible. Accessing capital is also crucial for business. When businesses grow in urban and regional centres, they often do so with somebody else’s money. They borrow it. Accessing money and paying interest for it gives businesses the flexibility they need to respond to market needs, building their resilience and providing opportunities for growth.
We will work to engage with banks and financers on one hand, and landowning bodies on the other, to overcome these barriers to wealth creation for our land rich poor. To complement this work, we will engage with partners in other governments, non-government organisations and the private sector to improve the governance and commercial capability of decision-makers and communities in the bush.
The Chief Minister has, in his ministerial statement, outlined five key reforms that will underpin the economic prosperity of our remote and Indigenous communities. The Giles government will work to grow private sector investment for job creation; strive to maximise opportunities for Indigenous businesses; build the leaders of the future by ensuring they are properly educated; mobilise the remote workforce enabling them to link with quality work; and remove barriers to creating wealth for Indigenous people. It is a whole new way of doing business and has a much brighter future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note the statement.
Before I sit down, it was due to a miscommunication on my part and it is my fault that the Chief Minister is not in the House to deliver this important statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a shame the Chief Minister does not think this statement is important enough to deliver. I thank the Leader of Government Business for doing the Chief Minister’s job on this very important statement. This statement and the actions are more of what we have come to expect from this Chief Minister. It is another expression of the Chief Minister’s wish list of how things could be: a new economic future for Indigenous Territorians, based on a pot of gold out bush just waiting to be realised, through long-term leasing of Aboriginal land and private, not government, investment and leadership – a market-led recovery for Indigenous Territorians.
We all share in wanting to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. It was the central focus of our work while we were in government, strongly supported by an understanding and committed government in Canberra. One of the most pleasing, reassuring aspects of our work while we were in government was harnessing the strong commitment of our public service. They knew better than anyone the service delivery and infrastructure gaps we inherited as a consequence of over 20 years of inaction and neglect by former Country Liberal Party governments. They understood what needed to be done and threw their weight behind our work, in particular through their dedication and support in delivering improvements through our headline policy A Working Future. It is important to recognise A Working Future was all about regional economic development, supporting our growth towns, smaller towns and homelands that looked to the growth towns for services, supporting education in the bush and supporting local people with economic development and more public and private jobs – A Working Future. I hope we all want every Territorian, no matter where they live, to have the opportunity of a happy, healthy and positive future.
We all want every Territorian, no matter where they live, to have choices and to be able to take advantage of all the opportunities the Territory and our nation have to offer. That takes hard work, real commitment and a real plan, connecting local communities with all levels of government, NGO service providers, organisations representing Indigenous Territorians and the business community.
We need plans developed with local people, aligned with local priorities and opportunities, prioritised and government implemented so investments, both public and private, complement and build on each other to maximise benefits and return on investment. The real test for this Chief Minister will be if he can deliver his wish list. It takes hard work and commitment, not flowery speeches and fly-in, fly-out handshakes and media opportunities. One thing which has bedevilled more progress in this work has been a history of stop-start approaches to Indigenous policy, talking about people instead of speaking to people.
We understood this and it is why we committed to A Working Future and worked with the Commonwealth to lock in funding commitments over 10 years to ensure a real difference. This was an approach supported, at that time, by the Coalition in Canberra, because it too could see the national significance of this work. People out bush embraced A Working Future. Local leaders committed to developing local plans because they could see we were serious about making a real difference, real change that everybody has wanted for so long, but there is now uncertainty.
There is now a new sheriff in town, but we ask, for how long? A new sheriff with a rehash of market-driven ideologies and private enterprise rhetoric, but uncertainty is whittling away the confidence people out bush have in this new government. They are making judgments based on actions, not words. They have seen a string of broken promises, election promises to secure votes and promises that have since evaporated. Some in the bush are already calling him Adam Gammon Giles - talk big, deliver nothing. They are asking what will happen to all the hard work identifying priorities for action, necessary practical investments and actions which can take a community to build off government commitment opportunities for land leasing and business development.
There is uncertainty about whether this government can and will deliver anything but words, and even more uncertainty about how government support will be prioritised. After 18 months in government, priorities seem determined by the current Chief Minister’s support for individual MLAs; witness his efforts to keep the member for Arafura locked in. At the same time, he has turned his back on the people of northeast Arnhem Land, as their world falls apart off the back of this Chief Minister’s complete inability to grasp the significance of what is happening in Nhulunbuy, the region’s major service centre. There was no mention of how this government will be building on the work started under the headline policy, A Working Future.
How will this Chief Minister work with the new Commonwealth government to build on the funding agreements we had with Canberra? These brought together the goodwill and resources of all levels of government to tackle the legacy issues created by decades of neglect by previous governments, in particular the 27 years of CLP governance in the Northern Territory.
While in government we spread out specific plans with real targets for addressing this disadvantage. There was over $280m of our own Northern Territory Closing the Gap funding initiatives announced in 2007 and our support for a 10-year $34bn Stronger Futures funding agreement for the Northern Territory, locking in funding for 10 years, working with the Commonwealth and other governments to agree and commit to a national agreement on Indigenous disadvantage, the very reporting system the Prime Minister used today in his Closing the Gap speech in Canberra – agreements setting out real targets in an open, transparent annual report on progress, the real way to make a difference, not flowery promises of a better future if you ‘follow my way’.
We supported the establishment of independent officers, a coordinator-general of remote services to report on what was and was not working: an independent officer dumped as one of the first acts of this government. That is a signal of how much they value, or do not value, independent monitoring and advice. They prefer to go their own way, with the flexibility to make speculative side deals for land development as opportunities arise, and little interest in a staged, strategic approach to progressing Indigenous development opportunities. The way they have handled water allocations and the dumping of Indigenous water reserves in favour of a party mate is a classic example of their approach.
What confidence can we have that this Chief Minister has the capacity to develop enduring partnerships with all key stakeholders? He has criticised mainland land councils as blockers of development, instead of accepting the obligations they work under. There is a long-standing legal framework that Senator Scullion accepts in working with land councils and the land trusts cooperatively to further progress S19 leases for businesses on Aboriginal land. The Chief Minister is initiating a review of our Sacred Sites Act and asking how he can change the ALPA board because he sees them as blockers.
Under our watch, we saw big improvements in resolving land and native title claims and developing new resource projects with the mining sector. There was more support for the use of Aboriginal land for pastoral purposes. We saw more streamlining of Sacred Site Authority certificates and progress with developments on Aboriginal land. There is clearly more to do, but the big issue is leadership and maximising opportunities to bring people together, including private investors.
That is not this Chief Minister’s style. There is increasing unease in the business community about this Chief Minister’s understanding of the business environment they have to operate in. Make no mistake, the focus of this Chief Minister is his own self-interest, his own security as Chief Minister. We are fast approaching the time – if we are not already there – when business will prefer not to be associated with this government and this Chief Minister, lest they damage their opportunities to enter into real meaningful and enduring business partnerships with Indigenous landowners.
Let us recall for a moment the important foundations to improve opportunities for social and economic development in remote parts of the Territory, where we find some of the starkest levels of disadvantage. Our 2007 Closing the Gap investment package included recurrent funding that continues today and that this government is using to help fund the work of local authorities in our regional councils: over $1bn of investment to improve housing, essential services infrastructure and more access to health and early childhood services under A Working Future.
It is not easy to go to work every day when you live in substandard, unhealthy and overcrowded housing. We understood that and, working with Canberra, boosted funding to make a real difference in remote Indigenous housing. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, we realised nearly 700 family homes and completed nearly 2500 refurbishments and rebuilds in 73 remote Indigenous communities and town camps across the Northern Territory. This included substantial new subdivisions in Maningrida, Galiwinku, Wurrumiyanga, Wadeye, Umbakumba and Gunbalanya
The beneficiaries of new housing were often community workers, reinforcing the connection between housing, including private home ownership and employment. We were moving to address housing needs outside our major growth towns at the time of the change of government. Now, under the new government, we are seeing a shift from a strategic approach to housing investments, built on need and maximising value for money, to a scattering of contracts amongst favoured contractors. This is potentially a throwback to the old days of pork-barrelling to preferred communities and electorates and cheap building products that do not last the distance.
The CLP says its new approach will enable local business opportunities. We will be watching with keen interest to see who really benefits from this new approach, the traineeships and work opportunities that are made available to local people and what happens after contractors have made their money and left the community.
We made a major commitment to support long overdue improvements to local government in the bush. Unlike past CLP governments, we saw the need to support and build strong local government in the bush, but we always recognised this would be an ongoing work in progress. We are pleased the CLP has built on our work in further developing local authorities along the lines we had committed to if we had been returned to government.
There was our local government jobs package to support employment of up to 500 people at the time, in developing local government services and building a home grown local government workforce. This is a program now at risk under CLP budget cuts. We made a commitment to profiling available jobs in all our growth towns and working to build the Indigenous take up of these jobs, rather than a parade of fly-in, fly-out workers. Where is that work now under the CLP?
We made real improvements in building local Indigenous participation in public sector services in education, early childhood work, the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Aboriginal community police officers and essential service officers, to name just some of the key public sector work areas delivering essential services out bush. All of these community workers were acting as role models for Indigenous youth looking to a future career. We supported real efforts to improve outcomes in the area of children and families, tackling the hard issues of child protection and supporting young parents in our bush communities; tackling local leaders with the hard issues of family violence; and boosting support for youth programs and sport and recreation in our bush communities, the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, now deserted by the CLP, and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan is now withering without a real commitment from the CLP.
We worked with local people tackling issues like the impact of sports carnivals on school attendance and developing strong, non-discriminative policies to tackle problem drinkers before they got their grog. We did not use police officers as Banned Drinker Registers, standing outside bottle shops in Alice Springs, but not in Darwin, to interview all Indigenous people buying alcohol and confiscating their purchases. We had a non-discriminatory approach, targeting problem drinkers based on drinkers past history, not who you are, what you look like or where you live.
We helped connect our bush communities to our larger regional centres and a mainstream economy with a significant program of road improvements to our main bush roads and the development of bush bus services. Unlike the CLP, if we promised road improvements, we delivered. That is, the all-weather road to Umbakumba, the bridge over the McArthur River, improvements to the Palumpa to Wadeye Road, the bridge over the Daly River and funding for road improvements in Central Australia.
Today, many people out bush are asking where the roads money is which was promised by the CLP in the lead up to the 2012 election. Your pre-election contracts with communities in the bush have proven to be just bits of paper, so why would people in the bush believe anything you have to say now?
We had Indigenous economic development plans with real targets. You have criticised us for falling short in one of our targets in our last plan – the number of new Indigenous businesses established under our last IED plans, but at least we had targets. We could measure progress.
Your draft plan, issued last year, had no targets at all. We still wait to see any results of your call for submissions and your IED workshops in Alice Springs late last year. This is just another signal of the dysfunction under your leadership, Chief Minister. What has delayed this work? Has it been lost in the wash of public service shake ups and sackings, or is it more to do with your aversion to plans with real targets? That infers future accountability, and that is not the way you want to do business.
You say you aim to give responsibility for government services back to the community. As I have already said, we support partnerships and community involvement in setting priorities and making things work on the ground. Your new approach also hints at opportunity to shift government responsibilities and accountabilities to others. This is a way of doing business we saw under previous CLP administrators, an opportunity to wash your hands of any responsibility and distance yourself from any project failures. It is always easy to blame others rather than take leadership responsibility.
In government, we worked with local people to develop joint plans to address their priorities, as well as ours. This was not to impose our values and priorities from outside, but to align them with government investment and business opportunities. For real and enduring economic development to occur, there must be sustained investment in infrastructure.
Our communities need viable roads, housing and infrastructure. International development experiences have clearly shown that real change involves generational change, with solid investments in education, parenting and the capacity to access and value employment.
While I support, in principle, the key areas of investment, there is a lack of substance in how the CLP intends to deliver what is required for real economic development for Indigenous Territorians, no matter where they live. How will devolved decision-making work? How will this government ensure taxpayers’ money hits the ground where it should and taxpayers see a real return on investment of public money? How will you, Chief Minister, foster private sector investment and more Indigenous businesses where you seem to disregard the need for partnerships built on trust and cooperative work with land councils? How will you, Chief Minister, build a trusting, productive relationship with mainland land councils, or are you intent on working to dismantle them and shift decision-making power over Aboriginal land to new regional authorities aligned with local government? How does the Chief Minister intend to invest in future leadership through education, training and other support? How will he support young Indigenous leaders who want to stay grounded with their families in their communities and culture, and not go to boarding school in some other place? How does the Chief Minister intend to mobilise the remote Indigenous workforce? Will you support them with training, incentives and accommodation support, or will there be a punitive approach – move to another location or suffer a penalty? How will the Chief Minister continue to support industries already established out bush?
This Chief Minister has a track record of being dismissive of important industries like the arts and craft industry, rubbishing the basket weavers of Arnhem Land but, I notice, not the artists of Papunya. How will he support the music sector, with the great achievements of Yothu Yindi, Gurrumul and the Narbarlek Band, among many great success stories, all songsters using material with strong cultural roots embedded in their homelands? How will the Chief Minister support connecting landowners with banks and financiers, and do a better job than the land councils, which are already offering assurances to financiers and bankers of a proper approval process and assured security and tenure? Also, what will the Chief Minister do to assist Indigenous businesses with strong Indigenous employment records, with preferred tender status for government contracts?
The irony of the CLP government talking about consultation is obvious. This is a government blindly guided by arrogance and discarded policies of the past. The Chief Minister talks of his success on the Tiwi Islands. He must measure success by media opportunities and back slapping with the member for Arafura. On Bathurst and Melville Islands, many people are just plain confused and uncertain about what is going on, what MOUs are being agreed to and what deals are occurring behind closed doors? People are ringing us, asking why they are talking about their land this way. ‘We do not know what is going on. We do not know how we will benefit and are sick of ups and downs, broken promises and big ideas that never make any ongoing difference in our day-to-day lives.’ This is what some Tiwi Islanders who have seen it all before are telling us.
I read this statement with great interest. Unfortunately, the CLP has decided the parliament is not about transparency. I only received it this morning. Sadly, it is another puff piece of no substance. To the Chief Minister, you keep talking it up and I will keep holding you to account when you do not deliver.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the government on its plan for the economic future of Indigenous Territorians. This is the first Territory government to take it seriously. We have to plan for the future, otherwise nothing will ever be done. The previous Labor government never had a plan for the economic future of Indigenous Territorians.
As a former teacher, I know education is the key to every child’s future. I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement this morning that no one ever received a good education by not going to school. I applaud the Prime Minister’s commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years. This government is working on strategies to improve Indigenous school attendance. I look forward to working with the Minister for Education on the final plan.
Parents know the value of a good education. Indigenous communities want a good education for their children. This government will not let those people down. This government must respond to the demands of communities and provide adequate resources so all Indigenous children receive the education to which they are entitled. The Labor government did nothing in more than a decade to advance Indigenous education. It will not be an easy problem to fix; it will be a challenge. Finally a government is working with Indigenous communities to make a difference in every step forward. It is a giant leap compared to previous years of the Labor government.
Education leads to meaningful employment; jobs are the key to improving outcomes for everyone. There are almost 9000 people living in my electorate of Arafura and 3150 of those people in the electorate are under the age of 18. Nearly 80% of the population is Indigenous. The importance of plans such as government Indigenous economic strategies to improve education and create jobs cannot be underestimated. The key to jobs is building successful businesses and breaking the welfare cycle, and I am hearing a good response from the Tiwi people. They want to move away from welfare business.
The general economic base in the electorate is tourism, mining and fishing, and there is some development in some areas of forestry and pastoral enterprise. The electorate has an untapped resource of wild buffalo, which can be sold for live export. This week, the first shipment of buffalo to Vietnam shows great potential for growth into an important, prosperous business which communities in Arafura can tap into.
I congratulate the Chief Minister for negotiating the deal and opening a new market into Vietnam. There are many other business opportunities which people from my electorate could consider, such as pastoral opportunities, agriculture, aquaculture and new tourism ventures.
In December last year, the Tiwi Land Council signed an MOU with the Northern Territory government. It was signed by the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council, the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Trust and the Chief Minister. The MOU recognised the shared vision of the Tiwi Land Council and the Northern Territory government for economic development and jobs. It has paved the way to identifying areas of land which can be leased to private investors, as well as Indigenous entrepreneurs for a variety of businesses.
An earlier statement on the Tiwi Islands has revealed that the potential for new business is enormous. As the member for Arafura, I was proud to attend the signing of the MOU between the Tiwi Land Council and the Mitsui Corporation this week to export woodchip from Tiwi forests to the rest of the world. It is expected the deal could generate up to $200m worth of business and create 100 jobs on the islands over the next five years. It is an historic agreement that allows the Tiwi Islanders to take control of their own lives and destinies.
By encouraging new investment and growing existing businesses, the Tiwi Islands are confident of creating jobs and future prosperity. We need to create more opportunities like this for other communities in the Arafura electorate. I encourage those communities to seriously consider economic development that will benefit their communities, and I would be only too happy to assist them in any way I can.
This government has a plan to advance economic development in regional and remote areas. It is also a plan to improve the education of our next generation of Indigenous leaders. For the first time in history, the federal government and the Territory government are as one on the need to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. This is the way forward. I commend this government for its foresight and plan to improve the economic independence of Indigenous communities. I urge Indigenous leaders to grasp this opportunity with both hands.
The Chief Minister has referred to this as the Northern Territory century. It has to be the century for all Territorians. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was fantastic to hear the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development. I congratulate him on that, and I also congratulate the member for Arafura. What a wonderful speech the member for Arafura just gave. I never cease to be impressed by him. He has a deep knowledge and understanding, obviously, of his people and culture, but he also grasps the importance of private enterprise and the ability that private enterprise has to change people’s lives. It is through work we discover dignity, and people’s lives are improved. Member for Arafura, good on you, keep up the fight.
It is not easy in Indigenous communities and across the Territory, particularly in light of the speech we heard not long ago from the member for Johnston. He has the view that almost seems to echo the rest of the opposition. They seem to have a hatred of business, and they say, ‘No, we like business. We do what we can to encourage business’, but the reality is what they say and what they do are two different things indeed.
Under the previous government, business was stifled in Indigenous communities. The roadblocks to business development are numerous, and the opposition and other socialists, as well as social engineers, display a complete lack of understanding of business. Business is not easy, it is very difficult. It takes enterprising people to start a business and risk things they have. Most people in business in the community will mortgage their houses, put their whole lives on a mortgage in pursuit of a goal they may or may not achieve. Business involves significant risk, and a business today that can be percolating along quite well can easily hit a wall tomorrow, through unforeseen circumstances.
The view of the opposition seems to be that governments must find more money for Indigenous communities, and that it is the role and responsibility of governments to provide everything in Indigenous communities. That is not possible. We do not have enough money, and when we look outside of the Northern Territory – even when we look at the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory government – it becomes very obvious that money is limited and we do not have enough money to go around. The Northern Territory government – we keep harping on this – is looking down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt. This year alone, our budget deficit is $1.1bn. We are spending $1.1bn more than we receive in income. That is a lot of money in anybody’s books.
The answer of the opposition seems to be, ‘Well, go to Canberra. Get the money from Canberra, because it is Canberra’s responsibility to support Indigenous communities.’ Canberra’s ability to do that is becoming more and more limited, particularly in the current environment when you see businesses closing in the southern parts of Australia, like Ford and Holden, and, only recently the announcement from Toyota. Thousands of workers will end up, in many cases, in the dole queue. Those workers will be screaming for welfare and support, and politicians in Canberra will have to make a judgment. Do they continue sending money to the Northern Territory, or do they start supporting their own constituents in the southern parts of Australia? I put it to this Chamber that the latter will, in some regard, prevail.
The reality is that money is drying up. There is not enough money to go around, and the future is looking bleak as far as government money is concerned. Government cannot continue to provide everything. In the Northern Territory, very little enterprise occurs on Indigenous land. The Chief Minister had a laugh at the member for Nhulunbuy talking about the basket weavers. I do not think he was laughing at the fact the basket weavers are working; he was laughing at the fact those are pretty well the only jobs in some communities.
Where is the private enterprise to drive employment in remote communities? The opposition seems to have great opposition to the idea that people should travel to boarding school because it takes them away from their communities. In most remote communities, there are just not enough jobs to support the people. Many of the people will have to move if they are to find jobs. That is a reality of life for most people on the face of the planet. We need to go where the work is in order to earn a living and support our families.
The call by the Chief Minister to focus on economic development in remote communities is the right call. There is opportunity in remote communities for enterprising people, but enterprising people also need some assistance. They do not need money from governments necessarily, but they do need governments to get out of the way. They require things like security of tenure on their land. That is something the opposition fails to grasp. They cannot understand why the government is so interested in long-term leasing of Aboriginal land, but long-term leasing provides the security and certainty that business needs to establish and grow.
The opposition does not seem to understand the need to remove red tape from remote Northern Territory. Rules and regulations are a complete distraction and deterrent for many businesses. Businesses will often go to the environments where they can flourish. In a situation where there is an enormous amount of red tape, it is very difficult to establish businesses. As an example of that, we have only to look across the borders at Queensland and Western Australia and the mining opportunities in those states. A lack of Aboriginal land rights legislation has allowed mining companies to get in there and flourish. I do not think anybody believes there are no minerals in the Northern Territory. Most people would believe we are as well-endowed with mineral resources as Queensland and Western Australia. However, people have to ask themselves why we only have a handful of mining operations in the Northern Territory, yet in Western Australia and Queensland unlimited mining activity seems to be taking place.
We seem to have missed the bandwagon in some regard, and land access is seen as one of the greatest deterrents to exploration and mining in the Northern Territory. Anything we as a government can do to open up the Northern Territory to allow exploration, mining and other businesses to establish, the better off all Territorians will be. Most Indigenous Territorians who do not live near a mine would love one to be established somewhere within their region. Mines, in many regards, hold the promise and hope of jobs for Aboriginal Territorians.
Something the member for Johnston mentioned was quite misleading. It was the idea that Labor had an Indigenous water allocation, because no such thing ever existed. Nowhere in legislation, nowhere in regulation in the Northern Territory has there ever been an Indigenous water allocation. The member for Johnston talks about Indigenous water allocations like they have been taken away by this government. The reality is, nothing has been taken away by this government. In fact, this government is offering the extraction of water where previous governments never did. We encourage Aboriginal Territorians to start farming, agriculture and businesses that require water, because the water is there for their use, as well as other people’s use. We want to see the water used. We do not want an Indigenous water allocation that Indigenous people never use. One of the great furphies is that governments have allocated water to Indigenous people, because they have not. It never happened. The whole idea was to create an Indigenous water allocation to ensure people never used that water. To me, that is scandalous. It is anti-business, anti-development, anti-jobs, anti-everything.
The other thing the member for Johnston talked about was houses being built from cheap building products. I put to the member for Johnston that somebody living under a tree or a piece of corrugated iron is happy to live in a cheaply constructed house, no matter how cheap it is. The view of the previous government was that unless you spend $600 000 on a house in a remote community, it would never be at a standard suitable for Indigenous people. Housing overcrowding is still one of the biggest issues we have in remote communities, and we need more houses and we need them quickly.
I recall that during the intervention we were looking around for cheap housing options. There was $600m allocated by the federal government for housing in the Territory, and at the time, I was in the federal parliament. Mal Brough, Senator Scullion and I were scouring Australia trying to find the cheapest housing options available, because overcrowding was identified as one of the major concerns in the Little Children are Sacred report. That same report, which was absolutely damning of the previous Labor government, probably led to the removal of Clare Martin as Chief Minister because of the way she tried to hide it under the carpet and keep its contents secret from the Australian public. It was our strong view we needed enormous amounts of accommodation very quickly. We were keen to see what sort of accommodation could be built somewhere for under $100 000, whether they were demountables or some other type of innovative way of housing people.
We looked at what Noel Pearson was doing in Cape York and the type of houses they were building there. Of course, they did not have a kitchen or a bathroom, but they were shelters and were being constructed at that time for around $30 000 a throw. People were quite happy to sleep in those houses; they preferred to cook, bathe and clean themselves outdoors, but those houses in Cape York certainly provided the shelter people needed from the elements and a place to stay.
There were other things we were looking at, such as flat pack houses in South Australia. Our own great John Waldmann, here in the Northern Territory, could construct a house for around $120 000 and teach Indigenous people how to build their own houses. He sold his franchise around the world and maintained ownership of the product in the Northern Territory, because he had a great desire to put back into the Northern Territory community. Thousands of his housing designs were constructed throughout India, China and the like, but in the Northern Territory - with Labor federal and Territory governments - not one of his house designs was used, despite the fact he won the annual new inventors award of the year. Rest in peace, John. It was sad to see that your home jurisdiction would not use your product. Fundamentally, Labor said it was not right for people to live in low-cost accommodation, despite the fact in some cases there were 20 or 30 people to a house.
They also said there had to be an Indigenous employment component, which is fine in normal circumstances, but we were facing a national emergency. People needed shelter. Labor did not seem to care about the fact people needed shelter. All that mattered to them was very expensive houses being built in the bush, many of them completely impractical.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, Labor has been a complete failure in the area of Indigenous enterprise development and economic development. This government has a clear desire to change this to bring business into Indigenous communities. There is always a battle with Labor. It is welfare versus reward for enterprise, and in that battle, in Labor’s mind, welfare will always win. They do not support an enterprising individual. They do not believe in rewarding enterprise. For them, it is all about the state, the community, and nothing is about the enterprising individual; they are knocked down all the time.
I welcome the Chief Minister’s commitment to Indigenous enterprise development in the bush. It is a great step forward. It is a step that is totally supported by this side of government. We do not resile from the fact we want Indigenous people to use water. We do not resile from the fact we want long-term leases on Indigenous land, mining, tourism, agriculture and we want people to work and build self-respect. Ultimately, that is the way of the future because the government dollar is drying up. It is drying up in the Northern Territory, nationally and, I think, around the world. People are being much more frugal with the way they treat their money and are less likely to throw …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Barkly; he is a lovely man. I will not drag on for much longer, apart from to say again, I welcome the Chief Minister’s statement today. This side of the House is fundamentally committed to delivering enterprise and economic development into remote parts of the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the CLP for its continual attacks on Territory workers. The CLP promised that frontline workers would be safe, and then went about sacking hundreds of public servants on contracts. The CLP is so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, they are offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics, who have voted to take industrial action against their appalling treatment. The CLP is in dispute with bus drivers, who have an uncertain future because the CLP is selling the Darwin bus service. The CLP is in dispute with port workers over job losses, and there are very real shudders of concern running through prison officers and Power and Water staff.
When firefighters spoke out about their plight, the Attorney-General shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. The Attorney-General should apologise immediately and move to ensure the pay offer is a fair one, not one less than the CPI. Workers are not surprised that the government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday where, internationally, workers embrace the successful campaign for the eight hour working day. This CLP government has done nothing but attack workers since it won government on false promises. Stop the bullying and start working with Territorians who are just trying to earn a decent pay for a decent effort and support their families to live here under an increasing cost of living.
The CLP does not respect public sector workers. Adam Giles is the Chief Minister who will be remembered for laughing at nurses, turning his back on firies injured at work, sacking teachers and forcing public servants into industrial action, and privatising public assets and creating uncertainty for public servants in Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem Land. No one will forget the Chief Minister and his mocking response to nurses when they tabled a petition in this Assembly, expressing their legitimate concerns about double-bunking at Royal Darwin Hospital and related work safety issues. He laughed at the number, which was in the 70s, yet that was a huge portion of the ED team. Our highly-valued and respected nurses and their colleagues certainly will not forget the Chief Minister’s arrogant disregard for their concerns; they have relayed that to us.
They were rightly disgusted by the Chief Minister’s reaction to the petition on a significant healthcare matter at Royal Darwin Hospital, and neither will the general public, who hold the nursing profession in the highest esteem, forget this. Attacking frontline health workers, who look after our children and families when they are ill or injured is not just disrespectful, but calls into question the maturity and leadership qualities of the Chief Minister. When the opposition introduced a bill to support firefighters, whose dangerous working environment exposes them to a greater risk of cancer, the Treasurer scornfully rejected the proposed legislation. I will not forget those firefighters turning their backs in disgust; it is one of the most powerful moments I have experienced in this Chamber.
I would like to pause for a second and read an extract from Andrew McLeod’s open letter. I understand, as a government, that you will not listen to us as an opposition. You are not listening to Territorians, but surely you would listen to somebody as well-respected and admired as Andrew McLeod, a footy legend, an amazing Territorian and Australian icon. Late last year, he wrote an open letter to the Northern Territory News about his dad’s story. I quote:
He goes on to talk about his dad and how he idolised his dad, who worked in the Northern Territory fire service for over 45 years. He talks about the sadness of his mother passing away from cancer earlier last year. He goes on to say:
That was from Andrew McLeod, a well-respected Territorian and Australian. If you will not listen to us in opposition and you will not listen to him, who will you listen to? These are powerful words from a well-respected Territorian and Australian. You must start to listen. When firefighters asked for a pay increase comparable to those received by their colleagues in Western Australia, the Attorney-General cruelly claimed that firies were trading on their good name. Territory firefighters and their families will never forget that – the lack of support or respect from the CLP government.
We hear that prison officers have been treated with contempt, as they prepare to transport over 800 prisoners to the new prison in July; this is under the threat that 50 of them, one in six, will be sacked once the transfer is complete. We learnt last week that paramedics voted an incredible 80 to one to take industrial action because their pay offer does not even match cost of living increases. The CLP does not respect frontline medical workers who save lives and provide vital support to injured Territorians every day. Nor will anyone forget the continuing refusal of the Minister for Education to come clean with teachers and other employees in the education sector on the full extent of the savage cuts imposed by the CLP on our schools. The big losers are our children. Our Minister for Education refers to our teachers as lazy, but what about parents, teachers and students? What they do remember is the Minister for Education admitting in parliament last October that the CLP’s education cuts were budget related.
The government’s campaign of misinformation was aided and abetted by the Minister for Public Employment, who thought he could bully teachers and other employees in the education sector to accept the government’s inadequate offer during ongoing EBA negotiations. Teachers will not forget these attacks. Our education communities, parents and students will not forget.
We have also seen the ongoing attacks by the Treasurer on employees to justify the splitting up of the Power and Water Corporation. Morale has been shattered by staff terminations, constant restructures and ongoing uncertainty over the future and direction of the organisation. Power and Water employees, frontline workers and support staff will not forget these attacks on their professionalism and performance. These workers provide us with essential services: our power and water.
Customers of Power and Water already suffering from your savage power price hikes, with more to come, have not forgotten the impact on their household budgets. Governments should respect their citizens, but it is the manner in which your government dismisses their views so easily that is upsetting. One of the ladies who works at my childcare centre asked me recently if I had any plant clippings. I said ‘I am not much of a green thumb, but why?’ She said she could not afford her water bills last year to keep her garden alive. She lives in the rural area and her garden is her pride and joy. She has fruit and vegetables, but she could not keep it going because of your water bills. That is what you are doing, as a government, to your citizens. There are other stories of people in similar occupations, living week to week, who cannot afford your increases, and the Treasurer wants to split up Power and Water. We know this will cause further CLP power price hikes. The Treasurer has not even ruled out privatisation.
We know your government has plans for another round of savage cuts across the public sector in the run up to the next Territory budget: 10% across the board, with bigger cuts in targeted agencies. You have no regard for the impact of these cuts on staff trying to provide a service and do their job. You do not respect client needs. The sad thing is these attacks are not occasional lapses based on poor judgment; they are part of a systemic campaign to intimidate and politicise the public service. It is in the CLP DNA; you do not respect the public service. There is no clearer example of the CLP’s disposition and deception of public sector employees than before the last Territory election, and the subsequent reality of threatened job security afterwards. The facts speak for themselves.
Before the election, then CLP leader Terry Mills made a range of promises to public sector workers concerning job security. The following examples underscore the extent of your deception. ‘The Country Liberals plan to strengthen the public service’ and ‘Your job is safe’ flyers were everywhere. ‘We will immediately provide secure employment for our teachers. We will immediately support and strengthen the NT public service. If your base salary is $110 000 or less, your job is safe. If you are on the front line of Police, Education or Health, regardless of how much you earn, your job is safe.’ Those were the solemn pledges of the CLP before the election, made in the knowledge they already had plans to slash and burn the public sector should they come to government. This is the exact opposite to what the CLP has done. We have seen your posters proclaiming jobs are safe; what a cruel hoax, a commitment to hard-working public servants abandoned so quickly. You have forced generations of expert advice out of the NT public service.
There is a very important point to be made about the relationship between the public and private sectors in the context of CLP cutbacks. We are not dealing with a simple ‘public sector is bad, private sector is good’ argument – the psyche that drives the CLP – unless you are one of the 14 former CLP politicians or party candidates drawing a large salary from the public purse. We need a strong public sector to have a strong community and strong private sector. In the Northern Territory, the public and private sectors work co-operatively to deliver services essential to families and businesses for the sustainable future development of our economy. Any impairment in the capacity of either sector will have detrimental impacts on service delivery, infrastructure development and economic growth. If you drive down the disposable income of public or private sectors employees with huge increases in power and water prices, which you have done, there will be adverse impacts, particularly for the small business sector.
Small businesses are suffering. I know small business owners around town who stop you in the street. They are frustrated at the government for ignoring them and they cannot stay afloat much longer. They are really struggling. This government is forcing Territorians out of the Territory, whether it is by forcing up the cost of living or cutting jobs which, before the election, were safe. More and more members on this side of the House are hearing directly from Territorians as to why they are leaving the Territory. Surely, you must be hearing it on your side. You must wake up and listen. People are leaving the Territory, our great Territory lifestyle, whether it is in the Top End or Central Australia, because they cannot afford the high cost of living and reduced job security.
Employees offered wage and salary increases less than the CPI will cut back on discretionary expenditure. We are seeing that. Our small businesses around town that saw extra discretionary spending are not seeing it; people are saving their money. If you talk to businesses, people who have never used layby services before or thought twice are doing so now. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer need to get out into the real world and talk to small businesses across the Territory before it is too late. We are affecting businesses and losing good and talented people from our public service.
Education is a disaster throughout the Territory. Last year, teachers, students and parents rallied, opposing the school cuts, including many who rallied outside this parliament. Teachers have spoken very clearly about this, yet you continue to ignore what you are told. They are opposed to the job losses in our schools; they worry that your policies will reduce subject choices for students, reduce the number of subject specialists and increase class sizes. We are seeing that right now within our schools. We are seeing less individual attention for our students and less pastoral care. Yesterday in this parliament, I tabled an e-mail saying they are literally drowning. Teachers are also extremely concerned about the reduction in support staff, teaching assistants and administrative staff in schools.
Last year, the Minister for Education refused to tell the people of Alice Springs what was happening in their schools. The minister’s department was asked by the Centralian Advocate to confirm how many staff schools would be capable of employing in 2014. It said the most recent allocations were subject to change, depending on how individual principals chose to administer them. We have known for some time that in Alice Springs support staff have been cut, because people are telling us. They are currently employed in a support role, or were employed in a support role, yet they are gone; they do not have a job this year. What is happening in our Education system is appalling, and people are talking about it every day. In a media release dated 18 December, the acting Minister for Education, who we saw an awful lot of over the Christmas period – through December and January, I think we only saw the Education minister about once. He said:
He went on to say:
Being the mean-spirited government you are, you tried to force teachers to a ballot. You did force them to a ballot on the proposed enterprise agreement, and the results were hardly surprising, after denigrating our public education system for months and denigrating our teachers. They overwhelmingly rejected your offer because …
Mr Elferink: Actually, they did not, and that is the intriguing thing about the way you are putting the spin on it.
Ms FYLES: You just like to interject.
Mr Giles interjecting.
Mr FYLES: And the Chief Minister just laughs. This is no laughing matter. It is not surprising what you get from the other side – just laughter.
These are the issues affecting everyday Territorians: job security, your downgrading of the education system and the public service, and with such a huge proportion of those votes cast in the enterprise agreement ballot, teachers and other educators have sent you a message, but you still will not listen. You just laugh at us. You are not laughing at us, you are laughing at Territorians. It is time you listened. I have just quoted Andrew McLeod. I have talked about teachers, nurses and firefighters. Who will you listen to? You do not listen to anyone.
By abusing our teachers and the public education system – it has not been a one-off event by CLP ministers; there is a long history of the minister and the Chief Minister running down public education in the Northern Territory. You should be championing it. You should be talking about our proud achievements.
In a ministerial statement on 27 November 2013, the Minister for Education said our students were:
That is offensive and misleading. The minister, as I said, should be championing our education system. We have some really fantastic results. We have some fantastic young Territorians achieving good things, and there will be more in the future. The way your government is running down our education system is appalling. It is not acceptable. People are leaving the Territory. Parents are saying to me, ‘We are not sure what school we should send our children to’. What you are doing to our education system is wrong. It is a fantastic system with great teachers.
On 7 November, the Chief Minister told the ABC the Territory had the worst performance statistics through the NAPLAN results on the My School website. I would also expect the Chief Minister to champion our education system and support our students. We absolutely have work to do, but there are good results there if you look at breakdowns into subject areas, grade by grade. Our Indigenous kids are improving their results. You cannot ask much more of your kids than to do better than they did last time. You need to invest. We are overcoming decades of neglect. Labor invested for 11 years and you are wiping all that away. Your own colleague, Minister Lambley, agreed that Labor’s investment in education was paying off when she said in a media release dated 14 September 2012:
Your former Minster for Education agreed that we were seeing the NAPLAN results. Yet, the Giles CLP government has smashed our education system. You have decimated it.
The Minister for Education, on 17 October 2013, said the Northern Territory has the worst educational outcomes in Australia. Get it right; different minister, different story. On 14 October 2013, the Minister for Education said in the NT News:
You are cutting teachers from our education system and people are concerned. They are seeing the real results. We have students at Casuarina Senior College, for the first time, having a study line in Year 10. They are sitting in the library, supervised, but they are not in class learning. That does not happen at the start of every school year. We have additional students at Darwin High who have not been catered for by your teaching formula. You have no credibility. You have decimated our education system. You have gotten rid of teachers with decades of experience in the Territory. I know of some who have left our urban middle and senior schools; they are fantastic teachers who have been pushed out by your cuts. Teachers are stressed – I tabled that e-mail yesterday – but what they are telling me is they are frustrated and exhausted. The way you have forced timetables to work in schools is not working. Their teaching lines are all over the place; you just do not get it, but that would come from an Education minister who refers to teachers as being lazy.
The CLP government does not value public education in the Territory. You have spent your time in office running it down, defunding it, sacking it, refusing federal funding and planning the removal of senior education from the bush. I look to your bush colleagues and hope they are speaking up, because your consultation process, sure enough, will not allow people in the bush to speak up. You are going to Nhulunbuy for two hours on a Friday night. How are surrounding communities meant to be involved in that consultation process? What you are proposing is appalling. Your colleagues spoke last year of their concerns; your bush colleagues raised the issue of cuts in remote schools. In particular communities they were really hounded about what was going on. We have seen teachers assistants cut. We saw teachers uplifted last year, and they are now apparently needed again. The education system is in chaos. The member for Goyder spoke of cuts at Taminmin High School. This is happening across the Territory and it is all – the minister has said it – budget related. You claim larger class sizes do not matter and we must focus on the early years, but it is all for budget cuts.
You have cut programs such as the GEMS mentoring program. It was nothing to do with achieving better educational outcomes, it was to save money. It is wrong. Our teachers are struggling with these cuts every day, our students are being affected, and this will affect our communities for generations to come. This is why teachers voted no to your CLP enterprise agreement; this is why they are really upset and will not let up. Education is the passport to the future, everybody knows that, and a government that is not talking about offering secondary education is shutting down children’s potential. You are a government that wants to cut off that future to so many young Territorians, and I will raise this day in and day out, because it is wrong. I do not know how you can look at your communities and think it is acceptable. Every child in the Territory is worth the opportunity.
I was appalled last year when the Attorney-General referred to the cost of educating these kids in the Territory, and that we could send them to private schools interstate. We all know that kids do best in their own communities.
Mr Elferink: That is the problem, they do not. Your own Education minister said matriculated kids at Wadeye could not read!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could we stop the …
Mr Elferink: She is just full of it, and I apologise to you, sir. When you hear those sorts of things, you can only tolerate so much.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin does not have the call.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, please be seated.
Ms FYLES: I speak passionately about this. I was educated in the Territory and I want our kids to have …
Mr Giles: Hear, hear! We have been waiting for that all day, and now we have it. That is exactly what we have been waiting for.
Ms FYLES: You are the Chief Minister who laughs at ED nurses. You think it is a joke that you are decimating our education and cutting off an opportunity for Territory kids. I do not know how some of your colleagues can talk about it in your Caucus, because what you are doing is taking away education. Education is the key to a future, to being successful and contributing positively to our society. To propose that some students are not worth that investment and that somehow going to a boarding school is better is wrong. We need to work through options and keep supporting our kids in the bush. They are doing their best and improving on their results every year. That is in the NAPLAN results, but you only pick and choose what you want. The Chief Minister, the Minister for Education and the CLP government have the wrong priorities. It is your failure to support teachers and communities, and I do not think we can forget Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem.
Yesterday during the statement the Chief Minister did show up for, he said:
You just do not get it. Parents will not commit to a full year in a town if they do not know their children have education opportunities. Last week, when my federal colleagues and the member for Nhulunbuy were in Nhulunbuy, Year 11s were really concerned. They will lose teachers at the end of semester one. They will potentially not have opportunities for Year 12 next year. The brutal time line for the ramp down of production of the refineries is already having a real impact. At Nhulunbuy Christian College, in the same town, they are aware of the impact of cutting teachers during the school year and have guaranteed staff for the full 2014 year. When I heard that announcement last year, I thought, ‘Great, teachers will have a year there’, but no, it is until the end of March. That is appalling, and it is because you reneged on your gas to Gove deal.
Not only are you attacking workers in Nhulunbuy, but flow-on effects are affecting families in Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region. The Territory government should be doing the same as Nhulunbuy Christian College: listening to the Nhulunbuy community to ensure public servants are guaranteed employment for the full year – a full year for students to finish their studies, but you will not even commit to that. On 3 December 2013, in Question Time, the member for Nhulunbuy asked the Chief Minister about this matter. He still failed to provide more certainty to teachers, parents and students at Gove. The Chief Minister’s ministerial statement admits:
Territorians’ public service jobs are at risk, and there will be a flow on to our economy and services for Territorians. It is just not right. Territorians need to know what the CLP government is planning for the public sector and government services. Public servants have already learned the hard way with the cruel hope their jobs would be safe. You said every person with a base salary under $110 000 was safe, yet people lost their jobs. If it was due to a contract ending, that is still losing a job. They had a job; they do not have it anymore. They were not just contracts for a couple of weeks; they were contracts for quite a few months, contracts in place for a couple of years and they are now gone. You promised every job under $110 000 would be safe, but they are gone. You promised frontline workers would be safe.
I do not think you can get any more frontline than a nurse or a teacher. I am not sure what the definition of frontline is. I would like the minister, in his reply to this motion, to answer the questions: were agencies told of the 10% budget cuts before Christmas? Why did you not announce the further cuts when handing down the Treasurer’s mid-year report?
Why these cuts? Are they to pay for your unfunded election promises to the bush? I know my colleagues will have a lot more to say on this continual attack on our public sector employees. You have attacked so many crucial frontline services. You have attacked public servants who just want to get on and do their jobs. They just want to deliver for Territorians, but you and your cuts have really hurt them. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is not a single suggestion as to how much they would spend, as an alternative government, on their promises. Are they saying to those union boffins they will pay the 23% currently being demanded by some firies, plus 8% every year thereafter, plus a housing allowance? If we have to pay that, we will have no money for the schools she so bitterly complains about. There was not a single, rational contemplation in that tirade, which was so badly constructed that it beggars belief. I note she said during the debate, in shrill indignation:
The one educated in the Territory is now a member of parliament, so there cannot be too much wrong with the education she received. I suspect she is old enough to have received most, if not all, of that education under a former CLP government. That is interesting.
It is true that education has a problem in the Northern Territory, and it starts with the motion itself. We talk about education standards in the Northern Territory and this motion, in its presentation, beggars belief. The starting point is a thing in English called the verb-subject agreement, which deals with the way a verb in a sentence operates rationally and next to its subject. In this case, ‘the CLP are’. We will pause there for a second. I will ask the teacher, the member for Nightcliff, to take the exercise, as I am sure all teachers could, of conjugating the verb ‘to be’. I will do it for her in case she does not know how to. To conjugate the verb to be: ‘I am’, ‘you are’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it is’, ‘we are’ and ‘they are’. The point is, if you look at, ‘the CLP are’, you run into a fundamental grammatical error. The CLP is a single institution. Let me give the member for Nightcliff, our learned teacher, an example: ‘The Labor Party is a party of people with no sense of real direction’. That is referring to the Labor Party singularly. ‘Bill and Ted, who are members of the Labor Party, are people with no sense of direction.’ That is the appropriate verb-subject agreement because the first is singular and the second plural. The singular CLP has been identified in this motion as the CLP plural.
I tell the honourable member opposite that is not the correct verb-subject agreement and is a verb-subject disagreement. The motion says, ‘The CLP are so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living’, and goes on to say ‘they’. The CLP is not ‘they’. ‘They’ are the members of the government, ‘they’ is that group of cattle over there, but the CLP is a singular entity. ‘They’ is not correct, and it is followed with the same mistake in the verb-subject agreement when she says, ‘they are’.
May I point out – I digress briefly – the CLP is a political party and not the government of the Northern Territory. CLP members, who form the majority of members in this House, form the government of the Northern Territory. Therefore, to attack the CLP, which is an institution with a president, membership and branches across the Northern Territory, is erroneous and you are attacking the wrong person, but I digress briefly.
We go on to find the same mistake repeated again and again by our teacher. However, we can understand that because it is a grammatical error, and in spite of the fact the member for Nightcliff is prepared to make the same verb-subject disagreement appear repeatedly into the document, it goes on to show other demonstrable mistakes. I point out this line in the motion:
The word I presume the member has tried to insert is ‘it’ to say ‘since it won government’. The letters ‘t’ and ‘n’ are often mistaken, I can understand why that happens. There you go; that is what happened. We have a second error to fix in her report. If this was a school report, we would already be starting to look a bit grim. We have corrected that.
Let us go to the conjunction she used between the words ‘for’ and ‘continueal’. This is an injunction that has used an apostrophe but does not invite it. I will point out to the honourable teacher on the other side that the word ‘it’s’ is used incorrectly, because in applying the apostrophe in the word ‘its’, you are conjoining the two words ‘it is’.
Let us read this in the context it is used: ‘The Assembly condemns the CLP for it is continueal’. Oh, dear! Perhaps she has not got that one right either. If we remove the apostrophe and use ‘its’ in the possessive sense, you will discover it becomes, ‘The Assembly condemns the CLP for its continueal’. What is that word, by the way? We will remove the apostrophe and fix that. Now we have ‘its’.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin has been speaking to a different motion, because I do not have an apostrophe in my ‘its’ and ‘continual’ is spelt correctly.
Mr Elferink: You are reading from the Notice Paper and I am reading from the document she signed yesterday.
Mr Gunner: I am reading the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. Fortunately, some poor person who typed the Notice Paper had to go through the excruciating exercise of turning this into English so normal human beings in this place could understand what she was driving at.
I continue; we now come to the word ‘continueal’. I have checked my dictionary to determine the word ‘continueal’ is not a word in the English language. Therefore, we have to put a line through the word ‘continueal’ and pause briefly, as we ponder the meaning intended after the conjunction disaster that precedes it. I presume she was trying to say the word, ‘continual’, which, of course, is spelt entirely differently.
I expect the NAPLAN results of the Northern Territory to go up as a result of her leaving the education system, because this is excruciating to read. Once again, we see the member for Nightcliff, all hot and bothered, flustering her way into this place, exploding with rage and indignation, and not even taking the time to read, spell or grammar check the document she has landed on this table with strident indignation.
She then proudly announced that:
It is the education system that produces those sorts of educational results we, as a government, are trying to attend to.
That is what we are trying to do. If even somebody with that level of education can find their way into this place, it demonstrates that people, while possessing a substandard education, can still make their way in the world if they work diligently. There is a lesson to be learnt from that. That is an aside, now let us go on to the substance of the motion as it stands translated into English.
The shrill motion says, among other things, that we are offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics. Let us pause for a moment. Paramedics? I have checked and it turns out the Northern Territory government does not employ any paramedics. The St John organisation, aka the St John Ambulance Brigade, does employee paramedics, but they are not public servants. The role of negotiating the EBA with those paramedics is a function for the administrative section of St John in the Northern Territory. St John, effectively, is contracted, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, to provide ambulance services to people in the metropolitan areas of the Northern Territory. Other ambulance services can be provided by Health departments or community-owned health clinics in remote communities. It is for this reason that ambulances are privately plated in the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, it is the Northern Territory government’s responsibility to negotiate, according to members opposite, private arrangements between a private employer and its staff.
Sooner or later, the opposition will be complaining that the Northern Territory government is also responsible for EBAs to be negotiated with staff of Woolworths, Coles, Kmart and, probably, Bunnings. They would never let the truth stand in their way. In terms of teachers, the government will persevere with its education reforms, because it wants to get better results than the results we have seen demonstrated in this House tonight. In this House tonight we have seen hideous spelling and grammar, and we, as a government, want to improve upon those results.
We have heard the Education minister speak of the many secondary institutions that have produced eight matriculated people in remote communities. We had the edifying champing at the bit by the former Education minister, Dr Chris Burns, who proudly said one day that there were so many graduates in Wadeye who had passed Year 12. I asked him at the time, by way of interjection, ‘How many of them can read? Apparently, the rangers will not give them jobs because they are illiterate.’ The then Minister for Education said words to the effect of, ‘Yes, we know there is a problem and some of our Year 12 graduates cannot read’.
What the opposition and former government has engaged in is the usual practice, which is so embraced by socialist organisations around the world. It is the misstating of achievements, for the purpose of convincing the public they are doing a good job. Sooner or later, as is always the case, underachievements come to light. To watch a minister of the Crown, an Education minister, proudly stand up and admit that many of his Year 12 graduates were illiterate was hardly what I call an edifying result.
While it might look good on an annual report, it is an awful outcome for those kids who have supposedly had an education. Can you imagine the dashed expectations of a person who has been told they are fully educated to Year 12 but cannot land a job anywhere because they are functionally illiterate? This is what the teachers union of the Northern Territory would subscribe to and encourage us to keep doing. Essentially, the teachers union argument in this pay dispute – two matters utterly unrelated to each other, remembering the EBA is about pay and entitlements and not about government policy, but, nevertheless, teachers seek to insert themselves into this policy debate – is to keep doing the same thing, doing exactly what we are doing now, which will produce exactly the same results into the future. Actually, its argument is it will produce different results in the future, but we know what the definition of insanity is: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is exactly how it is defined.
We are proposing to do what is necessary to provide results in the bush. I congratulate the Education minister for his firmness, stance, vigour and ticker in pursuing these things, in spite of the rabid screeching of members opposite and the union’s position in relation to government policy. If the union had its way, it would run the Education department in the Northern Territory. I would almost be in favour of giving it to them, if it was not for the fact I would be utterly mortified with the results that would occur.
Yes, we did put that matter of the EBA to the vote, and 81% of those who voted did so along the lines of the union’s desire. Okay, that is fine, but that is basically the union membership. However, a majority of the teachers did not vote; 58% of the teachers did not vote. I am not quite sure why that happened; I would hope they would be more engaged with their profession than that. It also reflects that 500 teachers walked off the job one day to protest in relation to what the teacher’s union was pursuing, but only 100 or so turned up at the front of Parliament House. Where were the rest of them?
I would like to see a teaching profession that is engaged with its profession, loves going to school and teaching kids every day and does so with passion. Teachers who are passionate about what they do, and who are committed, are generally two things: (1) according to the OECD, they are generally well-paid, and (2) they are well-supported by the education system.
Class sizes in the middle and senior years do not have a substantial or realisable impact on the quality of education delivered. If you look at countries like Finland, class sizes are reasonably small, but their results are comparable to countries like South Korea and Japan where class sizes are reasonably large. Their results in both instances are substantially better than the ones we see here in the Northern Territory. There are a raft of other OECD countries which produce better results, irrespective of their class sizes, but their teachers are well-respected, well-supported and well paid.
That is what we are trying to offer teachers in the Northern Territory. However, they have chosen, under the dint of their union leadership, to so far forgo as much as $1000 in income in pursuit of a class-size argument that does not have substance and has not resulted in the educational outcomes the former government, led by the unions, said it would produce. Consequently, we find ourselves at loggerheads. We will persevere because we will do what is necessary to educate kids in the Northern Territory. We invite the teachers union to participate in that process by making submissions to the three reviews under way. I know it has made some submissions and I welcome those, but to tie that to pay and entitlements is to do so at the sacrifice of your own membership. The government remains committed to reforms in the education process that are necessary to pursue.
I now turn my attention to the matter of the firefighters. In the eyes of many members opposite and members in the union movement, I have actually had the temerity to ask a hard question of firefighters. I have enormous regard and respect for people who, as a matter of courage and professional discipline, will step into the line of danger on behalf of their fellow citizens. There will always be a high level of regard and respect for such people. Nevertheless, we still have to ask ourselves how we will treat the EBA process.
Does it automatically follow that, in spite of the fact we have a level of respect, we should not ask any hard questions? If we do not, then certain practices will start to grow over time. It is these practices that I and the Northern Territory government had the temerity to challenge. One of those practices is that of only allowing overtime shifts to be filled when you are actually on your block of four days on. The effect of that is when somebody is called out and is on their four days off, they refuse to take the overtime shift so it goes to somebody who is between a night and a day shift or between two day shifts. They consequently get that at double time. That has an enormous effect on the overtime bill of the Northern Territory and is not an authorised practice supported by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment or the Northern Territory government.
To the enormous credit of firefighters in Alice Springs, they have refused to engage in this conduct because they consider it to be inappropriate. Nevertheless, firefighters in Darwin have chosen to pursue this. The average firefighter’s income was a fraction shy of $90 000 last year, and a large slice of that was from overtime practices, particularly as they are applied in Darwin. The Northern Territory government has accepted that on those four days off, some firefighters – I think 17 had permission, but I understand many more also have a second job. If, from an employer’s perspective, you allow employees to have a second job, you would do so on the proviso it does not interfere with your primary source of employment, which in this case is firefighting. I do not want to get to the stage, but will not rule it out, where we say to firefighters who have second jobs that it is no longer permissible. I do not want to go down that path. However, an ambit claim of 23% and then 8% per year thereafter is such a draw down on the public purse that we have to start asking some difficult questions.
For that, you are invited to set yourself up as a target for the shrill attacks, particularly from the United Voice union and, moreover, from the likes of the member for Nightcliff. I am prepared to ask questions about the arrangements firefighters have engaged in. It is not productive for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory when we blindly accept practices which have a deleterious effect on the overall outcomes you would expect for the people of the Northern Territory. We want, and have offered, a fair wage increase – which has already been accepted by the majority of public servants – to the firefighters. The general public service has signed off on a 3% EBA over the next four years. I congratulate and thank the majority of the general public service for understanding this is a time for wage restraint while we continue to fight a projected debt of $5.5bn.
Equally, Power and Water employees have also signed up to the same conditions, as have doctors, who are in agreement, and that is still subject to a vote at this stage. We have the police, Port Corporation, marine pilots, prison officers, nurses and dentists to go this year, and we will be making the same offer to every one of those organisations. We are prepared to make those offers because they are fair. We do not want to engage in a three-ring circus where we start off with an offer of 1% per year, the union starts off with an offer of, in the case of the firies, 23%, and we try to negotiate somewhere down to about 3%. We have decided to treat Northern Territory public servants with respect and say, ‘This is what we are offering, this is what we hope you will accept’, and we will press on with governing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
It is about a sober, sensible approach to what we are doing. The shrill, reactionary, militant and angry do not feed or in any way usefully inform this discussion. This awkwardly worded, poorly spelt, grammatically incorrect motion is part of the shrill, intemperate language I have come to expect, particularly from the militant components of the union movement and the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party.
We will continue to press on and negotiate, and will endeavour to find a reasonable solution. We hope members of the Northern Territory public service who are affected by upcoming EBAs take the same approach. Ultimately, they are, as we are, as members of the Northern Territory government, public servants, and we are there to serve the public so the best outcomes can be delivered both now and into the future.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing forward this motion which condemns the CLP for its continued attacks on Territory workers. I still find it quite perplexing and frustrating that there is a line in this Chamber separating one side that protects and supports Territory workers from a side that does not.
I do not understand why we cannot be unified on an issue like protecting Territory workers. We continually, almost weekly, find examples from this government where it does not value or respect workers in the Northern Territory. Whether it is firefighters who turned their back on the CLP in this Chamber last year, or nurses, when the Chief Minister laughed at them, we have continually seen situations where the CLP did not treat workers in the Northern Territory with respect. The police told the Chief Minister to his face that he had broken faith and trust with them. We continue to see examples of the CLP treating workers in the Northern Territory with disrespect.
The member for Nightcliff comes from generations of people who are entrenched in the labour movement of protecting and supporting Territory workers. Most of us, on our side, have come from or grown up in an environment that supports the labour movement, or have followed career paths which support the labour movement because it is part of our values. It is in our DNA that we should protect and support workers and their rights, and we have a very proud history of success in the Labor Party and as a labour movement. We have done this to such a point that most basic entitlements are now taken for granted. That is a good thing.
People should take things like an eight-hour day, weekends, overtime and those sorts of conditions. The labour movement has fought for them very hard over many years, and they should take those things for granted, because they have earned them and workers should be treated with respect. They should be paid overtime when they work into the late evenings - obviously depending on what profession they are in - and they have earnt their weekends.
The member for Port Darwin was just saying he has a problem with firefighters who, on their four days off, do not take overtime. They are on their four days off. We have a problem of attrition among our firefighters. I have met with our firefighters and had a long conversation with them, and they are concerned about the attrition levels within the fire service of the Northern Territory. If you spoke with them about their issues, tried to work with them on what they are genuinely concerned about, treated them with respect and valued their opinions, you might make some progress. Instead, we see them denigrated. We see them accused of being political when they try to advance legislation which would protect firefighters with cancer.
The Deputy Chief Minister accused them of being political, and we have just had the member for Port Darwin repeat his belief they are trading on their good reputation. It is essentially the same insult. Firefighters are passionate about the Northern Territory. They put themselves in situations where their own lives are at risk. They are concerned about attrition levels within the fire service of the Northern Territory, because they understand and believe in a cohesive, unified Northern Territory fire service. They want good morale, good conditions and for firefighters to stay in the NT and not go to other states looking for work with better conditions. They are extremely concerned, in particular, about Western Australia and the conditions offered there, which take firefighters out of the Northern Territory.
If you were to talk with our firefighters, treat them with respect and value their opinions, you might understand where they are coming from and negotiate an outcome. Unfortunately, the CLP, time after time, has shown it is not interested in taking that approach; its first reaction to a worker is one of disrespect. That is why we saw the Chief Minister laugh at nurses and why we are seeing the Deputy Chief Minister call firefighters out as being political when the fight to bring forward presumptive legislation around cancer has no political bearing. There is no politics to that. We are talking about the health of firefighters and, unfortunately and tragically, we are seeing firefighters either diagnosed with or passing away from cancer. There is medical evidence that firefighters are more prone to developing cancer on the job, yet they are being accused of being political for bringing those ideas forward.
We saw the Minister for Education call teachers lazy; he said they had too much down time. This is something he does not like being reminded of, and teachers certainly did not like it when it happened. Teachers are extremely sensitive to accusations of too much down time. They are aware there is a perception in the community, sometimes, of them getting excessive amounts of holidays. We all know many teachers; I would be very surprised if we are not friends with, related to, work with or know a teacher. The Territory is a small place and we all know the amount of time teachers put in after hours, either grading reports, preparing for classes or volunteering at their local school. You will often see them at fetes, on school excursions or at things that happen outside school hours that are important to the school community, and preparing for their classes or grading work out of classes.
They are consistently and constantly doing extra work, yet we have seen, over the last year or so, teachers being treated disrespectfully. We just heard the member for Port Darwin talk about the fact that teachers have sacrificed up to $1000 of their pay in trying to fight CLP decisions around education in the Northern Territory. Instead of acknowledging, understanding or respecting that sacrifice and the extent of it, we see them attacked.
That is an extraordinary decision by teachers and it shows where their passion is. They are not disengaged, as the member for Port Darwin just suggested. They are extremely engaged with the welfare of the children in their classes. I find it confounding, in a sense, that we have this line down the Chamber and cannot be unified in how we deal with and treat workers in the Northern Territory. That is an extraordinary shame. The member for Port Darwin asked about the 4.4% and the pay rises that are on the table; I have been asked this question before in press conferences, and I think I have talked about it in the House before. I have always said we would not be dealing with an inflation rate of 4.4% in the Northern Territory if the Labor Party had remained in government. The CLP’s budget book talks about the inflationary pressure placed on the Northern Territory from the CLP’s decision to increase the price of power and water. The CLP made a deliberate decision to break its election promise around cutting the cost of living, and made a deliberate decision to increase the cost of power and water in the Northern Territory. The flow-on impact of that is inflation of 4.4%.
They seemed surprised that in their EBA negotiations there has been a response to that. The people have seen what they have done. They have seen the decisions they have made and the impact on inflation, and they want to negotiate their pay deal as a result of that. It comes as no surprise to our side, and I find it remarkable that it comes as a surprise to the other side, that people want to negotiate around a payoff of 3% when inflation is running at 4.4%, as a result of deliberate decisions by the government. You made those decisions. I refuse to believe you did not understand the consequences of those decisions when you made them. Yet, you seemed surprised when other people made the decision they would negotiate as a result. Of course they will negotiate. I suggest you negotiate with those unions; meet with them and discuss their underlying issues and concerns. For example, firefighters have extreme concerns about the attrition rate of firefighters in the Northern Territory. It is not too out there to suggest you have a conversation with firefighters about what is important to them. That is what they have put to us. I would be surprised if they have not put that to the other side.
There have also been concerns expressed by Corrections officers. I know the member for Port Darwin takes an active interest in Corrections and he has, to my understanding, a good relationship with Corrections officers. I am sure he has heard the same things I have about their concerns around the consultation involving the shift to the new gaol. There are just over 300 Corrections officers at Berrimah and it is indicated that about 260 will be needed at the new prison. They are saying they are receiving very little information about what will happen with the move and what will happen to what looks like about 50 or so excess staff and their permanent employment. They want to hear from this government about what is happening, and they are feeling a bit nervous. They are looking around and seeing how this government treats other workers and, as a result, they are starting to get nervous. The word the member for Nightcliff used was ‘shudders’. They are concerned; they have genuine concerns based on the actions of this government and how it has treated other workers and the lack of information that is flowing to them. They have informed us the NT government is looking at hiring 50 Corrections officers from NSW and Victoria to assist with the transfer process, and the unions are wondering what the role of those 50 officers will be. What is the role of the 50 officers who could be surplus? They are genuinely asking for more information from this government about how that process will work.
I know from the contribution to debate by the member for Port Darwin, from his media comments and from seeing him on prison grounds that he has a genuine interest in Corrections. I am sure he will be capable of providing that additional information to Corrections officers. I am putting it on the record here, and I am sure he will act on that and talk to them. They are genuinely concerned at the moment, and you can understand where their concern comes from when you see the way the CLP has treated other workers: teachers, nurses, police and firefighters. When you see the way they have interacted and worked with other workers, you can see why Corrections officers are concerned about how the CLP treats workers.
I know we had debates in the very early days of this government about valuing a professional public service, as we saw valuable corporate knowledge lost to the Northern Territory. You need a strong, independent and professional public service to get things done. We believe we had that, but we saw decades of corporate knowledge lost, unfortunately, when this government came into office and made decisions about who got to keep their job. We saw very poor morale. In many places, there is still very poor morale in the public service.
We suggest to the CLP that it looks at how it responds to workers when they raise concerns. Its first response and reaction seems to always go to a natural assumption that someone is bludging, faking, not genuine, being political, or that there is some other overriding motivation. This is instead of listening to them in the first instance and then having a well-considered response.
Probably the best example of that was the Chief Minister’s decision to laugh when the petition about the ED was tabled. He laughed at nurses, instead of taking a step back and genuinely listening to their concerns. His first reaction was to laugh. Too often, we see the first reaction of this government is to make an accusation, be aggressive, get on the front foot and throw a verbal punch, instead of listening and hearing the people and their concerns.
All people want is to be heard, but we see this government continually treating Territory workers with disrespect. That is why the member for Nightcliff brought forward this motion to condemn the CLP for its continued attacks on Territory workers. Within my shadow portfolios, the most obvious example is firefighters. I understand on the other side the Business minister has carriage of this, but on our side the shadow Attorney-General has carriage of workers compensation. We are extremely concerned about where the CLP might be heading on workers compensation.
Having read the review, we had a small win. I thank the member for Fong Lim, the Minister for Business, for extending the consultation period from December and January to the end of February. It was extremely difficult for people, over that Christmas period, to try to get their submissions in. It is important that people get their submissions in, because some of the stuff coming out of that review is genuinely worrying to workers. This includes: reducing the periods in which injured workers can receive compensation; reducing the amount of compensation injured workers can receive; and increasing the gap between the true cost of injury and the compensation received. Nobody on their way to hospital in an ambulance who has been injured in the workplace should be thinking, ‘Can I afford this hospital bill?’
Unfortunately, there is a possibility, through this review and the recommendations going through at the moment, that we will see a significant gap between the true cost of injury and compensation received. The CLP has not made up its mind yet, so we have time to convince them. There is also the possibility of capping compensation at two years. That is extremely concerning. If someone is genuinely injured in the workplace and they lose the bottom half of their leg, an eye or there is any extent of injury, that injury does not cease in two years. You have to look at the true cost of injury, and find a way of looking after our workers, because you have the right, as a worker, to be safe in your workplace. If you are injured in the workplace, you should be looked after.
We have some serious concerns about where the CLP might head on workers compensation. That consultation period is open at the moment. An extra month has been granted to make submissions, and we have been working very closely with stakeholders to ensure they submit theirs. This is an instance where, on this side, we must protect and stand up for workers’ rights. It is what we always do, what we have always done, and it is what we will continue to do. Whether we are in government or opposition, we will have a constant weather eye to the rights of workers, ensuring they are treated with respect and their contribution to the Northern Territory is valued. This year there are debates and challenges around what the workers compensation scheme in the Northern Territory might look like. We will work with unions and other stakeholders to make sure workers’ rights are not ignored or broken but are properly looked after in the workplace, especially if they are injured.
We are talking about workers with genuine injuries. You should not have the first reaction that someone is trying it on, bludging or faking it. Your first reaction should always be to take people at faith. The majority of people going through the workers compensation scheme now and into the future, by and large, will be genuine. Laws should be written based on genuine injury in the workplace, yet you get the feeling, through the direction workers compensation reform is going in, that there is a belief among the CLP that perhaps that is not the case, and that is not very healthy.
This goes back to the genuine concern we have and the continuing examples we see from the CLP of its first reaction to workers in the Northern Territory being one of aggression or lack of respect. I go back to the laughing at nurses example, or the accusation of firefighters being political for daring to have an interest in presumptive legislation around cancer, coming from firefighters with cancer who have lost firefighters to cancer. Only a week-and-a-half ago we lost another firefighter, unfortunately, to cancer. They have genuine concerns based on medical evidence. We have workers in the Northern Territory with genuine concerns about how they are treated by the CLP. This is not based on empty words; the CLP constantly shows workers how it feels.
The member for Nightcliff passionately brought forward this motion. She comes from a background of people who care about the rights of workers in the Northern Territory. She has chosen to pursue a vocation in the labour movement, to stand up for workers, and so brought forward a motion of incredible importance to the Northern Territory and the direction this government takes over the next two-and-a-half years. I only hope and ask the CLP to take a step back and decide, in the future, to treat workers with more respect. It is a reasonable request, that its first reaction not be laughter or making accusations, but listening and engaging. I support this motion.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this important motion that the Assembly condemn the CLP government for its continual attacks on Territory workers. Since coming to government, it has shown particular form in this area, showing it has no respect for workers on the front line and in the public sector through its words and actions. The treatment of these workers is the talk of the town. You would struggle to find someone who has not been impacted in some way by this government and how it has gone about its business and treated people working within the public sector.
We are now seeing the emergence of several workplace disputes with critical workers across the Territory. It is particularly disturbing to see this government’s attack on frontline workers who have the job of saving the lives of Territorians every day. It is little wonder workers currently trying to get through EBA negotiations have little trust or faith in the government. The government has form on saying one thing and not sticking to its promises. We all remember day two of the 2012 Territory election campaign and the ‘Your Job is Safe’ flyer CLP members and candidates were handing out in front of public sector workplaces. Their brochures made some pretty firm promises to public servants. A message from the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, said, on this brochure:
His response was:
Mr Speers again asked:
He replied:
On 24 August 2012, the member for Blain spoke to ABC News Breakfast and was asked the question:
His answer was:
On polling day, we also saw CLP corflutes at the booths, all over the place, stating, ‘Your job is safe’. These directly targeted public servants, trying to send them a message, a promise and some reassurance that if they were to give the CLP their vote, their jobs would be safe. Clearly, that was not the case.
On 8 August 2012, in an interview with Kate O’Toole on ABC radio, we heard the member for Port Darwin discuss his concerns, regarding temporary contracts within the public service:
It is now abundantly clear how this government deals with workers when negotiating EBAs and trying to resolve workplace issues. The CLP seems to feel the best way to work the EBAs is to clash head-on, instead of trying to negotiate in good faith. We saw a very long and protracted EBA process with the general public sector. We saw a barrage of e-mails from the Commissioner for Public Employment to public servants throughout these negotiations. We heard all sorts of stories about what was happening in the public service, including senior management in some agencies being instructed to speak to workers to sell the EBA.
At the second vote attempt, the government managed to just get that EBA over the line, pushing the 3% pay rise through – not a glowing victory or something to be proud of. During the public sector process, we saw the CLP again say the 3% pay offer was in line with forecasted inflation, but its own budget books dispute this. We have now seen the latest inflation figures come out at a whopping 4.4%. Public servants have not received a pay rise, more so a pay cut, as it is not keeping pace with the sky-rocketing cost of living. We now see the CLP is in pretty big disputes with Territory teachers and firefighters, and when we talk about frontline workers, they do not get much more frontline than teachers and firefighters.
The teachers threw your first EBA offer back in your face with over 80% of the vote, which is a huge demonstration of their lack in faith in what the government is doing to the Territory’s education system. This government will argue that EBAs are just about money and try to paint these workers as money hungry with no real passion for the work they do or care for the services they provide. We saw only last week the Minister for Public Employment questioning if firefighters are trading on their good reputation for excessive personal gain. That shows how arrogant the CLP is and how it lacks respect for our vital public service workforce.
Workers negotiate EBAs around their conditions too. That is an important part of EBAs. They should be pushing for good conditions in the workplace so they can do their jobs to the best of their ability. It is a pretty important part of any EBA negotiation. We have now seen our vital Territory paramedics join the list of workers who have voted overwhelmingly to take protected action regarding their pay and conditions.
Paramedics in the Territory do an amazing job, just like our police, firefighters and hospital staff. They see things that most of us could not fathom on a day-to-day basis. They are on the front line, saving lives every day. It takes a very special person to become a paramedic, and after recently meeting with a group of ambos, I have learnt a lot about paramedics and the job they do.
The CLP government may very well argue today that the dispute with paramedics is one between St John and paramedics. However, given the government contracts St John to provide these essential services – and there are clearly some big issues in the workplace here – they need to get involved. Territorians need the best possible care provided to them by the St John Ambulance Service. When you have 81 paramedics voting on whether or not to take protected industrial action, and 80 of those paramedics vote yes and one votes no, we have some problems.
This should be ringing alarm bells; the government should be getting involved with the paramedics to find out what is happening and what the issues are that have left them with no choice but to vote on this action. I met for some time with paramedics to hear firsthand what their concerns are and where they need the government to start listening. It was quite an experience for me and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity they gave me to hear what it is like to be a paramedic in the NT, to go out on the job to the situations they go into. It really helped me understand the huge expectations placed on their shoulders and what a unique job being a paramedic is. It is certainly a job I could not do and I thank the paramedics for the opportunity to hear about the challenges they see day-to-day.
It was great to see, firsthand, how passionate they are about the work they do. They made you see that if you are unfortunate enough to end up in the back of an ambulance, you really are in good hands.
These are people who really care about what they do. I was disappointed to hear that paramedics and the United Voice union have requested meetings with the Health minister to directly raise their concerns about the workplace, but at this stage, it has been to no avail.
I urge the Health minister to sit down with paramedics and hear their stories, and why it is they have reached this point where 98.7% of them feel they have no option but to take protected action. There are a range of pay and workplace conditions that paramedics are deeply concerned about. I will say up front that paramedics, like most Territorians, are finding it challenging to keep up with the cost of living. With inflation at 4.4% and the continued massive power and water hikes and rates and rent increases, they are also not finding it easy to live in the Northern Territory.
Paramedics deserve fair pay and fair allowances to keep them here. We want to see that they undergo training and development in the Territory and stay here for their careers. We want to see a workforce of paramedics with strong retention rates. Sometimes, no matter how passionate someone is about the job they do, if the pay and conditions are just not there and they cannot afford to live here, they have no other option but to leave. This is an area that must be considered.
Our paramedics deserve fair pay and allowances for the tough job they do every day saving lives. Paramedics also raised workplace conditions, and this shows their decision to take protected action is well beyond a matter of just pay. They have genuine concerns about issues in the workplace that are putting them under more pressure and potentially impacting their ability to do their job to the highest standard they are always striving towards.
Our paramedics want to do the best job all the time, but they are finding at times there are workplace practices that can compromise that. The paramedics were concerned that, at times, the full crews that St John is contracted to run and provide by the NT government are not all on the road. When you are a crew down, that puts the crews on duty under even more pressure when they are on shift. It means fewer hands on duty and the crews at work are put under the pump throughout the entire shift. Clearly, running crews down is not ideal for the paramedics and the people who need their services.
Another issue paramedics are very concerned about is the professional development and support for student paramedics. Paramedics work in crews of two and it is not uncommon to see situations where student paramedics are sent out to work together on their shifts, which is not an ideal practice. It takes up to four years for a student paramedic to become fully qualified, and clearly, they are on the job very early and gain a huge amount of experience in that time. This was a big concern to paramedics. They want student paramedics to be on the road with a qualified paramedic every time.
This is giving the student the benefit of being with someone of greater experience and exposure to the many different situations they find themselves attending. It also means more professional mentoring for them on the job. It is a very reasonable concern of the paramedics and one that really needs to be addressed. Most people, when they call an ambulance, have an expectation they will get at least one fully qualified paramedic as part of the crew assisting them. Paramedics were greatly concerned about this and it is something they want addressed.
There were also concerns raised about the massive jobs call takers and dispatch teams take on every day. They are the people on the phone as the emergency is called through who have the big task of making decisions about dispatching crews. They are sometimes in situations with one dispatcher in charge of controlling up to 30 vehicles and doing all the radio work for a 12-hour shift for the entire Territory. The team is responsible for all incoming calls for the entire Territory, and this could include liaison with all health services such as clinics, NGOs, CareFlight, hospitals, RFDS, etcetera.
There is a real desire for additional training and professional development for these workers who support the crews, and additional supervision is only available for 12 hours every day. The paramedics also had concerns about the ambulances and the current designs and improvements they want to see to help reduce workplace injuries, increase the safety of paramedics as the ambulances are going and, most importantly, changes they felt would assist them in being able to give care to patients in ambulances.
There are some big issues in the workforce of paramedics across the Territory right now. I am sure the government will say these are just operational issues and disputes that need to be resolved between the paramedics and St John. However, when you see 98.7% of the workforce with clear and genuine concerns about their workplace, the government cannot ignore the situation and push it back on to St John. These are real issues and a lot of work needs to be done. I hope the government has heard the concerns and issues I have raised tonight on behalf of paramedics and the Health minister will take action to sit down with paramedics and help work through them.
Our paramedics do a critical job in the Territory. We have the utmost respect for them and the St John Ambulance Service, and we have faith in their ability and care. It is vital we keep as many of our hard-working paramedics in the Territory, and we can only do that if we give them fair pay and conditions. I call on the government to sit down with the paramedics so these issues can be resolved as soon as possible. They have certainly told me about their dedication to their job, their love of the job and of working in the Territory. We should be backing them. They are the ones who save lives and they deserve our support.
I now turn to concerns I have about the complete and utter disrespect with which the CLP has treated workers in the Power and Water Corporation. I am pretty passionate about Power and Water because I used to work there. About 10 years ago I started working at Sadadeen Valley in Alice Springs with the staff of Power and Water. I got to see firsthand what an amazing bunch of workers they are and how dedicated they are to their jobs. Whether they are in water services, power networks, generation, retail or corporate, Power and Water workers are fully committed to that place and do an incredible job.
Sometimes, Territorians do not fully appreciate the work these people do. We see power networks teams heading out in some of the biggest storms, hail and floods. They are on the scene trying to ensure people are safe and their power can be switched back on as soon as possible. I have seen them in the workplace and have seen the amazing support those workers give to each other when something goes wrong. They work in a very dangerous field. When something goes wrong, those accidents are dire, and we have seen some pretty horrible workplace incidents over the years. I cannot get over how much they rally together and support each other to get people back to work as soon as possible, back into their jobs, back into their careers and doing the things they love. It is something I have always felt very proud of.
In the Territory, we sometimes take for granted having the lights on and the water running. You can thank your Power and Water workers for all the work they do to get that done. Under this government, all I hear is that morale is at an all-time low at Power and Water. It is little wonder when you hear statements from the CLP government saying Power and Water is a basket case and is inefficient and bloated. In your time in government, you have gone about trashing the reputation and professionalism of Power and Water staff. They hear what you say and think you are a disgrace. It does not look like the pain at Power and Water will stop any time soon. We know the government is moving to split Power and Water. Today, we were given notice that legislation will be brought before the House to create a split to create Power and Water Generation Corp and Power and Water Retail Corporation. We also heard some firm words from the Treasurer yesterday about looking at privatisation and the sell off of Power and Water.
Workers there are faced with a lot of uncertainty about what is happening. They do not know what will happen after the split on 1 July 2014 and are not feeling any more certain after hearing statements from the Treasurer on ABC on 9 January 2014. He said:
I imagine if you said that at a toolbox meeting with network guys they would have some pretty interesting things to say. The Treasurer also said:
We are now seeing them go down the path of a split. We know new boards will be established under this split, and the only reassurance staff have been given is that the new boards will make decisions about who has a job and who does not. That is not much reassurance for them. Apparently people are not feeling too good because they have no certainty about their future within Power and Water and where they will be after 1 July 2014. They have not even figured out how they will share services, so things are not going too well. That is a disgrace because these are really hard workers, dedicated and committed to the Territory, who do an amazing job every day. Under the CLP, they have been shown no respect, have been treated with contempt and, unfortunately, it looks like things will get a hell of a lot worse for them.
What I want to know is, with the changes, with the transitions the CLP intends to put through with the splits, will they be doing the change management within Power and Water? Will they be upfront with workers and tell them where they stand, where they are going and what lies ahead for them in their jobs? Will workers get the right human resources support if they do not have a job?
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: I hope, as part of these transition plans, there is a lot of consideration given to these workers because they have gone through a hell of a lot and will go through a hell of a lot more by the end of the year. The government should be upfront with them about where they stand and where they are going. That is what they deserve, because things have not been that way and they are not having a very good time.
I turn to the treatment of Health staff, particularly the petition last year from ED staff about double-bunking. The reaction of the Chief Minister was not great, we all know that. It was pretty bad then, and we are now hearing there is a lot of pressure on staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. Double-bunking is still happening in the ED, there is a lot of pressure on the wards, we are seeing bed block and they are going through a lot. We have also heard, very clearly, that there are more cuts to come, and they will be significant cuts this year. This will mean cuts to services and, I daresay, many cuts to jobs within the Health department. That is a real concern because, like education, we have the biggest deficits in health here in the Territory. If you have the worst outcomes, the answer is not to start stripping away and cutting further. It will be interesting to see how that is handled, but also what support and respect is shown to the staff.
We also know that this year we are going into EBA negotiations with the nurses. Nurses do an amazing job in the Territory; they are critical. I would like to think the government will treat nurses with the respect they deserve, but I thought it would treat the teachers with a hell of a lot more respect than it has. I do not have much faith in that process going forward. Let us see how things go with the nurses; I hope you put a fair offer on the table and give them the best possible conditions because our nurses deserve it. They do an amazing job.
With the teacher numbers and education cuts, it has been a trying process for people in our schools. It has also been a tough process in the Department of Education. There is no doubt that in schools in my electorate morale is pretty bad. People are upset with changes occurring. There have been huge turnovers in primary schools in my electorate because of this situation – managing temporary contract workers, no longer having a job, trying to reshuffle people out of the department into schools again, etcetera. You are losing really talented teachers. One of my schools in particular - I remember speaking to the Grade Six teacher last year who lost her job. She loved being at the school and was great there, but she was taken out because she had a temporary contract. This was despite the fact students loved her, she was doing a great job and had fitted in well with the community.
It was for the sake of getting rid of her for convenience, rather than holding onto her expertise and the passion she brought to teaching and serving the students of that community. That was a shame. The handling of education cuts and the uncertainty in the education system has not been handled well at all. Let us see how the rest of the EBA negotiation goes with the teachers, but I do not have much hope there, considering how it has gone so far with the bullyboy tactics going into this negotiation.
I am also hearing stories when I chat to people. I did some doorknocking last week; I knocked on 80 doors, and you certainly run into a few public servants when you do that. I have been hearing all sorts of stories. One thing I found quite concerning was that, apparently, when positions in some agencies which are technically frontline become vacant, they are being told they cannot recruit externally and must take from within the agency. This is pulling resources from other sections. Ultimately, it is putting more pressure on the frontline workers. There is a lot of pressure there; people are feeling the pain of the cuts and extra workloads they are taking on. There are some real issues there.
I will wrap up. So far under the CLP government, the treatment of workers across the Northern Territory has been shameful. The CLP should be condemned for the way it has gone about negotiating with public servants and the way it has treated workers. They need to start sitting down with workers and unions and negotiating in good faith, rather than with the bullyboy tactics we have seen. It is getting us nowhere, and it is not helping Territorians. It is ultimately impacting on service delivery, which is not a good thing.
Our public service and our workers deserve respect; they are essential to the future of the Northern Territory. I support this motion.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I speak to support the motion. We, on this side of House, are very proud of our historical role of ensuring Australian workers are treated fairly and with dignity. For well over 100 years we have fought side by side with the union movement for many of the basic entitlements and freedoms all workers across the country can now enjoy. From an eight-hour day to sick leave, fair and just workers compensation schemes, the right to collectively bargain and universal superannuation, we always have and always will stand up for the right of all Territorians to a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.
We will always do everything we can to provide Territorians with the job security they need to raise their families, plan for their future and enjoy all the things that make the Territory such a fantastic place to live. That is why, in government, we employed more nurses, teachers and police, and ensured they were properly paid for the fantastic work they do. That is why we treated employees and their representatives with dignity and respect in sometimes difficult EBA negotiations. That is why we invested significant resources to ensure Territory workplaces were as safe as they could be. Territorians came to expect and were entitled to expect that government would be on their side in the workplace, and they would not be hung out to dry and abandoned when the going got tough. Territorians were also entitled to take the CLP at its word when it promised to look after public servants.
My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, has outlined some of the commitments the CLP took to the last election, but they are worth repeating: The Country Liberals plan to:
There is more:
Wait for it:
Let’s wait for it –
What a cruel hoax those promises turned out to be. The CLP never intended to keep these commitments, because they do not believe in them. They do not believe that Territorians deserve incomes that stay ahead of CPI increases.
They do not believe in adequately resourcing our public servants so they can provide the level of service Territorians deserve. They do not believe in treating teachers, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters and our police with the respect and dignity they deserve, and they certainly do not believe in standing side by side with Territorians when the going gets tough and their jobs are on the line. We have seen this with their abandonment of the people of Nhulunbuy. From day one of this vicious and vindictive CLP government, we have seen an unprecedented attack on Territory workers. We have seen enormous increases in the cost of living, massive power prices and cuts to services, making it harder for Territorians to make ends meet.
We have seen public servants sacked across the board. We have seen teachers sacked and resources for education slashed across the board. We have seen the stripping of resources and support, which is crucial to delivering a high-level of service for all Territorians. We know morale in the public service, from teachers to bus drivers, firefighters, prison officers and police, is at an all-time low. We also know the slashing and burning done to date is just the tip of the iceberg, with the announcement of more cuts to come. This has divided a shambolic CLP government delivering vicious cuts across the board. It has shown they lack the most basic decency, courtesy and respect when it comes to dealing with Territorians who we all rely upon to keep the Territory the place we love and want to live in.
An example, among many that stand out for me, was the disgraceful arrogance and immaturity displayed by the Chief Minister when he belittled and insulted our hard-working nurses for having the temerity to petition this parliament. This is a window into the wretched soul of this CLP government. It was unbelievable, disgraceful behaviour and Territory nurses will not forget it and we will not forget it.
Not to be outdone, the very vocal member for Port Darwin entered the fray; ‘I can do better than that’. He suggested that Territory firefighters are trading on their hard-earned good name for the purposes of personal enrichment. That is an absolutely disgraceful slur by the member for Port Darwin. If the member for Port Darwin had any inkling of good grace he would apologise for his outrageous and unprovoked insult to our firefighters. We know he will not, because that is what every member opposite stands for, especially the member for Port Darwin. Territorians will not forget such disgraceful behaviour, and we will ensure it hounds the CLP every day until Territorians get a chance to vote out this horrid and mean-spirited government.
The truly scary thing is, we know the cuts and arrogance to date are just the tip of the iceberg. We know departments are being asked to slash their budgets by double-digit percentages. We know there are further job cuts to come; we have seen the shabby way the CLP treated bus drivers and has moved to privatise the Darwin bus service. We know they are planning to privatise Power and Water, we know they are looking to privatise our Corrections system when they can. Despite the lines the member for Stuart regurgitates after the Chief Minister pats her on the head, we all know the CLP is planning to privatise our parks. We know it is getting ready for an unprecedented attack on our workers compensation scheme.
The CLP must come clean and level with Territorians about all its plans. We know that is what the CLP stands for and it should find the courage to tell the truth about its plans to all Territorians. This side of the House will not let these further cuts happen without a fight. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians and fight the CLP’s mean-spirited attack on our standard of living and way of life. We will continue to fight for fair wages, the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and for the idea that government should always be on Territorians’ side.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff, our shadow minister for Public Employment, for bringing this important debate to the House for General Business. It has been an interesting 15-odd months. People went to the election signing up to a contract, with trust in that contract, and once broken, you cannot regain that trust.
The CLP former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, had earned the community’s trust through a range of political tools, such as the contracts he personally signed in remote communities with senior elders respected in their communities. He ran a very strong campaign throughout the election, really going to the heart of trust, and ensured the message of, ‘Trust us on these matters. You can trust us. I will sign a contract with you.’ We witnessed, writ large, the large truck in the mall as he signed the contract with Territorians and members of his team lined up and also signed that contract. Madam Speaker, you were there.
Every point signed off in that contract has been broken. The trust has been completely shattered. What we find opposite in the incumbent leadership team of the members for Braitling and Fong Lim is an arrogance not witnessed in the political history of the Northern Territory. That is a comment from a great, diverse range of Territorians across the Northern Territory. It is a comment made by card-carrying members of the CLP. I was raised in the Territory, a child of a politician, so I know people from both walks of political life; my mother was an Independent. It is incredible for me when people I know who are CLP say to me, ‘Get this lot out, they are not who we want’. I say, ‘Hang on a second, you are a member of the CLP. You have been a member of the CLP Central Council, what are you saying?’ They have said they do not behave in that way. They are talking about the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim; they are very pointed about that.
Ms Finocchiaro interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Drysdale, I cannot hear your interjection, but I caution some wisdom in your career.
The trust and contract were there, writ large, pursued by the member for Blain, broken early by the member for Blain, and he fell in popularity. People felt he fundamentally breached their trust, in regard to the cost of living as he came in with the member for Araluen and jacked up power and water prices. That was a real turning point in the relationship between the member for Blain and his community. Increasingly, different aspects of that trust started to erode and break as we saw the cuts happen across the public sector and real jobs being lost. Those were jobs people had to then put up with the government saying were not being cut because they were contract. They were not recognised as people who had a job in that agency; they ceased to exist in the mind of the CLP government.
We are a small community. Those people live in our community, are raising families among us and have lost their jobs due to your decisions. You did not even have the basic common decency to acknowledge that. They were wiped. No, you consider jobs as permanent positions only. You would not even recognise the contractors who lost their jobs. You are doing the same in the education dispute. In the eyes of the CLP, you are only a teacher if you have a permanent job. If you are a contractor, you have been wiped; you ceased to exist. When you fundamentally breach the trust of people to the extent there is no basic decency in the way you treat them, refer to them or talk about their lot in life, that is a whole new low we have not witnessed in the Territory before.
The fear and loathing across the public service is very genuine and real. People go to work, do the very best they can, and they are frightened. They are trying to keep their jobs, because they are very concerned that if they are perceived as doing something wrong, they will be removed.
The things this community has not witnessed before are starting to have a real impact on how people feel, the way they feel about their jobs and their job security. That is why we describe it as bullying, because it has been. They have watched good public servants, who were simply going about their duties under Labor, being singled out and cut out under the CLP because they were perceived as being too close to the Labor government. It has been incredible to watch this situation and the bullying and implied threats. This behaviour is continuing.
The thing about living in a jurisdiction with small communities across towns is that people talk. They talk at barbecues and sports matches, and they talk in hushed tones in the change rooms at sports clubs. As you heard from my colleagues, they talk to us, as local members, in private; we hear it. You then hear it from the unions that represent them. They talk quietly to the unions that represent them about what they are going through and the people who have lost their jobs around them, while the government says, ‘No, those jobs have not been lost’.
They talk about how hard their jobs have become, just to turn up and do it, because a job previously done by five people is now being done by one or two. It simply cannot be done effectively and efficiently any longer. They are under enormous strain; I am talking about our public servants. When the public servants’ CPSU agreement tried to go beyond 3%, they could not. They did not get that far. They were not in a position of strength in terms of bargaining. They were the administrative officers who do the great unsung hero work across our public sector. Not only did you not satisfy yourself with giving them a wage increase that is a cut in real terms, because of the way you have escalated the CPI inflation rate to – it was 2.1% under Labor. It is now 4.4% under the CLP, because of your power price rises and other foolish decisions – a situation you created.
Not only were you not satisfied with giving them a real cut in real terms, you went further and removed permanency in the public service. You made it easier to sack people, and you then snuck out a letter over Christmas, saying, ‘Hey, CEs, take a 10% cut to your budgets’. People know what that means. They know another 10% cut across agency budget means jobs will go. You cannot save 10% out of budgets without getting rid of jobs, and permanency has gone from the conditions of that EBA.
We then look at how you treated teachers – that frontline contract, writ large and signed on a large truck in the mall. That contract was put into people’s letterboxes and handed out at the front of public service agencies, saying jobs were safe. The contract that says:
You sacked 50 teachers in the first year alone. We do not have the exact numbers on how many more you sacked, because there is a fairly incomprehensible response to an FOI from the education union. You certainly will not make those numbers public without a fight, but you will get the fight. You have not strengthened the public service, you have taken a wrecking ball to it.
This picture of the member for Port Darwin standing there with, ‘Your job is safe under the Country Liberals plan to strengthen the NT Public Service …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, put it down.
Ms LAWRIE: … and your job is safe’. I can guarantee you, member for Port Darwin, that will be in every letterbox in Port Darwin in the 2016 election. Just underneath will be the numbers of public servants you sacked. Every foul action you take will come back to roost, because we are an opposition that will hold you to account for this despicable treachery and breach of trust.
In your electorate, as the flyers are hitting your letterbox, try to work out how many teachers, firefighters, ambulance paramedics, port workers, prison officers, bus drivers, people who used to work at the Government Printing Office before you sold it, nurses, doctors – start adding up the 17000-odd public servants and work out which electorates they are in. We will be communicating your foul and despicable behaviour to them at the election. We will be sending quotes of your comments to them.
Mr Tollner: Your turn is coming, love.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim. ‘Your turn is coming, love’. That is a classic. ‘Don’t worry, love, we’ll get you.’ Member for Fong Lim, people are sick of the way you treat people; they are over it. Negotiations in EBAs are not unusual. The manner in which you have spoken about people seeking a fair day’s pay for their efforts has been appalling.
How can you live without apologising for your comments about firefighters, member for Port Darwin? The comments do not go unnoticed and we will be reminding people of your behaviour, what you have said and the way you have treated them. People say to me in the street and in the shopping centres I visit that you think they will forget. You think that maybe when you try to do a few things to curry favour with them in the next two years, they will forget. They will not forget the way you have treated them. You have breached their trust. You have increased the cost of living and sacked public servants, fundamental breaches of the contract. Just as in remote communities, people are saying, ‘Well, hang on a second, they signed these contracts with us and it has not happened. When will it happen because they are running out of time?’ There is a whole host of unfunded election commitments, running to a couple of billion dollars in those community contracts across the bush. You want to have an assets fire sale and have decided that the assets fire sale to fund your unfunded election commitments in the bush will be of Power and Water, our utility.
You did not go to the election, you do not have a mandate to sell it, but you are rushing to split it up and are making fundamental mistakes on the way. You say you will make it commercially profitable and put networks into Power and Water or carve off generation or retail. You then look surprised when Power and Water tells the Utilities Commissioner it needs a 47% or 58% increase in network prices. The commissioner says he will give them 43% and you do not have a choice about when it is determined. You have to either pass on the 43% networks price in July or $1.1bn in debt through a community service obligation, member for Port Darwin. That is $1.1bn added to the bill, because Dave Tollner, the member for Fong Lim, does not get that you cannot be commercially profitable in networks sitting in Power and Water when you carve out the somewhat profitable areas of generation and retail.
Splitting up when you are in a small marketplace has led to upwards pressure on tariffs; it will continue to and privatisation will do that job plus some. That is the cruel legacy the member for Fong Lim wants to leave Territorians, to sell their assets and have them increasingly hurting in the hip pocket forever; talk about pathetic economic management. They wonder, when inflation CPI is running at 4.4%, that Territory workers say the government has increased their power bills to the point of them struggling to pay household bills, such as the rent or mortgage, and they did not factor in $2000 a year extra for power price increases. They need a pay rise just to cover CPI. No, we did not have this problem under Labor because we were not running at 4.4% inflation and we pegged our EBAs to inflation.
We understood that while we had to suppress real growth through the tough years of global financial crisis affected budgets – which we did in tough EBA negotiations – we did not give them a cut in real terms by coming almost two percentage points under inflation. That is why workers are saying, ‘We cannot cop this’. That is why you will have protracted disputes through the year, because they cannot afford power bills hiking up, plus a wage that does not meet increasing inflation.
You have created a problem that you have to grapple with, and what really rubs is the way you treat people with such disrespect. What gives you the right to treat people with such disrespect? You are servants of the public. You have been elected to serve the public, yet you treat them despicably, as if they are beneath you. This has been appalling to witness. You give all politicians a bad name. Treat people with respect, start with that, have a respectful conversation and respectfully listen. Start with that, then, beyond that, open your minds and your understanding to what their pressures are.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Open your eyes to what the pressure points are. Listening to each of the unions involved in the disputes and what they are trying to land on, they are not going for exorbitant conditions. They understand your message is of tight fiscal parameters, and they are trying to land on a reasonable landing point. They are getting unreasonable responses.
To top it off, the Chief Minister is making great announcements that we will get rid of the May Day public holiday and Territory Day will be the public holiday instead. When I heard it, I said, ‘I guess no one is surprised he is attacking the day when workers celebrate the eight-hour working day and the labour movement because that is all he does’. He attacks workers. That is sticking to form. Can you not just be a little better than that? Even though he has said publicly a couple of times, ‘No, we will get rid of May Day’, when questioned about May Day being axed on Alice Springs radio, the Chief Minister said:
It speaks volumes on the way he treats people. Ipso facto: incredibly arrogant!
This Chief Minister and this Treasurer will be the CLPs worst undoing. You have done more damage in your reign than your colleagues, the members for Araluen and Blain, even marginally did. If members of the CLP government previously deposed the leadership because they were unpopular and saw a slippery slide to loss, you made it a whole lot worse when you decided on those two. Do Territory workers a favour and start to treat them with some decency and respect; work with them. It is a really good group of people across all these sectors who will generally roll up their sleeves and work with you, given the opportunity. Stop bullying them. Stop threatening them and trying to sack them. Give them decent pay for a decent day’s work, because they keep the Territory running with critical service delivery right across the Territory. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak on this but thought it was probably worth exploding a few myths about this network determination that seems to have the Opposition Leader in such a flurry. She believes, somehow, it is all the fault of the CLP and that because we are structurally separating the corporation, increases have come about. For history’s sake, I might take the Opposition Leader through this. She knows where she has been a little loose with the truth, how she has been creating fear among Territorians and banking on them being a little ignorant of the issue. She is trying to whip up hysteria and fear in the community like crazy.
On 23 December 2013, the Utilities Commission released its draft determination for network charges able to be levelled by the Power and Water Corporation networks for the five-year regulatory control period between July 2014 and June 2019. The Utilities Commission draft determination outlines a total revenue path, or in economic terms, the maximum allowable revenue for the forthcoming five-year period. On 28 January 2014, the Power and Water Corporation then submitted a revised regulatory proposal, raising certain matters in the commission’s draft determination. The draft determination represents a 43% increase in network tariffs in 2014-15, and increases to 51% under the revised proposals from the Power and Water Corporation. The main drivers of the increase in required network revenue are increasing operation and maintenance expenditure, and an increase in the allowable depreciation expense. I repeat, the main drivers are increased operation, operating and maintenance expenditure and an increase in allowable depreciation expenses. You have to wonder why it needs such an increase in operation and maintenance, given the Opposition Leader was the Treasurer who presided over the Corporation for so long and we were assured the networks were in a good state of order.
However, in recent times, the Opposition Leader has been very mischievous and quite outrageous in a range of statements she has made both in this House and publicly. She has said the draft determination includes costs associated with structural separation, and she said that just a minute ago as well. She says it includes generation costs, and that it adds $1bn in debt because of CLP policy and that the decision has been made by government.
As a former Treasurer, I expect the Opposition Leader to be somewhat more responsible with her arguments as she should be well aware none of the statements she made are true, and she knows it. Is that any way for an Opposition Leader to act, making outrageous statements like that, none of which are true? I will go through them. She says it reflects some of the costs of structural separation. She knows the Utilities Commission determination is based on the power networks being a discrete entity and that it has nothing to do with the rest of the corporation. It is solely about the networks, always has been and always will be. She knows the draft determination has absolutely nothing, zero, to do with generation costs. She knows it will not add $1bn in debt because of CLP policy, yet she runs that sort of mischievous line.
The draft determination recognises that Power and Water is entitled to recover approximately $1bn in revenue via network charges over the next five years. It does not add $1bn of debt. I point out this is exactly the same framework, and for that matter, the same commercial and recovery principles from when the Opposition Leader was Treasurer. Nothing has changed.
It is worth noting that the former government increased electricity tariffs to households by 18%, which coincided with the 2009 Utilities Commission network determination. She knows - if she does not, she is ignorant - this is how the Utilities Commission operates. Without the tariff increases and proposed expenditure deferments, Power and Water Corporation’s capital expenditure for asset management and meeting the expected growth in demand would require financing through additional borrowings. Is the Opposition Leader now suggesting that if she was Treasurer she would be prepared to add more debt to her scandalous $5.5bn? Is this what the Opposition Leader is suggesting in all her public utterances about this price determination?
Some of the utterances coming from the Opposition Leader are misleading. To suggest these are decisions made by government is untrue. It is the Utilities Commission making these decisions. Under the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Code, a schedule of the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Act, the Utilities Commission is required to set the revenues the network service provider can recover or prices which can be charged for the provision of regulated network access services. That is the fact. The Utilities Commission is an arm’s length organisation. It was when Labor was in government and it still is now. Nothing has changed in that regard. If the former Treasurer has concerns about the Utilities Commission draft determination, she only has to look in the mirror to find someone to blame. How can you have a 43% increase in charges based on operations and maintenance if you did not let the organisation deteriorate in the first place?
Mr McCarthy: 30 years, not 10 years.
Mr TOLLNER: No, this is since 2009, member for Barkly. The last network determination was in 2009.
Mr McCarthy: Are we are talking networks?
Mr TOLLNER: No, we are simply talking about the network price determination. That is what we are talking about right now. That is what the Opposition Leader is talking about, make no mistake. When she says the Utilities Commissioner said we have to put our power prices up by 43%, she was talking about the network price draft determination, as put out by the Utilities Commission. That is what she is talking about. She knows that it is a bit of a porky pie.
The same thing happened in 2009, at the time you guys increased power price by 18%. Why do you think that was? Oh, yeah, you can talk about things prior to 2009, that is fine; all right, it was a rundown dump of a system and you came in and fixed it. How much did you fix it if we will now pay an additional 43%?
Everywhere else in Australia, prices go up by 3%, 4% or 5%, but here the Utilities Commission determines 43%, and that is nothing to do with this government. The former Treasurer absolutely knows it, without a doubt. She was the shareholding minister during that time. She should fundamentally understand these things. No, she does not tell people that. She misleads the community, creating hysteria and concern that power prices will go up. We have heard it over and over again in Question Time. We heard it a minute ago when she was talking to this nonsense motion, and we hear it almost every second day in the media. She is not concerned at all that she is misleading the Northern Territory population with these wild assertions. It is an absolute disgrace.
Is she really suggesting her government would put another $1bn into Power and Water and go further into debt from the scandalous situation she has already left us in? Come on, get real. That is nonsense, and it is outrageous for her to talk about that. When she talks that nonsense, you have to wonder, when she is actually found out, whether people will question all of the other nonsense she talks. The amount of people losing their jobs; ‘Oh, we have people everywhere telling us they lost their jobs’. Tell us how many jobs have been lost.
Mr McCarthy: You keep the books on that.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, and you guys do not, but you are quite prepared to say there are hundreds and thousands of jobs going missing, when you have absolutely no clue.
Mr McCarthy: Tell us, give us the numbers.
Mr TOLLNER: You can simply go to the office of the public service commissioner’s website and look yourself. The minister was here a little while ago, and I am sure he outlined those numbers exactly.
Mr McCarthy: Workplaces tells us though. That is all right.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. You would rather operate from scuttlebutt, innuendo and rumour than fact. It is like listening to the Opposition Leader talk about power prices.
It is a pack of lies and you make it up as you go along. It is as simple as that and you know it. If she does not know what is going on, she makes it up, like she is making up the fact there will be a 43% increase in power bills. What a load of nonsense. Even you, member for Barkly, know that is not happening. Yet you sit idly by and nod while she makes those absurd claims and tries to fearmonger in the community. You do not pull her up. You do not say, ‘Look, Delia, come on, love, this has gone a bit too far’. You do not say anything like that. You sit happily by and agree with her making up this sort of nonsense. It is absolute bunkum and you then run these sorts of stupid motions, like how the Territory is going to hell in a hand basket. You are trying to wreck the Territory, depress business confidence and make every Territorian feel insecure about their job. That is your act.
Mr Vatskalis: They are insecure.
Mr TOLLNER: Why are they feeling insecure, member for Casuarina? Why would a bus driver be feeling insecure?
Mr Vatskalis: The bus service has been sold.
Mr TOLLNER: The bus service has been sold so bus drivers should feel insecure? Is that how it works? This is the mindless logic that you come up with. No one said buses are being shut down; the buses will keep operating. There is a demand for bus drivers, I do not know if you have noticed that. Why would they feel insecure? Why would anybody in the Northern Territory feel insecure when they know there are more jobs here than people to fill them?
This is the sort of nonsense you people come up with. You preach fear and concern, trying to whip up as much hysteria as you possibly can, making stuff up about the Power and Water Corporation and telling outright lies which you know are lies. You do not seem to care; you think this is just the game. It is a disgrace; what sort of opposition are you? At least do your homework. There are some things the government has got wrong. I am quite prepared to take the hits on that.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Would the minister be prepared to table those, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have a document you would like to table?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am a member of Cabinet and I support Cabinet decisions.
It is not my job to do yours for you. There have been a couple of little hiccups; every government has a couple and it is your job to dig them up, not make them. Get some facts, but I do not think there is a single person on this side of the House who would say they are not prepared to make a few mistakes along the way. In government, we are prepared to have a go, and when you have a go, every now and again you make a few mistakes. That is the nature of having a go, the nature of taking risks, of sticking your neck out and trying to do something. You do make the odd mistake here and there. Providing on balance you get more right than you get wrong, you will progress forward.
You guys think you can toss out any sort of nonsense you like and we will swallow it. Well, we will not. I have just called you out on this power network stuff and I challenge the Opposition Leader to have a rational argument about it. She knows I am right and you know I am right. You know the Utilities Commission is independent, you know it is not government making the determination and it is the Utilities Commission. It has nothing to do with generation or the separation of Power and Water. You only have to go to their website and read why they made the determination. I will guarantee you right now, you will not find the words ‘structural separation’ mentioned in any of that determination. That has no impact at all on network tariff increases, absolutely none. The Utilities Commission makes the determination, not the government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Fong Lim be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not really need to be doing the opposition’s job, filibustering for them because they have nothing else to say. I relished the opportunity to set the record straight, to some extent, on this network determination, where the Opposition Leader feels she has a moral right to mislead Territorians, tell them blatant porky pies and scare the daylights out of them about what she sees as potential terrible price rises. What a load of nonsense.
I also love the indignation you guys display every time the word ‘privatisation’ is mentioned. You cannot privatise anyone according to these guys, these knuckleheads across the room. That is not allowed. Ignore the fact Telstra was privatised by Labor, all the utilities around the country were privatised by Labor and probably about 95% of all privatisations in Australia have occurred under a Labor government. You guys conveniently ignore that but will whip up fear and hysteria that something will be privatised, even though there has been no mention of it. You will keep going, keep saying the government will privatise this or do that, or we will sack thousands of people here, thousands of people there, cut jobs, or that we have a philosophical desire to smash up education. How bizarre are you people? Do you think about anything that comes out of your gobs? It is beyond the pale.
I will sit down and hopefully we will get on to a more sensible motion. I see we have something coming up on the Tiwi Islands and the carbon tax, and I am sure that will be a fantastic debate as well.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak on this, but I cannot resist when I hear big Dave give us lectures on privatisation and utilities. I am dumbfounded because obviously the CLP has been on the road to Damascus, especially with privatisation, and big Dave is preparing everybody for privatisation of Power and Water. I remind the member for Fong Lim it was the CLP government that resisted privatising power supply and distribution in the Territory. Should I remind CLP members, including the member for Fong Lim, that the CLP resisted Paul Everingham’s attempt to enter the energy market in the Territory? As a result, Mr Everingham took the Territory government to court and the Territory government found it had breached the legislation and was fined $16m to pay Mr Everingham. Unfortunately, it was not a CLP government at the time; it was a Labor government, our government, which had to pay $16m for the mistakes of the CLP.
Does the CLP have a record of privatisation? Yes, it has. Should I remind CLP members opposite of the Sheraton saga, Darwin Joinery or Yulara, all failed privatisation attempts of the CLP? If you do not believe it, have a look. I know quite a few of your members are new to the Territory, but I have been here for more than 20 years. I know quite a lot of the history of the CLP and its failed attempts to enter private enterprise or privatise public assets.
Yes, I agree with the member for Fong Lim that the Utilities Commission is an independent body and can make a determination. However, ultimately the decision rests with the government of the day, which is the CLP government. Of course, there are problems in the Territory; we are not the same as down south. You have a determination which tells you there has to be a 43% increase and you say there will not be an increase in power prices. Who are you kidding? You have told us in the past few weeks and months that Power and Water is in serious trouble and you have to increase power. As a matter of fact, you increased power by 30% when you first came to government. You quickly backtracked and dropped it to 20% or 25%. Will you tell your members from rural and remote areas, your Indigenous members, that if you are to reflect the real price of production and distribution of power in the Territory, you will increase their power by 50% to 60% to reflect that real cost of generation and distribution? Will you tell people on the Tiwi Islands that because they are utilising diesel, they have to pay two or three times more than what people in Darwin pay because they use gas? Will you do that? Be brave and do it; you have been telling us how bad things are with Power and Water and how bad we were because we did not increase power prices. Be brave, Dave. Say how you will do it, because you are a serious government and want to bring power, water and economic strength, not what you did before.
You conveniently mentioned that nothing happened in 2009. For the last two years, you have been telling the public the Labor government did not put prices up and saying that is the reason Power and Water is in such trouble. A few minutes ago you admitted that in 2009 our government increased power prices by 18%. What is true and what is a lie? Is it true we increased power prices? Or is it a lie and we did not increase power prices when we were in government? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One of the two is a fib and I know which one is a fib.
Let us have a look at the cuts. Why do you not ask your colleague, the member for Blain, how many teachers lost their jobs? He has said the number publicly in the media. Ask him how many people lost their jobs. Ask him how many people have left the public service. It was your Minister for Health, in the media, who said, quite happily, that she will have a 10% cut in her department. She was surprised soon afterwards when the CEO of the Health department resigned and is leaving the Territory. He is going back to his old job in Western Australia, because he realises what kind of government this is and in what state the Health department will be in a few months, or a couple of years, because of your cuts. These are not imagined cuts. These are reality, the things all your members state publicly in the media.
You said we spread fear to the people, people are afraid. When you made a statement in this parliament, you mentioned nothing about privatising the bus service. The day after, you issued a media release saying you will privatise the bus service. You said, ‘Yes, we will negotiate for drivers to go to the new service if they want to’. What you did not say was that if drivers do not want to go to the new service provider, they will not be retained; they will simply lose their job. Drivers for the Darwin bus service are afraid for their jobs, because they know they have to go to the new provider or they will be without a job. There is no guarantee the new provider will give them the same conditions they have now. Is there any guarantee road safety officers will have their jobs? How will you force a private provider to maintain the same number of road safety officers? You cannot.
This privatisation is not because the service was bad, not because privatisation will save you money, but it is on ideological grounds. I know very well, because I have been advised by the department that it and the government have to continue subsidising the private provider for the next seven years with millions of dollars. The privatisation is not to save money for the government, it is on ideological grounds. The Government Printing Office – those people have 30 years’ experience and all of a sudden they find themselves, just before Christmas, with the announcement the office will close. Some people are old enough to retire and the others have to find another job. How many printing jobs are in the Health department? How many printing jobs are in the Education department or Transport? There are not many; these people will have to go. That is why they are afraid for their jobs.
People, when they see what is happening with the Darwin bus service and Government Printing Office, are afraid for their jobs. What is next? The Royal Darwin Hospital laundry services? It has been floated in the past and we resisted it, but I bet you the minister is looking at it because it is not a core business of the Health department. I beg your pardon, but I think it is. It is the only way you can guarantee safe linen for the hospital, which is the biggest hospital in the Northern Territory. Also, people are worried about other services in Darwin. One thing I learnt when I came to Darwin, member for Fong Lim, is that this place is a public service town. When you have nearly one in four or five workers working for the public service, you should know you will be in serious trouble, because every person who works in the public service and worries about their job has a partner, wife, husband, mother, sister or cousin; they all talk. This place is too small and everybody knows each other, and that means for every person who loses their job, you will lose four to five votes.
It is not about votes, it is about how you will operate departments that require the necessary people. I work in the public service. I was sad at that time when CRESAP was finished. That decimated Palmerston and the Health department. It took years to recover because we lost people with experience; they did not stay and left to go down south.
That is what is happening with teachers now. Teachers who are uncertain of their future will not hang around. They will go away; they are teachers whose training and education we paid for in the Northern Territory because we want them to stay here. We want the home-grown to stay here to pick up their education and experience, but they go to Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, somewhere other than the Northern Territory. You might not see the results immediately, but you will see them in two, three, four or five years’ time. The next government, whatever government is in place at the time, will say they need more teachers. ‘Where are they?’ We will not have any and it will cost a lot of money to bring people from down south, if they come, because they will not trust the Territory government with the way they have been treated before. Yes, this CLP government has lost the plot and admitted making a mistake. You make mistakes when in government. The problem with you mob is you keep making mistakes; you have not got many things right.
If you look today at what has happened – first of all, one after the other, the decisions you have made and things you have done are coming back to haunt you. The Minister for Education is still reeling and licking his wounds. He will not even dare to go to the classroom. The Minister for Education backed down on his decision to sack teachers when he saw their reaction. One thing you have got right – I have to admit I admire you for this one – I cannot believe how quickly you mob have politicised the public of the Northern Territory. I have never seen so many massive, loud rallies in my time in parliament, and I have been in parliament for 20 years. We had some blows with some of our public servants, but I never saw that number of people outside parliament, shouting and booing members of the government. You should be proud of that; I admire you for that and I do not think I am the only one.
Many Territorians came here not only for the lifestyle, but the opportunities. They knew they could get a job here; you are promoted on merit, not because of a particular school and a particular school tie. Those people are packing up and going. First of all, they can see there is no future here with this government cutting the numbers of public servants. They are not prepared to do the job of two or three people, because this government has decided the best way to cut expenses and expenditure is by sacking people, especially public servants. That will come back to bite you. I have seen it before with the previous CLP government and I will see it again. One thing I know very well is that people in the Territory do not forget. If you do not believe me, ask ex-Chief Minister, Denis Burke. He had a jab at me for my Greek accent. Many people did not forgive him for that one and he paid the price. Be prepared to pay the price.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion before the House essentially says, how do you turn you back on Territory workers? It asks the question how, when and why would you turn your back on Territory workers? It is very simple and all the jibes from that side of the House about socialists, communists and the Labor Party – essentially, you have a group of Territorians who are standing in this place, standing on the street, who walk and drive in their electorates and connect with Territorians to be their voice and defend their case to a government that has turned its back on Territorians.
I ask individual members to consider the game plan or the executive decision from the boy from the Blue Mountains who leads this strategy to turn his back on public servants and Territory workers.
For the member for Namatjira: I grew up in an overcrowded house. It was a three bedroom asbestos-clad housing commission house, with a grandmother, uncle, mum, dad, four brothers and sisters, my aunt and her two children who needed to come to live with us when they had to resettle at one stage, and various other people from the neighbourhood who my mother used to take in from time to time. It was an overcrowded house, a happy house, where my father ran an auto electrician business in the back yard. You can imagine the block was covered with cars, so pretty similar sort of scenes. I was growing up in that environment around workers. Those workers had a big influence on my values. How could I turn my back on workers after the experience and the support those people gave me in my formative years? Member for Namatjira, you are playing with a team that has turned its back on the workers.
I looked to the next door neighbours, the Gratton brothers, who obviously made a deal with my father and set me up with a job in the school holidays. I was underage, I was about 14 or 15 at the time. They told me to report to the TNT transport freight depot. They got me on the line. They made sure my union subscription would be signed and the fees would come out of my first casual rate wages, paid on a daily basis. I started unloading trucks and trains and loading trucks with frozen beef. The only advice they gave was, ‘Work twice as hard as the older guys, mate’, and I did. I was surrounded by workers. I am wondering how I could turn my back on those workers who supported me through my formative years?
Member for Arafura, do you really consider what you have signed up for and what you will support for the next few years? I was very fortunate to get a job in a steel fabrication factory, again underage, again supported by a union subscription, a union membership paid out of my casual wages after I earned the first day’s wages. That was supported by a good friend and his father. Member for Arafura, I was in an environment of migrant workers. They were mainly eastern Europeans, and we made industrial chains. I honestly say, those people influenced my life and taught me a lot. Frank, one of the Aussie guys on the factory floor, taught me an enormous amount about how to work, what it means to have a job and how to keep a job. I ask you, member for Arafura, how could I turn my back on workers who supported me in my formative years?
We will ask the member for Stuart. We all went for summer leave away from this House. How many communities did you visit to discuss the loss of teachers in bush schools? I had to go back to Tennant Creek and talk to colleagues I had worked with, some for over 30 years. I had to have discussions about the eight teachers we have lost from Tennant Creek High School, the teachers we have lost in the regions, the administrative officer and library coordinator at Tennant Creek High School, who lost her job after 17 years of service. How many did you talk to, member for Stuart? How could we turn our back on those workers? You are a teacher, I am a teacher; we have shared many years in the Territory. It did not sit easy with me, going back to the Barkly and having conversations with people who were hurting and had lost their jobs. They were existing in an environment where the government was issuing media statements to ramp up the media around this and that, and, ironically, put teachers, support staff and administrative officers down and made them feel bad. It sent the message through the media that they were not doing a good job, outcomes are lousy, and this government is prepared to sacrifice a heap of them because it has a big plan to improve things. It is going to cut teachers, support staff and administrative positions in the education sector to improve student outcomes. People did not get it, did not accept it and did not like it.
Member for Stuart, how many people did you talk to? How did you feel about turning your back on your teaching colleagues? It now goes into other sectors and to an economic debate raised by the Treasurer. Remember, we did not get a chance to exercise our fiscal step-out strategy. We were taken out in the election of 2012. The new management came in and the members opposite are supporting the game plan of the boy from the Blue Mountains, who is continually making it up as he goes along, with his Treasurer by his side, determined not to listen or take a backward step. ‘This is bitter medicine, but just take it. Cop it sweet and we will all be good in 2016.’ Territorians do not forget.
There is no doubt the Chief Minister plays the political game; he is a very good political game player. We watched him closely in opposition. We watched him orchestrate the bush strategy, and we watched him take out a Chief Minister and get himself to the front bench. That is the way the political game is being played, but I continually remind members opposite and members from the bush, like me: how can you seriously turn your back on Territory workers?
Member for Arnhem, I question your interpretation of Vincent Lingiari and your interpretation of the labour movement. When you hear your colleagues jibe, ridicule, make fun and be quite aggressive in their insults towards socialists, communists and the Labor Party, what about that fellow called Gough Whitlam? What about that fellow called Vincent Lingiari? What about the story of eight months in Wattie Creek and those bad Labor people? Does that mean nothing to you now? You are from a young generation, an emerging young leader in the Indigenous community. You are an elected member of parliament and you let these colleagues run those jibes, completely contradicting Australian history and devaluing that incredible struggle for land rights.
As the Treasurer said, everybody makes mistakes. Not everything goes to plan, but I daresay you would want to acknowledge Vincent Lingiari’s plan and acknowledge the government of the day and the ambitions government had. Member for Arnhem, how do you turn your back on the workers, your countrymen and your ancestors? The cattle industry in the Northern Territory was built on their backs. Those workers built the industry alongside the pastoral community and you, essentially, are ignoring the fact that under these policies and this plan, you are turning your back on the workers.
We have to really assess what this is about. Essentially, in an academic context, it is economic rationalism, a very definitive policy run by the Liberal coalition in Canberra, the east coast block of Liberal states, and followed blindly by the Northern Territory into this belief that everything will be good around the corner. Unfortunately, we are leaving the workers behind, and that is what this motion is about. That is why it was brought to this House of debate.
The members for Arnhem, Namatjira, Stuart and Arafura might be interested in a bit of contemporary history, because I have been through this before. The member for Fong Lim can deny 27 years of the CLP. He can deny any responsibility for what represents, in real time, two-thirds of political history since self-government. Let us throw the ball around – a Labor policy and a Labor plan executed with the federal government over 10 years to provide 200 extra teachers.
That is the real deal, and the member for Fong Lim wants to talk about porky pies. Two hundred teachers and a deal with the feds and that ongoing plan was scrapped. I have been through this before. Those of us who were around at that time might remember the economic rational committee: the ERC of the CLP. I remember it so well. It did exactly what you guys are doing and continued it in the 1980s and 1990s, sent the Territory broke and was thrown out of government.
Mr Elferink: Sent it broke?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, the Territory was very broke when Labor came in in 2001, but you want to ignore history. The ERC cuts essentially used the same strategy the CLP used in 2012 and 2013, and is using in 2014. They started to sack public servants, and if anybody put their head up to complain, they were bullied and oppressed. I said to teachers when we started this campaign together, ‘It is rough and will get a lot rougher. You will probably find that new concepts used by the CLP government will be lockouts and you will then start losing pay.’ It was not long before the lockouts came down, just like the 1980s and 1990s, and then the payroll deductions started.
Mrs Lambley: Rubbish.
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Araluen said ‘rubbish’ – no lockouts, no deductions of pay. Ask your local teachers who went on strike on a very defined protest against cutting education in the Northern Territory. They stood strong and I advised them to stay strong. This year I said there will be more pain. They have mortgages, children and they like to take holiday leave. They work hard and try their best. They have been smeared, through CLP media campaigns, as being worth nothing, that they have delivered no outcomes and should be thrown on the scrap heap. They will stand strong, will be locked out and will suffer more pay cuts. Bush members, like me, will have to face the music in the regions and talk to those workers the government has turned its back on.
The Leader of the Opposition presents a clear alternative: to negotiate, listen and look at the difference between 3% and 4.4%, which is the inflation CPI figure that has been created in the Territory. However, all I hear is laughter and jibes. All I hear is ridicule and contempt. You do not have to worry about me, you have to worry about Territorians. You are responsible for Territory families. In macroeconomic policy delivery under the CLP, consider the micro results, the public servants who no longer buy their sandwiches in cafs on the main street in Tennant Creek. Consider the caf owners who come to see me and say that without consumer confidence, with hefty increases in utilities charges and the other factors of the cost of living, cuts to the infrastructure budget and less contractors in town doing work, they are losing money. It makes sense to me and they ask why. It really comes back to the big boys on the other side, the ones who are managing the macroeconomic policy. They refuse to accept that people are hurting down the line, and we are told there is no other choice. Yet, the public can advise you of choices, the opposition can advise you of choices; it is whether you are prepared to listen.
As an elected community member, how do I turn my back on the workers? They are workers who guided me through my formative years. I remember my father seriously debating the final move in his career from an auto electrician in a back yard with a housing commission block covered in cars, to an avionics engineer with Ansett ANA. He explained it to me quite well; it was the day he was going from being a worker to being on staff.
He got a promotion he did not want to take. He got a promotion that took him from being a worker with the people who had surrounded him all his life, like his family, his sons and daughters, and he was suddenly going to be on staff. He was to be responsible for workers, and he did not want to take that step. My mother, member for Namatjira, who used to wash clothes in a copper before we could ever afford a washing machine, said, ‘Bob, you owe it to your family, because there will be considerably more money and we need it’. My father made the decision to go onto staff. He had to leave the union behind as well.
It was a monumental change in his working life, and I remember, as a teenager, being guided through those formative years by workers, unionists and battlers. They said, ‘You go with our good grace, because it is good to know we will have people on the inside who understand us. It is good to know that Bob McCarthy will be in charge of workers, with an honest and accountable approach to their future, their families’ future and their livelihoods.’ It was a very powerful lesson.
When I came to the Territory, I joined a union; I worked with colleagues as workers. I went on strike for the beliefs of the profession and the children we worked for. I challenged government, and I witnessed professionals who had their careers capped. What I would like to conclude with is that now in the public sector, it is just like back to the future. It is just like back in the 1980s and the 90s, where people feel intimidated, people are scared they are going to lose their job and where people are operating under pressure.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: That culture of fear is not healthy. It is very unproductive in people performing important jobs, but it is also very unproductive and unsustainable economically when families are living under fiscal pressure. Essentially, they start to make the decision: can we really stay here?
The public sector represents a major sector in the Northern Territory, a very important delivery of public services, and if public servants are contemplating leaving, it is not like New South Wales or Victoria. You do not get another job in the next suburb or in the next town. You pack the truck and leave the Territory. We start to then experience a shortage in our skilled workforce, of our knowledge workers. Now, this may fit the plan of the CLP because it has a very clear target to reduce the numbers in the public sector considerably. Politically, you went to an election and announced that. I thought it was very brave. It was clouded in spin, but so much of that election was, because Territorians are telling me now how many promises have been broken. You went to that election and clearly said, ‘We will reduce the public sector’.
No one really understood the levels. I do not think anyone really believed you would attack teachers and education when we have bipartisan agreement in the House that education is the only key foundation stone to really change things. You attacked teachers, support workers and administrative officers. I ask the members for Arafura, Namatjira, Stuart, Arnhem and Daly, how many schools have you visited where local jobs have gone? Not only have I visited Barkly schools, I am doing as many kilometres as I did when we were in government. I am covering a hell a lot of the Territory with a very simple mantra: go out and win the bush back. That is what I say to myself when I set off on trips week after week.
I get to tell stories about you guys. The first story I tell is about you guys, because you are the government now. When I roll into places and get a litany of complaints, I have to audit through them, and I remind people who the local member is, if they do not know. I remind them who is in government, if they do not know. I then really go to town and do some serious education and awareness, something which I am very qualified to do. When I teach lessons in the bush, mate, you can bet your bottom dollar people sit up and listen. They have done for 33 years, and you all headline …
Ms Finocchiaro interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: Ah, very good. I got a reaction from the girl in the corner. I had many students like the member for Drysdale.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member for Barkly withdraw calling me a ‘girl’. I find that highly offensive.
Mr McCARTHY: I withdraw. I will go back to teaching lessons; the other side of that is learning lessons. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, time is running out, and if you guys do not start learning lessons really quick, then time is running out.
The members for Namatjira, Stuart, Arnhem, Arafura and Daly know the promises that have been made just in the bush. That is just the bush, and time is running out. I know the time frames around building roads, and I know the budgets around building roads. I know that $3.5m to put the edges around the new CLP public speedway is extremely valuable road building money. It could be used in any of our electorates and could be used under a policy like Labor’s beef, mining and community, where the road is assessed for the values of the goods that transact over that road and through that gate. That is a good policy, but a public speedway is your policy – $3.5m. Bush members, in a bipartisan sense, know exactly how much that would do for bush roads, where people risk life and limb to get into town to receive services, interact with the community, do their shopping or attend a renal dialysis unit. That $3.5m is a policy decision of this government and people do not forget. As the Leader of the Opposition said, time is running out.
I know how long it takes to deliver a subdivision, a greenfield land release site. I know how long it takes for government and developers, because with the previous Labor government, I was privileged to be involved in both. We will wait to see whether you guys do what I said you would from the start when the member for Blain was the minister: wheel and deal in the rural area to try to fast-track land release, then weld the NRAS Commonwealth component for 2000 rental units in a desperate attempt to try to deliver some credibility when running down the straight to the 2016 election. The public will judge you accordingly. The clock is ticking, the meter is running, but in the meantime, I go back to my parliamentary colleagues from the bush and ask how they can turn their backs on workers and their families?
A lady who worked in the Tennant Creek High School library for 17 years lost her job because of education cuts and nobody wants to talk about that. Nobody wants to accept the fact that bad policy decisions and bad economic management cut to the bone. The workers cop it in the neck, and the minister can deny and make excuses, but that minister will be a headline like the ministers in the 1980s and 1990s, like the famous CLP Chief Ministers. Those guys went down in history and you guys are headlining as well. You can deny it all you like, but as members on this side have said, it is not us stirring this up; people are coming to us asking for their voices to be heard.
After four years sitting on that side, studying you guys as an opposition, I learnt a lot of things. One thing I learnt was what I push into our Caucus regularly: we will never be like they were in opposition. We will be the voice of the people, stand up for workers, support the union movement, call the truth and will not stop until the job is done.
Learning lessons, teaching lessons, plays on semantics, bullying, ridicule – the boy from the Blue Mountains is in charge, let us see how far he takes you. The year 2016 is judgment day, and the clock is ticking; my clock is ticking, your clock is ticking and Territorians do not go away. The people in the Territory with the longest memories are people in the bush. Many of the people in the bush were born there, live there and die there; they do not leave. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I normally really enjoy the member for Barkly’s stories and lectures. I cannot say I enjoyed tonight’s lecture.
Let us talk about the doomsayers over the other side. In opposition, time and time again, we heard, from this side of the Chamber, that we were the doomsayers, always talking the Territory down, catastrophising things and how you were such a good government. Tonight – in fact not just tonight, for the last 18 months - that is exactly what we have heard from the new Labor opposition. They have become the doomsayers of the Northern Territory. There is a lot to be said about spin and truth, but I think, genuinely speaking, the member for Barkly would not tell a lie unknowingly. However, I hope he passes this kind of information on to his parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House, because there is a difference between spin and the truth. Often, to get a point of view across, people will apply a level of spin, if you want to call it that, or a level of bias to ensure they are putting their argument forward, and this is the game of politics. When it comes to the truth, that is a different matter.
I suggest to you - I cannot recall in my time in this House when I have heard the member for Barkly tell a lie unknowingly. I hope he passes on his good nature to his colleagues, because two members on the other side tonight have misled this parliament and have done so before. It is in the reference to - I will read where it started from on 27 August 2013. It was Question Time, question 13. It was the member for Fannie Bay to me, the Minister for Education, and he said:
The reality is those words have never come from my lips, yet, they have inferred it to the point where they talk as if it is a fact. It is not true, but this is the flavour we have started to understand and learn, having these lessons from the member for Barkly and others about the way they operate in opposition, spin and truth. Like they did last week when they stood with their union buddies in front of Darwin High School and basically said, spoken as a fact, that Darwin High School had an extra 120 students this year. In fact, this is not true; it is around 40 students and the school will end up with two additional teachers because of additional students. This is the beauty of the system we have today, based on attendance in our schools. Where we see additional students in schools, the schools will see additional resources flow through, as it should be. Schools where there has been a reduction in attendance will see resources taken out, as it should be. Resources should follow where attendance is, and if schools lift their attendance rates, they will see the resources.
Rather than finding out whether it is truthful or not, I went a step further and had a meeting this week with the union. Its national president was in town and Peter Clisby and Matthew Cranitch were there. I asked Mr Clisby where he had come up with the figures of 120, ‘Ah, someone told me’. Someone told him? Did he think to do any evidence-based research before going to the media? No. Do you think the member for Nightcliff would do some research first? No, it is, ‘I heard a rumour, therefore let us run it out as fact’.
In opposition, whenever we were going to put out a media release, we went to the end of the world to find out whether what we were about to say was truthful. We knew we had to be truthful in that role, so we went up hill and down dale to find whether the information we had in front of us was, in fact, accurate. We went to the point of having people back up what we were going to say, rather than just going out with innuendo and making it up as we went along. The truth is that Darwin High School did not have an additional 120 students this year, as the opposition and the union stated, all because they had been told by someone.
A simple phone call or contact to the department would have confirmed exactly what the differences were and how the school was working with the department to work towards additional resources. In fact, there were a number of schools, mainly in the greater Darwin area because that is where we see most of our growth in the education sector. There were around 13 schools, if memory serves me correctly, that had an increase in enrolments over what they expected.
One school principal I spoke to told us how, even the Friday before school returned, they had parents turning up to enrol their children, like every year.
Ms Fyles: Rubbish.
Mr CHANDLER: Are you saying this is some modern issue that has just come out of the woodwork? You are a former teacher, for goodness sake, member for Nightcliff. You know what it was like in the schools and that these things can happen. You know that at the start of every school year schools have to adapt, change and modify because of unexpected attendances, even late resignations from teachers or changes to teaching circumstances.
There are always issues; it is a very fluid environment. There are over 4000 employees who work for the department. There are 2500 teachers, and in any department of that size you will have a level of turnover and uncertainty when it comes to day one in school. In fact, when it comes to vacancy rates this year, it was about 1.4% across the Northern Territory. That is pretty consistent with the 10 years that you guys were in government. In fact, it is better than some of the years you guys were in government. You have catastrophised education to the point where some people thought teachers would not be in classrooms this year and we would have classrooms full of children with no teachers, and that is just not true.
In fact, some of the catastrophisation of education by the opposition and the union last year did scare people because they thought it was truthful. They expected it to be truthful, because they expected the Labor opposition would at least tell the truth. However, they continually ran scare campaigns that did actually scare people.
Unfortunately, in the last 10 years, we have seen around 800 additional employees in the Department of Education. At the same time, there were 170 additional students, but budgets went from $440m per year up to over $800m, an increase of 92%. I said it last year that if that increased investment had led to improved results across the Territory, they could be a very proud government. We just did not see the results improve to the level you would expect, particularly in our remote schools where the results, quite frankly, were and are absolutely shameful. All the catastrophisation by the Labor Party and the union last year has led to a number of people telling me the member for Nightcliff is known as the member who cried wolf, because none of it came to pass.
In fact, schools did open, the sun came up, there were fantastic teachers in our classrooms, full of eager children back from their holidays, ready to learn, and that is what we want. I am excited when I see schools that have more students than anticipated. That is fantastic and is something we should be proud of and encourage more of to get more kids into our system. Something that should be above politics is trying to find a pathway for real opportunity for students in our remote bush locations.
From the moment we announced a review into Indigenous education – and I have heard the innuendos, the slander thrown this way that we do not care about education and that I, as the minister, do not care about education. Why in the world would I want to review remote education if I did not care about it? Why would I want to review education, open to the world some of those results and put this government into a position where we will have to act on the results?
Some of those results are frightening. They will provide many challenges for people, communities and this government. On a day in federal parliament where we have seen both sides of the House come together to talk about closing the gap, I thought and hoped that issue, the Indigenous component of education in the bush, could be above politics. However, on day one we saw the opposition slam us. They are so proud of their results in the bush that they want to continue to do things the way they have always been done. Quite frankly, that is not good enough.
You talk about negotiation. The member for Barkly mentioned before that his Opposition Leader had a clear process she wanted to take, one of negotiation to move forward for the Territory. Let us talk about negotiation.
On day one when we released the interim findings of the report from Bruce Wilson – who has done a magnificent job in going from all sides of the Territory to uncover just some of the issues that we have. He has done a tremendous job, and I thought this could be above politics. That interim report has been released for public consultation. There will be a lot of consultation before it comes back to this government to make a final determination on what we will do for remote education.
Let us get back to negotiation. On day one when the report was released, the union suggested that this would be another Stolen Generation. How poor if that is where they start negotiation, calling this a Stolen Generation. That was the starting point of negotiation with a union that says it stands up for children and teachers in our education system. This is not a government decision at this point; we have not even received the final report. Bruce Wilson is consulting with the community on the findings he has put together after six months of going from one end of the Territory to the other. He went to over 34 remote communities in coming up with the interim results.
On day one, the union talked about a Stolen Generation and taking away opportunities for kids in the bush, and things like boarding schools are wrong.
I look to my right, and I look to members of this House, our Indigenous members, the Country Liberals who went to boarding schools, and I ask do they consider themselves a Stolen Generation?
That is the starting point of consultation, and that is the starting point we get from the Labor Party. That is the starting point we get from our union, supposedly supporting education in the Northern Territory and supporting improvement of education in the Northern Territory.
Consider the process for Indigenous education on coming into government and, for the very first time, being in the position of being able to get real information about results in remote communities. Some of those results told me me that by Year 3, Indigenous students were already two years behind. Not two years behind kids in grammar schools in Melbourne or Sydney, two years behind Indigenous students in areas like Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia and schools in Cape York, like for like. In Year 3, under the former Labor system of education in our bush, these children were already two years behind. By Year 9, they were five years behind their peers. When we should be getting 500 students through Year 12 under their program of secondary education in the bush, last year, there were eight. The year before, under Labor, there were four. On average, over the last five years, that is around 10 a year, where there should be around 500 students passing Year 12 in remote locations. It is a failed system.
Labor wants to say this is working, this is a great investment and will lead to a great outcome for children in the bush. At Year 3, they are two years behind, and at Year 9, they are five years behind. How in the world is this providing pathways for children in remote locations, with attendance rates lower than 30% in some areas? These stats are not things I am making up. I have touched a raw nerve, but the truth is the truth. These are the facts; they are not made up. I am not trying to make up a story …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not warn the members for Nhulunbuy or Nightcliff again. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for touching on a nerve, but the truth is they want to stand behind a system that failed. They want to stand behind a system that has delivered the results I read out tonight. These are not made up. This is not a story, not spin, this is true. It is above politics. We should all be trying to improve these results.
Some of the findings in Bruce Wilson’s report – the final report when it comes to government; I honestly think there will be some challenges. This government will find it challenging, as will the wider community. However, unless we are serious about improving education results in the bush and using results as a real measure of success, rather than how much you throw at something – the only measure you applied to education in the Northern Territory is if you spent more money, you must have ticked the right box. Look at the results, member for Nightcliff. If you are happy with the results in our remote bush schools, you should be ashamed of yourself because we need to do so much better. It is through findings like this review from Bruce Wilson that we will find a way forward. It will take support from you, the union, the communities, this government and the federal government because so many things impact schools which, unfortunately, education cannot fix.
We need to do what we can in education to fix that system. It will take courage and conviction from different levels of government, and not just in this term of government but the next term of government and beyond, both federally and locally. This is not something we can fix overnight; it will take a long-term commitment to get it right. We must get it right and if we do not, it is a crime. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I pay tribute to the Northern Territory’s longest serving prison officer who, sadly, died recently while on duty in Nhulunbuy. Pauliasi Nuku, commonly known as Paul Nuku, passed away as a result of internal injuries, or disease, and was flown to Darwin from Nhulunbuy, but, unfortunately, was unable to be saved. He was born in Lakeba, Fiji on 15 September 1954, to Filipe Jieke, his father, and Amelia Takape, his mother. While living and growing up in Fiji, he learnt the Melanesian way of things, which was that you had a mother and father, but you also had a massive extended family. It is through those childhood experiences that Paul continued to live and develop as a human being. I have always been attracted to the Polynesian/Melanesian sense of family no matter where it occurs in the Pacific. It has always produced gregarious and generous people full of spirit, as expressed through their devotion and faith - we got to see that at Paul’s funeral – and also generous in spirit in the sense they bonded with their family, and the family is an extension of the very fibre of their being. Paul Nuku was no different to this Melanesian concept.
Work, however, forced him to come to Australia, and, in 1976, he commenced his long-standing career as a prison officer at Long Bay gaol. It was not long, I suspect, before the idea of a tropical place became more attractive than Long Bay gaol, and in 1979 he ended up living in Darwin. He then became a prison officer in Darwin, at Fannie Bay Gaol - for those of us who remember it - and continued to serve until the time of his death. He died, pretty much, on duty. His gregarious, generous spirit permeated every aspect of his life, his family - which was clear from his funeral - and also his extended family, which you can find in the family of prison officers who work the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. There was a genuine sense of grief at the funeral because something very special had been taken away from the close-knit family of our prison officers in the Northern Territory.
I listened to the tributes to Paul, as well as listening very carefully to what his family had to say of him. While I met him on a couple of occasions, unfortunately, I was not able to develop a close relationship with him. The time I did meet him, he was having one of his famous lovo’s. To put it into context for members of this House, it is the same as a Maori hangi, which he did on almost a fortnightly basis at the prison officers’ recreation club in Darwin.
I met him briefly. Of course, ministers are always too busy to stop and have a proper chat to people. I regret I did not, because I think I would have come to like Paul in the way so many people around him did. His family knew him as a generous, gregarious and faithful man, a man who loved the people around him. He was a dedicated family man who showed dignity and respect. This is not to mistake him for a soft touch, or a soft man. Like so many people of Melanesian descent, his sense of dignity and generosity was also reflected in a firmness of character, which he carried with him. His discipline showed not only in his pursuit and love of the sport of boxing, but also the way he treated people around him.
When there was trouble at the prison and Paul Nuku arrived, his mere presence was generally enough to calm things down. He worked at Wildman River, and he would have been very tough on the boys who were there. One of the things you know about people of this flavour is while they are tough - you can be very tough on boys; you can be hard as nails to the point of being utterly brittle - but so long as you do it with dignity and treat those boys with respect, they will work themselves to an elevated position in your eyes. Paul Nuku understood that, and lifted those boys he worked with in a way where they were ultimately set on new and different paths. In many instances, these paths changed those boys’ lives forever.
Was he a flashy gentleman? No, he was not. Was he a man who aspired to great and lofty ranks? No, he was not, but that is not in any way to suggest he is diminished in dignity. A person who lives his life with great love and passion for his family earns the respect of his colleagues, leaves indelible marks on people he trained through both boxing and the Wildman River environment, and is a person who has lived his life completely and lived it well.
The major tragedy is he died so young. I am certain Paul Nuku would have relished the opportunity to continue bouncing his many grandchildren on his knee, and bask in the love of his family and the love of his wife for so many years. Sadly, that was not to be the case. Sadly, he died, and I hope he looks down from heaven upon his family below, knowing he will see them again and continues to feel the love, pride and passion he always felt for his family. He will look down upon prison officers he worked with, with all their shortcomings, strengths and weaknesses, with dignity in his eyes and understanding and compassion in his heart.
Decency is a word I could only use to describe a person like Paul Nuku. He leaves behind his wife Sarah - Sera-Kosera is her full name, his eldest daughter Amelia Seipel, married to Matty Seipel with a child Isabella, Anita Stokes, his second daughter married to Peter Stokes with children Tikiri and Jakeb, and Paul Nuku, his youngest son who lives in Perth and is married to Yara, with children Chace and Kai. To them, I extend the sympathies of the Northern Territory government, and my personal sympathies. I am proud to lead this debate in the House tonight so we can place our thanks and appreciation for the life of Paul Nuku on the permanent record of the parliament of the Northern Territory. I am certain all members would agree that Paul Nuku’s life, although short, was a life well-lived and he will remain in the annals of Northern Territory history as a well-regarded man.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Port Darwin, Leader of Government Business and Minister for Correctional Services. I too join in acknowledging the great life of Paul Nuku, and our deepest respects to his family. You have shared with the Territory a truly great man, but his strength and decency, I am sure, is strong through the veins of his family.
As we heard, he passed away recently at the far too young age of 59. Born in Fiji in 1955, he moved to Australia in the 1970s. He leaves behind his loving wife Sarah, daughters Amelia and Anita, and son Paul, and their partners and children. He worked within Correctional Services for 35 years, and was also very well-known as a supporter of boxing. He was much admired by his colleagues, and in many cases his clients in Correctional Services, where he worked for that long 35 years. As we heard, he started out at the old Fannie Bay Gaol back in 1979.
He really became synonymous with operations at Wildman River, as a superintendent at the camp, before his final move into the Darwin Correctional Centre as superintendent. Paul worked in every position there was across Correctional Services, and as we heard is the longest serving Darwin prison officer to date. According to one of his best mates, Brett Schroeder, also a prison officer, even though Paul was a superintendent he always preferred being one of the front liners, one of the blokes. He was so well-respected among workers and prisoners. He would help anyone who was willing to turn their life around. He was known for not being able to say no to anyone who asked for help; he would always be there. Paul was a quiet achiever and shunned the limelight. He preferred a work ethic, and ensured that work ethic would do all the talking.
During his years as superintendent at Wildman River camp Paul worked closely with young men. He wanted them to learn to be independent and develop their self-esteem as a step for them to enter the outside world. They were taught how to look after themselves, and being independent would help them gain employment once they left Wildman River. Reports say his work was very successful. Due to the type of man Paul was, he also kept in touch with the young men once they left the camp to make sure they were doing well and let them know they could go to him for help if they needed anyone to help stay on the right path. His time at the Wildman River camp saw him change the lives of the young men entering. He made them do hard time. They lived in tents, had to train every day and attend school due to most not knowing how to read and write. They lived by very strict rules and a no-nonsense approach from Paul and his right hand man, Monty Baker, who was also a boxer.
When Paul was moved out of Wildman and back to desk duties in town it saw changes the young men did not like. The hard work stopped and they would, in the words of a former detainee, ‘Sit around doing nothing but think’, and that did not help them. Four inmates escaped in protest. One of the escaped detainees contacted Paul directly, as he had given the boys his details in case they ever needed him on the outside, to let him know what was happening at Wildman. He then allowed Paul to pick him up and escort him to the Malak detention centre. Eleven Wildman River camp workers also walked off the job for 48 hours due to the changes made after Paul left. This showed how much respect he held among the prisoners and his work colleagues, and there is still such strong respect to this day.
Paul wanted to help children in communities who were involved with petrol sniffing. He was contacted by the Angurugu Council to assist with petrol sniffing problems the community faced, with reports that children as young as five were sniffing petrol. It broke his heart. He wanted to set up something similar to Wildman River on an island to help those children. He earmarked Woodah Island as the best location. Unfortunately, he was unable to get this project up and running.
Paul was also the founder of the Northern Territory Toughman event. He ran this event for many years. This involved anyone from around the Territory and interstate wishing to enter and compete in a boxing match where you progressed through rounds until there was one winner who took it all.
Brett remembers when he first met Paul 20 years earlier. When he and another mate wanted a trainer, Paul took them on. During this time their friendship grew and they became best mates, working together in the Correctional Services area for 18 years. Brett and Paul were looking at hosting the Northern Territory Toughman event again this year. Paul was President of Freds Pass Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Club. He loved working with rural kids and teaching them a real aim in life. He will be missed by so many, and the stories about him throughout his years at Correctional Services will be told by the workers and prisoners he worked with for such a long time.
My sincerest condolences on behalf of the Labor opposition to Sarah, Anita, Amelia, Paul, his grandchildren, extended family and many friends across the Territory. Paul went about his work with such sincerity and compassion, and I believe he truly changed the lives of so many Territorians. Men like that leave a very large footprint on the land of the Northern Territory. Thank God we had Paul for all those years. Deepest condolences.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is not often I agree with too much from the Leader of the Opposition, but in this case she is spot on. I also thank the member for Port Darwin for his kind words about Paul Nuku.
Paul was a champion bloke, a great bloke to be around. I had a bit to do with him in my time. There was never a dull moment with the guy, and he was a really decent person. He was a long-time superintendent, as has been said, at Wildman River juvenile wilderness camp, but he was more than that. He was a role model for the young people he instilled discipline and self-respect into. The camp, for those who do not know, was on 2 ha of land on the edge of Kakadu, and was set up in 1986 by the NT minister for Corrections, Barry Coulter.
Paul was Fijian born, but used the classroom, the boxing ring and a vegetable patch to teach the value of a good, hard day’s work. Working with mainly Aboriginal youngsters with a history of repeat offending, Paul Nuku told the NT News in 1988:
As was said, boxing was a major plank in Paul’s approach. Speaking of the effect the discipline and rigors of boxing had in turning young people around, he once remarked:
Camp detainees actually won two Golden Gloves titles and two Territory novice titles. In what might be described as a first for the boss of a correctional facility, Wildman River detainees went to great lengths to get Paul Nuku back to the facility when he was transferred to a desk job in Darwin.
In 1989, four teenagers escaped the camp. This was quite a feat in itself and took some guts because it was out of the way from most places. It subsequently came to light when they were picked up that they were protesting their conditions. One of the captured detainees claimed the loss of Paul had destroyed morale among the inmates, and boxing, rugby and touch football had been banned from the camp by the new superintendent.
Another detainee phoned Paul wanting to give himself up. Paul picked the lad up and drove him to Malak House detention centre in Darwin.
Paul was one of the first in the justice system, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, to appreciate the damage done by petrol sniffing, particularly on Groote Eylandt. Angurugu, during the day, was a model community, but come night time it belonged to as many as 60 petrol sniffers and had one of the highest imprisonment rates in Australia. In 1989, when Paul was around 34, he was so concerned about the levels of petrol sniffing on Groote he decided to gather up all the sniffers aged between 15 and 24 and take them to an island. Like Wildman River, his approach was to remove the sniffers from the trappings of modern life and make them rely on their own resources to survive.
In later years, as was mentioned, Paul was president of the Freds Pass Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Club, and a key organiser of the Toughman contest, which attracted big crowds to watch that no holds barred fighting in the late 1990s. They were always enjoyable nights. He was a keen supporter and player for the Brothers Rugby League Club and would often get the Brothers boys to do security. There were sometimes more fights in the crowd than in the ring, but all the Brothers guys deeply respected Paul.
I knew a few of the prison wardens from that time who Paul worked with. There were some pretty tough guys among them. One of the toughest - I will not name him for fear of shaming him - once told me, ‘We get some pretty rough characters in that gaol. Every now and again, we get one or two who have a bit of a go, which is fine, we encourage them. We just send them out the back with Paul. He is always keen to have a go. He says that soon calms them down.’ Without a doubt, he was a tough bloke, but as other speakers have said, he had a heart of gold and was a decent man. He was salt of the earth, a lovely fellow.
When I was living at Beatrice Hill with an infamous bull-catcher and rugby league player, Bobby Hannah, he was there quite regularly. He wanted to set up a South Pacific island camp with various cultures located around the place. He wanted to grow cassava, build grass huts and the like, and really showcase his culture and other Pacific island cultures as well. He was dead keen on it, and it was a shame things did not come out that way. The property was sold and and I think Paul went looking for another place to do it.
He touched the lives of everybody who knew him. He was a great bloke. He had a real passion for hard work; he was one of the hardest working blokes I knew. It was through work that he developed dignity and instilled dignity in other people. It was a fairly simple regime for Paul: work hard, get fit and hit the books. He exhibited that and led by his actions. In that regard, he was a true role model, as the Leader of Government of Business said.
In many respects, Paul reflected what the Territory was all about during the 1980s. He pioneered something with Wildman River that could probably only be kicked off in those times in the Northern Territory, without dying under what would be the massive weight of risk management plans and the like we are subjected to these days. What might now be a 200-page manual on rehabilitation, for Paul was broken down into three things: education, work, getting fit and being healthy. That is admirable. We have lost, in our fight for regulation and keeping people safe, those simple messages. Paul was an advocate of it and it worked. It was simple stuff but it had an effect. Long may those values live on.
Paul was a great Territorian and will be sadly missed. From his friends at the Brothers Rugby League Club and Corrections, I pass on my best wishes and thanks to his family. May Paul rest in peace.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, with respect I participate in this condolence debate as the previous minister for Corrections with the Henderson Labor government. I would like to pay my respects to Prison Officer Nuku, who had a wonderful history in the Territory and a wonderful career as a prison officer. The major milestone in Correctional Services in the Northern Territory that represented the new era in Corrections was definitely the way to go. I commend the Country Liberal Party government for continuing in that vein, but men like Prison Officer Nuku already knew the direction we needed to go. He had been on that pathway for many years; he understood the changes. I have no doubt in knowing that among prison officers, both young and old, he would have been a major figure in mentoring and reinforcing the new government policy to look at employment and training, rehabilitation, regional work camps, a prison farm, major changes within the traditional institutions, and delivering services to the most disadvantaged in our community.
Prison officer Nuku’s family and friends will be able to celebrate for many years the stories of not only a great bloke, as the member for Fong Lim has outlined, but a creative Territorian. He was also a very special person who held the keys - not the keys to a cell or an institution - to real change for Territorians suffering great disadvantage and needing a positive role model. He was able to understand, as the member for Fong Lim outlined, simple tools and simple pathways that provide a starting point to then make choices.
As an elected community member and previous minister who enjoyed every day I worked with the Correctional Services department and its employees, I celebrate with parliamentary colleagues, family and friends the life and career of such a fascinating and wonderful Territorian. I offer the family respect and, in conclusion, say prison officer Nuku rest in peace.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I add to some of the great things said about a great man and a highly respected gentleman in our community. I knew Paul Nuku for close to 30 years. I first met him as a young police officer many years ago. I continued to have a lot to do with Paul over the years, as a police prosecutor, a detective and one who was visiting the gaol on a regular basis, and also in my role as a school-based police officer. I sought Paul out and took advice from him in relation to youth programs, handling youth and what he did. He had an enormous reputation as someone who could do the job and he did it very well. We talk about Paul as a prison officer, and that was his job. My view of Paul was he did not have a job; he just did what he did because it was his life. He loved what he did and every time you spoke to him you could tell that was just part of what he did in life, and his gift to his community.
He came to Australia many years ago from Fiji and became what we would call a really good Aussie bloke. He fitted in extremely well in his community and had a passion for everything he did be it work, family, home or boxing. He helped young people, helped men get into a whole lot of things and even helped women get into football by running boxercise classes for female footy players.
A lot has been said, and I will not repeat what has been said by people in this House. People may not know, but Paul was a constituent of mine and his family lives not far from me. I saw him on a regular basis at the shopping centre, and I talked to him about a whole range of things and he had good opinions on things. He spoke with knowledge on a range of issues in our community, and you could tell that not only did he like to help people in his community, but he did. He used to advocate, as often as he could, for people to do community work if they were not doing any.
He was a quiet achiever. He never sought the limelight, but when you look at what he did at Wildman River one would say he was too successful there because you could not replace him. We all hear, from time to time, none of us are irreplaceable and you know the old story - you put your hand in a bucket of water, you take it out. In this case, Paul had an enormous hand. When he put his hand in a bucket of water, the water overflowed. When he took it out, you would see a massive deficiency in the water. Everywhere he went people would be attracted to him. His enthusiasm gave other people inspiration. He would just do things, and when he left somewhere he always left an enormous hole for someone to fill.
Young people everywhere saw him as a mentor. They looked to him for guidance and advice. We have heard stories tonight about some of those things. He was a real family man. He always had time for me. If I saw him coming through the shopping centre, I would have a yarn with him. When I was a police officer and needed some advice, he always had time for me. He also had time for everybody else in the community. I do not know where he found his time, but he committed so much of it to the things he was passionate about - his sport, what he did for a living and to his family.
It is beholden on us to say, with Paul being Fijian, Fiji has lost one of its greatest sons. The Northern Territory and Australia have lost a great Australian. May he rest in peace, and God bless his family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I did not know Paul, but anyone who has listened to what others have said in parliament tonight would understand he spent his life helping young people get back on the straight and narrow. Any person who does that as a lifetime job deserves recognition in the Northern Territory. We have kids who often move off what we might think is the righteous way and get themselves into trouble, whether it is petrol sniffing, pinching cars or getting into trouble with their girlfriends. Those people need help. When you hear about people like Paul, who made it his job to help those people, someone special has left the Northern Territory. Regardless of whether we knew him personally, we make the effort to recognise him as a fine person who walked on this earth.
He started up the boxing club at Freds Pass recently. I follow boxing, especially in the rural area. We have two other boxing clubs, the Baptist boxing club – that might sound a bit strange – and the Taminmin Boxing Club, so it was good to hear of another one starting up. Paul was trying to help young rural people, and boxing is one way to instil discipline and fitness into people. As the member for Fong Lim said, these are the things we miss in the way we bring up youth today.
I also miss Wildman River. I criticised the closing down of the Wildman River camp for many years; maybe there is an opportunity to start it up again. Because it might be old-fashioned and started some time ago does not mean it is out of date. There is a need for those places, just as Paul thought. It would be good to take the kids to an island to get them away from the temptations they have in places like Groote Eylandt. He led the way in showing getting young people out bush, getting a bit of discipline, learning to keep fit and getting an education was the way to turn these young kids around. We owe him a debt of gratitude. Perhaps the government might think of a way of remembering him more permanently. A fine man like that should be remembered in such a way. My sympathy to his family and fellow prison officers.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I realise there is no standing order, but I am sure all members would agree that standing for a minute in silence in this House to remember this fine Territorian would be an appropriate step to take before we continue the business of the House.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a sign of respect.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, Darwin Harbour is a thriving commercial port which provides an iconic visual backdrop to the great city of Darwin. Monitoring Darwin Harbour water quality and biological health allows us to understand the impact of changes arising from human activity. Since 2009, the Darwin Harbour Report Card has provided the community with an annual snapshot of the health of this important community asset. As of this evening, the 2013 Darwin Harbour Report Card will be available on the Department of Land Resource Management’s website, and is freely available for downloading along with past report cards.
Four standard indicators are used as a basis for measuring water quality. These are: water clarity, dissolved oxygen, algae and nutrients. The natural levels of these indicators can vary greatly throughout the harbour, due to seasonal changes and tidal flows. Water quality within the harbour is consistently of a good quality, with all monitoring sites maintaining the same level of quality since 2009. Buffalo Creek is the only site with poor water quality, but this has been the case in previous years.
I am pleased to advise monitoring by the Department of Health during the 2013 swimming season found all beaches were clean and no closures were necessary. The health of our waterways depends on us and, in particular, I encourage residents exercising dogs on beaches to make a special effort to clean up after their dogs. The biosecurity division of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries monitors marinas and other locations around the harbour most at risk from aquatic pests. Vigilance is required to ensure we can respond quickly to the arrival of any marine pest accidentally transported by vessels into our harbour. There were no pest incursions identified in our harbour during 2013.
The monitoring and management of Darwin Harbour is a collaborative effort across government and the private sector, and I wish to acknowledge the ongoing commitment by the following organisations that help monitor Darwin Harbour and contribute to this report card: the Department of Land Resource Management; the Department of Health; the Power and Water Corporation; the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries; the Parks and Wildlife Commission; Darwin Port Corporation; Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation rangers; Darwin International Airport and INPEX Australia.
A comprehensive program has been put in place by INPEX to monitor the impact of the works associated with the Ichthys project on Darwin Harbour. A total of 13 programs are monitoring the wellbeing of fish, plants, marine mammals and water quality. It is pleasing to see INPEX maintaining its commitment to not only minimising the environmental impacts of its development, but also to the monitoring of any impacts on aquatic health and water quality.
The Darwin Harbour Report Card supports the Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan. This plan was developed with assistance from the Australian government. It is based on the national framework for marine and estuarine water quality protection, which aims to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs into the nation’s waterways.
The Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan emphasises that:
1. water quality across Darwin Harbour is currently in good condition
2. opportunity exists for continuing sustainable development of a working harbour, while ensuring sound land and water resource management in the catchment
3. water quality protection is only one element of the broader coordinated approach to harbour management, which includes monitoring and ongoing research, such as aquatic pest surveillance, sea floor habitat mapping, fish, dolphin and sea grass monitoring
4. the plan identifies a range of agencies and groups within government and the wider community, including industries, that are undertaking actions to support water quality protection and sustainable development.
Darwin Harbour continues to be an important recreational playground for Territorians, and the Darwin Harbour report card provides confidence to the community that the health of this important asset is being maintained.
Darwin Harbour is a focus of considerable recreational fishing activity, and a visit to any of our excellent boat ramps any day of the week demonstrates how popular fishing is for Territorians and tourists alike. Darwin Harbour is an example of this government’s commitment to a balanced environment, which supports an increasingly vibrant port and tourism and recreational opportunities.
The annual release of the Darwin Harbour Report Card provides the community with a benchmark to measure changes over time and identify areas for action. With careful management, Darwin Harbour will continue to be an excellent example of how a thriving commercial port and city can continue to develop hand in hand with a healthy waterway, unique wildlife and diverse recreational opportunities.
I do have a copy of the Darwin Harbour Report Card for 2013 with me. I will not seek to table this document tonight, as it is available on the website and now available to be downloaded. This is actually my only printed copy at the present time, but these are good results for Darwin Harbour, given the results of the report card for 2013. As I said previously, it shows a commitment by this government, the community, and industry in general to maintaining and monitoring the health of this very important part of the Northern Territory for all users, right from the very top to the very bottom. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk tonight about a few things that have been happening in my electorate of Stuart over the past two months.
Firstly, in the southern part of my electorate – which, incidentally, is bigger than the whole state of Tasmania – in the first week of school, I am so thrilled to announce that over 75% of enrolled students attended school at Yuendemu.
This was despite road issues due to rain and ceremonies going on in the community. I am looking forward to working with Senator Scullion and my colleague, the Minister for Education, to get real improvements in attendance rates. Education is critical to our children.
WYDAC, the Mt Theo program, reported that crime is down now school has gone back, which is good news.
The swimming pool at Yuendemu was sensational over the Christmas break, with lots of teenagers working there. It proved to be a great exercise for the community, with kids taking ownership of the pool, keeping it clean, making sure it was run properly, picking up rubbish and making sure everybody was okay. Thanks to my colleague, the minister for Sport and Recreation, for securing the funding to keep this pool going.
Some fantastic news from my electorate is that a brother and sister from Nyirripi have been enrolled in the international school in Geelong, Victoria and are living in a home rather than boarding at the school.
This school deals with cultures from all over the world, and the Nyirripi kids have taken to it like ducks to water. It is a first for this area, and we are very excited about the results so far. The community of Geelong has taken these two to their hearts and the boy has a best friend from Thailand and the girl a friend from India, who also comes from challenging circumstances. I will be following these kids closely, and working with their parents in Nyirripi to ensure the kids stay and get the best education possible.
I turn to the northern part of my huge electorate. Over the past few months, there has not been a lot going on, mainly because of the beautiful rain we get up here. The monsoon rains that have been received in most of my electorate – while causing some flooding and annoyance for residents – are a great thing for our primary producers and cattle stations. The pastoralists will be glad of this rain; it is much needed and even fishing in the Victoria River region this coming year will be a great event.
Before Christmas, I was very fortunate to head to Mataranka to meet up with locals and present a new fire truck to the volunteer fire brigade. I know the Chief Fire Warden, Des Barritt, in Mataranka and his hugely talented group of fire marshals. Congratulations to Des, who was also awarded the Mataranka Australia Day Citizenship Award. I was also privileged to catch up with Helen and John Armstrong at Gilnockie Station. It was very encouraging to talk with people on the land, and understand what has happened to them with the live export ban and how slow the recovery process is for them.
During my trip, it was great to stop at Top Springs, and catch up with Pauline Haseldine and Georgie. It will be a very sad day for this area when Pauline leaves, and I am not sure how Top Springs will cope without the charm, positive presence and humour that she brings. On stopping at Lajamanu, it was good to catch up with family and see the work on the softball field, which is situated next to the childcare centre. The childcare centre has eight Aboriginal women working there who are enthusiastic about getting their children to childcare, looking after them, and it is an employment opportunity for young mothers as well.
The field where the softball diamond is has been closed for a year. Tracey and Norbert Patrick have been making sure the diamond is looked after and cleaned, so the people of Lajamanu can enjoy their oval and the softball diamond. Norbert and Tracey are heavily involved in the sporting community. I was also able to check out the new airstrip, which will assist the community immensely in moving forward, and allow some more residential housing for Lajamanu to continue to grow. I also had a chance to visit the old people’s home at Kalkarindji. I spoke with residents about what is happening in the community.
I was also privileged to be present when a new bus was presented to the community from Vic Daly Shire. The bus is to assist the elderly in getting around the community for activities. Thank you, Vic Daly Shire Council, for the bus. The old people are so happy and looking forward to getting out and about.
After the bus presentation I was able to attend the seniors’ Christmas party and spread some festive cheer. I was also very pleased to meet Georgina McLeod in Kalkarindji, who is a local councillor for the Vic Daly Shire. She has a few concerns and one of them is the availability of land for her community to grow. This is something I need work on with my colleague, the minister for Lands and Planning and Senator Scullion. We need to lease land to allow this community to grow. Sadly, only a few weeks later, this great community had to deal with a horrific tragedy, losing a 14-year old girl in flood waters only last week. I would like to extend to her family my deepest condolences on their loss. I want to say to parents and children: please do not swim in flooded waterways, you simply cannot be safe. I also give my thanks to police who were involved in this search. They were kind enough to give me regular updates, and answer my queries during this stressful time. By extending my condolences, I would like to express my sympathy to the Woods family, who lost Alex recently. He was a major player in the early stages of the development of Katherine Gorge and lived in Pine Creek. Rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Stuart for that summing up of her electorate; it was very interesting. I have a couple of things to say which hinge on things said in debate today, and also a question put forward in Question Time.
There was a bit of laughter when one of the members on this side said workers have concerns about changes the government making in relation to buses and also, to some extent, the Government Printing Office. What concerns me is not so much whether the Government Printing Office or NT bus service will be privatised; it is the manner in which parliament found out and the lack of information surrounding the selling off of those assets.
In the case of the NT bus service, the first we knew about it was via the ABC on the Friday after last sittings. What is so disappointing is not only were we not told in parliament, but about two days before a ministerial statement was read out in this House regarding transport. Not one thing was mentioned about the government selling off the NT bus service. One can only take that as a snub to members of this parliament in that the government is not willing to share information that is very important to the public, and also to the people who work for the NT bus service, but they wanted to hide it from public scrutiny. If the government was making a major announcement on Friday they would know, when the statement was being presented in parliament, they intended to sell the bus service.
That is really discourteous to this parliament. I hope the minister will come back into parliament during these sittings and give us a full briefing as to why the government has decided to sell the NT bus service, an indication of the economic reason - if that is the reason - the future of NT bus service workers and who it is to be sold to.
These are straightforward questions. There might be a perfectly logical answer for what the minister has to say, but they are the questions and answers that should be dealt with in parliament. The selling off of government assets should not be taken lightly. The selling off of government assets are our assets we trust the government will look after. If they make a decision to sell those off, the very least the government can do is come back to parliament and allow us to hear the arguments for the decision, and debate those arguments to see whether they stand up to some scrutiny.
What we have before us now is just a signature on the bottom of a letter, saying ‘We are selling it’. There might be a good, logical reason for doing it, but one is a bit suspicious when there was an opportunity in parliament two days before parliament shut down to tell us it was to be sold. Yet, the minister waited for everyone to go home and announced it the day after parliament closed. That is what the Deputy Leader also did. He announced the government would no longer run its own print business in competition with local businesses. Again, there was no courtesy of telling this House they were selling a government asset. Once again, there might be a perfectly good reason, but because it was an election promise is not a good reason.
When the Labor Party came to power in 2001 its intention was to sell NT Fleet. As this government has discovered, that does not necessarily make any sense. A government should not continue madly forward and carry out election promises just because they made election promises if someone can show the logic behind it. That would be pretty silly and people would think their government was pretty immature. Just because an election promise was made should not necessarily be the reason to do something.
You would expect, as the public and this parliament would expect, a decision would be based on sound reasoning, not because it sounds good and might earn the government some money. You use that as an election sweetener, but when it happens governments have to be a little more serious and show reasons why.
The Northern Territory Government Printing Office has been around for a very long time. It has served a role in printing government requirements such as the budget, annual reports and all those things. Arguably, that could be done through the private sector. Again, there was no explanation as to what will happen to the Government Printing Office - there is some valuable land there. What will happen to the workers? What is the future for government material being printed?
There are times when the advantage of the Government Printing Office is that things like the budget have to be kept secret until the day it is released. What conditions would the government put on some of those matters, even annual reports? Those things have to be tabled in parliament before they are handed out to the public. By turning government printing work over to private companies, what mechanisms have been set up to make sure security of printing normally done by the Government Printing Office is maintained? Has the government got someone in mind to take over the role of the Government Printing Office? It would be interesting to know these things.
The shame is both the Minister for Transport and the Deputy Leader have not had the courtesy to bring those things to parliament so we could debate them. We may support them. There is no doubt there are some issues in relation to the Government Printing Office – modern technology that may make the Government Printing Office out of date – but we have not had that debate. I ask both ministers to make a statement during these sittings as to why they have privatised public assets, and explain why they did not have the courtesy or courage to do it at the last sittings, because it is obvious they both knew.
You do not make those decisions overnight; they both knew during the last sittings this would happen. To make the announcement the day after, when people had gone home, treats the parliament with an element of disrespect. I hope both ministers come back to parliament with a detailed statement giving the reasons why they made those decisions so other members of this House can questions those decisions. That is the reason we are in this House.
The reason parliament exists is to give people the opportunity to question the policies and decisions of government. We have not been able to do that, we have just been told. It has been in the media and parliament has been avoided. It is not good enough, and I hope the ministers will do something before these sittings are over.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Sue Folley and Joanna Koulouriotis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. I also extend a warm welcome to a young girl who got out of her sick bed so she could see her father at work in the Chamber. Eleanor Elferink, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 61)
Continued from 5 December 2013.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the opposition regarding the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Bill 2013. I was offered two briefings; I was able to attend one and someone else attended the other one. I thank the minister’s office for this. The briefings helped us understand the bill a little more.
The opposition supports this bill and the overarching objective behind it. However, as shadow minister, I have some genuine concerns and questions about the bill, which I would like to discuss.
We support the main purpose of this bill, which is to reform the way the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is run, the board, and the way it receives and administers funding. We have heard the minister speak. Boards have been discussed in debate, as has their ability to gain financial and in-kind support from philanthropic organisations. The creation of a new board, operating outside the Department of Arts and Museums, was something the previous government was moving toward, in line with a number of other states, for the benefits we have discussed.
I accept the notion that formation of this board and the removal of control over MAGNT from the Department of Arts and Museums will give the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory greater scope for collecting donations, both financial and material, from corporate, philanthropic and private sectors. This is an important aspect of building our museums in the Territory.
It is important to note that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is not just the main museum at Bullocky Point. It incorporates a number of other facilities, including the Old Fannie Bay Gaol site and Lyons Cottage, along with other historical museum venues.
In essence, MAGNT will stand to benefit from more donations, especially more money. However, we have concerns about the cuts already seen in museums and art galleries in the Territory. The government talks about supporting museums and art galleries, yet we have seen services cut. The museum photographer was axed, and curators, so we have particular concerns that this legislation may fill a void of government cuts.
It is logical that sectors would be more inclined to contribute to the Museum and Art Gallery if it was an independent organisation, rather than a government organisation. We have talked about it numerous times in this House, and I do not need to recap. When governments knock on the door for support, people are a little disinclined, but if it is an NGO or a board organisation, they feel more comfortable. If the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory had a board separate to government there would be more chance of receiving donations. That is the convention within the industry, and the opposition can see the logic behind it.
I had concerns about the bill and its drafting which, when working with the minister’s office and the department, have been cleared up, but I would like to flag them. How would increased donations and contributions from the private and philanthropic sectors affect existing sponsorship? We discussed one of the flagship events for the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Telstra’s ongoing sponsorship of the Indigenous art awards. We discussed whether a conflict would arise if somebody wanted to donate from a company and that conflicted with Telstra’s sponsorship. However, kind departmental staff informed me every effort would be made to avoid such clashes. It has not been a historical problem interstate, but it was something we felt was important to raise.
Within the Territory, the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award is one of our leading events, and we would hate to see things like that jeopardised by legislative change.
Another main concern was the effect the board would have on the content of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is whether the content of the museum, the artefacts and displays offered would be affected by the private sector’s ability to donate. When we go into the committee stage, I will ask the minister some questions about that to ensure we do not see an influence over collections at the museum.
I flagged this a little earlier, but I am concerned about the effect this new arrangement will have on current funding arrangements with government. I am wary of the possibility of government not using additional financial contributions from other sources to provide extra revenue, but to cut government funding. We have already seen cuts within the area and are concerned that might be a front for cutting funding and replacing, not further extending, the museum’s ability.
We had some genuine concerns about the composition of the board. The bill guarantees very little about who will be on the board, what skills they will have and representations of interests. We would like to see as many Territorians as possible on the board. We worry there is opportunity for the board to be shaped and not truly reflect the Territory. Given the large proportion of Indigenous works and artefacts on display at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, I would like a guarantee of Indigenous representation on the board written into this bill. I look forward to hearing from our bush colleagues – as we refer to them – our Indigenous members of this Chamber and their thoughts on this bill.
I know the member for Namatjira has strong and legitimate concerns about certain displays and their opportunity to be displayed, and the respecting of cultural aspects. How can we guarantee boards will continue to have this level of cultural respect with this bill? I know there are paintings in the Papunya Boards collection that are not suitable for public display. It would have been interesting to see some of that information in this bill. This material is hugely important culturally, and there are sensitivities around this material which do not apply to other material in the gallery. I would be happy for the minister to clarify whether he expects the board to have strong Indigenous representation, in the committee stage.
Further to this, I would like to see a number of Territorians on the board. We have some great talent in the Territory, but so often we see interstaters - without being disrespectful - taking key places on the board. It would be really good, in growing the Territory’s museum and art galleries, for us to ensure Indigenous and Territorian representation on the board in this bill. They would be members who have a strong connection to our local private sector and, therefore, a greater capacity to obtain donations. Does the government have a plan to maintain strong levels of local and Indigenous representation on the board?
We raised other concerns during the briefing about the composition of skills on the board. The bill states an appointee to a board should be a person who:
… holds suitable qualifications, or has suitable knowledge or experience, relating to the functions of the Board.
We know people must be qualified to be on the board, but it is not clear what qualifications are required – a mixture of skills. We want to make sure the board that will lead the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory into the future has a fair representation of cultural, artistic and required business qualifications. If the minister could outline what skills and experiences appointees would be required to have to best serve on the board, it would be appreciated. As an opposition, we hoped it was in a little more detail within the bill.
As I have said, apart from these concerns, the opposition supports the bill. The previous Labor government, which I was not part of, but I have spoken to my colleagues – was considering a similar move. We realise this is a necessary way in which museums and art galleries within Australia and the world have gone. In doing research, I have looked at other galleries around Australia; they very much follow this style of board makeup to lead them.
The minister, in Question Time, spoke about investment, yet it is important we flag on the Parliamentary Record that we have had no investment in museums and art galleries in the Territory. We have another 10% cut being flagged by our Treasurer. It really concerns me that we have seen services, curators and the photographer cut. We are talking about investment, yet all we see is a pulling back of government funding. That certainly concerns us and it would be interesting.
I have a few other questions I would like to flag. I am not sure if the minister will address them in his speech or in the committee stage. In considering the experience of other places, what is the department’s analysis of the key risks in managing transition into the new arrangements? Arrangements are being proposed for a new board of corporate governance, but will some members, for example, the chair, be required to have qualifications related to knowledge and understanding of corporate directorship responsibilities? What changes will there be in salary payment arrangements for board members with the new role? Will the board chair be a full-time position? Will we see a change from the current board to a completely new board? We certainly have some questions about the bill. It allows for ministerial directions to the board, so if any ministerial directions are made, will they be published through annual reports? How will we ensure there is some transparency and accountability around this? These are genuine questions that people within this area have asked us during our consultation on this bill.
What arrangements are being proposed regarding transparency of board decisions? Will board minutes and decisions be regularly posted on a website? This is the Territory’s museum and art gllery, it is not something for the government or the board; it is for all Territorians. There will be some people lucky enough to be on that board who have an intricate knowledge of what is happening, but for others who have a genuine interest in arts and culture, what opportunity will there be for them to read board minutes and decisions?
In your second reading speech, you suggested that the aim of the bill and the new role for the board is to add value, that is, have more capacity to add on and develop collections. Have you thought of including a requirement for a government guarantee of minimum funding to ensure collections are maintained appropriately and that any new revenues are value-adding, as stated? As I said, we do not want to see a pull back on government funding to be replaced by corporate funding. We would like to see that add on. What arrangements will be in place for the management of sensitive Indigenous cultural items? I previously referred to some, but will the board be making independent decisions? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the Indigenous members of this parliament. How will we ensure we maintain cultural sensitivity?
I raised some genuine concerns in the briefing, which I would like the minister to address, about the board making decisions about disposable assets. The sale of collection items is something the general public has been very concerned about. For example, people donate things to the museum and art gallery, but what happens if they are sold to make a profit? Secondly, in the briefing I was assured the disposal of art collections is rare, but there is not really anywhere in the legislation – I would be happy for you to point it out to me. What happens if we decide we do not really like a collection? Is it kept forever? What are the processes for disposal of assets and sale of items, or actually getting rid of them?
Another question the general public has raised with me is if the board hasthe capacity to set entry and other fees for the use of MAGNT facilities, independent of government? I know at the moment the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and its associated venues are free, but there are obviously fees for special collections and displays, and we also had some questions around commercial revenues. Obviously, the Bullocky Point site is beautiful. It currently has a caf within its grounds, but what is the process for commercial revenues collected? Will we see – there is quite a lot of land there – other commercial venues built there? People have a number of questions, and when you are taking this asset away from such tight government control, they are some of the questions that could arise.
Can the department talk us through the changes that might affect the commercialisation? Also in that area, it is currently a government department and follows processes, but by transferring or changing the board’s structure, will we see the outsourcing of functions? Will it be used to bypass normal process? These are some of the questions we have come across in preparing for this bill.
As I said previously, the former government was working towards this arrangement, and most museums and galleries around Australia have been changing to this structure. We very much hope the new arrangement does not affect current funding arrangements with government and, like I said, we would be very much in favour of strong local and Indigenous representation on the board. The museum and art gallery in Darwin is an impressive facility. It is certainly the first thing you tell visitors to the Territory or Darwin to visit. It has lovely displays and is very informative. I am sure this is aimed at improving the experience for visitors and Territorians alike, but we are conscious that by changing the structure of the board, this may not happen. We also look forward to some of the other facilities, apart from the flagship museum and art gallery, possibly seeing improvements.
As I said, the opposition supports this bill and thanks the minister for bringing this bill to the House. I again thank his department for the briefings and the visit to the archive site. We certainly have very important cultural and historical venues in Darwin and the Territory, and it is important that we use this bill to strengthen them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. I thank the minister’s staff for giving me some good information about concerns I raised. I am certainly no expert on museums and art galleries, but I occasionally go into them because they are important parts of our culture. It is very important they be maintained for generations to come. Even though there have been some concerns raised, I would still like to quote from a former MAGNT board chairman, Colin McDonald. In the NT News, he also said the MAGNT board act was welcome. He said:
- There’s a welcome step this week with the introduction of new legislation which will restore independence to the MAGNT; the board will be answerable to the (Arts) minister and the MAGNT director will be answerable to the board.
I went to the MAGNT the other day. I was impressed by all of the displays. I know there are some parts of the museum that are being done up. The Southeast Asian display came to a bit of a dead end, and then I realised they were painting the new rooms, but it was a very attractive area. I was talking to some of the visitors there. I did not say who I was, I was just talking as if I was a tourist. They were very complimentary about the displays, especially the Cyclone Tracy display. Of course, Sweetheart attracts people, no matter where you are from; it is always a very impressive display. I found some of the displays that had the birds and snakes, and an area called the irritating arthropods, which reminded me of people in parliament sometimes. They were nicely preserved and it was a really impressive display. If you wanted to find out what that bird, snake or insect was, the information was professionally done in such a way that the ordinary person could immediately find out what was there.
Of course, there is the Aboriginal art and one of the most impressive things I learnt when I was there was about the Wallace collection. To be honest with you, I had not heard about Mr Wallace and I now feel very guilty about that. He is probably equivalent to Charles Darwin and may be even more important. I would need to spend a day there to really appreciate the Wallace exhibition. If you want to see something and learn something about a gentleman who visited Southeast Asian – there has been a lot of talk about how our museum should be connected with the Southeast Asian region. That is certainly shown by having the Wallace exhibition there.
I will just quickly say what is on the Wallace website because the display got me looking at it:
- Alfred Russel Wallace ... was one of the 19th century’s most remarkable intellectuals. Not only did he co-discover evolution by natural selection with Charles Darwin in 1858, but he also made very many other significant contributions, not just to biology, but also to subjects as diverse as glaciology, land reform, anthropology, ethnography, epidemiology and astrobiology. His pioneering work on evolutionary biogeography (the study of how plants and animals are distributed) led him to becoming recognised as that subject’s ‘father’. Beyond this, Wallace is regarded as the pre-eminent collector and field biologist of tropical regions of the 19th century and his book, The Malay Archipelago … is one of the most celebrated travel writings of that century and has never been out of print. Add to the above that Wallace was deeply committed to and a vocal supporter of, spiritualism, socialism and the rights of the ordinary person, and it quickly becomes apparent that he was a man with an extraordinary breadth of interests who was actively engaged with many of the big questions and important issues of the day.
I raise that because it gives me an opportunity – if people have not been to the museum to see a very impressive display about a person I think many people do not know about. I will try to get there again and look at a bit more of it. I say that because although we are discussing the implementation of an independent board, some of the objectives of that board are:
- (b) to develop, conserve, maintain, exhibit and promote the collection;
(c) to promote community involvement and participation in relation to the MAGNT;
(e) to provide leadership in the provision of museum and art gallery services in the Northern Territory.
Clause 10 discusses ministerial control. What does that mean? I know it means the minister has control over the museum, but if the minister said, ‘I do not like the Wallace exhibition; it has to go’, can he do that? What are the limitations on that ministerial control?
The other issue is clause 9(4)(b). Mr McDonald also spoke about that – to ensure the art collection is not sold off. I received an answer from the department and I will read it out:
- Deaccessioning is an exception to the rule in museums and galleries where an object can only be disposed of following a curatorial assessment of its relevance and significance to the collection. Deaccessioning is a rigorous process. It typically requires a substantive argument to be presented for a board’s consideration before they make an argument to the minister.
I appreciate that is the advice given and I accept it, but there is nothing in the legislation to back that. I do not know if the board has its own code of conduct which gives it some guidance as to how it operates, especially in circumstances like deaccessioning. I would like to know if the board has a code of conduct so these things can be written down and a process would have to occur.
I might raise a couple of questions in the committee stage, but I will just mention them now. Going through the bill last night I noted – because I was looking at another issue – clause 28(4)(a), ‘Disclosure of personal interest’ says:
- (4) For this section, an appointed person has a personal interest in a matter if the appointed person:
- (a) has a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter otherwise than as a member of, and in common with the other members of, an incorporated company consisting of not less than 25 persons of which the appointed person is not a director …
I asked questions about annual reports and have an answer. The concern was the board should be responsible for the annual report. The answer was:
- The director is to provide the annual report as the officer responsible for the financial administration of the board under clause 33. The role of the director is similar to the accountable officer of an agency under the Financial Management Act.
There were also concerns about what would be in the annual report. Again, that was covered. I think there were concerns about the number and type of accessions and if you sold any accessions – those sorts of details and whether they would be in the report. My understanding is they would be. The e-mail also mentions:
- Details of items acquired in deaccession, which as stated above are the exception to the rule, are routinely reported in the annual report of the board under the existing act.
It is good to know that already exists. I queried the length of time before the annual report is produced, and I got the answer that six months is normal. What then concerned me was clause 4(b). It says:
- (4) The report must be provided to the Minister:
- (a) within six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates; or
(b) within a longer period determined by the Minister.
Are there any limitations on when the minister can say, ‘I am liable to release the report’? The minister might know I occasionally read these annual reports, especially around estimates time. I would hate to know there was not an annual report for the museum and art gallery by the time estimates came around. It is a fairly wide-open clause. I am interested to know when it would be used.
Those are just some of the issues. It does not mean I do not support what the minister is doing; it is good. The general consensus around the community is that this is a better approach to the running of the museum and art gallery.
There was one area that disappointed me yesterday; there might be good reasons for it. I went to the library yesterday, but I did not go to look at the museum. I wanted to look up some information from Dr Helen Larson, a long time marine biologist who studied out of the museum and art gallery. I emphasise that although we are talking about collections and people looking at displays, the museum is a research facility and has been for a long time. One of its major areas of research has been Darwin Harbour. As you might know – the minister for Planning obviously would know – I am passionate about maintaining the health of Darwin Harbour. When the damming of Darwin Harbour was first looked at, I went to Dr Helen Larson to get information. She was not part of the debate, by the way. I wanted information on what was in the Darwin Harbour, and I was able to get an enormous amount of information from the museum and art gallery.
Yesterday when I went there – I understand you have to make an appointment – I found out they do not have a librarian. I thought as a research library – there are other research libraries in the Northern Territory, like at the Department of Primary Industry and places like that – we would need a librarian there. There may be a reason why we do not. Maybe some of the funding cuts caused it or there is no need for a librarian. Someone might say that, but I thought if someone wants to study in that library they would need a librarian to help them. I would be interested to hear the minister explain that, if he could, in his summing up about the museum as a whole.
Once again, I know we come in here and have our odd disagreements, but having listened to what people who came from interstate yesterday had to say – they were talking amongst themselves and I could hear people making comments. I took up some discussions, especially around some of the Cyclone Tracy photographs. I did not hear anything bad about the museum. In fact I heard praise for the standard of exhibitions.
I will go back. You have got me thinking about Mr Wallace. He seems a pretty important chap. There is an Alfred Wallace website. I recommend that people do not just go and see the exhibition; he also did a lot in this area that borders on our tropics, borders on the Northern Territory. It has been said before that our museum is for the region. This person studied that region pretty thoroughly, and it is quite appropriate that we have a display that is world class.
As I said, I have to spend some time there without having to worry about whether I am going to come in here and talk about legislation and such things. It would be nice to go back and really spend the time looking at that exhibition. I congratulate the museum on that exhibition because it is truly first class. I ask other members of parliament to go and see it. It is something we should even be teaching our school children about.
We only hear about Charles Darwin. One of the issues here is that Charles Darwin is the person who spoke about these things and we find there is another person just as important, maybe even more so, and information about him is being displayed in our museum.
I do support the legislation put forward and I have some questions about it.
Mr CONLAN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions to this and, in general, their support of the bill.
As I said before, this is significant legislation and it is a game changer for our cultural institutions in the Northern Territory, in particular, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
I have articulated – I believe quite well – in my speech introducing this into parliament the thrust of the bill, the intent of this bill and what it means. We have provided briefings to members of the opposition and the Independent, and it sounds to me like many of those concerns have been satisfied. The member for Nightcliff suggested she has had a couple of briefings and has come away from those quite satisfied with some of the concerns she raised.
However, in keeping with the allocation of 30 minutes or so to contribute to the debate, she has raised some of those concerns again. I am unsure whether they actually require a response from me as the member has suggested she is quite satisfied with some of those concerns she raised, as has the member for Nelson. The Telstra NATSIA exhibition is perfectly safe.
The content in the collections, funding and the board were raised as issues. I can go through some of those now. I am unsure how the opposition or the member for Nelson would like to run this. We can trawl through this in the committee stage or I can address some of those issues now. We certainly have answers for you with regard to curators, ministerial control, the disposal of collections and the annual report. You raised concerns about the library, the makeup of the board, the funding composition, the content of the collections, which the member for Nightcliff talked about, and other community assets at Bullocky Point.
I am happy to address those in committee. That might be the best way to go. I can talk about them now, but they will probably be raised again in the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 8:
Mr WOOD: I want to ask the minister about clause 8(b): ‘Functions’. The clause says:
- (b) to develop, conserve, maintain, exhibit and promote the collection;
The question I asked in my summing up was in relation to conserving and maintaining. You will obviously need curators and you will probably need conservers. Have we any idea how many people the museum employs to do that either part-time or full-time? Do you have any figures on the number of curators and details of what they do, and do you also have conservators? I also presume that with paintings and things you must have people who have the skills to make sure artworks are kept in good condition.
Mr CONLAN: We will get some of those exact figures for you, member for Nelson. This is a question you could have easily asked in any of your briefings, but I can say to you that guest curators may be engaged on a case-by-case basis to deliver specific aspects of any program. For example, the Art Award Coordinator was recently employed to deliver the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Award; that is NATSIA, of course. MAGNT’s collections are cared for by a number of dedicated curatorial and collection staff, including the head of collections and collections teams, as well as six curators.
Specifically, MAGNT currently employs people for the following: annelids, molluscs, fish, earth sciences and maritime archaeology, plus an anthropologist who is responsible for the Strehlow Collection and Indigenous Repatriation Program. Recruitment is under way for the positions of Curator of Rock Art and Curator of Territory History, with the announcement of a Curator of Territory History coming very soon. So, there are a couple of positions still available, and I think they have been vacant since around October or late last year.
To care for its collections, MAGNT also employs a taxidermist/collections technical officer as well as two technical officers in the natural sciences. To conserve the collections MAGNT currently has two full-time conservators on staff.
Mr WOOD: I realise that briefings are wonderful. My briefing, I admit, was over the phone and by e-mail. I always remember the CLP when it was in opposition, maybe before your time, always said questions through the committee stage should not be replaced by briefings, because this is the stage where people can hear what is going on. I understand what you are saying, but this is just as important as a briefing. Sometimes questions might come up that could or could not have been asked at the briefing, but this is the opportunity members of parliament have to ask questions. So, thank you for that answer.
On a broader point, do you think there should have perhaps been something which reflects the museum is a public – it is not something you might say is a statutory authority, it is something owned by the public. Do you think we should have had something in there that highlights that this museum belongs to the Northern Territory? It is only an objective that might be missing from the bill.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I actually think it is quite prescriptive. It is called the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, and by virtue of its name, suggests that it belongs to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES: Mr Chair, my question is in relation to clause 8(f), which says:
- (f) to advise the Minister on all matters relating to museums and art galleries in the Territory;
What is the process around that? Will there be documents publicly available so we can see what suggestions the board is making to the government? I am just looking for something around openness and transparency there.
Mr CONLAN: I am a bit unsure of the question. How will I be advised about directions of the board, is that right?
Ms FYLES: One of the key functions of the board is to advise the minister. How will that happen?
Mr CONLAN: It could happen by telephone call, e-mail or board minutes. There is any number of ways I could be advised of the functions or undertakings of the board.
Ms FYLES: As I said, we are looking for something open and transparent so the Territory public can see the exchange between the board and the minister. Will there be publicly available board minutes?
Mr CONLAN: No, there will not. In keeping with all board minutes, particularly most board minutes from Northern Territory government boards, statutory authorities and commissions, they will not be publicly available.
Ms FYLES: Annual reports? How can members of the public track information between the board and the minister?
Mr CONLAN: I suggest there will be some information in the annual report regarding decisions of the minister, but that is exactly what the annual report is: a public document to inform the public what has transpired.
Mr CHAIR: If I can go back to the original question, and that is …
Mr WOOD: No, I am still going.
Clause 9(4)(b) was the concern I had. I said previously this was the answer I received from you during the briefing:
- Deaccessioning is an exception to the rule in museums and galleries where an object can only be disposed of following a curatorial assessment of its relevance and significance to the collection. Deaccessioning is a rigorous process that typically requires a substantive argument to be presented for a board’s consideration before they make an argument to the minister.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, member for Nelson, what will happen?
Mr WOOD: It says the:
- … rigorous process that typically requires a substantive argument to be presented for a board’s consideration before they make an argument to a minister.
Clause 9(4)(b) says the board may, on behalf of the Territory:
- (b) with the approval of the Minister, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of items in the collection.
Mr CONLAN: There is a bit of hysteria that, all of a sudden, this new board is empowered to do things willy-nilly with collections that belong to the Northern Territory. I have to stress that these collections belong to the Northern Territory; they become part of the Crown. Colin McDonald’s collection is now part of the collection of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. You follow the dotted line all the way to the Northern Territory government, all the way to the Crown.
He has donated or loaned his collections – it depends on what he has done – to the MAGNT and they become part of the collection. Any deaccessioning has to follow a process and it rests with the minister. That is why we have the minister. I do not know what you are suggesting. Do we have a wide-ranging committee that looks at all options presented to the board to say they do not particularly want a piece anymore and will dispose of it?
There is a rigorous process, there is a strong convention in place, and there is nothing different between the current process and the new process. It is exactly the same. Nothing has changed when it comes to the sale of Northern Territory government assets in the collections. It has been a long time since any piece of artwork, collection, artefact, or whatever it might be, has been deaccessioned.
These things are not done willy-nilly or on a whim. They are not done because I find a piece of artwork distasteful. The decision rests with the minister, and we had this debate, member for Nelson, with regard to forming the Tourism Commission when it came to the powers of the minister. This is ministerial control, which is the point. It is the system of government we live in.
You and I have had a bit of argy bargy when it comes to this; I firmly believe you did not step up when you had the opportunity to be a minister, but this is what being a minister is about. It is about having the authority to make these sorts of decisions, and this is the system of government we live in. It works on both sides of the House, whether it is Labor or the Country Liberal Party in power. Whoever it is, there is a system of government in place and all roads lead back to the minister - all roads lead to the Crown, if you like. Yes, the minister has the say; it entrusts a significant amount of power and authority to the minister, which is why we have a system of responsible government.
I have no qualms with a minister of the day being able to make those decisions on the recommendation of the board. The minister picks the board and puts the right people in place, and those people provide the minister with the best advice possible. This is the system we work under and the minister has the final say.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I was not querying your powers; I was working out the process which gets it to you to make a decision. Obviously, you will get advice from the board; I was making sure there is somewhere - as I mentioned, whether there is a code of conduct within the board - to set out how something should happen before it comes to you. If you went back to the board and said, ‘How did you come up with this conclusion?’ the board would hopefully have a set of guidelines as to how they got to that point.
You raised a point with me about - I do not say this very much, and I do not think people on your side ever understand – me having an opportunity to be a minister on either side. I did not think it was appropriate. I could have used those powers; I did not. I would have liked to, but I did not because I had other reasons why I did not think it appropriate. You might disagree with me. Yes, I did have the time and place, I could have been anything I wanted, but sometimes that is not the right thing to do.
Mr CONLAN: It forms part of the collections policy, to be a bit more specific about the process. By the time the decision gets to the minister of the day, it falls within the collections policy. There is a collection policy, the board will look at it and say, ‘That falls outside the current collections policy, minister, we think we should dispose or deaccession this piece of art’. The minister can still say it should be kept or moved on.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
Ms FYLES: Hopefully they do not give you that power.
Clause 7 says:
- (1) the MAGNT consists of:
- (a) the grounds and facilities prescribed by the Regulations …
Mr CONLAN: It will and this, again, is largely the point of the bill, to empower the MAGNT to raise its own revenue.
Ms FYLES: The grounds at Bullocky Point, Lyons Cottage and Fannie Bay, for example, become the board’s, so they can raise revenue however they see fit?
Mr CONLAN: They can raise through entry fees and the shop, but they do not own the asset. The Northern Territory government still owns the asset.
Ms FYLES: The Northern Territory government still owns the asset, but the revenue goes to the board. You have led into my next question; the board has the capacity to set entry fees and other fees independent of the government?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it does.
Ms FYLES: What would be the process, for example, if they were setting fees the government did not think were appropriate?
Mr CONLAN: The government would not empower a board in the first place if it did not think it had the responsibility and capacity to go about doing these sorts of things in a responsible manner. We are talking about hypotheticals and it is very hard. I am not going to argue or get into these sorts of debates. If it has happened, or happens, we will bring it back to this Chamber.
Ms FYLES: We are choosing a board which, independent of government, will be able to collect commercial revenues and charge entry fees to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory?
Mr CONLAN: The answer is yes, with ministerial approval.
Ms FYLES: How does ministerial approval happen in collecting revenue or setting fees?
Mr CONLAN: The board puts up a proposal to the minister and says, ‘We would like to charge five bucks to enter the museum’, and the minister says yes or no.
Ms FYLES: Just a couple of moments ago, you said the board would set entry fees independent of government. You now say the board would put a proposal to the minister. Can I clarify which one it is, please?
Mr CONLAN: I think you know which one it is, member for Nightcliff. It is the government. I have just finished stressing this to the member for Nelson. The minister has the final say in all of this. In all of this, all roads lead back to the Northern Territory government. The whole point of this bill is giving the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory sufficient space to raise revenue as it sees fit.
You even highlighted it in your second reading response. It empowers the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory to seek donations, additional collections and the like. That is the point, but all roads still lead back to the minister. The umbilical cord has not quite been cut, but there is sufficient space to empower the board to go about the business it is required to do.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. There is a clear difference between a board seeking donations, separate to government. I can completely understand that, but you have just said to me, in one sentence, that the board has the capacity to set entry fees independent of the government, but then said it comes back to the minister. I would like some clarification around the process and policy for this.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot be any clearer. If you do not understand it, I am sorry. I am not sure what to say to you.
Ms FYLES: I am sorry I cannot understand it, so for the record, the board has the capacity to set entry fees, it has the capacity to collect commercial revenues at Bullocky Point and the other sites, and does that independently of government?
Mr CONLAN: With ministerial approval.
Ms FYLES: I want to clarify ‘with ministerial approval’. One minute you are saying it is independent, then you are saying it is with ministerial approval.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot be any clearer. I am not sure what you are trying to get to, but I have answered the question.
Ms FYLES: I have questions. The Bullocky Point site is a beautiful site. It is a key piece of real estate and there are plenty of grounds there. I know museum facilities are quite outdated in certain areas, so I am concerned that if government sets up a board that is at arm’s length from government, that site could have commercial revenue-raising buildings built on it. There is a lot of land there. We are talking about key infrastructure sites. I am clarifying this process because you are saying the board has the capacity to raise revenue and it could do that from the real estate.
Mr CONLAN: No, it cannot.
Ms FYLES: Could you clarify ‘no, it cannot’ further?
Mr CONLAN: ‘No, it cannot’ means it is unable to do it.
Ms FYLES: Just a few moments ago, you said the board has the capacity to raise commercial revenues, that is, the caf at Bullocky Point, and you are now saying it cannot. These are the questions Territorians are asking. It is great to have a board with ideals to receive monetary donations and donations of collections, but there are some real concerns around setting entry fees, collection of revenue and commercialisation of these venues. These are public assets.
Mr CONLAN: I am still unsure what you are asking. Can they charge $5.50 instead of $4.50 for a cappuccino? Yes, they can. Can they charge $5.00 entry into the museum? Yes, they can. Can they decide to charge $5.50 entry into Lyons Cottage? Yes. Can they develop a 15-storey casino on Bullocky Point? No, they cannot, not without government approval.
Ms FYLES: My questions are maybe not as unrealistic as that. There are currently no entrance fees, apart from to special events at the museum. The board can decide to charge an entry fee, it could also lease out space on its land. You said – I take you back to the point earlier – the board can decide that, but you then said it comes back to the minister. I want some clarification around that, please?
Mr CONLAN: I do not know how much clearer I can make it. Mr Chair, if the member for Nightcliff is unable to process the information we have spent the last seven minutes labouring over, that is her problem. I would like to move on if we can, please. I have answered the question.
Ms FYLES: To sum up, Mr Chair. Under this legislation the grounds, the facilities – the independent board can collect commercial revenues, that is, they can use the space there to collect commercial revenues, they can charge entry fees. This is concerning because it is the commercialisation of our museum and art galleries. Setting up this legislation is about attracting support, but now it has been revealed that we lease out parts of these buildings, and we can charge entry fees.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nightcliff, nothing has been revealed, you have not uncovered a great conspiracy in this bill. They are already leasing out parts of the buildings and, yes, they can set entry fees if they want, but there needs to be ministerial approval. That is it. There is nothing conspiratorial about what is going on here. Yes, it is the whole point by virtue of what we are trying to do to empower the board to be independent and create an independent Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is for the betterment of the collections, the betterment of the people of the Northern Territory and for the betterment of the whole cultural institution; that is the point. We can have this argument, we can argy bargy, but to suggest there is something hidden in this bill that you have uncovered about a policy that already exists is completely untrue.
Clauses 1 to 8 taken together and agreed to.
Progress reported.
Debate suspended
MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 61)
Continued from earlier this day.
Clauses 9 to 13:
Mr WOOD: Clause 10 is about ministerial control. The minister will say, ‘Trust me, I am the minister’, but are there any parameters that control what you can direct the board to do? Could you tell them all to wear pink tutus or to do something ridiculous? Are there any guidelines to make sure the minister does not ask the board to do something ridiculous?
Mr CONLAN: It does not matter what sort of bill it is, the clause about ministerial control is in just about every one, and you ask exactly the same question. I do not know what problem you have with ministerial authority.
As I said to you before, this is the system we operate under. With the Labor Party, Liberal Party and Country Liberal Party, democracy has operated for hundreds of years under the guise of ministerial responsibility. The minister has the authority. In this case it is me, but long after I have gone this bill will still be on the books and the relevant minister - whether it be a Labor, Independent or CLP minister - will have the authority.
If I want to say to the board, ‘I think today we should wear pink tutus’, it is a ministerial direction. Whether they choose to do it or not is a matter for them, and I do not know what repercussions there would be if they chose not to, but yes, I can issue that direction.
Ms FYLES: In relation to clause 9(1), considering experience with other places, what is the department’s analysis of the key risks in transitioning to these new arrangements in relation to powers?
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, are you referring to a specific clause?
Ms FYLES: Yes, clause 9(1) says:
(1) The Board has the powers necessary to perform its functions.
Mr CONLAN: It needs to be pointed out this is not a new model. This is not something we have plucked out of nowhere. This is an established model. There is already a model in place and there are a number of others in operation right around the country. It is a tried and true model which has worked efficiently and effectively for a number of years in many jurisdictions, including this one.
Ms FYLES: In relation to clause 9(2)(a)
- (a) acquire, hold and dispose of real (including leasehold) and personal property;
What arrangements will be in place for the management of sensitive, particularly Indigenous and cultural, items held in the collections, and will the board be making independent decisions about those?
Mr CONLAN: Nothing has changed in terms of – I am still a bit unclear of exactly what you would like to know. For example, you mentioned the Papunya Boards, which is obviously a collection of cultural significance. If that is where you are going, we can drill down into it. I am a bit unclear of exactly what you are asking.
Ms FYLES: Under clause 9(2)(a), acquire, hold or dispose of real and personal property, will the board be making independent decisions? What arrangements are in place for those sensitive Indigenous cultural items? It is not specifically about the Papunya items, it is about a broader Indigenous cultural aspect.
Mr CONLAN: The broader Indigenous cultural aspect will always be taken into consideration, as will parts of the collection that do not have cultural or Indigenous significance. The same will apply. We need to make it clear; it goes back to a couple of questions before. This is an independent statutory authority, but it still has ties to the Northern Territory government. It is not cut completely loose; it is not a force unto its own and would still be a part of government.
It is still tied to the government and you will see this through clause 10, under ministerial control. Everything we are talking about today and all concerns you have brought up still come back to clause 10. The minister, the government, the executive and Cabinet still have the final say on whatever is disposed of, deaccessioned, sold, bought, leased or rented. It still has the oversight of the minister. Those protections are in place. With regard to specific matters about the collection, all collection matters are dealt with under the already well-established and enshrined collections policy.
Ms FYLES: You have just said again that the board could independently do things, it could establish entry fees, and you also said the minister would sign off on everything. It is quite confusing. Can you clarify for us that if the board came to you requesting entry fees, would you sign off on that? If the board came to you, what is the process?
Mr CONLAN: I am not going to deal in hypotheticals; I already said that and if you still do not get it, that is your problem. It is very clear that the board has the authority to make these decisions. It is incumbent on the board to go ahead and make these sorts of decisions or recommendations to the minister. That is what it is there for. That is why we want it to seek these opportunities, but it still comes back for the minister to tick off on, as specified in clause 10. I do not know how much clearer that can be, and I am not sure this relates to any specific clause in this bill.
Ms FYLES: It is, because in one sense, you are saying it would make independent decisions, but you are then saying everything comes back to the minister. I am trying to get my head around this ‘with items they will obtain and dispose of for cultural purposes’. We have talked in depth about entry fees and you keep giving us a double answer. Anyway, I am happy to move on from that section now.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, please do.
Ms FYLES: Under ministerial control, if the board comes to you – you are saying the board is completely independent?
Mr CONLAN: We have moved on. I thought we had, hadn’t we?
Ms FYLES: You have been saying everything comes up under this clause, so that is why I want to talk about it now. Under clause 10, you are saying everything goes through the board; it is independent, but it then comes to you. You still have the power around entry fees, disposal of collections, is that correct?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, it is.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Mr CHAIR: Are we happy to move on from Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13?
Ms FYLES: I have a question on clause 13(4): board members’ remuneration. Will there be fees paid to these board members? Will they receive a salary?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, they would receive a sitting fee.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Clauses 9 to 13, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr CONLAN: I move amendment 15.1.
Clause 14 says the board may establish a trust or entities. The proposed amendment to clause 14 will enable the board to establish a trust or a company, incorporated association or other corporate entity. The intention of the amendment is to ensure the board has a number of mechanisms it can use, if required, to enable it to apply for taxation concessions, including charity status and deductible gift recipient endorsement.
The Department of Arts and Museums has been advised that a change to the Commonwealth Charities Act 2013 in December 2013, through a new legislative instrument titled The Charities Definition of Government Entity Instrument 2013, may make it difficult for the MAGNT board to obtain charity status.
Legal advice recommended the bill be amended to enable the board to establish a trust, in order to provide it with greater flexibility to obtain charity status.
It is pretty simple; it was as a result of a late change in Commonwealth legislation, just before Christmas last year.
Ms FYLES: I have a question about types of corporate entities. Are there any examples?
Mr CONLAN: There is a foundation, for example, to raise money. If a foundation was set up to raise money, it would be considered a corporate entity.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chair, I move amendment 15.2.
Mr CHAIR: I presume that has the same explanation as previously.
Mr CONLAN: All of these amendments are as a result of that previous explanatory statement.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Chair, I move amendment 15.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill:
Ms FYLES: Under cause 15, the board consists of a chairperson and six other members. With the makeup of that board, it would be important to see a guarantee of Indigenous representation. Can you clarify that?
Mr CONLAN: No. This government is not into affirmative action. Board members will be appointed on their merit and the credibility of their background. It is quite specific in the act as to members of the board. We want the best possible people on that board, much like the Tourism commission. We are seeking to have the very best people on the board who can deliver for the Northern Territory, not to have people because of their race, colour, background or gender. That is counterproductive to finding the best people.
The best people might consist of all Indigenous people; it might be all women; it might be all people from South Australia; it might be all people of Asian background. It just may happen that the very best people we can find are all from one race, creed or sex. It will likely be a mixture of people. We will not be prescriptive in the bill as to who should be on that board. That is counterproductive to getting the best out of this model.
Ms FYLES: In the makeup of the new board, will at least some members need to have qualifications related to knowledge of cultural understanding or corporate directorship responsibilities?
Mr CONLAN: For the sake of the question, I will find that for you. Clauses 15 to 17 say the minister must be satisfied that the person to be appointed holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and experience relating to the function of the board. The provision allows the minister to appoint a board with a mix of expertise and knowledge that will be required to further develop the MAGNT and generate new sources of revenue including, for example, business expertise, professional training or experience such as legal or accounting, relative board experience such as other national or state level museums or art gallery boards, knowledge and expertise of the arts sector, scientific research policy, community leaders and experience or capacity to attract philanthropic and corporate support.
Ms FYLES: Sorry, where did you read from?
Mr CONLAN: I am reading from these notes and explaining to you the makeup of the board. The minister must be satisfied the person appointed holds suitable qualifications or has suitable knowledge and expertise relating to the functions of the board.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. That is stated there, but we had no idea what ‘type of qualifications’ or ‘suitable experience’ meant. I was clarifying that.
Ms FYLES: I have one further question around salary payment. Is the Chair of the board a full-time position?
Mr CONLAN: No, it is not a full-time board position but is remunerated to the tune of a sitting fee, like all other board members.
Mr WOOD: Can we keep going? Can we ask the Speaker?
Mr CHAIR: What specifically did you want to ask about?
Mr WOOD: Clause 28, which I raised during the response, and clause 36, which we raised during the response.
Ms FYLES: I had a question on clause 27.
Mr CHAIR: On the basis I have not reported, I will allow you three questions, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Can they be three questions with dots underneath?
I raised clause 28 during the response. Clause 28(4)(a) was an explanation of why:
- … an appointed person has a personal interest in a matter if the appointed person …
I mentioned before, it usually says, ‘has a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter’. This has a lot more in it, in relation to:
- … an incorporated company consisting of not less than 25 persons …
Mr CONLAN: The reason that is expanded a little more than in other acts is when establishing a statutory authority, it has to be more prescriptive and more specific. It is common in all NT statutory authority acts – Parliamentary Counsel procedure.
Mr WOOD: My other question was on annual reports, clause 36(4)(b). Subclause 4 is about the requirement to have the annual report done within six months of the financial year, but it then says:
- (b) within a longer period determined by the Minister.
Mr CONLAN: I agree, and if the annual report was not compiled within six months, I am sure the government would have a lot to say about it. There would possibly be significant political heat if it was not made available by estimates. I am sure the minister of the day, and I will, while I have carriage of this, be making absolutely sure the annual report is available within that six month period.
The clause is in there because the report is consequential and subject to other annual reports. If those annual reports are not completed, the MAGNT annual report cannot be. It is a requirement. But, as I said, it is consequential to other annual reports. It gives latitude in case there is a hold up or a problem with other annual reports. It provides the scope to extend it out, rather than enshrining it in legislation. There would be nothing anyone could do if those other reports had not been tabled in parliament.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Mr Chair, I do not need the third question. I apologise for missing the spot to come in.
Mr CHAIR: There will be no credit.
Remainder of the bill, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CONLAN (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (CHARTER OF RIGHTS) BILL (Serial 62)
Continued from 4 December 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I indicated to the minister’s office recently that the opposition supports the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Charter of Rights) Bill 2013. We welcome this bill, we support it and we recognise that the Northern Territory is the last jurisdiction to legislate for a charter of rights for children and young people in care. It is clearly the right thing to do and we recognise that. This is not to say I will not be raising some issues of concern with the minister, not only with the bill, but in broader areas of child protection. I think the minister would be surprised if I did not raise some issues.
I would ordinarily have sought a briefing on the bill, as I have done with any bill I have represented in opposition as a shadow minister. Sometimes, however, there are things so straightforward one wonders if it is worth everybody’s time gathering around the table, so I have probably saved a few bureaucrats a meeting.
To be honest with you, as the Chief Minister highlighted, I did take some leave. I took a whole 12 days, came back in January, and was kept very busy in my electorate with the crisis that is happening in Nhulunbuy. I also took the opportunity to visit Darwin and, importantly, meet with stakeholders in the area of Children and Families. I decided I would forgo a visit to the minister’s officer to seek a briefing. I will have some questions for him today. I trust the minister took a holiday; I hope he did.
Mr Wood: No, he was …
Ms WALKER: He did not? What a great shame that is. I hope he does so soon, because people cannot function if they do not have a bit of a break. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to have a break with my children. I spend a lot of time away from home and my kids miss me, my families miss me. I certainly enjoyed a bit of a break and catching up with my 91-year old mother, who I have not seen for a while.
We know this charter of rights fulfils a recommendation of the board of inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report. It is one of 147 recommendations. There are many recommendations that have not been fulfilled, but today we will see one of them fulfilled. We all know, regardless of which side of the House we are on, and people outside of this House, that, as a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect and abuse of children. It remains an incredibly challenging area for governments of all persuasions, not just in Australia, but around the world.
We only have to look to the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse set up by former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. There was no charter of rights back then for those children. There was no system to protect them, and they now try to struggle on well into adulthood as victims, carrying awful burdens from their childhood. The stories and evidence coming out of that commission are absolutely harrowing. I happened to be in the car with the ABC on last week, listening to harrowing evidence about the treatment of kids at the hands of adults in a home run by the Salvation Army. Those adults were supposed to act in the interests of caring for children and their welfare – far from it. I trust the Royal Commission will indeed bring some comfort, some closure and, I hope, some compensation for the many victims of abuse, sexual abuse in particular, over the years.
The biggest issue facing child protection in the Territory right now is, with the change of government – with the CLP now at the reins for 18 months – the dysfunction we see government delivering. We have seen three ministers in the role of Child Protection and Children and Families in a little over 12 months and, along with that, five CEOs. We have seen the chopping and changing of administrative orders, with what was a stand alone agency under Labor integrated into a massive agency in Education. It was then taken out and pushed to the side, and, thankfully, it is now back where it should be, as a stand alone agency under the Department of Children and Families.
I am pleased to see the current minister at the helm of this agency, because I honestly think he will do a better job than his predecessors. It is no doubt helpful to him that he is also the Attorney-General and Justice minister. While I do not agree with Youth sitting in the Corrections agency, the minister does have carriage of those portfolios and, with his experience, knowledge of legislative instruments and long history of how they have operated in the Northern Territory, he will do some good. I know he intends to do that. I was certainly grateful for the personal phone call he made to me last year after the opposition had announced a reshuffle and I had been announced as the member with shadow responsibility for care and protection of children. I welcome the support from the minister. I know he was very genuine when he said to me his office door is always open, and he saw it was important to keep me informed and to work with me. I thank him for that.
If we look at the annual report issued last year, we know there have been mistakes. Page 21 shows there was a $15m blowout of the out-of-home care budget; it was forecast as $70m and came in at $85m. Last year’s estimates revealed that around 120 people have left the department in the last year. I acknowledge the member for Nightcliff, who at that time had shadow responsibility for this portfolio and performed extremely well at estimates with a fairly hostile minister who was not interested in sharing information. It was probably testimony to the fact she was not running that agency particularly well, and small wonder she no longer has carriage of the portfolio.
For all of the extra money spent, an extra $15m, there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of kids in care. What is apparent here is that a large sum of money is being spent on interstate care providers for children, as there are not the foster families in the Northern Territory. We are talking about a charter of rights bill today, but I hope for some latitude in trying to paint the picture of what is happening on the ground in child protection in the Northern Territory. There are reasons why there are not enough foster families in the NT. We might talk a bit later about the demise of SAF,T, the peak body set up to support Aboriginal children in care, recognising they are over-represented in the system. We know that notification rates were close to 10 000, according to the annual report for the previous year, but 7000 the year before that. Completed investigation numbers are only around 3500. What is going on with these statistics?
The current CEO, the fifth CEO, who, like the minister, will do well in this portfolio, has years of experience in this area. She has passion and dedication but she has certainly come in to clean up a mess she inherited within the first 12 months or so under the CLP government. In talking about these numbers, she was interviewed on the ABC 7.30 Report around 1 November last year. She was asked about the numbers of children being reported and investigated, and she replied:
- Historically it has been going up, both in the Territory and elsewhere. It could be that child protection, child abuse is more talked about these days. Clearly there are, has been a lot of public discussion about it. It could also be sadly that more parents are letting down their children.
I do not dispute that. The reporter then asked:
- At the same time, your department assesses notifications to see whether they're worthy to proceed to investigation and it's been deciding to investigate less and less notifications the past couple of years. So I think three years ago 60 per cent of notifications were investigated, two years ago it was 50 per cent and in this past financial year it's 38 per cent.
- I'm not sure why there have been fewer investigations and in turn fewer substantiations, but certainly the conversion rate I don't think has been terribly good but in fairness, there might be all sorts of reasons for it. It may be that a number of notifications can be genuinely screened out and again there might be all sorts of reasons for that.
If the CEO cannot identify why there has been a drop in investigations, then I hope the minister can. It is alarming that, for 18 months of CLP government, we have seen a system slipping backwards. More children – those who are vulnerable and at risk – are slipping through cracks, given that the former government had so much in place to address child protection, in recognition of earlier failings, through a board of inquiry, which became instrumental in driving change when it delivered its report. We did have a statement before this House under the first minister, the member for Araluen, not long after the 2012 change of government. This minister was also the Treasurer at that time. She slashed the budgets of all government agencies, including the Department of Children and Families and Child Protection, and further slashed the budgets of NGOs committed and contracted to supporting children and families in the child protection system, as well as the provision of preventative youth and family services. In that statement the then Minister for Child Protection committed:
- Growing them strong, together will continue to provide a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements but will not restrict us.
The member for Nightcliff pointed out, when she spoke on that statement in late 2012, that it is not about choosing the best bits out of the board of inquiry’s report, the easy bits, or the bits that do not need much funding. The reality is this bill appears to be doing that today.
Members will recall the board of inquiry was chaired by experts respected in their field: Professor Muriel Bamblett AM from Victoria, Dr Howard Bath, our own Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner, and paediatrician, Dr Rob Roseby. They authored the two-volume report, and such was the need for them to complete their investigations, they travelled extensively around the Territory and were granted an extension of time by the then Health minister.
It was certainly wide-ranging and received more than 150 submissions from organisations and individuals. It incorporated consultation with communities and regional centres around the Northern Territory and pulled together evidence from a range of reports and experts from around Australia. It encompassed the whole system, not just specific allegations or adverse incidents as some other inquiries had done.
In response to that inquiry, the former Labor government announced an immediate response, an allocation of significant funding – $130m over five years – towards improving services and a commitment to meeting the 147 recommendations. It is long since gone, but through the Council of Territory Cooperation, which the CLP never liked and was not interested in – it was a good conduit for members and the public to hear how things were progressing.
We had the CEO of the agency, Dr Howard Bath, and Professor Graham Vimpani, who was chairing the external monitoring review committee. He would appear before the CTC at public hearings to provide evidence and updates. We were an external, at arm’s length committee of the parliament, which was holding them to account and finding out what they were doing.
People like Professor Vimpani and the external monitoring committee were sacked and, right now, perhaps apart from our Children’s Commissioner, there is no external body monitoring what is happening with the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
In looking at key initiatives, they are all important recommendations, but chapter six is about enhancing the service system to support families in the Northern Territory. It is about the preventative aspect; it is about looking after children and families and endeavouring to provide support to help families, to help parents be good parents so these kids do not become at risk. It is a huge job and requires much in the way of resources and money. The recommendations in chapter six – the philosophical basis of chapter six around that whole preventative stuff seems to have taken a back seat and been pushed to one side.
I know the board of inquiry has not been entirely dismissed by the CLP government, nor should it be. It was not a political piece of work, it was independently authored by experts and its singular purpose was to support Territory families and ensure the safety of kids, especially those who were vulnerable and most at risk.
I have already quoted from the 7.30 Report from November of last year; there was another interview on 3 June last year on the ABC News with the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath. He, as an independent statutory body, was prepared to give a frank and fearless interview about the state of child protection in the Northern Territory.
I would like to quote some of the things he said in that interview. He was asked by the journalist at the opening about the original ‘tsunami of need’, which was the phrase he has used, and if the system has improved. This was in June 2013, about ten months after the change of government.
He said:
- Look, even though there have been ongoing difficulties within that system there was some glimmer of hope toward the end of last year.
Last year being 2012. He goes on:
- … the improvements weren't so much in the conditions facing the children, the vulnerability of those children and families; it was to do with process issues within the department. You know for instance responding more quickly to situations of abuse and neglect, filling out care plans for the kids. These are process issues, recruiting more foster carers. Things were improving, not across the board but there were some glimmers of hope for a system that's been struggling … of course, the other one was that there was an improvement in caseloads so that they were starting, it seemed, to get down to a reasonable level for case managers … to actually do the job that they're employed to do.
The journalist asked him:
- But that has not continued?
- … there's been a lot of turmoil in the department in the last, say nine months, in terms of changes in personnel – the chief executive being removed, other senior staff being removed, we've also even had a change of minister a couple of times. We've had acting people in those roles so unfortunately I don't think things have improved. We will be keeping a close eye on how that department is functioning but things have not been in a good place, particularly in the last nine months and particularly around morale. The staff are in there plugging away. I hear recently about very high caseloads again and that, I'm really worried about that.
- … the money would be better spent on services that supported families to improve their parenting skills and keep children with them. Is that something you would support?
- That's where the effort should be going. That's where the finances should be going because it's a little bit like that old analogy – are we just going to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff picking up these kids as they come into care and never really keeping up with the number of kids that are coming, or are we going to attempt to build that fence at the top of the cliff?
This paints the picture of where we are with the child protection system. The interview I have just quoted from was in June of last year and I would hope there has been improvement since then. It was a fairly grim picture the Children’s Commissioner was talking about at the time.
Let us move on to look broadly about what a charter of rights for children and young people in care might look like. I have a paper here titled Response to the May 2005 Department of Human Services (Victoria) Discussion Paper on A Charter of Rights for Children in Care. It was published in Australian Children’s Rights News in December 2005 and it is important to note a couple of things. One of the headings is: ‘How would the proposed charter benefit children and young people in care?’ It says:
- The potential benefit of the proposed Charter is intrinsically dependent upon its content and how it is given practical effect. The mere creation of a charter document is window-dressing. To make a meaningful difference, the proposed Charter of rights must achieve a number of ambitions and be distinguishable from other ways of setting expectations for how children will/should be cared for.
- The legal status of the proposed charter will be a key determinant of its benefit.
…Apart from its proactive effects, such legal force must extend to the proposed Charter of rights having ‘teeth’ when its expectations have not been complied with. The proposed Charter of rights must be more than a statement of standards, policy or good practice
There is a further quote within this text and it is attributed to the Committee on the Rights of the Child from 2003. It says:
- For rights to have meaning, effective remedies must be available to address violations (emphasis added).
I go back to the article:
- Access to a remedy is an essential distinguishing feature of a right. The denial or violation of rights in a Charter should therefore found a legal cause of action which, as is increasingly the norm in civil matters, initially becomes a trigger for dispute resolution processes.
I am sure the minister understands why I am reading from this document. Essentially, we want to know, if we have this charter of rights – a list of a dozen or so rights for children and young people in care in the Northern Territory – what assurances do we have that it is not just window dressing and is a statement that might be distributed, according to the bill, by the CEO to children? How do we know it will get to children? How do we know they will understand and appreciate legislation exists that protects their rights? How do we know their carers and families know this is in existence, to ensure it is not just a piece of paper and there is some meaning to it?
We are the only jurisdiction in the country that does not have a charter of rights, so it is high time we have one. Having looked online, they all reflect similar rights for children, as you would expect. We go from, for instance, a booklet such as this from Victoria, which outlines kids’ rights. It is a 32-page booklet. There is one from Queensland as well. The one from Victoria indicates to us – the visuals ensure it is age appropriate, its primary audience is children and the illustrations indicate that. Inside, there is a sense that – there is a very clear indication this booklet is for a particular child, as with some of the books our kids have. On the front page it says, ‘This book belongs to’, and there is an opportunity for the child to put their name in there, recognising that strong sense of ownership and that the charter of rights exists for that child. That was the one from Victoria …
Mr Wood: No, Queensland.
Ms WALKER: Was that Queensland? Sorry, you are ahead of me, member for Nelson.
The one from Tasmania, again, is another one in a booklet style, another take on graphic design as to what is appropriate for kids. In a number of jurisdictions, they have divided the charter of rights into age groups. In the ACT, they have three charters of rights. They have one for under six years of age, one for the seven to 12 years age group and one for the 13 to 18 years group.
South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia all have just one. There are other jurisdictions, Victoria, ACT, as I said, New South Wales and Queensland that have at least two booklets or support documents outlining a child’s charter of rights.
We have this document which the minister’s office – your advisor – sent to me. My question will be around ...
Mr Elferink: I have this one here. It just has not been released yet, but I am happy to show it to you.
Ms WALKER: You have already answered what I was going to ask. I had anticipated that we were going to laminate this and whack it up on somebody’s wall. It is good to hear there is a proper document coming out with all the right and appropriate visuals and texts. I look forward to seeing a copy of that, knowing we have so many Indigenous kids in the system. Obviously, there needs to be visuals and text that reflects their cultural backgrounds and the fact the vast majority of those kids will not have English as their first language. That is good; I am pleased to hear there is a draft. I look forward to seeing that shortly. I want to know if this charter of rights extends further to include – it is to do with some inclusion of service system responsibilities in relation to the charter of rights.
I will quote from the document quoted from earlier, under the heading, ‘Should the charter include service system responsibility?’
- It is essential that the proposed Charter identify how identified rights are given effect by the service system. There are practical challenges associated with striking a balance that achieves sufficient clarity without overwhelming detail in a way that is targeted to the adult/child and consumer/service-provider audiences. In respect of the service system, we suggest a layered model – comparable to the pyramid of content with increasing specificity often seen in organisational mission/vision statements. As we have said earlier, at the legislative level, we suggest a clear statement of the legally enforceable statutory duty of the Secretary and agency heads to give practical effect to the settled list of overarching and particular rights.
I am sure the minister understands where I am coming from. When he responds in this debate, I look forward to him letting us know how that will occur within this bill.
The 12 items listed as rights for children and young people in the Northern Territory are okay. There is nothing that jumps out at me to say, ‘This is wrong’, or ‘This is missing’. Having looked at what other jurisdictions have in their charters, there are clearly common themes. Given the announcement about an Indigenous education review and the fact it is recognised that children have the right to an education, it begs the question: what rights will children have around schooling, around proposals that secondary schooling may not be offered in some communities where it currently exists? The option will be to go to boarding school. Some people who live in remote parts of the Territory, who have secondary schooling, in particular from the Laynhapuy Homelands, will want to fight the Education minister and the government tooth and nail if anyone suggests they cannot have secondary education in their school, their community, and the only way that they can do it is to be packed off to boarding school.
There is a common term I hear in my electorate in relation to boarding school. It is great that people have the choice, but we are not talking about a choice anymore. According to this Indigenous review, kids will have to go to a boarding school. For some of those homelands people, it is said when they go away, they grow away and, for them, that importance of connection to culture, which is one of the rights here – language is something. They would be horrified to think they can no longer do their secondary schooling in their community and would have to go to a boarding school. Minister, that is probably not so much for you as for the Education minister to think about.
We recognise that a charter of rights is a good thing, but how will this charter of rights, when it has passage in this House, help kids in a system we know has so many elements of dysfunction in it? We know staff have been leaving the agency in hordes, morale is at an all-time low, and the key recommendations of the board of inquiry around prevention have been pushed aside. The advice of experts has also been pushed aside, you could even say ignored.
Chapter six is all about integrating support services, supporting kids and families, helping parents to be good and better parents. It is doing what Dr Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, had referred to. It is about building a fence at the top of the cliff, rather than having an ambulance at the bottom to clean up the mess after, metaphorically, vulnerable children and those at risk have fallen off it.
What we have currently – it is not just me saying this; I met with stakeholders in this area when I visited Darwin the week before last. I spoke with NAPCAN, the CREATE Foundation and NTCOSS, and concerns were raised about the dangers of having a system focused only on investigations through a statutory process, proving a case of neglect, substantiating a case and then seeing children placed under court orders in care. What is entirely absent is family support to effect change. If we have a system that is constantly going around in circles rather than trying to address the dysfunction at grassroots level through preventive measures, through those systems which support families and children, we will never be able to break that cycle.
I referred to cuts, more than cuts; there was $1m in funding cut from SAF,T, the agency set up to operate the Aboriginal childcare agency under the board of inquiry’s recommendation. That organisation has now finished. I am aware of issues around SAF,T and how it operated, service level agreements, issues with funding and whether or not funding was spent in the best possible way. However, what disappoints me enormously is that organisation as an NGO was just let go, cut free. It was there to service Aboriginal children and families and, far from the government saying, ‘Let us sort through the issues SAF,T is having as a peak body’, it was simply cut loose and let go. Disappointing is probably not a strong enough word; nobody stood up for that organisation. I know NAAJA did. I put out a media release, for all the good it did, but the organisation was allowed to slip by. The acting CEO, Miss Jane Wilson, who stepped into a difficult role, struck me as an incredibly competent individual …
Mrs Lambley: Jane Johnson.
Ms WALKER: No, Jane Wilson was her name and she was the acting CEO of SAF,T. She must have stepped into that role in about September. She is an Indigenous Territorian by birth, with family from the Tiwi Islands and she worked for many years in the New South Wales system. She did her best; she is a very articulate woman with a clear understanding of child protection and the system. I felt disappointed that she wrote to the minister and the CEO seeking direction, wanting to have meetings, doing the best she could to repair this organisation and have it move forward and did not even receive the courtesy of a response from the CEO to e-mail requests for meetings. To this day, I am not sure they ever met, and SAF,T has now finished. It is a great shame that government was not prepared to provide some support to help it navigate through issues it might have been having. It was not about the organisation itself; it was about the fact it was fulfilling an important recommendation from the board of inquiry for a peak body for Aboriginal children and families.
We have seen funding cuts to youth services. For years in this House, I have listened to the current CLP government, when it was opposition, talk about the problems in Alice Springs and at-risk youth there. Our government acted upon community concerns. Karl Hampton was the minister at the time and he established the – quite apart from working on the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan -- YSOS, the Youth Street Outreach Service, which provided a very important and vital service for young people at risk in Alice Springs, diverting them from trouble.
YSOS was working directly with young people at risk. It was working seven days a week. We had workers on the streets looking after these kids until 3 am, trying to divert them from trouble. News came through the week before last that this service has been closed. What does this mean for youth in Alice Springs? Has crime disappeared, according to the Chief Minister, so we do not need this service? Far from it.
There was a media release from the Chief Minister, which was the waffliest example of media speak I have ever read. It was in the Centralian Advocate, and it was about the fact the street kids service is reducing; that is the title on the piece. According to the Chief Minister, who is an Alice Springs member, by the way – we have five members of the CLP who are based in Alice Springs who were very vocal when in opposition about what needed to be done for young people there. Now they are in government and sitting opposite, not one of those five members has spoken about the cuts to youth services in Alice Springs, the closing of the Youth Hub or the closing of YSOS.
This is what the Chief Minister said to the Centralian Advocate about YSOS:
- It’s not slash and burn … (It’s) where you put your best efforts for your investment for those kids.
It’s a changing dynamic, a lot of the changes we’ve made are positive.
It’s not walking away, it’s putting more investment in a better way.
What does that mean? Where was the study, the analysis of the effectiveness of the service? Everybody we have spoken to agreed it was a very effective, valuable and needed service, but somehow, the Chief Minister is going to put in:
- … more investment in a better way.
That is a very articulate response – not!
As I said from the outset, members of the opposition support the bill, but if they cannot fix the mess they have created in child protection, then I am not sure a charter of rights for children and young people in the Northern Territory will do much more than window dress. I look forward to being convinced otherwise by the minister, and I may have some questions in the committee stage. It is a very short bill. Clause 2 states:
- (2) The CEO must promote compliance with the Charter of Rights.
Clause 7 raises questions. It says:
- … the CEO need not give a copy of the Charter of Rights and explanatory statement to a child under subsection (6) if the CEO considers that it is not appropriate to do so having regard to the child’s maturity and understanding.
How will assessments be made by the CEO about a child’s maturity and understanding, recognising we have a lot of kids? The vast majority of kids who are in care in the Northern Territory are Indigenous, so clearly their understanding of a written document in English will be limited. How will that clause work effectively?
I will leave it there. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. We support a charter of rights and we just hope it becomes an effective document and is not a piece of window dressing.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I speak this afternoon to support my colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, and his Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Charter of Rights) Bill 2013. I have listened with great interest to the member for Nhulunbuy and her lament of the past and her version of how wonderful child protection was under the former Labor government. Those of us on this side of the Chamber certainly do not remember it like that. I do not think the children and general public of the Northern Territory view the 11 years of disastrous mismanagement of child protection under Labor as being a good era, or golden era of child protection, as it was painted by the member for Nhulunbuy. I only wish it was. When you talk about child protection, you have to put on your most sincere hat. I have mine on today and I sincerely hope we did not waste 11 years under Labor and watch the demise of child protection through that period. Yes, the Growing them strong, together report was a critical part of that history, the dark history Labor has decided not to own in 2014, but it is their history, it is their legacy to child protection.
We are the government and have been for the last 18 months. That 18 months has been a heady time, as any new government will find, where it takes a while to settle in.
I was the shadow minister for Child Protection for approximately 12 months before coming to government, and I was the minister for Child Protection for a period when we first came to power. It was the decision of the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and me that I would hand over child protection to the member for Namatjira, because my workload was unmanageable. I had multiple portfolios and child protection was something the member for Namatjira had a great interest in.
It is now in the capable hands of the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General. He is now the minister for Child Protection. These changes were probably a little unfortunate, in trying to maintain stability within the Department of Children and Families, but given the circumstances of how our government was formed and things that have happened since, they had to be made. We are now on a very smooth and stable path in managing this department.
One of the more interesting things the member for Nhulunbuy talked about was the fact we have somehow led to a greater demise and crumbling of the child protection system in the Northern Territory. Her comments are seriously misleading; they do not acknowledge at all what we were left with when we came to government. We were left with a child protection system that, although it had been improving slightly over the two years before we came to government, was still in serious disarray. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, the Growing them strong, together report was a critical milestone in reforming the problems in the child protection system. It was delivered by the co-chairs, Professor Muriel Bamblett, Dr Howard Bath and Dr Rob Roseby to the then Hon Paul Henderson, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 18 October 2010. That is pretty close to three-and-a-half years we have been presiding over this document. It is a little outdated now, but it still holds a great deal of relevance. That is why we are here today, and that is the reason the minister for Child Protection has brought forward this amendment to the bill. It was a recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report to introduce a charter of rights for children; it was recommendation 38.
I also note this recommendation was of importance; the rating was given a two, which means it should have been implemented within the first 18 months. It should have been implemented by the former Labor government. If the member for Nhulunbuy wants to throw stones, there is a stone I am throwing at her, another failure of the former Labor government. You should have had this up and running in your term of government. Thus, here we are, three years and four months later, introducing a fairly simple but very significant amendment to the bill.
The rationale for introducing this amendment is really framed in the report as creating principles that should underpin a child protection system. One of the criticisms within the Growing them strong, together report was the fact the Northern Territory child protection system had effectively lost its way; it lacked the principles necessary to guide all the players in the child protection system. It is important that any system of significance in a society, such as the Northern Territory child protection system has a framework, a set of principles that everyone agrees to, adheres to and values.
The charter of rights was seen as essential in building a framework which underpins our child protection system. The charter of rights we have chosen is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quoting from chapter one of the Growing them strong, together report, these are listed as including:
- Children’s right to safety (including cultural safety), security and wellbeing
Families are best placed to care for children
Government’s obligation is to provide the widest possible assistance to support families in their child rearing role
Children’s right to be free from abuse and neglect and that where parents can’t or won’t protect and care for children (even with widest possible assistance) the State needs to intervene and care for the child. Statutory child protection is one part of a broad and robust system for protecting children and ensuring their wellbeing.
The Growing them strong, together report also talks about the UN considerations relevant for Aboriginal children. Anyone can still grab a copy of this online. After many years, the Growing them strong, together report is still highly accessible and you can read what the authors of this report thought were the essential principles that should be guiding our child protection system in the Northern Territory.
Time has gone on and we now have a proposed charter of rights for young people. In our Cabinet discussion on this charter of rights, we also felt it was necessary to include the responsibilities of children going into care. They should be aware of their rights going into care, the care and the protection of the CEO of the department, but also their responsibilities. There was a lot of debate and robust discussion about this. As conservative politicians, we believe it is important for everyone, not just children, to be cognisant of their rights, but also their responsibilities to society. This alone triggers a debate around what is a right; what are we really talking about here?
I note in the consultation for this charter of rights, there was discussion within the groups of children and with the stakeholder groups about what a right is. This document refers to what children or young people can expect from their carers and, in terms of responsibilities, it is what other people can expect from these children going into the out- of-home care system.
I noted the concern the member for Nhulunbuy raised about. I think she quoted clause 7 of the legislation, which says:
- … the CEO need not give a copy of the Charter of Rights and explanatory statement to a child under subsection (6) if the CEO considers that it is not appropriate to do so having regard to the child’s maturity and understanding.
We have brought this to the table. This government has brought this to parliament in good faith. We, as a Cabinet, agree that children should have an understanding of what they are entitled to. We all should, as human beings in a civilised society. We all have rights. It is not always the case that our rights are spelt out for us, but I understand this charter of rights will be consistent with all other jurisdictions around Australia; another tick for this government.
We are coming into line with the rest of Australia in terms of our legislation. Just today, I announced to the people of the Northern Territory that we will no longer tolerate adults smoking in cars with children, and we are bringing our legislation, the Tobacco Control Act, into line with all other jurisdictions around Australia. This government is really doing a lot of cleaning up from the former Labor government. They claim they were so incredibly successful in so many areas, but what we found when we came to government was tardiness. They overlooked lots of things. They took their eye off the ball. They became incredibly lazy in the last couple of years, and what we are doing is effectively cleaning up and refocusing the Northern Territory in a more positive frame.
I also listened, with great intent, to the member for Nhulunbuy’s story about our lack of support for the organisation, SAF,T. It was one of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report that an Aboriginal children and families peak body in the Northern Territory be established and, as a part of that, various Aboriginal organisations were consulted. SNAICC and AMSANT are two examples, and the organisation that came to be known as SAF,T was established as the Northern Territory equivalent of an Aboriginal childcare agency. This organisation was supported all the way through. Yes, we reduced its funding at one point, because it was given a huge amount of funding by the former Labor government and was not delivering within a timely fashion. Right to the end, to my knowledge – I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of what happened at the end of the story of SAF,T, it may not be conclusion, I am not even sure of that, but I do understand that not at any point did SAF,T, over a period of years, deliver any services to the children and families of the Northern Territory. The version of events from the member for Nhulunbuy is somewhat emotive and misinformed.
SAF,T was something we were all looking forward to seeing how it operated in the Northern Territory. Once again, it was an organisation that would have made us consistent with all other jurisdictions in Australia in having an ACCA, an Aboriginal childcare agency in the Territory. However, for many reasons, some of which I am not aware of, this organisation effectively failed, and that is a sad story. That is not something I talk about with any sense of satisfaction. No one wants to see a non-government organisation fail and no one wants to see a non-government organisation that is given a huge amount of money fail. For that money not to not go on its intended purpose of assisting the most disadvantaged children and families in the Northern Territory is a tragedy. It was a great misfortune, and I look forward to possibly one day hearing why that occurred and why this organisation failed the Northern Territory. It is a very sad and unfortunate story in the chapter of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Just to put things into perspective again – I have done this so many times in this Chamber – this government inherited a very dysfunctional child protection system. What you will not hear from the other side of the Chamber – from the members for Nhulunbuy and the member for Nightcliff, who has been very active in this space during her short time as a member of parliament – is that the Growing them strong, together report was effectively the last independent report on child protection, in a queue of many delivered to the Labor government. We had the State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which produced the Little Children are Sacred report.
We had a whole raft of reports presented to the Labor government, telling them, very clearly, that things had to improve and they could not possibly get any worse in the Northern Territory when it came to child protection. The board of inquiry said it had uncovered a:
- … ‘tsunami of need’ that could be addressed only by immediate action to deal with an overburdened system, preventative measures to deal with the problems upstream and a dual response system to helping vulnerable families that doesn’t depend only on statutory interventions.
We are still rolling out these recommendations. We are still referring to this document. Although it is somewhat outdated, there is still a lot in this document we can learn from and that we can implement as a government, and we have committed to that. I know the current Minister for Children and Families is very much aware of what we have not done to implement the recommendations of this report. I am on the record as being quite open in saying there are some recommendations that are too outdated and no longer relevant. When I was the minister, I made the decision not to implement a number of recommendations for that reason. The rights of young people are something that, possibly, people in the industry will understand; they will see it as a necessary part of the system. People outside of the child protection system, who have been fortunate enough to not have any contact with people going into the out-of-home care system or the child protection system in any way, shape or form, may not understand why we would want to do this. It could perhaps seem quite fine to Territorians listening to this discussion but, as I said earlier, it really brings us into line with the rest of the country. It is modernising our approach to child protection, and providing those important principles we need to give us focus and direction in how we proceed in our provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for Child Protection for bringing this forward. He has not been in the job for a long time, but he has embraced it. This is a simple piece of legislation that will mean a lot to children who find themselves in out-of-home care and it will most definitely mean a lot to people working in the system. I commend my colleague and I support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have been enjoying listening to the debate from both sides of the House. There were a couple of relevant issues. One was from the member for Araluen who raised the issue of responsibilities. We had the opening prayer yesterday from the Bishop of Darwin with the prayer of Saint Francis. The prayer says:
- … to be loved as to love …
This is part of a prayer which says yes, you have a responsibility to love others as well as to be loved yourself. The member for Araluen raised an interesting point as to whether this document should be a charter of rights and responsibilities for children. If we have just one side of an argument – I have not seen the draft – that was a very good point because this says – the one I have seen is the one with the minister’s signature on the bottom:
- You have the right to be happy, play and have fun
- … but with responsibility and to also allow others to be happy, play and have fun.
- You have the right to be yourself …
And obviously ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The minister has just given me the draft, which says:
- Rights come with responsibilities …
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Respect others.
Everyone deserves fair treatment.
Let other people be who they are and don’t make fun of them.
Go to school straight away every day and always listen.
Look after your body.
You need to respect your elders.
Respect other people’s property.
Listen when other people are speaking.
Sometimes you can’t always have what you want but you can at least have your voice listened to.
Mr Elferink: No, I am trying to engender a cordial and cooperative mood.
Mr WOOD: One of the good things about parliament and debate is that sometimes it is worth listening to speakers who put forward good ideas, and I have heard some of those today. The other side of the coin was that the member for Nhulunbuy said this document cannot sit idle, like many mission statements sometimes sit on walls. Clause 2 in the new legislation says:
- (2) The CEO must promote compliance with the Charter of Rights.
- (3) The CEO must review the Charter of Rights from time to time and may amend it as the CEO considers appropriate.
It does not say to review it to see if the words are correct, but to see if it is being carried out or is effective. That will be the difficult part. The other part will be trying to develop words – I have only seen the original document and do not know if, in the new document, the words are different, but having words explained to some people who may have no idea, for instance, what the word ‘privacy’ means. If I am a six-year old boy at an outstation, does the word ‘privacy’ come into my logic because I might have English as a second language?
Obviously, if one of those children is in care and there is a requirement to tell that child of their rights and responsibilities, the more difficult part the department or carers will have is ensuring there is an understanding of this charter. Some terminology may not appear in the cultural thinking of that person. They may not necessarily be Aboriginal; they could be immigrants, they might be from Sudan or Iraq. Some of these freedoms we have may not exist where those people come from. That will be a challenge. It is not an impossible challenge because governments have much more difficult subjects they have to get across to people, especially in law. There are people trained to ensure people have an understanding of difficult subjects. For some young people, this may be difficult to understand, but it does fulfil a role from the point of view of recommendation 38. It has been put together by all the good people who have been mentioned before. It is, at least, in tune with other states and that is all very nice, but in reality, none of that is any good if it does not have a positive effect. That positive effect needs to be judged to see whether this document is happening or is just a nice frame or poster on the wall.
I appreciate the work that has been put into this. I go back to what I said at the beginning, and this might sound a bit too philosophical, but the reason we have this is because in some children’s lives, there is no love. Unfortunately, as it is in society, we have some children and adults who have never been loved, or if they have, it has only been for a short period in their life.
I thank the government for bringing this forward today. We will keep an eye – I do not know how often it will be reviewed. On the surface, it looks like a small document, a small piece of legislation. It is an important message the government is putting out to young people, and I congratulate the government on adding the other half of the equation: responsibilities. The, could I say, Ten Commandments of responsibilities in there are excellent as well. I hope we can get equal publicity to those responsibilities, as well as the rights; this needs to happen as well.
I congratulate the minister, the department and all the people involved in putting this together.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate today and, without expecting to go down this path, the debate proceeded in a fashion which lays on the table before me an invitation. I hear the member for Nelson is a lover, and concerned with issues of love. I am a fighter. When I say that, I do not mean it in some flippant way; I mean it in an almost literal term. The reason I refer to being invited to make comments in relation to the invitation laid before me today, is that it is worth outlining the way I see the problem I have.
My training through the years of being a police officer, etcetera - and often the training I received in management was delivered by the military - has left me with a very structured way of looking at these sorts of problems in my mind’s eye, and the problems we are faced with as a government. I know it is unusual when we are talking about child protection and social problems to discuss things in military terms. The only reason I use those terms is because it is a useful metaphor to describe the challenge before us. I find myself as a person in the position I am in, Attorney-General, and I use the title General, in a state of war. The first thing you have to know, if you read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, is who your enemy is. Speaking generally, the enemy against who I am fighting is not the Labor Party or the Independent; it is not anything other than enthropy. For those people in this Chamber who are unfamiliar with the term, it comes from the sciences, but basically it is the natural tendency for things to decay from a state of organisation to a state of disorganisation.
It has been picked up by sociologists and psychologists as a term to describe, in various ways, the human condition. All humans, spiritually, are in one fashion or another subject to the forces of enthropy and most of us, for the best part of our lives, successfully fight those forces. However, at a sociological level, the forces of enthropy have gained some ground, particularly in the Northern Territory over the past few decades. This has happened for a number of reasons, but the manifestation of those forces of enthropy ultimately become the problems we have to deal with on a social level. The force of enthropy I refer to is the enthropic principle being driven by a presumption that somehow you can purchase your way to happiness and a future. I refer to - and I know the member for Nelson agrees with me on this topic - passive welfare as one of the most destructive forces we have.
Going back to my military metaphor, I find myself with several divisions available to me. One of those is the Department of Children and Families, the other is my Attorney-Generalship. This government’s Pillars of Justice policy gives me some reach into the police force in terms of its powers and processes, as well as the Corrections system, the juvenile justice policy, which is under development, and the domestic violence policy currently under development. Any person who looks at the resources they have, any General if you like, has to ask themselves some very serious questions about the resources available and the enemy they are fighting.
In this case, I cast my eye over the resources available, and in this instance, I look at the Department of Children and Families. I listened with great care to what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say about this issue. She quoted Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, saying we would rather have a fence at the top of the hill than an ambulance at the bottom. That is true, and I understand what the good doctor was driving at. I understand what the member for Nhulunbuy is driving at. What they are driving at is that we would rather see an intervention in the family than the casualties of war, in the form of children being hurt and neglected.
When I look at the resources available to me to fight that battle, I ask myself if the Department of Children and Families is the appropriately equipped unit to send into the field. When I ask myself if the Department of Children and Families is supposed to fix families to the exclusion of all others, the answer I come up with is that, sadly, it is not well-equipped. The training does not provide for social responses that are necessarily much greater than the ones it can attend to. Its responses also have to deal with an emergency or a crisis situation of kids who are being hurt, sometimes raped, and often neglected.
I have resources in that area which are not particularly well-equipped to fight the battle against enthropy in families. I have a limited set of resources, with people who are trained and equipped to perform specific roles. To send them out and ask them to fight the battle against enthropy, exclusively and alone, will not lead to a successful outcome. No matter how many times they charge up the ramparts in an effort to create the fence, so to speak, at the top of the cliff, you have deployed your forces in a very inappropriate fashion. You have not equipped them well, nor trained them for the task you have asked them to do.
I do not doubt there is a great deal of goodwill, but when you ask forces to do that and do not equip them, and they are not trained to do what you have asked them to do, they will eventually be worn down. It is small wonder we see such a large turnover in the organisation. It is small wonder we find ourselves with troops who do not feel well supported by their commanders, because every time something goes wrong, they find themselves being blamed for the failure. The failure lies in the hands of the commanders and the Generals who oversee this thing; therefore, the failure is mine to bear.
Consequently, it is unwise to ask those troops to do anything other than what they are trained and equipped to do. For that reason, I have made it, already, a very clear part of my mission to reassure them they will be sent into the field having been properly trained and equipped to fight the fight for which they are trained and equipped. One of the first things I did was visit the trenches in Darwin, Alice Springs and a number of other places, and visit the troops to reassure them I would no longer send them over the top and leave them hanging.
I have said to every childcare worker that I expect them to make mistakes. The second thing I said to them was, ‘In spite of that, I expect you to do your job anyhow, and guess what? Even if you make a mistake, so long as you are acting in good faith, so long as you are not grossly negligent or criminal in your conduct, you will be supported by this government.’ There will be no scapegoats in that department. If people are acting in good faith, they will be supported. That is what frontline troops need to hear, and that is what I will guarantee them. If they act in good faith, without gross negligence and criminality, they will find themselves well-supported. That message was well received.
However, having made that observation, it does not remove the truth that we still have to deal with the rest of the war in which I am engaged. To make ground on the forces of enthropy, particularly in the area of family decay, the government needs policies which drive into those areas in a number of ways, and some of those ways we do literally. The Northern Territory Police Force has, under the Country Liberals government, been given instructions to become even more assertive in the area of domestic violence policy and to continue to drive the criminality of what domestic violence is. You will see more legislative instruments coming from this government to bolster and firm up that policy position. In other words, we are prepared to protect people by using the force of law and the forces available to us, quite literally, embodied in the police force. That is one way we will try to bring some peace into the family.
If a man assaults and injures his wife and makes himself subject to the laws as they operate in the Northern Territory for mandatory sentencing, then that is exactly what will occur. That person will spend time in gaol for a criminal assault. That is not something we expect child protection workers to do; that is a function of the police.
We need processes in our courts which reflect the priorities of government, and one of those priorities is to deploy our forces where they are needed. This is in the streets and in the communities where the enemy forces of enthropy can be found. We will deploy those forces in accordance with the training and equipment available to the police officers who do that work. We will also equip, train and ensure our courts are ready with systems in place to make the judicial system far more user-friendly and functional in its outcomes. The changes that will be brought into this place in the not-so-distant future will relate to the processes of the courts and refinement of the criminal justice system in such a way as we will see pre-trial conferencing and pre-trial disclosure. We do not want to see the courts become a place of unnecessary conflict. There will be processes in place which will see police officers and other public servants not being tied up in courts, but released back to their duties on the front line.
We have a corrections system which seeks to address, through an increasing number of support services into the future, as well as programs like Sentenced to a Job and a philosophy of work – this will fight the forces of enthropy as they exist in individual criminals in the corrections system.
There will be a juvenile justice policy, which will attend to juveniles and fight the forces of enthropy that exist in them, so they do not enter the criminal justice system.
There will be a domestic violence policy that will improve ways of proceeding against the forces of enthropy, in such a fashion that we will get even better use from auxiliary forces, such as NGOs. There is a clear, overarching worldview here, but what I am not prepared to do, when deploying my troops, is turn to the Department of Children and Families and say, ‘You fix it’. They have a tough enough time fighting the battle they are fighting, and, unfortunately, theirs is a triage role. This means by the time the Department of Children and Families gets involved, the damage has already been done. We cannot expect it to pre-emptively fix the damage it has to contend with, and it is unreasonable for that expectation to be placed exclusively on its shoulders.
As a good General, I also seek allies on the battlefield, and the strongest ally I could possibly build an alliance with is the federal government. That was why last week I spoke to the federal minister, Marise Payne, about how the Northern Territory government – as well as speaking for the Minister for Community Services, Bess Price – can better collectively marshal our forces to fight a common enemy. It is useless to go after a common enemy when you have two armies trying to fight for the same result with completely different tactics. By building those alliances with the federal government, we are seeking to ensure we are working with similar tactics and, therefore, not competing with each other. If one form of government, that is, the federal government, pours millions of dollars into this jurisdiction every fortnight, I do not want to be the other tier of government that spends millions of dollars every fortnight fixing the mess from the first tier of government. It is a dreadful situation and should not occur when you consider that in this fight against enthropy, we are on the same side.
It is for that reason we are structuring in the way we are. This is so we can adequately target properly equipped and trained people to do the jobs expected of them, in a fashion where we know they are working in partnership with other divisions, brigades and units which are also in the field, fighting exactly the same fight. For that reason, I have asked the Department of Children and Families to become much more singular in its purpose, and deal with the issue it must deal with: child abuse and neglect. I have asked it to focus on it, and I am singular in my purpose in that area. If one component of that process does not function, I will ask myself a single question when it comes to that skirmish: is it protecting the children of the Northern Territory? If the answer is yes, I will continue to equip, train and deploy. If the answer to that question is no, I will discontinue it. A good example of that was the SAF,T organisation, which had consumed $3m worth of resources and failed to meet even the most basic benchmarks. This was in spite of the best efforts to resurrect it.
While I understand the notion that we need to have an Aboriginal organisation looking after children, we expect it to do its job. SAF,T was not doing its job; it was a drain on resources available in the fight we are fighting, and it did not pass muster. If an organisation spends millions of dollars and does not help a single child, it is much more about the organisation than the children, and I have no time for it. That is what happened to SAF,T.
While it is unpleasant to make those tough decisions, I have plastered all over my office wall a simple line, and we all know that line in this House: for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, not for the true welfare of bureaucracies and associated organisations that have a sense of goodwill. It is about protecting children. If you do not pass muster, I will find better things to do with the resources. Similarly, I point out that YSOS falls within the same category.
I became aware and asked questions about the operation of YSOS. Repeat contacts for the December quarter in 2012 were 4704. By the December quarter in 2013, that had fallen to 1289. If you look at the number of people transported in that same quarter in 2012 to carers, family members, friends, parents – delivered to responsible people – YSOS attended to 791, continuing to consume resources within that same quarter. Twelve months later, it had dropped to 252.
The resources were simply not achieving the goals they had originally set out to achieve, and they were not part of my singular vision for this organisation and what I was asking it to do. For that reason, I made, once again, a decision which was neither pleasant, nor comfortable. This is not about my sense of personal comfort or political expedience. It remains singularly, and will be in this part of my war against enthropy, a vision for protecting kids, or rescuing kids from the disaster enthropy has visited upon them.
That is my philosophy, and I now turn to more basic issues relating to the bill. This is a charter of rights for kids taken into care. My starting position is that many of these kids are taken into care because their rights have already been violated. Their rights have been eroded, ignored and violated, in some instances deliberately for the indifference or gratification of some of the people who are supposed to extend a hand of love to them. From my perspective, these kids, when they come into care, are pre-bent, and I cannot afford them a huge amount of comfort.
The member for Casuarina has said on a number of occasions that government does not make a good parent. If you look at the history of governments in this country, and in other countries attempting to assume the role of parenthood, you see it is a history of calamity, and it is not one I particularly or necessarily want to be part of. Nevertheless, you, from time to time, have to respond to an even greater calamity than the one of governmental parenthood. That is the calamity of abuse and neglect we see all too often in our society.
It has always been there. There was a time when that sort of abuse, neglect, or, for that matter, exploitation, was a matter of course. You only have to cast your mind back 150 years and look at the industrial revolution to see how children were used for economic purposes with scant regard for their welfare.
Over time, we have found ourselves in a position where we continue to take on, as communities, a greater role of care for those kids we see in those environments of abuse and neglect. There was a time when the plight of an Aboriginal child in the Northern Territory. in this country, and dare I say anywhere in the British Empire, was not a high priority for governments of the day. Even in the 1960s or 1970s, the welfare of Aboriginal children was not as high a priority as it is today.
We have become more refined and dignified as a community in relation to the manifestation of enthropy, which is child abuse and neglect. We seek to extend that dignity to the children we take into care. I wish I could offer them more, but all I can offer them is, essentially, the protections afforded in the first tier of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In doing so, I say to those kids, ‘In offering you that much at least, we will give you some sort of written guarantee to that end’.
The manifestation of that guarantee is the subject of this bill before the House, and that is a clear and unambiguous statement that says, ‘We will extend to you certain rights’. These are rights which should have been extended to you as a child by your parents, but have not been. What will enforce those rights is not only this legislative instrument. Quite rightly, honourable members say that a legislative instrument that has no force of law behind it or force of will behind it is nothing more than a piece of paper with a staple in the corner. I do not intend to see this bill of rights become a hollow document of that nature. This bill of rights will become a force of my personal will in how it is delivered to kids who come under the care of my CEO. I will make absolutely certain this charter of rights is made available in a way that is understood by the consumer of this document.
Subordinate legislation, in the form of instructions and guidelines in the department, will determine exactly how this bill of rights is delivered. It will become the benchmark by which we will measure ourselves. I hope we will live up to the expectation that this bill demands of us as an institution, government, community and of us as a society. The CEO of the department will bring this bill of rights to life, and will make certain that every child who is capable of understanding the principles in the bill of rights understands them and has the bill of rights physically in their possession. They will also ensure the instructions, orders and guidelines of the department concur with the principles stated inside this document.
Of course, we will not go through the farcical exercise of shoving a charter of rights into the hands of a two-year old baby and saying, ‘Chew on the corner’. We will make certain that in spite of the fact the subject of the charter of rights is not capable of understanding its contents, we deliver those rights as much as we possibly can to that subject, in spite of their ignorance. This is how we will also galvanise our minds in the war against enthropy; this is how we will construct our self-image. We will say this is our benchmark, our standard, and this is what we stand for when we take a stand against the enemy. It is to that end I have brought this charter of rights into this House, and it is to that end I seek and welcome the support of all members for the advancement of this document. It is only a piece of paper, but enshrined in this piece of paper are principles and standards of decency that will be afforded to children who here unto have not enjoyed that protection. Like all casualties of war, not only will rights be extended, but we will also expect that those casualties will make efforts in their own rehabilitation. That is only necessary and addresses the issue raised by both the Health minister and the member for Nelson in terms of responsibilities being articulated.
I remain mindful that kids who come into our protection are children who have already been damaged and deprived of their rights. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as a community, a parliament, a department, and me as a minister, to make certain we do as much as we possibly can to protect those children and at least let them know there is dignity available to them, should they ask for it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Indigenous Economic Development
Indigenous Economic Development
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister – and it is my fault – asked me earlier whether I was going to speak for long and I indicated to him I was. I used all of my time, so I do not know what has happened, but clearly he has taken that as a bit longer. However, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I will make his comments in relation to Indigenous economic development.
During the August 2013 sittings, the Chief Minister framed the future of the Territory. Today, the Chief Minister will spell out what it means for the bush and, in particular, how his government is advancing economic development in our regional and remote areas.
All Territorians want a prosperous local economy. They want jobs to create financial wealth. It is through economic independence that Indigenous Territorians living in remote regions will be best placed to care for:
their culture, achieving a confident culture
their country, and a balanced environment
their community, leading to a strong society.
Our objectives for a prosperous economy include unlocking the potential of our regions and encouraging private investment. We want to increase the capability and capacity of Indigenous Territorians and businesses, but these are not things government can do alone. Economic development is not something that is done to you or for you, it is done by you. While government plays an important role in this, it is not the main player. That could not be truer than in the bush. We have seen the results of government being the main player: intergenerational welfare dependency, the loss of pride and the absence of purpose.
This is why the Chief Minister has instructed his department to coordinate a whole-of-government effort to give back responsibility for a number of services to local decision-makers and the community. This will be based on a careful assessment of capacity and will recognise the need to support local capacity building. Ultimately, however, this policy will see the decisions, responsibility and accountability come back to the community. These changes are already under way.
The contracts on remote housing repairs, maintenance and tenancy management were put out to tender recently. The work packages are being broken up and designed to make it possible for local Indigenous organisations to tender for the work. Further changes include restructuring the super shires into regional councils with local authorities comprised of local members and increasing the say communities have over the running of their schools.
We are also looking at how the justice system can better support communities with programs like Sentenced to a Job, community policing and locally managed alcohol rehabilitation. This policy is in development and will be wide-ranging in its implementation.
Decentralisation of decisions, responsibility and accountability goes hand in glove with economic development. Not only does decentralisation present local business opportunities, it provides for the growth of local capacity and governance, which are critical components of a prosperous economy,
Working with the willing: the Chief Minister has been saying to people if you want to pursue a different way of doing business, then go and see him. If you want to change, we will help, and the Chief Minister is receiving plenty of calls. The people in the bush want to change. We will focus our efforts on those communities that want to see change and are willing to work for it. Having communities simply give the government a shopping list does not work. What works is a process where communities drive the change and we, as a government, walk alongside, supporting them.
Why change is needed: roughly half of the land of the Territory is held by land trusts on behalf of Aboriginal people, yet they are among the most disadvantaged Territorians. A child born in a remote community has a bleak outlook, sadly, even today. An Indigenous child in a Territory community has the highest infant mortality risk in the country at 13% per 100 births, contrasted against the national average of 7.2%. That child has a reduced life expectancy compared to its non-Indigenous counterpart.
The number of Indigenous students achieving the NAPLAN minimum standard is well below the average and, as that child starts progressing through their schooling, he or she has just a 29% likelihood of holding a Year 12 certificate or equivalent qualification by the time they are in their 20s. To be job-ready as an adult, this child must escape chronic illness, including kidney disease and diabetes, which are twice as prevalent in their communities. He or she must also buck the trend of being 23 times more likely to be incarcerated as a juvenile and 13 times more likely as an adult.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework suggests strong evidence from Australia and other developed countries that low socioeconomic status is associated with poor health. Low income is associated with a wide range of disadvantages, including poor health, shorter life expectancy, poor education, substance abuse, reduced social participation, crime and violence. People with lower socioeconomic status bear a significantly higher burden of disease. The level of income inequality within a society has been identified as a determinant of differential health outcomes.
For all the indicators I have discussed, a job is key to improving outcomes, and here the tragedy deepens. Outside our urban areas, there is a 22.7% unemployment rate of Indigenous people and a participation rate of just 40.6%. That contrasts with 1.9% unemployment and 83% participation among non-Indigenous people in the same area. A survey of 20 remote communities in 2011 found there were 378 reported vacancies and 5979 Indigenous job seekers in the surveyed communities. It does not matter how you look at it, there are not enough jobs on country and not enough has been done by government, land councils, communities and private enterprise to create real work. Incredibly, these statistics generally represent an improvement on the previous reporting period.
Over the last decade, governments have invested billions. There has been an incremental change, but, fellow members of the Assembly, the Chief Minister asks you this question: does this sound like value for money? In the year 2011, the Australian government invested $2.2bn in delivering services for Indigenous Territorians. The Northern Territory government invested $2.5bn over the same period. Broken down in the Indigenous expenditure review, the Territory spent $512m on early childhood, education and training; $607m on healthy lives; $564m on the home environment; and $626m on safe and supportive communities. That equates to an estimated direct expenditure per capita for Indigenous Territorians of almost $68 000, with almost $36 000 per person coming from the Northern Territory government. Imagine if these figures were applied to Indigenous people in urban areas as opposed to remote. Yet, the fact remains that a child born in a remote community is more likely to die younger, have poorer health, suffer or perpetrate violence and be welfare dependent.
The outlook is grim, and for decades, ‘sit down’ money has destroyed the pride and purpose of our countrymen and countrywomen. It is a fundamental right of any child born in the Territory to have options and choices for their future. An Aboriginal child born in a remote community should have a brighter future in front of them. A job and the opportunity to create wealth and economic independence are the foundations not just of improved health and longevity, but also a well-maintained culture and a strong and safe society.
Aboriginal people have assets: Aboriginal people have lived on and from their land for tens of thousands of years. Today, Aboriginal people want to continue to do so, this time as a source of income and a pathway to economic independence. Beyond land, Territorians living in remote areas have other resources. They have vast Indigenous knowledge and a strong, rich and thriving culture. They have a large working-age population, and each of these resources brings opportunity. The Chief Minister and the Country Liberals government are committed to working with those communities, families and individuals who want to work towards a job, wealth and economic independence.
Key reforms: to achieve this, we are driving reform across the board. The Chief Minister has already mentioned the decentralisation of work to ensure decisions, responsibility and accountability are in the hands of local communities. To support the growth of economies and economic independence of our Indigenous Territorians, the Chief Minister is sponsoring reform in five key ways: job creation through private sector investment and activity; maximising opportunities for Indigenous businesses; focusing on and growing the bright leaders of tomorrow; mobilising the remote workforce; and, importantly, wealth creation and economic independence for Aboriginal people.
Private sector activity for job creation: the last census reported just over 34 000 people aged 15 years and above - in other words, people of working age - living outside the urban centres of Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. Of these working-age people, only four out of ten, or 40% of them, had a job. In our urban areas, it is 66%. Put simply, there are not enough jobs on country for everyone to be employed. Gone are the days when government was the only option for direct or indirect employment in a community. The private sector has a fundamental role to play. It is successful, profitable businesses which hire people, and successful, profitable businesses are created through investment and hard work.
We have been working hard to remove government barriers to business and cutting red tape. Businesses on private Aboriginal land experience additional red tape. Permits, complex leases, an expectation from landowners of high rents, which may preclude competition or further commercial activity all add burdens to businesses in the bush.
Private land is just that, it is private. The Chief Minister is not proposing that Aboriginal landowners open up their land and sacred or significant sites to any person. What the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government are saying is the fewer barriers which are in place, the better positioned a community or region is to attract investment and move towards a prosperous economy. This might be access to main roads or preferential rents where a long-term opportunity for more economic activity and more rent can be realised.
The Tiwi Islanders have a vision for development. In December, the Tiwi Land Council signed a memorandum of understanding with the Territory government to work together to sustain a prosperous economy on the Tiwi Islands. We have agreed to negotiate, in good faith, towards a partnership agreement which unlocks the potential of the Tiwi region. Both sides want to encourage new investment in the pastoral, agricultural, aquaculture and tourism sectors. The Territory government is helping to expand the possibilities open to the Tiwis by connecting them with investors interested in partnering local people to create jobs. The Chief Minister is pleased to be able to inform Territorians that the government’s focus on creating jobs in regional areas is working.
On Monday, the Tiwi Islands Plantations Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding with the giant Mitsui company to bring about a new era of economic development on the Tiwi Islands. The agreement will facilitate the development of hardwood wood chip export sales from Port Melville. It is expected the plantation will export up to $200m of hardwood wood chips over five years, creating up to 100 jobs on the island. The Tiwi people are taking control of their own future. Down the track, there will be huge opportunities for Indigenous communities to harvest buffalo from wild herds on Aboriginal land. The first shipment of buffalo left for Vietnam yesterday, marking the start of an exciting new export market for northern Australia. A conservative estimate suggests the Territory buffalo industry could supply around 1000 head a month to the live export market, drawing from 100 000 animals in the wild and 10 000 farmed animals. We need to continually create and improve opportunities for Indigenous businesses. Only the Country Liberals government is supporting Indigenous economic opportunities and fostering job creation right across the Territory.
Indigenous business opportunity: there are many successful Indigenous entrepreneurs; however, the number of Indigenous-owned businesses in the Territory is not representative, given that Indigenous people make up 29% of our population. If you look at the factors of production, Aboriginal people have access to both labour and land. What they need is capital and better business capacity or entrepreneurialism. I will talk about these concepts later. Outside of these factors of production, there is something that all businesses need, and that is opportunity. This government will strive to expose, create, link and grow opportunities for Indigenous business.
Firstly, we want Indigenous businesses to be providing more goods and services to government. A current example is the repairs and maintenance on remote public housing assets. This work is a real opportunity for remote Indigenous businesses to be engaged in their local community. The Department of Housing has recently advertised tenders for repairs and maintenance of remote housing assets. It broke the packages of work up to ensure local business was able to tender for and, based on capabilities, win some of the work.
Secondly, we will focus our efforts on linking Indigenous businesses into opportunities stemming from major projects. Using a current example, the Ichthys LNG project continues to focus on Aboriginal business engagement. This is bearing fruit, with 30 Indigenous businesses winning work and over 64 subcontract commitments so far. Importantly, through their onshore EPC contractor, JKC, the project is working closely with Aboriginal businesses to build their capacity and to facilitate direct exposure to some of the larger subcontractors. These include Leighton Contractors, BAM Clough, KHI, Laing O’Rourke and Wagners. The Ichthys project is, of course, in Darwin, but of the 15 major projects on the major project register, more than half are in regional or remote places. The opportunities from these are expansive, and we will be working with proponents to ensure local Indigenous businesses have opportunities to enter the supply chain.
Thirdly, partnerships can effectively raise the capability of business, improve knowledge and skill transfers and enhance the uptake of innovation, not to mention bring in often needed capital. We need to see more collaboration and partnering across the Territory, particularly in the bush. We need to improve the competitive position of Indigenous businesses so they can compete in any market. To this end, we invited the world renowned clustering and competitiveness expert to speak to dozens of Indigenous businesses attending an Indigenous Economic Development forum in Alice Springs last month.
The Chief Minister recently combined business support functions from separate departments into the Department of Business. Businesses can now source support from government across a range of programs from one place. It could not be simpler to access programs to help businesses innovate, compete and enhance their long-term sustainability, all of which enable them to capture that magical word ‘opportunity’.
Education is the key: leadership is fundamental to achieving change, and this government recognises that education is the key to developing the skills and capability of leaders of the future. Education is the key to growing entrepreneurs and quality employees as well as, and including, a vibrant economy.
The review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory is under way. The problems of Indigenous education are challenging and are recognised. A draft report was released last week for public consultation and the final report is expected to be delivered to government by the end of the first quarter of this year. The response of those opposite to this draft report has, thus far, been disgraceful.
If Labor had its way, it would leave every Indigenous child in the Territory subject to third-world conditions, just so it can score a few more cheap political points in the papers. Labor had a decade to tackle this problem and the nett result was nothing. The system of schooling for Indigenous communities needs a drastic overhaul, and this government will make the hard decisions to make it happen. We have to build a better future for our Indigenous population, and this Giles government will do just that.
Already, there is a strong theme emerging in relation to workforce development and providing pathways for our Indigenous children and teenagers to find pride in paid work.
Workforce mobilisation: the Chief Minister has talked about creating opportunity and business activity in the bush, which will mean more jobs over time. We have a long road ahead before we see the levels of the private sector activity in our remote communities and regions which fully employ a community. Today, we need to be innovative and follow opportunity.
There is a workforce in our remote towns which is currently unemployed or underemployed. We, together with our colleagues in the Australian government, will need to work with the people to connect them to work, wherever that may be.
In September, the Chief Minister opened the JKC Workers Village for the INPEX Ichthys project. This village is for fly-in, fly-out staff working at the onshore processing site. There are also workers camps to set up for other major Territory developments, but why can’t our fly-in fly-out workers come from remote communities instead of places like Perth?
The Department of Business is supporting a trial with KLI to link fly-in, fly-out workers from remote towns into the Ichthys project. They have, in principle, a commitment for 25 positions and have recently commenced working with communities to provide FIFO and careers information as part of the candidate selection process.
On the Tiwi Islands, KLI has had 21 people express an interest in applying for available positions, including six who have had the experience of the SIHIP construction program. People with the will and the skill to work now have real opportunities.
The final but crucial reform the Giles government wants to outline for Territorians today is the principle of wealth creation. It is unfortunate that landowners of vast tracts of the Territory cannot maximise their land for the benefit of themselves, their children and their children’s children. It is also unacceptable that traditional owners can receive significant royalty payments one week and be struggling the next. People need ways to accumulate wealth. For many Australians, that starts with saving for and purchasing their own home. They borrow the money and then pay it back over time. Home ownership is a fundamental way in which many of us build wealth for retirement or leave something to our children. Home ownership in remote communities is virtually non-existent.
It is not impossible. Indeed, there have been some cases of home ownership, particularly in Wurrumiyanga, but accessing capital is hindered by the perception that land tenure will create challenges, and that means, for most people, home ownership is not possible. Accessing capital is also crucial for business. When businesses grow in urban and regional centres, they often do so with somebody else’s money. They borrow it. Accessing money and paying interest for it gives businesses the flexibility they need to respond to market needs, building their resilience and providing opportunities for growth.
We will work to engage with banks and financers on one hand, and landowning bodies on the other, to overcome these barriers to wealth creation for our land rich poor. To complement this work, we will engage with partners in other governments, non-government organisations and the private sector to improve the governance and commercial capability of decision-makers and communities in the bush.
The Chief Minister has, in his ministerial statement, outlined five key reforms that will underpin the economic prosperity of our remote and Indigenous communities. The Giles government will work to grow private sector investment for job creation; strive to maximise opportunities for Indigenous businesses; build the leaders of the future by ensuring they are properly educated; mobilise the remote workforce enabling them to link with quality work; and remove barriers to creating wealth for Indigenous people. It is a whole new way of doing business and has a much brighter future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note the statement.
Before I sit down, it was due to a miscommunication on my part and it is my fault that the Chief Minister is not in the House to deliver this important statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a shame the Chief Minister does not think this statement is important enough to deliver. I thank the Leader of Government Business for doing the Chief Minister’s job on this very important statement. This statement and the actions are more of what we have come to expect from this Chief Minister. It is another expression of the Chief Minister’s wish list of how things could be: a new economic future for Indigenous Territorians, based on a pot of gold out bush just waiting to be realised, through long-term leasing of Aboriginal land and private, not government, investment and leadership – a market-led recovery for Indigenous Territorians.
We all share in wanting to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. It was the central focus of our work while we were in government, strongly supported by an understanding and committed government in Canberra. One of the most pleasing, reassuring aspects of our work while we were in government was harnessing the strong commitment of our public service. They knew better than anyone the service delivery and infrastructure gaps we inherited as a consequence of over 20 years of inaction and neglect by former Country Liberal Party governments. They understood what needed to be done and threw their weight behind our work, in particular through their dedication and support in delivering improvements through our headline policy A Working Future. It is important to recognise A Working Future was all about regional economic development, supporting our growth towns, smaller towns and homelands that looked to the growth towns for services, supporting education in the bush and supporting local people with economic development and more public and private jobs – A Working Future. I hope we all want every Territorian, no matter where they live, to have the opportunity of a happy, healthy and positive future.
We all want every Territorian, no matter where they live, to have choices and to be able to take advantage of all the opportunities the Territory and our nation have to offer. That takes hard work, real commitment and a real plan, connecting local communities with all levels of government, NGO service providers, organisations representing Indigenous Territorians and the business community.
We need plans developed with local people, aligned with local priorities and opportunities, prioritised and government implemented so investments, both public and private, complement and build on each other to maximise benefits and return on investment. The real test for this Chief Minister will be if he can deliver his wish list. It takes hard work and commitment, not flowery speeches and fly-in, fly-out handshakes and media opportunities. One thing which has bedevilled more progress in this work has been a history of stop-start approaches to Indigenous policy, talking about people instead of speaking to people.
We understood this and it is why we committed to A Working Future and worked with the Commonwealth to lock in funding commitments over 10 years to ensure a real difference. This was an approach supported, at that time, by the Coalition in Canberra, because it too could see the national significance of this work. People out bush embraced A Working Future. Local leaders committed to developing local plans because they could see we were serious about making a real difference, real change that everybody has wanted for so long, but there is now uncertainty.
There is now a new sheriff in town, but we ask, for how long? A new sheriff with a rehash of market-driven ideologies and private enterprise rhetoric, but uncertainty is whittling away the confidence people out bush have in this new government. They are making judgments based on actions, not words. They have seen a string of broken promises, election promises to secure votes and promises that have since evaporated. Some in the bush are already calling him Adam Gammon Giles - talk big, deliver nothing. They are asking what will happen to all the hard work identifying priorities for action, necessary practical investments and actions which can take a community to build off government commitment opportunities for land leasing and business development.
There is uncertainty about whether this government can and will deliver anything but words, and even more uncertainty about how government support will be prioritised. After 18 months in government, priorities seem determined by the current Chief Minister’s support for individual MLAs; witness his efforts to keep the member for Arafura locked in. At the same time, he has turned his back on the people of northeast Arnhem Land, as their world falls apart off the back of this Chief Minister’s complete inability to grasp the significance of what is happening in Nhulunbuy, the region’s major service centre. There was no mention of how this government will be building on the work started under the headline policy, A Working Future.
How will this Chief Minister work with the new Commonwealth government to build on the funding agreements we had with Canberra? These brought together the goodwill and resources of all levels of government to tackle the legacy issues created by decades of neglect by previous governments, in particular the 27 years of CLP governance in the Northern Territory.
While in government we spread out specific plans with real targets for addressing this disadvantage. There was over $280m of our own Northern Territory Closing the Gap funding initiatives announced in 2007 and our support for a 10-year $34bn Stronger Futures funding agreement for the Northern Territory, locking in funding for 10 years, working with the Commonwealth and other governments to agree and commit to a national agreement on Indigenous disadvantage, the very reporting system the Prime Minister used today in his Closing the Gap speech in Canberra – agreements setting out real targets in an open, transparent annual report on progress, the real way to make a difference, not flowery promises of a better future if you ‘follow my way’.
We supported the establishment of independent officers, a coordinator-general of remote services to report on what was and was not working: an independent officer dumped as one of the first acts of this government. That is a signal of how much they value, or do not value, independent monitoring and advice. They prefer to go their own way, with the flexibility to make speculative side deals for land development as opportunities arise, and little interest in a staged, strategic approach to progressing Indigenous development opportunities. The way they have handled water allocations and the dumping of Indigenous water reserves in favour of a party mate is a classic example of their approach.
What confidence can we have that this Chief Minister has the capacity to develop enduring partnerships with all key stakeholders? He has criticised mainland land councils as blockers of development, instead of accepting the obligations they work under. There is a long-standing legal framework that Senator Scullion accepts in working with land councils and the land trusts cooperatively to further progress S19 leases for businesses on Aboriginal land. The Chief Minister is initiating a review of our Sacred Sites Act and asking how he can change the ALPA board because he sees them as blockers.
Under our watch, we saw big improvements in resolving land and native title claims and developing new resource projects with the mining sector. There was more support for the use of Aboriginal land for pastoral purposes. We saw more streamlining of Sacred Site Authority certificates and progress with developments on Aboriginal land. There is clearly more to do, but the big issue is leadership and maximising opportunities to bring people together, including private investors.
That is not this Chief Minister’s style. There is increasing unease in the business community about this Chief Minister’s understanding of the business environment they have to operate in. Make no mistake, the focus of this Chief Minister is his own self-interest, his own security as Chief Minister. We are fast approaching the time – if we are not already there – when business will prefer not to be associated with this government and this Chief Minister, lest they damage their opportunities to enter into real meaningful and enduring business partnerships with Indigenous landowners.
Let us recall for a moment the important foundations to improve opportunities for social and economic development in remote parts of the Territory, where we find some of the starkest levels of disadvantage. Our 2007 Closing the Gap investment package included recurrent funding that continues today and that this government is using to help fund the work of local authorities in our regional councils: over $1bn of investment to improve housing, essential services infrastructure and more access to health and early childhood services under A Working Future.
It is not easy to go to work every day when you live in substandard, unhealthy and overcrowded housing. We understood that and, working with Canberra, boosted funding to make a real difference in remote Indigenous housing. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, we realised nearly 700 family homes and completed nearly 2500 refurbishments and rebuilds in 73 remote Indigenous communities and town camps across the Northern Territory. This included substantial new subdivisions in Maningrida, Galiwinku, Wurrumiyanga, Wadeye, Umbakumba and Gunbalanya
The beneficiaries of new housing were often community workers, reinforcing the connection between housing, including private home ownership and employment. We were moving to address housing needs outside our major growth towns at the time of the change of government. Now, under the new government, we are seeing a shift from a strategic approach to housing investments, built on need and maximising value for money, to a scattering of contracts amongst favoured contractors. This is potentially a throwback to the old days of pork-barrelling to preferred communities and electorates and cheap building products that do not last the distance.
The CLP says its new approach will enable local business opportunities. We will be watching with keen interest to see who really benefits from this new approach, the traineeships and work opportunities that are made available to local people and what happens after contractors have made their money and left the community.
We made a major commitment to support long overdue improvements to local government in the bush. Unlike past CLP governments, we saw the need to support and build strong local government in the bush, but we always recognised this would be an ongoing work in progress. We are pleased the CLP has built on our work in further developing local authorities along the lines we had committed to if we had been returned to government.
There was our local government jobs package to support employment of up to 500 people at the time, in developing local government services and building a home grown local government workforce. This is a program now at risk under CLP budget cuts. We made a commitment to profiling available jobs in all our growth towns and working to build the Indigenous take up of these jobs, rather than a parade of fly-in, fly-out workers. Where is that work now under the CLP?
We made real improvements in building local Indigenous participation in public sector services in education, early childhood work, the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Aboriginal community police officers and essential service officers, to name just some of the key public sector work areas delivering essential services out bush. All of these community workers were acting as role models for Indigenous youth looking to a future career. We supported real efforts to improve outcomes in the area of children and families, tackling the hard issues of child protection and supporting young parents in our bush communities; tackling local leaders with the hard issues of family violence; and boosting support for youth programs and sport and recreation in our bush communities, the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, now deserted by the CLP, and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan is now withering without a real commitment from the CLP.
We worked with local people tackling issues like the impact of sports carnivals on school attendance and developing strong, non-discriminative policies to tackle problem drinkers before they got their grog. We did not use police officers as Banned Drinker Registers, standing outside bottle shops in Alice Springs, but not in Darwin, to interview all Indigenous people buying alcohol and confiscating their purchases. We had a non-discriminatory approach, targeting problem drinkers based on drinkers past history, not who you are, what you look like or where you live.
We helped connect our bush communities to our larger regional centres and a mainstream economy with a significant program of road improvements to our main bush roads and the development of bush bus services. Unlike the CLP, if we promised road improvements, we delivered. That is, the all-weather road to Umbakumba, the bridge over the McArthur River, improvements to the Palumpa to Wadeye Road, the bridge over the Daly River and funding for road improvements in Central Australia.
Today, many people out bush are asking where the roads money is which was promised by the CLP in the lead up to the 2012 election. Your pre-election contracts with communities in the bush have proven to be just bits of paper, so why would people in the bush believe anything you have to say now?
We had Indigenous economic development plans with real targets. You have criticised us for falling short in one of our targets in our last plan – the number of new Indigenous businesses established under our last IED plans, but at least we had targets. We could measure progress.
Your draft plan, issued last year, had no targets at all. We still wait to see any results of your call for submissions and your IED workshops in Alice Springs late last year. This is just another signal of the dysfunction under your leadership, Chief Minister. What has delayed this work? Has it been lost in the wash of public service shake ups and sackings, or is it more to do with your aversion to plans with real targets? That infers future accountability, and that is not the way you want to do business.
You say you aim to give responsibility for government services back to the community. As I have already said, we support partnerships and community involvement in setting priorities and making things work on the ground. Your new approach also hints at opportunity to shift government responsibilities and accountabilities to others. This is a way of doing business we saw under previous CLP administrators, an opportunity to wash your hands of any responsibility and distance yourself from any project failures. It is always easy to blame others rather than take leadership responsibility.
In government, we worked with local people to develop joint plans to address their priorities, as well as ours. This was not to impose our values and priorities from outside, but to align them with government investment and business opportunities. For real and enduring economic development to occur, there must be sustained investment in infrastructure.
Our communities need viable roads, housing and infrastructure. International development experiences have clearly shown that real change involves generational change, with solid investments in education, parenting and the capacity to access and value employment.
While I support, in principle, the key areas of investment, there is a lack of substance in how the CLP intends to deliver what is required for real economic development for Indigenous Territorians, no matter where they live. How will devolved decision-making work? How will this government ensure taxpayers’ money hits the ground where it should and taxpayers see a real return on investment of public money? How will you, Chief Minister, foster private sector investment and more Indigenous businesses where you seem to disregard the need for partnerships built on trust and cooperative work with land councils? How will you, Chief Minister, build a trusting, productive relationship with mainland land councils, or are you intent on working to dismantle them and shift decision-making power over Aboriginal land to new regional authorities aligned with local government? How does the Chief Minister intend to invest in future leadership through education, training and other support? How will he support young Indigenous leaders who want to stay grounded with their families in their communities and culture, and not go to boarding school in some other place? How does the Chief Minister intend to mobilise the remote Indigenous workforce? Will you support them with training, incentives and accommodation support, or will there be a punitive approach – move to another location or suffer a penalty? How will the Chief Minister continue to support industries already established out bush?
This Chief Minister has a track record of being dismissive of important industries like the arts and craft industry, rubbishing the basket weavers of Arnhem Land but, I notice, not the artists of Papunya. How will he support the music sector, with the great achievements of Yothu Yindi, Gurrumul and the Narbarlek Band, among many great success stories, all songsters using material with strong cultural roots embedded in their homelands? How will the Chief Minister support connecting landowners with banks and financiers, and do a better job than the land councils, which are already offering assurances to financiers and bankers of a proper approval process and assured security and tenure? Also, what will the Chief Minister do to assist Indigenous businesses with strong Indigenous employment records, with preferred tender status for government contracts?
The irony of the CLP government talking about consultation is obvious. This is a government blindly guided by arrogance and discarded policies of the past. The Chief Minister talks of his success on the Tiwi Islands. He must measure success by media opportunities and back slapping with the member for Arafura. On Bathurst and Melville Islands, many people are just plain confused and uncertain about what is going on, what MOUs are being agreed to and what deals are occurring behind closed doors? People are ringing us, asking why they are talking about their land this way. ‘We do not know what is going on. We do not know how we will benefit and are sick of ups and downs, broken promises and big ideas that never make any ongoing difference in our day-to-day lives.’ This is what some Tiwi Islanders who have seen it all before are telling us.
I read this statement with great interest. Unfortunately, the CLP has decided the parliament is not about transparency. I only received it this morning. Sadly, it is another puff piece of no substance. To the Chief Minister, you keep talking it up and I will keep holding you to account when you do not deliver.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the government on its plan for the economic future of Indigenous Territorians. This is the first Territory government to take it seriously. We have to plan for the future, otherwise nothing will ever be done. The previous Labor government never had a plan for the economic future of Indigenous Territorians.
As a former teacher, I know education is the key to every child’s future. I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement this morning that no one ever received a good education by not going to school. I applaud the Prime Minister’s commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years. This government is working on strategies to improve Indigenous school attendance. I look forward to working with the Minister for Education on the final plan.
Parents know the value of a good education. Indigenous communities want a good education for their children. This government will not let those people down. This government must respond to the demands of communities and provide adequate resources so all Indigenous children receive the education to which they are entitled. The Labor government did nothing in more than a decade to advance Indigenous education. It will not be an easy problem to fix; it will be a challenge. Finally a government is working with Indigenous communities to make a difference in every step forward. It is a giant leap compared to previous years of the Labor government.
Education leads to meaningful employment; jobs are the key to improving outcomes for everyone. There are almost 9000 people living in my electorate of Arafura and 3150 of those people in the electorate are under the age of 18. Nearly 80% of the population is Indigenous. The importance of plans such as government Indigenous economic strategies to improve education and create jobs cannot be underestimated. The key to jobs is building successful businesses and breaking the welfare cycle, and I am hearing a good response from the Tiwi people. They want to move away from welfare business.
The general economic base in the electorate is tourism, mining and fishing, and there is some development in some areas of forestry and pastoral enterprise. The electorate has an untapped resource of wild buffalo, which can be sold for live export. This week, the first shipment of buffalo to Vietnam shows great potential for growth into an important, prosperous business which communities in Arafura can tap into.
I congratulate the Chief Minister for negotiating the deal and opening a new market into Vietnam. There are many other business opportunities which people from my electorate could consider, such as pastoral opportunities, agriculture, aquaculture and new tourism ventures.
In December last year, the Tiwi Land Council signed an MOU with the Northern Territory government. It was signed by the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council, the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Trust and the Chief Minister. The MOU recognised the shared vision of the Tiwi Land Council and the Northern Territory government for economic development and jobs. It has paved the way to identifying areas of land which can be leased to private investors, as well as Indigenous entrepreneurs for a variety of businesses.
An earlier statement on the Tiwi Islands has revealed that the potential for new business is enormous. As the member for Arafura, I was proud to attend the signing of the MOU between the Tiwi Land Council and the Mitsui Corporation this week to export woodchip from Tiwi forests to the rest of the world. It is expected the deal could generate up to $200m worth of business and create 100 jobs on the islands over the next five years. It is an historic agreement that allows the Tiwi Islanders to take control of their own lives and destinies.
By encouraging new investment and growing existing businesses, the Tiwi Islands are confident of creating jobs and future prosperity. We need to create more opportunities like this for other communities in the Arafura electorate. I encourage those communities to seriously consider economic development that will benefit their communities, and I would be only too happy to assist them in any way I can.
This government has a plan to advance economic development in regional and remote areas. It is also a plan to improve the education of our next generation of Indigenous leaders. For the first time in history, the federal government and the Territory government are as one on the need to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. This is the way forward. I commend this government for its foresight and plan to improve the economic independence of Indigenous communities. I urge Indigenous leaders to grasp this opportunity with both hands.
The Chief Minister has referred to this as the Northern Territory century. It has to be the century for all Territorians. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was fantastic to hear the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development. I congratulate him on that, and I also congratulate the member for Arafura. What a wonderful speech the member for Arafura just gave. I never cease to be impressed by him. He has a deep knowledge and understanding, obviously, of his people and culture, but he also grasps the importance of private enterprise and the ability that private enterprise has to change people’s lives. It is through work we discover dignity, and people’s lives are improved. Member for Arafura, good on you, keep up the fight.
It is not easy in Indigenous communities and across the Territory, particularly in light of the speech we heard not long ago from the member for Johnston. He has the view that almost seems to echo the rest of the opposition. They seem to have a hatred of business, and they say, ‘No, we like business. We do what we can to encourage business’, but the reality is what they say and what they do are two different things indeed.
Under the previous government, business was stifled in Indigenous communities. The roadblocks to business development are numerous, and the opposition and other socialists, as well as social engineers, display a complete lack of understanding of business. Business is not easy, it is very difficult. It takes enterprising people to start a business and risk things they have. Most people in business in the community will mortgage their houses, put their whole lives on a mortgage in pursuit of a goal they may or may not achieve. Business involves significant risk, and a business today that can be percolating along quite well can easily hit a wall tomorrow, through unforeseen circumstances.
The view of the opposition seems to be that governments must find more money for Indigenous communities, and that it is the role and responsibility of governments to provide everything in Indigenous communities. That is not possible. We do not have enough money, and when we look outside of the Northern Territory – even when we look at the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory government – it becomes very obvious that money is limited and we do not have enough money to go around. The Northern Territory government – we keep harping on this – is looking down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt. This year alone, our budget deficit is $1.1bn. We are spending $1.1bn more than we receive in income. That is a lot of money in anybody’s books.
The answer of the opposition seems to be, ‘Well, go to Canberra. Get the money from Canberra, because it is Canberra’s responsibility to support Indigenous communities.’ Canberra’s ability to do that is becoming more and more limited, particularly in the current environment when you see businesses closing in the southern parts of Australia, like Ford and Holden, and, only recently the announcement from Toyota. Thousands of workers will end up, in many cases, in the dole queue. Those workers will be screaming for welfare and support, and politicians in Canberra will have to make a judgment. Do they continue sending money to the Northern Territory, or do they start supporting their own constituents in the southern parts of Australia? I put it to this Chamber that the latter will, in some regard, prevail.
The reality is that money is drying up. There is not enough money to go around, and the future is looking bleak as far as government money is concerned. Government cannot continue to provide everything. In the Northern Territory, very little enterprise occurs on Indigenous land. The Chief Minister had a laugh at the member for Nhulunbuy talking about the basket weavers. I do not think he was laughing at the fact the basket weavers are working; he was laughing at the fact those are pretty well the only jobs in some communities.
Where is the private enterprise to drive employment in remote communities? The opposition seems to have great opposition to the idea that people should travel to boarding school because it takes them away from their communities. In most remote communities, there are just not enough jobs to support the people. Many of the people will have to move if they are to find jobs. That is a reality of life for most people on the face of the planet. We need to go where the work is in order to earn a living and support our families.
The call by the Chief Minister to focus on economic development in remote communities is the right call. There is opportunity in remote communities for enterprising people, but enterprising people also need some assistance. They do not need money from governments necessarily, but they do need governments to get out of the way. They require things like security of tenure on their land. That is something the opposition fails to grasp. They cannot understand why the government is so interested in long-term leasing of Aboriginal land, but long-term leasing provides the security and certainty that business needs to establish and grow.
The opposition does not seem to understand the need to remove red tape from remote Northern Territory. Rules and regulations are a complete distraction and deterrent for many businesses. Businesses will often go to the environments where they can flourish. In a situation where there is an enormous amount of red tape, it is very difficult to establish businesses. As an example of that, we have only to look across the borders at Queensland and Western Australia and the mining opportunities in those states. A lack of Aboriginal land rights legislation has allowed mining companies to get in there and flourish. I do not think anybody believes there are no minerals in the Northern Territory. Most people would believe we are as well-endowed with mineral resources as Queensland and Western Australia. However, people have to ask themselves why we only have a handful of mining operations in the Northern Territory, yet in Western Australia and Queensland unlimited mining activity seems to be taking place.
We seem to have missed the bandwagon in some regard, and land access is seen as one of the greatest deterrents to exploration and mining in the Northern Territory. Anything we as a government can do to open up the Northern Territory to allow exploration, mining and other businesses to establish, the better off all Territorians will be. Most Indigenous Territorians who do not live near a mine would love one to be established somewhere within their region. Mines, in many regards, hold the promise and hope of jobs for Aboriginal Territorians.
Something the member for Johnston mentioned was quite misleading. It was the idea that Labor had an Indigenous water allocation, because no such thing ever existed. Nowhere in legislation, nowhere in regulation in the Northern Territory has there ever been an Indigenous water allocation. The member for Johnston talks about Indigenous water allocations like they have been taken away by this government. The reality is, nothing has been taken away by this government. In fact, this government is offering the extraction of water where previous governments never did. We encourage Aboriginal Territorians to start farming, agriculture and businesses that require water, because the water is there for their use, as well as other people’s use. We want to see the water used. We do not want an Indigenous water allocation that Indigenous people never use. One of the great furphies is that governments have allocated water to Indigenous people, because they have not. It never happened. The whole idea was to create an Indigenous water allocation to ensure people never used that water. To me, that is scandalous. It is anti-business, anti-development, anti-jobs, anti-everything.
The other thing the member for Johnston talked about was houses being built from cheap building products. I put to the member for Johnston that somebody living under a tree or a piece of corrugated iron is happy to live in a cheaply constructed house, no matter how cheap it is. The view of the previous government was that unless you spend $600 000 on a house in a remote community, it would never be at a standard suitable for Indigenous people. Housing overcrowding is still one of the biggest issues we have in remote communities, and we need more houses and we need them quickly.
I recall that during the intervention we were looking around for cheap housing options. There was $600m allocated by the federal government for housing in the Territory, and at the time, I was in the federal parliament. Mal Brough, Senator Scullion and I were scouring Australia trying to find the cheapest housing options available, because overcrowding was identified as one of the major concerns in the Little Children are Sacred report. That same report, which was absolutely damning of the previous Labor government, probably led to the removal of Clare Martin as Chief Minister because of the way she tried to hide it under the carpet and keep its contents secret from the Australian public. It was our strong view we needed enormous amounts of accommodation very quickly. We were keen to see what sort of accommodation could be built somewhere for under $100 000, whether they were demountables or some other type of innovative way of housing people.
We looked at what Noel Pearson was doing in Cape York and the type of houses they were building there. Of course, they did not have a kitchen or a bathroom, but they were shelters and were being constructed at that time for around $30 000 a throw. People were quite happy to sleep in those houses; they preferred to cook, bathe and clean themselves outdoors, but those houses in Cape York certainly provided the shelter people needed from the elements and a place to stay.
There were other things we were looking at, such as flat pack houses in South Australia. Our own great John Waldmann, here in the Northern Territory, could construct a house for around $120 000 and teach Indigenous people how to build their own houses. He sold his franchise around the world and maintained ownership of the product in the Northern Territory, because he had a great desire to put back into the Northern Territory community. Thousands of his housing designs were constructed throughout India, China and the like, but in the Northern Territory - with Labor federal and Territory governments - not one of his house designs was used, despite the fact he won the annual new inventors award of the year. Rest in peace, John. It was sad to see that your home jurisdiction would not use your product. Fundamentally, Labor said it was not right for people to live in low-cost accommodation, despite the fact in some cases there were 20 or 30 people to a house.
They also said there had to be an Indigenous employment component, which is fine in normal circumstances, but we were facing a national emergency. People needed shelter. Labor did not seem to care about the fact people needed shelter. All that mattered to them was very expensive houses being built in the bush, many of them completely impractical.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, Labor has been a complete failure in the area of Indigenous enterprise development and economic development. This government has a clear desire to change this to bring business into Indigenous communities. There is always a battle with Labor. It is welfare versus reward for enterprise, and in that battle, in Labor’s mind, welfare will always win. They do not support an enterprising individual. They do not believe in rewarding enterprise. For them, it is all about the state, the community, and nothing is about the enterprising individual; they are knocked down all the time.
I welcome the Chief Minister’s commitment to Indigenous enterprise development in the bush. It is a great step forward. It is a step that is totally supported by this side of government. We do not resile from the fact we want Indigenous people to use water. We do not resile from the fact we want long-term leases on Indigenous land, mining, tourism, agriculture and we want people to work and build self-respect. Ultimately, that is the way of the future because the government dollar is drying up. It is drying up in the Northern Territory, nationally and, I think, around the world. People are being much more frugal with the way they treat their money and are less likely to throw …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Barkly; he is a lovely man. I will not drag on for much longer, apart from to say again, I welcome the Chief Minister’s statement today. This side of the House is fundamentally committed to delivering enterprise and economic development into remote parts of the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Attacks on Territory Workers
Attacks on Territory Workers
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the CLP for its continual attacks on Territory workers. The CLP promised that frontline workers would be safe, and then went about sacking hundreds of public servants on contracts. The CLP is so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, they are offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics, who have voted to take industrial action against their appalling treatment. The CLP is in dispute with bus drivers, who have an uncertain future because the CLP is selling the Darwin bus service. The CLP is in dispute with port workers over job losses, and there are very real shudders of concern running through prison officers and Power and Water staff.
When firefighters spoke out about their plight, the Attorney-General shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. The Attorney-General should apologise immediately and move to ensure the pay offer is a fair one, not one less than the CPI. Workers are not surprised that the government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday where, internationally, workers embrace the successful campaign for the eight hour working day. This CLP government has done nothing but attack workers since it won government on false promises. Stop the bullying and start working with Territorians who are just trying to earn a decent pay for a decent effort and support their families to live here under an increasing cost of living.
The CLP does not respect public sector workers. Adam Giles is the Chief Minister who will be remembered for laughing at nurses, turning his back on firies injured at work, sacking teachers and forcing public servants into industrial action, and privatising public assets and creating uncertainty for public servants in Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem Land. No one will forget the Chief Minister and his mocking response to nurses when they tabled a petition in this Assembly, expressing their legitimate concerns about double-bunking at Royal Darwin Hospital and related work safety issues. He laughed at the number, which was in the 70s, yet that was a huge portion of the ED team. Our highly-valued and respected nurses and their colleagues certainly will not forget the Chief Minister’s arrogant disregard for their concerns; they have relayed that to us.
They were rightly disgusted by the Chief Minister’s reaction to the petition on a significant healthcare matter at Royal Darwin Hospital, and neither will the general public, who hold the nursing profession in the highest esteem, forget this. Attacking frontline health workers, who look after our children and families when they are ill or injured is not just disrespectful, but calls into question the maturity and leadership qualities of the Chief Minister. When the opposition introduced a bill to support firefighters, whose dangerous working environment exposes them to a greater risk of cancer, the Treasurer scornfully rejected the proposed legislation. I will not forget those firefighters turning their backs in disgust; it is one of the most powerful moments I have experienced in this Chamber.
I would like to pause for a second and read an extract from Andrew McLeod’s open letter. I understand, as a government, that you will not listen to us as an opposition. You are not listening to Territorians, but surely you would listen to somebody as well-respected and admired as Andrew McLeod, a footy legend, an amazing Territorian and Australian icon. Late last year, he wrote an open letter to the Northern Territory News about his dad’s story. I quote:
- It has been interesting to read the stance, or lack of one, on the ‘presumptive legislation’ that should enable Territory firefighters to access compensation for treatment of cancer related illnesses.
The fact that those in the leadership aren’t from the NT is possibly one of the reasons they don’t get it, or maybe it’s that they don’t have the courage to make such a decision because of the repercussions that may come their way from a big corporate.
- My dad was diagnosed with cancer along with some other amazing men that I grew up idolizing as a young boy in Darwin and Katherine.
He goes on to talk about his dad and how he idolised his dad, who worked in the Northern Territory fire service for over 45 years. He talks about the sadness of his mother passing away from cancer earlier last year. He goes on to say:
- I hope it never happens to them, that those politicians that sit on their high horses and make/don’t make decisions, ever get cancer through working in the Territory’s version of the White House. I bet if this ever happened though, legislation would be passed quicker than Terry Mills was back doored out of the leadership.
It’s about time the government had a good look at themselves and what they stand for, because at the moment, it seems very little. If they want to have an impact and be a part of the Territory, then maybe they should start looking after Territorians.
If they seek any further proof, they should get directions and go down to the Old McMillans Road or Thorak cemeteries and look for some of our fallen firies from the past, and find out exactly how those heroes passed on.
That was from Andrew McLeod, a well-respected Territorian and Australian. If you will not listen to us in opposition and you will not listen to him, who will you listen to? These are powerful words from a well-respected Territorian and Australian. You must start to listen. When firefighters asked for a pay increase comparable to those received by their colleagues in Western Australia, the Attorney-General cruelly claimed that firies were trading on their good name. Territory firefighters and their families will never forget that – the lack of support or respect from the CLP government.
We hear that prison officers have been treated with contempt, as they prepare to transport over 800 prisoners to the new prison in July; this is under the threat that 50 of them, one in six, will be sacked once the transfer is complete. We learnt last week that paramedics voted an incredible 80 to one to take industrial action because their pay offer does not even match cost of living increases. The CLP does not respect frontline medical workers who save lives and provide vital support to injured Territorians every day. Nor will anyone forget the continuing refusal of the Minister for Education to come clean with teachers and other employees in the education sector on the full extent of the savage cuts imposed by the CLP on our schools. The big losers are our children. Our Minister for Education refers to our teachers as lazy, but what about parents, teachers and students? What they do remember is the Minister for Education admitting in parliament last October that the CLP’s education cuts were budget related.
The government’s campaign of misinformation was aided and abetted by the Minister for Public Employment, who thought he could bully teachers and other employees in the education sector to accept the government’s inadequate offer during ongoing EBA negotiations. Teachers will not forget these attacks. Our education communities, parents and students will not forget.
We have also seen the ongoing attacks by the Treasurer on employees to justify the splitting up of the Power and Water Corporation. Morale has been shattered by staff terminations, constant restructures and ongoing uncertainty over the future and direction of the organisation. Power and Water employees, frontline workers and support staff will not forget these attacks on their professionalism and performance. These workers provide us with essential services: our power and water.
Customers of Power and Water already suffering from your savage power price hikes, with more to come, have not forgotten the impact on their household budgets. Governments should respect their citizens, but it is the manner in which your government dismisses their views so easily that is upsetting. One of the ladies who works at my childcare centre asked me recently if I had any plant clippings. I said ‘I am not much of a green thumb, but why?’ She said she could not afford her water bills last year to keep her garden alive. She lives in the rural area and her garden is her pride and joy. She has fruit and vegetables, but she could not keep it going because of your water bills. That is what you are doing, as a government, to your citizens. There are other stories of people in similar occupations, living week to week, who cannot afford your increases, and the Treasurer wants to split up Power and Water. We know this will cause further CLP power price hikes. The Treasurer has not even ruled out privatisation.
We know your government has plans for another round of savage cuts across the public sector in the run up to the next Territory budget: 10% across the board, with bigger cuts in targeted agencies. You have no regard for the impact of these cuts on staff trying to provide a service and do their job. You do not respect client needs. The sad thing is these attacks are not occasional lapses based on poor judgment; they are part of a systemic campaign to intimidate and politicise the public service. It is in the CLP DNA; you do not respect the public service. There is no clearer example of the CLP’s disposition and deception of public sector employees than before the last Territory election, and the subsequent reality of threatened job security afterwards. The facts speak for themselves.
Before the election, then CLP leader Terry Mills made a range of promises to public sector workers concerning job security. The following examples underscore the extent of your deception. ‘The Country Liberals plan to strengthen the public service’ and ‘Your job is safe’ flyers were everywhere. ‘We will immediately provide secure employment for our teachers. We will immediately support and strengthen the NT public service. If your base salary is $110 000 or less, your job is safe. If you are on the front line of Police, Education or Health, regardless of how much you earn, your job is safe.’ Those were the solemn pledges of the CLP before the election, made in the knowledge they already had plans to slash and burn the public sector should they come to government. This is the exact opposite to what the CLP has done. We have seen your posters proclaiming jobs are safe; what a cruel hoax, a commitment to hard-working public servants abandoned so quickly. You have forced generations of expert advice out of the NT public service.
There is a very important point to be made about the relationship between the public and private sectors in the context of CLP cutbacks. We are not dealing with a simple ‘public sector is bad, private sector is good’ argument – the psyche that drives the CLP – unless you are one of the 14 former CLP politicians or party candidates drawing a large salary from the public purse. We need a strong public sector to have a strong community and strong private sector. In the Northern Territory, the public and private sectors work co-operatively to deliver services essential to families and businesses for the sustainable future development of our economy. Any impairment in the capacity of either sector will have detrimental impacts on service delivery, infrastructure development and economic growth. If you drive down the disposable income of public or private sectors employees with huge increases in power and water prices, which you have done, there will be adverse impacts, particularly for the small business sector.
Small businesses are suffering. I know small business owners around town who stop you in the street. They are frustrated at the government for ignoring them and they cannot stay afloat much longer. They are really struggling. This government is forcing Territorians out of the Territory, whether it is by forcing up the cost of living or cutting jobs which, before the election, were safe. More and more members on this side of the House are hearing directly from Territorians as to why they are leaving the Territory. Surely, you must be hearing it on your side. You must wake up and listen. People are leaving the Territory, our great Territory lifestyle, whether it is in the Top End or Central Australia, because they cannot afford the high cost of living and reduced job security.
Employees offered wage and salary increases less than the CPI will cut back on discretionary expenditure. We are seeing that. Our small businesses around town that saw extra discretionary spending are not seeing it; people are saving their money. If you talk to businesses, people who have never used layby services before or thought twice are doing so now. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer need to get out into the real world and talk to small businesses across the Territory before it is too late. We are affecting businesses and losing good and talented people from our public service.
Education is a disaster throughout the Territory. Last year, teachers, students and parents rallied, opposing the school cuts, including many who rallied outside this parliament. Teachers have spoken very clearly about this, yet you continue to ignore what you are told. They are opposed to the job losses in our schools; they worry that your policies will reduce subject choices for students, reduce the number of subject specialists and increase class sizes. We are seeing that right now within our schools. We are seeing less individual attention for our students and less pastoral care. Yesterday in this parliament, I tabled an e-mail saying they are literally drowning. Teachers are also extremely concerned about the reduction in support staff, teaching assistants and administrative staff in schools.
Last year, the Minister for Education refused to tell the people of Alice Springs what was happening in their schools. The minister’s department was asked by the Centralian Advocate to confirm how many staff schools would be capable of employing in 2014. It said the most recent allocations were subject to change, depending on how individual principals chose to administer them. We have known for some time that in Alice Springs support staff have been cut, because people are telling us. They are currently employed in a support role, or were employed in a support role, yet they are gone; they do not have a job this year. What is happening in our Education system is appalling, and people are talking about it every day. In a media release dated 18 December, the acting Minister for Education, who we saw an awful lot of over the Christmas period – through December and January, I think we only saw the Education minister about once. He said:
- Northern Territory teachers could also receive an increase in their pay with an opportunity to accept the latest Enterprise Agreement being offered by the Commissioner for Public Employment.
He went on to say:
- Teachers will have until this Friday to vote in a ballot that could too see them receive a pay increase of 3 per cent per annum, effective from 21 November 2013.
…Through the processes of a ballot, teachers have an opportunity to bypass the muddy tactics and politics of the Union and vote for themselves on whether to sign up to the Enterprise Agreement on offer.
Being the mean-spirited government you are, you tried to force teachers to a ballot. You did force them to a ballot on the proposed enterprise agreement, and the results were hardly surprising, after denigrating our public education system for months and denigrating our teachers. They overwhelmingly rejected your offer because …
Mr Elferink: Actually, they did not, and that is the intriguing thing about the way you are putting the spin on it.
Ms FYLES: You just like to interject.
Mr Giles interjecting.
Mr FYLES: And the Chief Minister just laughs. This is no laughing matter. It is not surprising what you get from the other side – just laughter.
These are the issues affecting everyday Territorians: job security, your downgrading of the education system and the public service, and with such a huge proportion of those votes cast in the enterprise agreement ballot, teachers and other educators have sent you a message, but you still will not listen. You just laugh at us. You are not laughing at us, you are laughing at Territorians. It is time you listened. I have just quoted Andrew McLeod. I have talked about teachers, nurses and firefighters. Who will you listen to? You do not listen to anyone.
By abusing our teachers and the public education system – it has not been a one-off event by CLP ministers; there is a long history of the minister and the Chief Minister running down public education in the Northern Territory. You should be championing it. You should be talking about our proud achievements.
In a ministerial statement on 27 November 2013, the Minister for Education said our students were:
- … at the bottom of the pile …
That is offensive and misleading. The minister, as I said, should be championing our education system. We have some really fantastic results. We have some fantastic young Territorians achieving good things, and there will be more in the future. The way your government is running down our education system is appalling. It is not acceptable. People are leaving the Territory. Parents are saying to me, ‘We are not sure what school we should send our children to’. What you are doing to our education system is wrong. It is a fantastic system with great teachers.
On 7 November, the Chief Minister told the ABC the Territory had the worst performance statistics through the NAPLAN results on the My School website. I would also expect the Chief Minister to champion our education system and support our students. We absolutely have work to do, but there are good results there if you look at breakdowns into subject areas, grade by grade. Our Indigenous kids are improving their results. You cannot ask much more of your kids than to do better than they did last time. You need to invest. We are overcoming decades of neglect. Labor invested for 11 years and you are wiping all that away. Your own colleague, Minister Lambley, agreed that Labor’s investment in education was paying off when she said in a media release dated 14 September 2012:
- The NAPLAN figures show the percentage rate of improvement …
- … in the Territory is stronger than in other jurisdictions and that Territory students tested in 2008, 2010 and 2012 showed the greatest gains nationwide.
Your former Minster for Education agreed that we were seeing the NAPLAN results. Yet, the Giles CLP government has smashed our education system. You have decimated it.
The Minister for Education, on 17 October 2013, said the Northern Territory has the worst educational outcomes in Australia. Get it right; different minister, different story. On 14 October 2013, the Minister for Education said in the NT News:
- No one jumped up and down when we lost 50 teachers.
Now everyone is jumping up and down that we’ve lost 35.
You are cutting teachers from our education system and people are concerned. They are seeing the real results. We have students at Casuarina Senior College, for the first time, having a study line in Year 10. They are sitting in the library, supervised, but they are not in class learning. That does not happen at the start of every school year. We have additional students at Darwin High who have not been catered for by your teaching formula. You have no credibility. You have decimated our education system. You have gotten rid of teachers with decades of experience in the Territory. I know of some who have left our urban middle and senior schools; they are fantastic teachers who have been pushed out by your cuts. Teachers are stressed – I tabled that e-mail yesterday – but what they are telling me is they are frustrated and exhausted. The way you have forced timetables to work in schools is not working. Their teaching lines are all over the place; you just do not get it, but that would come from an Education minister who refers to teachers as being lazy.
The CLP government does not value public education in the Territory. You have spent your time in office running it down, defunding it, sacking it, refusing federal funding and planning the removal of senior education from the bush. I look to your bush colleagues and hope they are speaking up, because your consultation process, sure enough, will not allow people in the bush to speak up. You are going to Nhulunbuy for two hours on a Friday night. How are surrounding communities meant to be involved in that consultation process? What you are proposing is appalling. Your colleagues spoke last year of their concerns; your bush colleagues raised the issue of cuts in remote schools. In particular communities they were really hounded about what was going on. We have seen teachers assistants cut. We saw teachers uplifted last year, and they are now apparently needed again. The education system is in chaos. The member for Goyder spoke of cuts at Taminmin High School. This is happening across the Territory and it is all – the minister has said it – budget related. You claim larger class sizes do not matter and we must focus on the early years, but it is all for budget cuts.
You have cut programs such as the GEMS mentoring program. It was nothing to do with achieving better educational outcomes, it was to save money. It is wrong. Our teachers are struggling with these cuts every day, our students are being affected, and this will affect our communities for generations to come. This is why teachers voted no to your CLP enterprise agreement; this is why they are really upset and will not let up. Education is the passport to the future, everybody knows that, and a government that is not talking about offering secondary education is shutting down children’s potential. You are a government that wants to cut off that future to so many young Territorians, and I will raise this day in and day out, because it is wrong. I do not know how you can look at your communities and think it is acceptable. Every child in the Territory is worth the opportunity.
I was appalled last year when the Attorney-General referred to the cost of educating these kids in the Territory, and that we could send them to private schools interstate. We all know that kids do best in their own communities.
Mr Elferink: That is the problem, they do not. Your own Education minister said matriculated kids at Wadeye could not read!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could we stop the …
Mr Elferink: She is just full of it, and I apologise to you, sir. When you hear those sorts of things, you can only tolerate so much.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin does not have the call.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, please be seated.
Ms FYLES: I speak passionately about this. I was educated in the Territory and I want our kids to have …
Mr Giles: Hear, hear! We have been waiting for that all day, and now we have it. That is exactly what we have been waiting for.
Ms FYLES: You are the Chief Minister who laughs at ED nurses. You think it is a joke that you are decimating our education and cutting off an opportunity for Territory kids. I do not know how some of your colleagues can talk about it in your Caucus, because what you are doing is taking away education. Education is the key to a future, to being successful and contributing positively to our society. To propose that some students are not worth that investment and that somehow going to a boarding school is better is wrong. We need to work through options and keep supporting our kids in the bush. They are doing their best and improving on their results every year. That is in the NAPLAN results, but you only pick and choose what you want. The Chief Minister, the Minister for Education and the CLP government have the wrong priorities. It is your failure to support teachers and communities, and I do not think we can forget Nhulunbuy and East Arnhem.
Yesterday during the statement the Chief Minister did show up for, he said:
- We will not be withdrawing key services from the region.
- Accordingly, to give Northern Territory government employees certainty, any permanent public servants currently based at Nhulunbuy can be assured there will be no change to their job circumstances before 31 March 2014.
In recognition of the importance of how education programs are arranged, all school staff with a permanent position for the 2014 school year in Nhulunbuy can be assured their positions will remain unchanged through until the end of Semester 1.
You just do not get it. Parents will not commit to a full year in a town if they do not know their children have education opportunities. Last week, when my federal colleagues and the member for Nhulunbuy were in Nhulunbuy, Year 11s were really concerned. They will lose teachers at the end of semester one. They will potentially not have opportunities for Year 12 next year. The brutal time line for the ramp down of production of the refineries is already having a real impact. At Nhulunbuy Christian College, in the same town, they are aware of the impact of cutting teachers during the school year and have guaranteed staff for the full 2014 year. When I heard that announcement last year, I thought, ‘Great, teachers will have a year there’, but no, it is until the end of March. That is appalling, and it is because you reneged on your gas to Gove deal.
Not only are you attacking workers in Nhulunbuy, but flow-on effects are affecting families in Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region. The Territory government should be doing the same as Nhulunbuy Christian College: listening to the Nhulunbuy community to ensure public servants are guaranteed employment for the full year – a full year for students to finish their studies, but you will not even commit to that. On 3 December 2013, in Question Time, the member for Nhulunbuy asked the Chief Minister about this matter. He still failed to provide more certainty to teachers, parents and students at Gove. The Chief Minister’s ministerial statement admits:
- … the school-age population of the town is expected to drop from 947 to 275.
Territorians’ public service jobs are at risk, and there will be a flow on to our economy and services for Territorians. It is just not right. Territorians need to know what the CLP government is planning for the public sector and government services. Public servants have already learned the hard way with the cruel hope their jobs would be safe. You said every person with a base salary under $110 000 was safe, yet people lost their jobs. If it was due to a contract ending, that is still losing a job. They had a job; they do not have it anymore. They were not just contracts for a couple of weeks; they were contracts for quite a few months, contracts in place for a couple of years and they are now gone. You promised every job under $110 000 would be safe, but they are gone. You promised frontline workers would be safe.
I do not think you can get any more frontline than a nurse or a teacher. I am not sure what the definition of frontline is. I would like the minister, in his reply to this motion, to answer the questions: were agencies told of the 10% budget cuts before Christmas? Why did you not announce the further cuts when handing down the Treasurer’s mid-year report?
Why these cuts? Are they to pay for your unfunded election promises to the bush? I know my colleagues will have a lot more to say on this continual attack on our public sector employees. You have attacked so many crucial frontline services. You have attacked public servants who just want to get on and do their jobs. They just want to deliver for Territorians, but you and your cuts have really hurt them. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is not a single suggestion as to how much they would spend, as an alternative government, on their promises. Are they saying to those union boffins they will pay the 23% currently being demanded by some firies, plus 8% every year thereafter, plus a housing allowance? If we have to pay that, we will have no money for the schools she so bitterly complains about. There was not a single, rational contemplation in that tirade, which was so badly constructed that it beggars belief. I note she said during the debate, in shrill indignation:
- I was educated in the Territory.
The one educated in the Territory is now a member of parliament, so there cannot be too much wrong with the education she received. I suspect she is old enough to have received most, if not all, of that education under a former CLP government. That is interesting.
It is true that education has a problem in the Northern Territory, and it starts with the motion itself. We talk about education standards in the Northern Territory and this motion, in its presentation, beggars belief. The starting point is a thing in English called the verb-subject agreement, which deals with the way a verb in a sentence operates rationally and next to its subject. In this case, ‘the CLP are’. We will pause there for a second. I will ask the teacher, the member for Nightcliff, to take the exercise, as I am sure all teachers could, of conjugating the verb ‘to be’. I will do it for her in case she does not know how to. To conjugate the verb to be: ‘I am’, ‘you are’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it is’, ‘we are’ and ‘they are’. The point is, if you look at, ‘the CLP are’, you run into a fundamental grammatical error. The CLP is a single institution. Let me give the member for Nightcliff, our learned teacher, an example: ‘The Labor Party is a party of people with no sense of real direction’. That is referring to the Labor Party singularly. ‘Bill and Ted, who are members of the Labor Party, are people with no sense of direction.’ That is the appropriate verb-subject agreement because the first is singular and the second plural. The singular CLP has been identified in this motion as the CLP plural.
I tell the honourable member opposite that is not the correct verb-subject agreement and is a verb-subject disagreement. The motion says, ‘The CLP are so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living’, and goes on to say ‘they’. The CLP is not ‘they’. ‘They’ are the members of the government, ‘they’ is that group of cattle over there, but the CLP is a singular entity. ‘They’ is not correct, and it is followed with the same mistake in the verb-subject agreement when she says, ‘they are’.
May I point out – I digress briefly – the CLP is a political party and not the government of the Northern Territory. CLP members, who form the majority of members in this House, form the government of the Northern Territory. Therefore, to attack the CLP, which is an institution with a president, membership and branches across the Northern Territory, is erroneous and you are attacking the wrong person, but I digress briefly.
We go on to find the same mistake repeated again and again by our teacher. However, we can understand that because it is a grammatical error, and in spite of the fact the member for Nightcliff is prepared to make the same verb-subject disagreement appear repeatedly into the document, it goes on to show other demonstrable mistakes. I point out this line in the motion:
- The CLP has done nothing but attack workers since in won government.
The word I presume the member has tried to insert is ‘it’ to say ‘since it won government’. The letters ‘t’ and ‘n’ are often mistaken, I can understand why that happens. There you go; that is what happened. We have a second error to fix in her report. If this was a school report, we would already be starting to look a bit grim. We have corrected that.
Let us go to the conjunction she used between the words ‘for’ and ‘continueal’. This is an injunction that has used an apostrophe but does not invite it. I will point out to the honourable teacher on the other side that the word ‘it’s’ is used incorrectly, because in applying the apostrophe in the word ‘its’, you are conjoining the two words ‘it is’.
Let us read this in the context it is used: ‘The Assembly condemns the CLP for it is continueal’. Oh, dear! Perhaps she has not got that one right either. If we remove the apostrophe and use ‘its’ in the possessive sense, you will discover it becomes, ‘The Assembly condemns the CLP for its continueal’. What is that word, by the way? We will remove the apostrophe and fix that. Now we have ‘its’.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin has been speaking to a different motion, because I do not have an apostrophe in my ‘its’ and ‘continual’ is spelt correctly.
Mr Elferink: You are reading from the Notice Paper and I am reading from the document she signed yesterday.
Mr Gunner: I am reading the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. Fortunately, some poor person who typed the Notice Paper had to go through the excruciating exercise of turning this into English so normal human beings in this place could understand what she was driving at.
I continue; we now come to the word ‘continueal’. I have checked my dictionary to determine the word ‘continueal’ is not a word in the English language. Therefore, we have to put a line through the word ‘continueal’ and pause briefly, as we ponder the meaning intended after the conjunction disaster that precedes it. I presume she was trying to say the word, ‘continual’, which, of course, is spelt entirely differently.
I expect the NAPLAN results of the Northern Territory to go up as a result of her leaving the education system, because this is excruciating to read. Once again, we see the member for Nightcliff, all hot and bothered, flustering her way into this place, exploding with rage and indignation, and not even taking the time to read, spell or grammar check the document she has landed on this table with strident indignation.
She then proudly announced that:
- I was educated in the Territory.
It is the education system that produces those sorts of educational results we, as a government, are trying to attend to.
That is what we are trying to do. If even somebody with that level of education can find their way into this place, it demonstrates that people, while possessing a substandard education, can still make their way in the world if they work diligently. There is a lesson to be learnt from that. That is an aside, now let us go on to the substance of the motion as it stands translated into English.
The shrill motion says, among other things, that we are offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics. Let us pause for a moment. Paramedics? I have checked and it turns out the Northern Territory government does not employ any paramedics. The St John organisation, aka the St John Ambulance Brigade, does employee paramedics, but they are not public servants. The role of negotiating the EBA with those paramedics is a function for the administrative section of St John in the Northern Territory. St John, effectively, is contracted, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, to provide ambulance services to people in the metropolitan areas of the Northern Territory. Other ambulance services can be provided by Health departments or community-owned health clinics in remote communities. It is for this reason that ambulances are privately plated in the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, it is the Northern Territory government’s responsibility to negotiate, according to members opposite, private arrangements between a private employer and its staff.
Sooner or later, the opposition will be complaining that the Northern Territory government is also responsible for EBAs to be negotiated with staff of Woolworths, Coles, Kmart and, probably, Bunnings. They would never let the truth stand in their way. In terms of teachers, the government will persevere with its education reforms, because it wants to get better results than the results we have seen demonstrated in this House tonight. In this House tonight we have seen hideous spelling and grammar, and we, as a government, want to improve upon those results.
We have heard the Education minister speak of the many secondary institutions that have produced eight matriculated people in remote communities. We had the edifying champing at the bit by the former Education minister, Dr Chris Burns, who proudly said one day that there were so many graduates in Wadeye who had passed Year 12. I asked him at the time, by way of interjection, ‘How many of them can read? Apparently, the rangers will not give them jobs because they are illiterate.’ The then Minister for Education said words to the effect of, ‘Yes, we know there is a problem and some of our Year 12 graduates cannot read’.
What the opposition and former government has engaged in is the usual practice, which is so embraced by socialist organisations around the world. It is the misstating of achievements, for the purpose of convincing the public they are doing a good job. Sooner or later, as is always the case, underachievements come to light. To watch a minister of the Crown, an Education minister, proudly stand up and admit that many of his Year 12 graduates were illiterate was hardly what I call an edifying result.
While it might look good on an annual report, it is an awful outcome for those kids who have supposedly had an education. Can you imagine the dashed expectations of a person who has been told they are fully educated to Year 12 but cannot land a job anywhere because they are functionally illiterate? This is what the teachers union of the Northern Territory would subscribe to and encourage us to keep doing. Essentially, the teachers union argument in this pay dispute – two matters utterly unrelated to each other, remembering the EBA is about pay and entitlements and not about government policy, but, nevertheless, teachers seek to insert themselves into this policy debate – is to keep doing the same thing, doing exactly what we are doing now, which will produce exactly the same results into the future. Actually, its argument is it will produce different results in the future, but we know what the definition of insanity is: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is exactly how it is defined.
We are proposing to do what is necessary to provide results in the bush. I congratulate the Education minister for his firmness, stance, vigour and ticker in pursuing these things, in spite of the rabid screeching of members opposite and the union’s position in relation to government policy. If the union had its way, it would run the Education department in the Northern Territory. I would almost be in favour of giving it to them, if it was not for the fact I would be utterly mortified with the results that would occur.
Yes, we did put that matter of the EBA to the vote, and 81% of those who voted did so along the lines of the union’s desire. Okay, that is fine, but that is basically the union membership. However, a majority of the teachers did not vote; 58% of the teachers did not vote. I am not quite sure why that happened; I would hope they would be more engaged with their profession than that. It also reflects that 500 teachers walked off the job one day to protest in relation to what the teacher’s union was pursuing, but only 100 or so turned up at the front of Parliament House. Where were the rest of them?
I would like to see a teaching profession that is engaged with its profession, loves going to school and teaching kids every day and does so with passion. Teachers who are passionate about what they do, and who are committed, are generally two things: (1) according to the OECD, they are generally well-paid, and (2) they are well-supported by the education system.
Class sizes in the middle and senior years do not have a substantial or realisable impact on the quality of education delivered. If you look at countries like Finland, class sizes are reasonably small, but their results are comparable to countries like South Korea and Japan where class sizes are reasonably large. Their results in both instances are substantially better than the ones we see here in the Northern Territory. There are a raft of other OECD countries which produce better results, irrespective of their class sizes, but their teachers are well-respected, well-supported and well paid.
That is what we are trying to offer teachers in the Northern Territory. However, they have chosen, under the dint of their union leadership, to so far forgo as much as $1000 in income in pursuit of a class-size argument that does not have substance and has not resulted in the educational outcomes the former government, led by the unions, said it would produce. Consequently, we find ourselves at loggerheads. We will persevere because we will do what is necessary to educate kids in the Northern Territory. We invite the teachers union to participate in that process by making submissions to the three reviews under way. I know it has made some submissions and I welcome those, but to tie that to pay and entitlements is to do so at the sacrifice of your own membership. The government remains committed to reforms in the education process that are necessary to pursue.
I now turn my attention to the matter of the firefighters. In the eyes of many members opposite and members in the union movement, I have actually had the temerity to ask a hard question of firefighters. I have enormous regard and respect for people who, as a matter of courage and professional discipline, will step into the line of danger on behalf of their fellow citizens. There will always be a high level of regard and respect for such people. Nevertheless, we still have to ask ourselves how we will treat the EBA process.
Does it automatically follow that, in spite of the fact we have a level of respect, we should not ask any hard questions? If we do not, then certain practices will start to grow over time. It is these practices that I and the Northern Territory government had the temerity to challenge. One of those practices is that of only allowing overtime shifts to be filled when you are actually on your block of four days on. The effect of that is when somebody is called out and is on their four days off, they refuse to take the overtime shift so it goes to somebody who is between a night and a day shift or between two day shifts. They consequently get that at double time. That has an enormous effect on the overtime bill of the Northern Territory and is not an authorised practice supported by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment or the Northern Territory government.
To the enormous credit of firefighters in Alice Springs, they have refused to engage in this conduct because they consider it to be inappropriate. Nevertheless, firefighters in Darwin have chosen to pursue this. The average firefighter’s income was a fraction shy of $90 000 last year, and a large slice of that was from overtime practices, particularly as they are applied in Darwin. The Northern Territory government has accepted that on those four days off, some firefighters – I think 17 had permission, but I understand many more also have a second job. If, from an employer’s perspective, you allow employees to have a second job, you would do so on the proviso it does not interfere with your primary source of employment, which in this case is firefighting. I do not want to get to the stage, but will not rule it out, where we say to firefighters who have second jobs that it is no longer permissible. I do not want to go down that path. However, an ambit claim of 23% and then 8% per year thereafter is such a draw down on the public purse that we have to start asking some difficult questions.
For that, you are invited to set yourself up as a target for the shrill attacks, particularly from the United Voice union and, moreover, from the likes of the member for Nightcliff. I am prepared to ask questions about the arrangements firefighters have engaged in. It is not productive for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory when we blindly accept practices which have a deleterious effect on the overall outcomes you would expect for the people of the Northern Territory. We want, and have offered, a fair wage increase – which has already been accepted by the majority of public servants – to the firefighters. The general public service has signed off on a 3% EBA over the next four years. I congratulate and thank the majority of the general public service for understanding this is a time for wage restraint while we continue to fight a projected debt of $5.5bn.
Equally, Power and Water employees have also signed up to the same conditions, as have doctors, who are in agreement, and that is still subject to a vote at this stage. We have the police, Port Corporation, marine pilots, prison officers, nurses and dentists to go this year, and we will be making the same offer to every one of those organisations. We are prepared to make those offers because they are fair. We do not want to engage in a three-ring circus where we start off with an offer of 1% per year, the union starts off with an offer of, in the case of the firies, 23%, and we try to negotiate somewhere down to about 3%. We have decided to treat Northern Territory public servants with respect and say, ‘This is what we are offering, this is what we hope you will accept’, and we will press on with governing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
It is about a sober, sensible approach to what we are doing. The shrill, reactionary, militant and angry do not feed or in any way usefully inform this discussion. This awkwardly worded, poorly spelt, grammatically incorrect motion is part of the shrill, intemperate language I have come to expect, particularly from the militant components of the union movement and the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party.
We will continue to press on and negotiate, and will endeavour to find a reasonable solution. We hope members of the Northern Territory public service who are affected by upcoming EBAs take the same approach. Ultimately, they are, as we are, as members of the Northern Territory government, public servants, and we are there to serve the public so the best outcomes can be delivered both now and into the future.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing forward this motion which condemns the CLP for its continued attacks on Territory workers. I still find it quite perplexing and frustrating that there is a line in this Chamber separating one side that protects and supports Territory workers from a side that does not.
I do not understand why we cannot be unified on an issue like protecting Territory workers. We continually, almost weekly, find examples from this government where it does not value or respect workers in the Northern Territory. Whether it is firefighters who turned their back on the CLP in this Chamber last year, or nurses, when the Chief Minister laughed at them, we have continually seen situations where the CLP did not treat workers in the Northern Territory with respect. The police told the Chief Minister to his face that he had broken faith and trust with them. We continue to see examples of the CLP treating workers in the Northern Territory with disrespect.
The member for Nightcliff comes from generations of people who are entrenched in the labour movement of protecting and supporting Territory workers. Most of us, on our side, have come from or grown up in an environment that supports the labour movement, or have followed career paths which support the labour movement because it is part of our values. It is in our DNA that we should protect and support workers and their rights, and we have a very proud history of success in the Labor Party and as a labour movement. We have done this to such a point that most basic entitlements are now taken for granted. That is a good thing.
People should take things like an eight-hour day, weekends, overtime and those sorts of conditions. The labour movement has fought for them very hard over many years, and they should take those things for granted, because they have earned them and workers should be treated with respect. They should be paid overtime when they work into the late evenings - obviously depending on what profession they are in - and they have earnt their weekends.
The member for Port Darwin was just saying he has a problem with firefighters who, on their four days off, do not take overtime. They are on their four days off. We have a problem of attrition among our firefighters. I have met with our firefighters and had a long conversation with them, and they are concerned about the attrition levels within the fire service of the Northern Territory. If you spoke with them about their issues, tried to work with them on what they are genuinely concerned about, treated them with respect and valued their opinions, you might make some progress. Instead, we see them denigrated. We see them accused of being political when they try to advance legislation which would protect firefighters with cancer.
The Deputy Chief Minister accused them of being political, and we have just had the member for Port Darwin repeat his belief they are trading on their good reputation. It is essentially the same insult. Firefighters are passionate about the Northern Territory. They put themselves in situations where their own lives are at risk. They are concerned about attrition levels within the fire service of the Northern Territory, because they understand and believe in a cohesive, unified Northern Territory fire service. They want good morale, good conditions and for firefighters to stay in the NT and not go to other states looking for work with better conditions. They are extremely concerned, in particular, about Western Australia and the conditions offered there, which take firefighters out of the Northern Territory.
If you were to talk with our firefighters, treat them with respect and value their opinions, you might understand where they are coming from and negotiate an outcome. Unfortunately, the CLP, time after time, has shown it is not interested in taking that approach; its first reaction to a worker is one of disrespect. That is why we saw the Chief Minister laugh at nurses and why we are seeing the Deputy Chief Minister call firefighters out as being political when the fight to bring forward presumptive legislation around cancer has no political bearing. There is no politics to that. We are talking about the health of firefighters and, unfortunately and tragically, we are seeing firefighters either diagnosed with or passing away from cancer. There is medical evidence that firefighters are more prone to developing cancer on the job, yet they are being accused of being political for bringing those ideas forward.
We saw the Minister for Education call teachers lazy; he said they had too much down time. This is something he does not like being reminded of, and teachers certainly did not like it when it happened. Teachers are extremely sensitive to accusations of too much down time. They are aware there is a perception in the community, sometimes, of them getting excessive amounts of holidays. We all know many teachers; I would be very surprised if we are not friends with, related to, work with or know a teacher. The Territory is a small place and we all know the amount of time teachers put in after hours, either grading reports, preparing for classes or volunteering at their local school. You will often see them at fetes, on school excursions or at things that happen outside school hours that are important to the school community, and preparing for their classes or grading work out of classes.
They are consistently and constantly doing extra work, yet we have seen, over the last year or so, teachers being treated disrespectfully. We just heard the member for Port Darwin talk about the fact that teachers have sacrificed up to $1000 of their pay in trying to fight CLP decisions around education in the Northern Territory. Instead of acknowledging, understanding or respecting that sacrifice and the extent of it, we see them attacked.
That is an extraordinary decision by teachers and it shows where their passion is. They are not disengaged, as the member for Port Darwin just suggested. They are extremely engaged with the welfare of the children in their classes. I find it confounding, in a sense, that we have this line down the Chamber and cannot be unified in how we deal with and treat workers in the Northern Territory. That is an extraordinary shame. The member for Port Darwin asked about the 4.4% and the pay rises that are on the table; I have been asked this question before in press conferences, and I think I have talked about it in the House before. I have always said we would not be dealing with an inflation rate of 4.4% in the Northern Territory if the Labor Party had remained in government. The CLP’s budget book talks about the inflationary pressure placed on the Northern Territory from the CLP’s decision to increase the price of power and water. The CLP made a deliberate decision to break its election promise around cutting the cost of living, and made a deliberate decision to increase the cost of power and water in the Northern Territory. The flow-on impact of that is inflation of 4.4%.
They seemed surprised that in their EBA negotiations there has been a response to that. The people have seen what they have done. They have seen the decisions they have made and the impact on inflation, and they want to negotiate their pay deal as a result of that. It comes as no surprise to our side, and I find it remarkable that it comes as a surprise to the other side, that people want to negotiate around a payoff of 3% when inflation is running at 4.4%, as a result of deliberate decisions by the government. You made those decisions. I refuse to believe you did not understand the consequences of those decisions when you made them. Yet, you seemed surprised when other people made the decision they would negotiate as a result. Of course they will negotiate. I suggest you negotiate with those unions; meet with them and discuss their underlying issues and concerns. For example, firefighters have extreme concerns about the attrition rate of firefighters in the Northern Territory. It is not too out there to suggest you have a conversation with firefighters about what is important to them. That is what they have put to us. I would be surprised if they have not put that to the other side.
There have also been concerns expressed by Corrections officers. I know the member for Port Darwin takes an active interest in Corrections and he has, to my understanding, a good relationship with Corrections officers. I am sure he has heard the same things I have about their concerns around the consultation involving the shift to the new gaol. There are just over 300 Corrections officers at Berrimah and it is indicated that about 260 will be needed at the new prison. They are saying they are receiving very little information about what will happen with the move and what will happen to what looks like about 50 or so excess staff and their permanent employment. They want to hear from this government about what is happening, and they are feeling a bit nervous. They are looking around and seeing how this government treats other workers and, as a result, they are starting to get nervous. The word the member for Nightcliff used was ‘shudders’. They are concerned; they have genuine concerns based on the actions of this government and how it has treated other workers and the lack of information that is flowing to them. They have informed us the NT government is looking at hiring 50 Corrections officers from NSW and Victoria to assist with the transfer process, and the unions are wondering what the role of those 50 officers will be. What is the role of the 50 officers who could be surplus? They are genuinely asking for more information from this government about how that process will work.
I know from the contribution to debate by the member for Port Darwin, from his media comments and from seeing him on prison grounds that he has a genuine interest in Corrections. I am sure he will be capable of providing that additional information to Corrections officers. I am putting it on the record here, and I am sure he will act on that and talk to them. They are genuinely concerned at the moment, and you can understand where their concern comes from when you see the way the CLP has treated other workers: teachers, nurses, police and firefighters. When you see the way they have interacted and worked with other workers, you can see why Corrections officers are concerned about how the CLP treats workers.
I know we had debates in the very early days of this government about valuing a professional public service, as we saw valuable corporate knowledge lost to the Northern Territory. You need a strong, independent and professional public service to get things done. We believe we had that, but we saw decades of corporate knowledge lost, unfortunately, when this government came into office and made decisions about who got to keep their job. We saw very poor morale. In many places, there is still very poor morale in the public service.
We suggest to the CLP that it looks at how it responds to workers when they raise concerns. Its first response and reaction seems to always go to a natural assumption that someone is bludging, faking, not genuine, being political, or that there is some other overriding motivation. This is instead of listening to them in the first instance and then having a well-considered response.
Probably the best example of that was the Chief Minister’s decision to laugh when the petition about the ED was tabled. He laughed at nurses, instead of taking a step back and genuinely listening to their concerns. His first reaction was to laugh. Too often, we see the first reaction of this government is to make an accusation, be aggressive, get on the front foot and throw a verbal punch, instead of listening and hearing the people and their concerns.
All people want is to be heard, but we see this government continually treating Territory workers with disrespect. That is why the member for Nightcliff brought forward this motion to condemn the CLP for its continued attacks on Territory workers. Within my shadow portfolios, the most obvious example is firefighters. I understand on the other side the Business minister has carriage of this, but on our side the shadow Attorney-General has carriage of workers compensation. We are extremely concerned about where the CLP might be heading on workers compensation.
Having read the review, we had a small win. I thank the member for Fong Lim, the Minister for Business, for extending the consultation period from December and January to the end of February. It was extremely difficult for people, over that Christmas period, to try to get their submissions in. It is important that people get their submissions in, because some of the stuff coming out of that review is genuinely worrying to workers. This includes: reducing the periods in which injured workers can receive compensation; reducing the amount of compensation injured workers can receive; and increasing the gap between the true cost of injury and the compensation received. Nobody on their way to hospital in an ambulance who has been injured in the workplace should be thinking, ‘Can I afford this hospital bill?’
Unfortunately, there is a possibility, through this review and the recommendations going through at the moment, that we will see a significant gap between the true cost of injury and compensation received. The CLP has not made up its mind yet, so we have time to convince them. There is also the possibility of capping compensation at two years. That is extremely concerning. If someone is genuinely injured in the workplace and they lose the bottom half of their leg, an eye or there is any extent of injury, that injury does not cease in two years. You have to look at the true cost of injury, and find a way of looking after our workers, because you have the right, as a worker, to be safe in your workplace. If you are injured in the workplace, you should be looked after.
We have some serious concerns about where the CLP might head on workers compensation. That consultation period is open at the moment. An extra month has been granted to make submissions, and we have been working very closely with stakeholders to ensure they submit theirs. This is an instance where, on this side, we must protect and stand up for workers’ rights. It is what we always do, what we have always done, and it is what we will continue to do. Whether we are in government or opposition, we will have a constant weather eye to the rights of workers, ensuring they are treated with respect and their contribution to the Northern Territory is valued. This year there are debates and challenges around what the workers compensation scheme in the Northern Territory might look like. We will work with unions and other stakeholders to make sure workers’ rights are not ignored or broken but are properly looked after in the workplace, especially if they are injured.
We are talking about workers with genuine injuries. You should not have the first reaction that someone is trying it on, bludging or faking it. Your first reaction should always be to take people at faith. The majority of people going through the workers compensation scheme now and into the future, by and large, will be genuine. Laws should be written based on genuine injury in the workplace, yet you get the feeling, through the direction workers compensation reform is going in, that there is a belief among the CLP that perhaps that is not the case, and that is not very healthy.
This goes back to the genuine concern we have and the continuing examples we see from the CLP of its first reaction to workers in the Northern Territory being one of aggression or lack of respect. I go back to the laughing at nurses example, or the accusation of firefighters being political for daring to have an interest in presumptive legislation around cancer, coming from firefighters with cancer who have lost firefighters to cancer. Only a week-and-a-half ago we lost another firefighter, unfortunately, to cancer. They have genuine concerns based on medical evidence. We have workers in the Northern Territory with genuine concerns about how they are treated by the CLP. This is not based on empty words; the CLP constantly shows workers how it feels.
The member for Nightcliff passionately brought forward this motion. She comes from a background of people who care about the rights of workers in the Northern Territory. She has chosen to pursue a vocation in the labour movement, to stand up for workers, and so brought forward a motion of incredible importance to the Northern Territory and the direction this government takes over the next two-and-a-half years. I only hope and ask the CLP to take a step back and decide, in the future, to treat workers with more respect. It is a reasonable request, that its first reaction not be laughter or making accusations, but listening and engaging. I support this motion.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this important motion that the Assembly condemn the CLP government for its continual attacks on Territory workers. Since coming to government, it has shown particular form in this area, showing it has no respect for workers on the front line and in the public sector through its words and actions. The treatment of these workers is the talk of the town. You would struggle to find someone who has not been impacted in some way by this government and how it has gone about its business and treated people working within the public sector.
We are now seeing the emergence of several workplace disputes with critical workers across the Territory. It is particularly disturbing to see this government’s attack on frontline workers who have the job of saving the lives of Territorians every day. It is little wonder workers currently trying to get through EBA negotiations have little trust or faith in the government. The government has form on saying one thing and not sticking to its promises. We all remember day two of the 2012 Territory election campaign and the ‘Your Job is Safe’ flyer CLP members and candidates were handing out in front of public sector workplaces. Their brochures made some pretty firm promises to public servants. A message from the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, said, on this brochure:
- If you are not one of these highly paid government advisors, I promise you, your job is safe. If your base salary is $110 000 or less, I promise you, your job is safe. If you are on the front line of police, education or health, regardless of how much you earn, I promise you, your job is safe. I guarantee it.
- How many public service jobs will go?
His response was:
- None.
Mr Speers again asked:
- No public service jobs will go?
He replied:
- No public service jobs will go.
On 24 August 2012, the member for Blain spoke to ABC News Breakfast and was asked the question:
- Can you guarantee there will be no public service job cuts, both on the frontline or backline?
His answer was:
- Yes.
On polling day, we also saw CLP corflutes at the booths, all over the place, stating, ‘Your job is safe’. These directly targeted public servants, trying to send them a message, a promise and some reassurance that if they were to give the CLP their vote, their jobs would be safe. Clearly, that was not the case.
On 8 August 2012, in an interview with Kate O’Toole on ABC radio, we heard the member for Port Darwin discuss his concerns, regarding temporary contracts within the public service:
- A third of our public service is currently on temporary contracts and are being used as a management tool. A sword of Damocles - if you like - over those public servants’ heads, and the CPSU is being utterly silent about that situation. It is something the Country Liberals will be turning our minds to, because we want to also let people know where this is being used as a management tool and not actually a pragmatic tool, then we will, of course, be looking at trying to firm some of those jobs up and give people a sense of permanency.
It is now abundantly clear how this government deals with workers when negotiating EBAs and trying to resolve workplace issues. The CLP seems to feel the best way to work the EBAs is to clash head-on, instead of trying to negotiate in good faith. We saw a very long and protracted EBA process with the general public sector. We saw a barrage of e-mails from the Commissioner for Public Employment to public servants throughout these negotiations. We heard all sorts of stories about what was happening in the public service, including senior management in some agencies being instructed to speak to workers to sell the EBA.
At the second vote attempt, the government managed to just get that EBA over the line, pushing the 3% pay rise through – not a glowing victory or something to be proud of. During the public sector process, we saw the CLP again say the 3% pay offer was in line with forecasted inflation, but its own budget books dispute this. We have now seen the latest inflation figures come out at a whopping 4.4%. Public servants have not received a pay rise, more so a pay cut, as it is not keeping pace with the sky-rocketing cost of living. We now see the CLP is in pretty big disputes with Territory teachers and firefighters, and when we talk about frontline workers, they do not get much more frontline than teachers and firefighters.
The teachers threw your first EBA offer back in your face with over 80% of the vote, which is a huge demonstration of their lack in faith in what the government is doing to the Territory’s education system. This government will argue that EBAs are just about money and try to paint these workers as money hungry with no real passion for the work they do or care for the services they provide. We saw only last week the Minister for Public Employment questioning if firefighters are trading on their good reputation for excessive personal gain. That shows how arrogant the CLP is and how it lacks respect for our vital public service workforce.
Workers negotiate EBAs around their conditions too. That is an important part of EBAs. They should be pushing for good conditions in the workplace so they can do their jobs to the best of their ability. It is a pretty important part of any EBA negotiation. We have now seen our vital Territory paramedics join the list of workers who have voted overwhelmingly to take protected action regarding their pay and conditions.
Paramedics in the Territory do an amazing job, just like our police, firefighters and hospital staff. They see things that most of us could not fathom on a day-to-day basis. They are on the front line, saving lives every day. It takes a very special person to become a paramedic, and after recently meeting with a group of ambos, I have learnt a lot about paramedics and the job they do.
The CLP government may very well argue today that the dispute with paramedics is one between St John and paramedics. However, given the government contracts St John to provide these essential services – and there are clearly some big issues in the workplace here – they need to get involved. Territorians need the best possible care provided to them by the St John Ambulance Service. When you have 81 paramedics voting on whether or not to take protected industrial action, and 80 of those paramedics vote yes and one votes no, we have some problems.
This should be ringing alarm bells; the government should be getting involved with the paramedics to find out what is happening and what the issues are that have left them with no choice but to vote on this action. I met for some time with paramedics to hear firsthand what their concerns are and where they need the government to start listening. It was quite an experience for me and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity they gave me to hear what it is like to be a paramedic in the NT, to go out on the job to the situations they go into. It really helped me understand the huge expectations placed on their shoulders and what a unique job being a paramedic is. It is certainly a job I could not do and I thank the paramedics for the opportunity to hear about the challenges they see day-to-day.
It was great to see, firsthand, how passionate they are about the work they do. They made you see that if you are unfortunate enough to end up in the back of an ambulance, you really are in good hands.
These are people who really care about what they do. I was disappointed to hear that paramedics and the United Voice union have requested meetings with the Health minister to directly raise their concerns about the workplace, but at this stage, it has been to no avail.
I urge the Health minister to sit down with paramedics and hear their stories, and why it is they have reached this point where 98.7% of them feel they have no option but to take protected action. There are a range of pay and workplace conditions that paramedics are deeply concerned about. I will say up front that paramedics, like most Territorians, are finding it challenging to keep up with the cost of living. With inflation at 4.4% and the continued massive power and water hikes and rates and rent increases, they are also not finding it easy to live in the Northern Territory.
Paramedics deserve fair pay and fair allowances to keep them here. We want to see that they undergo training and development in the Territory and stay here for their careers. We want to see a workforce of paramedics with strong retention rates. Sometimes, no matter how passionate someone is about the job they do, if the pay and conditions are just not there and they cannot afford to live here, they have no other option but to leave. This is an area that must be considered.
Our paramedics deserve fair pay and allowances for the tough job they do every day saving lives. Paramedics also raised workplace conditions, and this shows their decision to take protected action is well beyond a matter of just pay. They have genuine concerns about issues in the workplace that are putting them under more pressure and potentially impacting their ability to do their job to the highest standard they are always striving towards.
Our paramedics want to do the best job all the time, but they are finding at times there are workplace practices that can compromise that. The paramedics were concerned that, at times, the full crews that St John is contracted to run and provide by the NT government are not all on the road. When you are a crew down, that puts the crews on duty under even more pressure when they are on shift. It means fewer hands on duty and the crews at work are put under the pump throughout the entire shift. Clearly, running crews down is not ideal for the paramedics and the people who need their services.
Another issue paramedics are very concerned about is the professional development and support for student paramedics. Paramedics work in crews of two and it is not uncommon to see situations where student paramedics are sent out to work together on their shifts, which is not an ideal practice. It takes up to four years for a student paramedic to become fully qualified, and clearly, they are on the job very early and gain a huge amount of experience in that time. This was a big concern to paramedics. They want student paramedics to be on the road with a qualified paramedic every time.
This is giving the student the benefit of being with someone of greater experience and exposure to the many different situations they find themselves attending. It also means more professional mentoring for them on the job. It is a very reasonable concern of the paramedics and one that really needs to be addressed. Most people, when they call an ambulance, have an expectation they will get at least one fully qualified paramedic as part of the crew assisting them. Paramedics were greatly concerned about this and it is something they want addressed.
There were also concerns raised about the massive jobs call takers and dispatch teams take on every day. They are the people on the phone as the emergency is called through who have the big task of making decisions about dispatching crews. They are sometimes in situations with one dispatcher in charge of controlling up to 30 vehicles and doing all the radio work for a 12-hour shift for the entire Territory. The team is responsible for all incoming calls for the entire Territory, and this could include liaison with all health services such as clinics, NGOs, CareFlight, hospitals, RFDS, etcetera.
There is a real desire for additional training and professional development for these workers who support the crews, and additional supervision is only available for 12 hours every day. The paramedics also had concerns about the ambulances and the current designs and improvements they want to see to help reduce workplace injuries, increase the safety of paramedics as the ambulances are going and, most importantly, changes they felt would assist them in being able to give care to patients in ambulances.
There are some big issues in the workforce of paramedics across the Territory right now. I am sure the government will say these are just operational issues and disputes that need to be resolved between the paramedics and St John. However, when you see 98.7% of the workforce with clear and genuine concerns about their workplace, the government cannot ignore the situation and push it back on to St John. These are real issues and a lot of work needs to be done. I hope the government has heard the concerns and issues I have raised tonight on behalf of paramedics and the Health minister will take action to sit down with paramedics and help work through them.
Our paramedics do a critical job in the Territory. We have the utmost respect for them and the St John Ambulance Service, and we have faith in their ability and care. It is vital we keep as many of our hard-working paramedics in the Territory, and we can only do that if we give them fair pay and conditions. I call on the government to sit down with the paramedics so these issues can be resolved as soon as possible. They have certainly told me about their dedication to their job, their love of the job and of working in the Territory. We should be backing them. They are the ones who save lives and they deserve our support.
I now turn to concerns I have about the complete and utter disrespect with which the CLP has treated workers in the Power and Water Corporation. I am pretty passionate about Power and Water because I used to work there. About 10 years ago I started working at Sadadeen Valley in Alice Springs with the staff of Power and Water. I got to see firsthand what an amazing bunch of workers they are and how dedicated they are to their jobs. Whether they are in water services, power networks, generation, retail or corporate, Power and Water workers are fully committed to that place and do an incredible job.
Sometimes, Territorians do not fully appreciate the work these people do. We see power networks teams heading out in some of the biggest storms, hail and floods. They are on the scene trying to ensure people are safe and their power can be switched back on as soon as possible. I have seen them in the workplace and have seen the amazing support those workers give to each other when something goes wrong. They work in a very dangerous field. When something goes wrong, those accidents are dire, and we have seen some pretty horrible workplace incidents over the years. I cannot get over how much they rally together and support each other to get people back to work as soon as possible, back into their jobs, back into their careers and doing the things they love. It is something I have always felt very proud of.
In the Territory, we sometimes take for granted having the lights on and the water running. You can thank your Power and Water workers for all the work they do to get that done. Under this government, all I hear is that morale is at an all-time low at Power and Water. It is little wonder when you hear statements from the CLP government saying Power and Water is a basket case and is inefficient and bloated. In your time in government, you have gone about trashing the reputation and professionalism of Power and Water staff. They hear what you say and think you are a disgrace. It does not look like the pain at Power and Water will stop any time soon. We know the government is moving to split Power and Water. Today, we were given notice that legislation will be brought before the House to create a split to create Power and Water Generation Corp and Power and Water Retail Corporation. We also heard some firm words from the Treasurer yesterday about looking at privatisation and the sell off of Power and Water.
Workers there are faced with a lot of uncertainty about what is happening. They do not know what will happen after the split on 1 July 2014 and are not feeling any more certain after hearing statements from the Treasurer on ABC on 9 January 2014. He said:
- It is probably fair to say that they are overstaffed, that they have far more equipment than they actually require to do the job.
I imagine if you said that at a toolbox meeting with network guys they would have some pretty interesting things to say. The Treasurer also said:
- It would be my expectation that there will be reductions in staff numbers.
We are now seeing them go down the path of a split. We know new boards will be established under this split, and the only reassurance staff have been given is that the new boards will make decisions about who has a job and who does not. That is not much reassurance for them. Apparently people are not feeling too good because they have no certainty about their future within Power and Water and where they will be after 1 July 2014. They have not even figured out how they will share services, so things are not going too well. That is a disgrace because these are really hard workers, dedicated and committed to the Territory, who do an amazing job every day. Under the CLP, they have been shown no respect, have been treated with contempt and, unfortunately, it looks like things will get a hell of a lot worse for them.
What I want to know is, with the changes, with the transitions the CLP intends to put through with the splits, will they be doing the change management within Power and Water? Will they be upfront with workers and tell them where they stand, where they are going and what lies ahead for them in their jobs? Will workers get the right human resources support if they do not have a job?
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MANISON: I hope, as part of these transition plans, there is a lot of consideration given to these workers because they have gone through a hell of a lot and will go through a hell of a lot more by the end of the year. The government should be upfront with them about where they stand and where they are going. That is what they deserve, because things have not been that way and they are not having a very good time.
I turn to the treatment of Health staff, particularly the petition last year from ED staff about double-bunking. The reaction of the Chief Minister was not great, we all know that. It was pretty bad then, and we are now hearing there is a lot of pressure on staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. Double-bunking is still happening in the ED, there is a lot of pressure on the wards, we are seeing bed block and they are going through a lot. We have also heard, very clearly, that there are more cuts to come, and they will be significant cuts this year. This will mean cuts to services and, I daresay, many cuts to jobs within the Health department. That is a real concern because, like education, we have the biggest deficits in health here in the Territory. If you have the worst outcomes, the answer is not to start stripping away and cutting further. It will be interesting to see how that is handled, but also what support and respect is shown to the staff.
We also know that this year we are going into EBA negotiations with the nurses. Nurses do an amazing job in the Territory; they are critical. I would like to think the government will treat nurses with the respect they deserve, but I thought it would treat the teachers with a hell of a lot more respect than it has. I do not have much faith in that process going forward. Let us see how things go with the nurses; I hope you put a fair offer on the table and give them the best possible conditions because our nurses deserve it. They do an amazing job.
With the teacher numbers and education cuts, it has been a trying process for people in our schools. It has also been a tough process in the Department of Education. There is no doubt that in schools in my electorate morale is pretty bad. People are upset with changes occurring. There have been huge turnovers in primary schools in my electorate because of this situation – managing temporary contract workers, no longer having a job, trying to reshuffle people out of the department into schools again, etcetera. You are losing really talented teachers. One of my schools in particular - I remember speaking to the Grade Six teacher last year who lost her job. She loved being at the school and was great there, but she was taken out because she had a temporary contract. This was despite the fact students loved her, she was doing a great job and had fitted in well with the community.
It was for the sake of getting rid of her for convenience, rather than holding onto her expertise and the passion she brought to teaching and serving the students of that community. That was a shame. The handling of education cuts and the uncertainty in the education system has not been handled well at all. Let us see how the rest of the EBA negotiation goes with the teachers, but I do not have much hope there, considering how it has gone so far with the bullyboy tactics going into this negotiation.
I am also hearing stories when I chat to people. I did some doorknocking last week; I knocked on 80 doors, and you certainly run into a few public servants when you do that. I have been hearing all sorts of stories. One thing I found quite concerning was that, apparently, when positions in some agencies which are technically frontline become vacant, they are being told they cannot recruit externally and must take from within the agency. This is pulling resources from other sections. Ultimately, it is putting more pressure on the frontline workers. There is a lot of pressure there; people are feeling the pain of the cuts and extra workloads they are taking on. There are some real issues there.
I will wrap up. So far under the CLP government, the treatment of workers across the Northern Territory has been shameful. The CLP should be condemned for the way it has gone about negotiating with public servants and the way it has treated workers. They need to start sitting down with workers and unions and negotiating in good faith, rather than with the bullyboy tactics we have seen. It is getting us nowhere, and it is not helping Territorians. It is ultimately impacting on service delivery, which is not a good thing.
Our public service and our workers deserve respect; they are essential to the future of the Northern Territory. I support this motion.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I speak to support the motion. We, on this side of House, are very proud of our historical role of ensuring Australian workers are treated fairly and with dignity. For well over 100 years we have fought side by side with the union movement for many of the basic entitlements and freedoms all workers across the country can now enjoy. From an eight-hour day to sick leave, fair and just workers compensation schemes, the right to collectively bargain and universal superannuation, we always have and always will stand up for the right of all Territorians to a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.
We will always do everything we can to provide Territorians with the job security they need to raise their families, plan for their future and enjoy all the things that make the Territory such a fantastic place to live. That is why, in government, we employed more nurses, teachers and police, and ensured they were properly paid for the fantastic work they do. That is why we treated employees and their representatives with dignity and respect in sometimes difficult EBA negotiations. That is why we invested significant resources to ensure Territory workplaces were as safe as they could be. Territorians came to expect and were entitled to expect that government would be on their side in the workplace, and they would not be hung out to dry and abandoned when the going got tough. Territorians were also entitled to take the CLP at its word when it promised to look after public servants.
My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, has outlined some of the commitments the CLP took to the last election, but they are worth repeating: The Country Liberals plan to:
- … strengthen the Northern Territory Public Service.
- Your job is safe.
We will immediately:
Provide secure employment for our teachers.
There is more:
- If your base salary is $110 000 or less …
Wait for it:
- … your job is safe. If you are on the frontline of police, education and health, regardless of how much you earn …
Let’s wait for it –
- … your job is safe.
What a cruel hoax those promises turned out to be. The CLP never intended to keep these commitments, because they do not believe in them. They do not believe that Territorians deserve incomes that stay ahead of CPI increases.
They do not believe in adequately resourcing our public servants so they can provide the level of service Territorians deserve. They do not believe in treating teachers, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters and our police with the respect and dignity they deserve, and they certainly do not believe in standing side by side with Territorians when the going gets tough and their jobs are on the line. We have seen this with their abandonment of the people of Nhulunbuy. From day one of this vicious and vindictive CLP government, we have seen an unprecedented attack on Territory workers. We have seen enormous increases in the cost of living, massive power prices and cuts to services, making it harder for Territorians to make ends meet.
We have seen public servants sacked across the board. We have seen teachers sacked and resources for education slashed across the board. We have seen the stripping of resources and support, which is crucial to delivering a high-level of service for all Territorians. We know morale in the public service, from teachers to bus drivers, firefighters, prison officers and police, is at an all-time low. We also know the slashing and burning done to date is just the tip of the iceberg, with the announcement of more cuts to come. This has divided a shambolic CLP government delivering vicious cuts across the board. It has shown they lack the most basic decency, courtesy and respect when it comes to dealing with Territorians who we all rely upon to keep the Territory the place we love and want to live in.
An example, among many that stand out for me, was the disgraceful arrogance and immaturity displayed by the Chief Minister when he belittled and insulted our hard-working nurses for having the temerity to petition this parliament. This is a window into the wretched soul of this CLP government. It was unbelievable, disgraceful behaviour and Territory nurses will not forget it and we will not forget it.
Not to be outdone, the very vocal member for Port Darwin entered the fray; ‘I can do better than that’. He suggested that Territory firefighters are trading on their hard-earned good name for the purposes of personal enrichment. That is an absolutely disgraceful slur by the member for Port Darwin. If the member for Port Darwin had any inkling of good grace he would apologise for his outrageous and unprovoked insult to our firefighters. We know he will not, because that is what every member opposite stands for, especially the member for Port Darwin. Territorians will not forget such disgraceful behaviour, and we will ensure it hounds the CLP every day until Territorians get a chance to vote out this horrid and mean-spirited government.
The truly scary thing is, we know the cuts and arrogance to date are just the tip of the iceberg. We know departments are being asked to slash their budgets by double-digit percentages. We know there are further job cuts to come; we have seen the shabby way the CLP treated bus drivers and has moved to privatise the Darwin bus service. We know they are planning to privatise Power and Water, we know they are looking to privatise our Corrections system when they can. Despite the lines the member for Stuart regurgitates after the Chief Minister pats her on the head, we all know the CLP is planning to privatise our parks. We know it is getting ready for an unprecedented attack on our workers compensation scheme.
The CLP must come clean and level with Territorians about all its plans. We know that is what the CLP stands for and it should find the courage to tell the truth about its plans to all Territorians. This side of the House will not let these further cuts happen without a fight. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians and fight the CLP’s mean-spirited attack on our standard of living and way of life. We will continue to fight for fair wages, the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and for the idea that government should always be on Territorians’ side.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff, our shadow minister for Public Employment, for bringing this important debate to the House for General Business. It has been an interesting 15-odd months. People went to the election signing up to a contract, with trust in that contract, and once broken, you cannot regain that trust.
The CLP former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, had earned the community’s trust through a range of political tools, such as the contracts he personally signed in remote communities with senior elders respected in their communities. He ran a very strong campaign throughout the election, really going to the heart of trust, and ensured the message of, ‘Trust us on these matters. You can trust us. I will sign a contract with you.’ We witnessed, writ large, the large truck in the mall as he signed the contract with Territorians and members of his team lined up and also signed that contract. Madam Speaker, you were there.
Every point signed off in that contract has been broken. The trust has been completely shattered. What we find opposite in the incumbent leadership team of the members for Braitling and Fong Lim is an arrogance not witnessed in the political history of the Northern Territory. That is a comment from a great, diverse range of Territorians across the Northern Territory. It is a comment made by card-carrying members of the CLP. I was raised in the Territory, a child of a politician, so I know people from both walks of political life; my mother was an Independent. It is incredible for me when people I know who are CLP say to me, ‘Get this lot out, they are not who we want’. I say, ‘Hang on a second, you are a member of the CLP. You have been a member of the CLP Central Council, what are you saying?’ They have said they do not behave in that way. They are talking about the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim; they are very pointed about that.
Ms Finocchiaro interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Drysdale, I cannot hear your interjection, but I caution some wisdom in your career.
The trust and contract were there, writ large, pursued by the member for Blain, broken early by the member for Blain, and he fell in popularity. People felt he fundamentally breached their trust, in regard to the cost of living as he came in with the member for Araluen and jacked up power and water prices. That was a real turning point in the relationship between the member for Blain and his community. Increasingly, different aspects of that trust started to erode and break as we saw the cuts happen across the public sector and real jobs being lost. Those were jobs people had to then put up with the government saying were not being cut because they were contract. They were not recognised as people who had a job in that agency; they ceased to exist in the mind of the CLP government.
We are a small community. Those people live in our community, are raising families among us and have lost their jobs due to your decisions. You did not even have the basic common decency to acknowledge that. They were wiped. No, you consider jobs as permanent positions only. You would not even recognise the contractors who lost their jobs. You are doing the same in the education dispute. In the eyes of the CLP, you are only a teacher if you have a permanent job. If you are a contractor, you have been wiped; you ceased to exist. When you fundamentally breach the trust of people to the extent there is no basic decency in the way you treat them, refer to them or talk about their lot in life, that is a whole new low we have not witnessed in the Territory before.
The fear and loathing across the public service is very genuine and real. People go to work, do the very best they can, and they are frightened. They are trying to keep their jobs, because they are very concerned that if they are perceived as doing something wrong, they will be removed.
The things this community has not witnessed before are starting to have a real impact on how people feel, the way they feel about their jobs and their job security. That is why we describe it as bullying, because it has been. They have watched good public servants, who were simply going about their duties under Labor, being singled out and cut out under the CLP because they were perceived as being too close to the Labor government. It has been incredible to watch this situation and the bullying and implied threats. This behaviour is continuing.
The thing about living in a jurisdiction with small communities across towns is that people talk. They talk at barbecues and sports matches, and they talk in hushed tones in the change rooms at sports clubs. As you heard from my colleagues, they talk to us, as local members, in private; we hear it. You then hear it from the unions that represent them. They talk quietly to the unions that represent them about what they are going through and the people who have lost their jobs around them, while the government says, ‘No, those jobs have not been lost’.
They talk about how hard their jobs have become, just to turn up and do it, because a job previously done by five people is now being done by one or two. It simply cannot be done effectively and efficiently any longer. They are under enormous strain; I am talking about our public servants. When the public servants’ CPSU agreement tried to go beyond 3%, they could not. They did not get that far. They were not in a position of strength in terms of bargaining. They were the administrative officers who do the great unsung hero work across our public sector. Not only did you not satisfy yourself with giving them a wage increase that is a cut in real terms, because of the way you have escalated the CPI inflation rate to – it was 2.1% under Labor. It is now 4.4% under the CLP, because of your power price rises and other foolish decisions – a situation you created.
Not only were you not satisfied with giving them a real cut in real terms, you went further and removed permanency in the public service. You made it easier to sack people, and you then snuck out a letter over Christmas, saying, ‘Hey, CEs, take a 10% cut to your budgets’. People know what that means. They know another 10% cut across agency budget means jobs will go. You cannot save 10% out of budgets without getting rid of jobs, and permanency has gone from the conditions of that EBA.
We then look at how you treated teachers – that frontline contract, writ large and signed on a large truck in the mall. That contract was put into people’s letterboxes and handed out at the front of public service agencies, saying jobs were safe. The contract that says:
- We will immediately:
Support and strengthen the Northern Territory Public Service.
- Provide secure employment for our teachers.
You sacked 50 teachers in the first year alone. We do not have the exact numbers on how many more you sacked, because there is a fairly incomprehensible response to an FOI from the education union. You certainly will not make those numbers public without a fight, but you will get the fight. You have not strengthened the public service, you have taken a wrecking ball to it.
This picture of the member for Port Darwin standing there with, ‘Your job is safe under the Country Liberals plan to strengthen the NT Public Service …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, put it down.
Ms LAWRIE: … and your job is safe’. I can guarantee you, member for Port Darwin, that will be in every letterbox in Port Darwin in the 2016 election. Just underneath will be the numbers of public servants you sacked. Every foul action you take will come back to roost, because we are an opposition that will hold you to account for this despicable treachery and breach of trust.
In your electorate, as the flyers are hitting your letterbox, try to work out how many teachers, firefighters, ambulance paramedics, port workers, prison officers, bus drivers, people who used to work at the Government Printing Office before you sold it, nurses, doctors – start adding up the 17000-odd public servants and work out which electorates they are in. We will be communicating your foul and despicable behaviour to them at the election. We will be sending quotes of your comments to them.
Mr Tollner: Your turn is coming, love.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim. ‘Your turn is coming, love’. That is a classic. ‘Don’t worry, love, we’ll get you.’ Member for Fong Lim, people are sick of the way you treat people; they are over it. Negotiations in EBAs are not unusual. The manner in which you have spoken about people seeking a fair day’s pay for their efforts has been appalling.
How can you live without apologising for your comments about firefighters, member for Port Darwin? The comments do not go unnoticed and we will be reminding people of your behaviour, what you have said and the way you have treated them. People say to me in the street and in the shopping centres I visit that you think they will forget. You think that maybe when you try to do a few things to curry favour with them in the next two years, they will forget. They will not forget the way you have treated them. You have breached their trust. You have increased the cost of living and sacked public servants, fundamental breaches of the contract. Just as in remote communities, people are saying, ‘Well, hang on a second, they signed these contracts with us and it has not happened. When will it happen because they are running out of time?’ There is a whole host of unfunded election commitments, running to a couple of billion dollars in those community contracts across the bush. You want to have an assets fire sale and have decided that the assets fire sale to fund your unfunded election commitments in the bush will be of Power and Water, our utility.
You did not go to the election, you do not have a mandate to sell it, but you are rushing to split it up and are making fundamental mistakes on the way. You say you will make it commercially profitable and put networks into Power and Water or carve off generation or retail. You then look surprised when Power and Water tells the Utilities Commissioner it needs a 47% or 58% increase in network prices. The commissioner says he will give them 43% and you do not have a choice about when it is determined. You have to either pass on the 43% networks price in July or $1.1bn in debt through a community service obligation, member for Port Darwin. That is $1.1bn added to the bill, because Dave Tollner, the member for Fong Lim, does not get that you cannot be commercially profitable in networks sitting in Power and Water when you carve out the somewhat profitable areas of generation and retail.
Splitting up when you are in a small marketplace has led to upwards pressure on tariffs; it will continue to and privatisation will do that job plus some. That is the cruel legacy the member for Fong Lim wants to leave Territorians, to sell their assets and have them increasingly hurting in the hip pocket forever; talk about pathetic economic management. They wonder, when inflation CPI is running at 4.4%, that Territory workers say the government has increased their power bills to the point of them struggling to pay household bills, such as the rent or mortgage, and they did not factor in $2000 a year extra for power price increases. They need a pay rise just to cover CPI. No, we did not have this problem under Labor because we were not running at 4.4% inflation and we pegged our EBAs to inflation.
We understood that while we had to suppress real growth through the tough years of global financial crisis affected budgets – which we did in tough EBA negotiations – we did not give them a cut in real terms by coming almost two percentage points under inflation. That is why workers are saying, ‘We cannot cop this’. That is why you will have protracted disputes through the year, because they cannot afford power bills hiking up, plus a wage that does not meet increasing inflation.
You have created a problem that you have to grapple with, and what really rubs is the way you treat people with such disrespect. What gives you the right to treat people with such disrespect? You are servants of the public. You have been elected to serve the public, yet you treat them despicably, as if they are beneath you. This has been appalling to witness. You give all politicians a bad name. Treat people with respect, start with that, have a respectful conversation and respectfully listen. Start with that, then, beyond that, open your minds and your understanding to what their pressures are.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Open your eyes to what the pressure points are. Listening to each of the unions involved in the disputes and what they are trying to land on, they are not going for exorbitant conditions. They understand your message is of tight fiscal parameters, and they are trying to land on a reasonable landing point. They are getting unreasonable responses.
To top it off, the Chief Minister is making great announcements that we will get rid of the May Day public holiday and Territory Day will be the public holiday instead. When I heard it, I said, ‘I guess no one is surprised he is attacking the day when workers celebrate the eight-hour working day and the labour movement because that is all he does’. He attacks workers. That is sticking to form. Can you not just be a little better than that? Even though he has said publicly a couple of times, ‘No, we will get rid of May Day’, when questioned about May Day being axed on Alice Springs radio, the Chief Minister said:
- Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It is not something we are out there actually promoting or discussing.
- He did confirm to me that Labor Day would go and Territory Day will replace it.
It speaks volumes on the way he treats people. Ipso facto: incredibly arrogant!
This Chief Minister and this Treasurer will be the CLPs worst undoing. You have done more damage in your reign than your colleagues, the members for Araluen and Blain, even marginally did. If members of the CLP government previously deposed the leadership because they were unpopular and saw a slippery slide to loss, you made it a whole lot worse when you decided on those two. Do Territory workers a favour and start to treat them with some decency and respect; work with them. It is a really good group of people across all these sectors who will generally roll up their sleeves and work with you, given the opportunity. Stop bullying them. Stop threatening them and trying to sack them. Give them decent pay for a decent day’s work, because they keep the Territory running with critical service delivery right across the Territory. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak on this but thought it was probably worth exploding a few myths about this network determination that seems to have the Opposition Leader in such a flurry. She believes, somehow, it is all the fault of the CLP and that because we are structurally separating the corporation, increases have come about. For history’s sake, I might take the Opposition Leader through this. She knows where she has been a little loose with the truth, how she has been creating fear among Territorians and banking on them being a little ignorant of the issue. She is trying to whip up hysteria and fear in the community like crazy.
On 23 December 2013, the Utilities Commission released its draft determination for network charges able to be levelled by the Power and Water Corporation networks for the five-year regulatory control period between July 2014 and June 2019. The Utilities Commission draft determination outlines a total revenue path, or in economic terms, the maximum allowable revenue for the forthcoming five-year period. On 28 January 2014, the Power and Water Corporation then submitted a revised regulatory proposal, raising certain matters in the commission’s draft determination. The draft determination represents a 43% increase in network tariffs in 2014-15, and increases to 51% under the revised proposals from the Power and Water Corporation. The main drivers of the increase in required network revenue are increasing operation and maintenance expenditure, and an increase in the allowable depreciation expense. I repeat, the main drivers are increased operation, operating and maintenance expenditure and an increase in allowable depreciation expenses. You have to wonder why it needs such an increase in operation and maintenance, given the Opposition Leader was the Treasurer who presided over the Corporation for so long and we were assured the networks were in a good state of order.
However, in recent times, the Opposition Leader has been very mischievous and quite outrageous in a range of statements she has made both in this House and publicly. She has said the draft determination includes costs associated with structural separation, and she said that just a minute ago as well. She says it includes generation costs, and that it adds $1bn in debt because of CLP policy and that the decision has been made by government.
As a former Treasurer, I expect the Opposition Leader to be somewhat more responsible with her arguments as she should be well aware none of the statements she made are true, and she knows it. Is that any way for an Opposition Leader to act, making outrageous statements like that, none of which are true? I will go through them. She says it reflects some of the costs of structural separation. She knows the Utilities Commission determination is based on the power networks being a discrete entity and that it has nothing to do with the rest of the corporation. It is solely about the networks, always has been and always will be. She knows the draft determination has absolutely nothing, zero, to do with generation costs. She knows it will not add $1bn in debt because of CLP policy, yet she runs that sort of mischievous line.
The draft determination recognises that Power and Water is entitled to recover approximately $1bn in revenue via network charges over the next five years. It does not add $1bn of debt. I point out this is exactly the same framework, and for that matter, the same commercial and recovery principles from when the Opposition Leader was Treasurer. Nothing has changed.
It is worth noting that the former government increased electricity tariffs to households by 18%, which coincided with the 2009 Utilities Commission network determination. She knows - if she does not, she is ignorant - this is how the Utilities Commission operates. Without the tariff increases and proposed expenditure deferments, Power and Water Corporation’s capital expenditure for asset management and meeting the expected growth in demand would require financing through additional borrowings. Is the Opposition Leader now suggesting that if she was Treasurer she would be prepared to add more debt to her scandalous $5.5bn? Is this what the Opposition Leader is suggesting in all her public utterances about this price determination?
Some of the utterances coming from the Opposition Leader are misleading. To suggest these are decisions made by government is untrue. It is the Utilities Commission making these decisions. Under the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Code, a schedule of the Electricity Networks Third Party Access Act, the Utilities Commission is required to set the revenues the network service provider can recover or prices which can be charged for the provision of regulated network access services. That is the fact. The Utilities Commission is an arm’s length organisation. It was when Labor was in government and it still is now. Nothing has changed in that regard. If the former Treasurer has concerns about the Utilities Commission draft determination, she only has to look in the mirror to find someone to blame. How can you have a 43% increase in charges based on operations and maintenance if you did not let the organisation deteriorate in the first place?
Mr McCarthy: 30 years, not 10 years.
Mr TOLLNER: No, this is since 2009, member for Barkly. The last network determination was in 2009.
Mr McCarthy: Are we are talking networks?
Mr TOLLNER: No, we are simply talking about the network price determination. That is what we are talking about right now. That is what the Opposition Leader is talking about, make no mistake. When she says the Utilities Commissioner said we have to put our power prices up by 43%, she was talking about the network price draft determination, as put out by the Utilities Commission. That is what she is talking about. She knows that it is a bit of a porky pie.
The same thing happened in 2009, at the time you guys increased power price by 18%. Why do you think that was? Oh, yeah, you can talk about things prior to 2009, that is fine; all right, it was a rundown dump of a system and you came in and fixed it. How much did you fix it if we will now pay an additional 43%?
Everywhere else in Australia, prices go up by 3%, 4% or 5%, but here the Utilities Commission determines 43%, and that is nothing to do with this government. The former Treasurer absolutely knows it, without a doubt. She was the shareholding minister during that time. She should fundamentally understand these things. No, she does not tell people that. She misleads the community, creating hysteria and concern that power prices will go up. We have heard it over and over again in Question Time. We heard it a minute ago when she was talking to this nonsense motion, and we hear it almost every second day in the media. She is not concerned at all that she is misleading the Northern Territory population with these wild assertions. It is an absolute disgrace.
Is she really suggesting her government would put another $1bn into Power and Water and go further into debt from the scandalous situation she has already left us in? Come on, get real. That is nonsense, and it is outrageous for her to talk about that. When she talks that nonsense, you have to wonder, when she is actually found out, whether people will question all of the other nonsense she talks. The amount of people losing their jobs; ‘Oh, we have people everywhere telling us they lost their jobs’. Tell us how many jobs have been lost.
Mr McCarthy: You keep the books on that.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, and you guys do not, but you are quite prepared to say there are hundreds and thousands of jobs going missing, when you have absolutely no clue.
Mr McCarthy: Tell us, give us the numbers.
Mr TOLLNER: You can simply go to the office of the public service commissioner’s website and look yourself. The minister was here a little while ago, and I am sure he outlined those numbers exactly.
Mr McCarthy: Workplaces tells us though. That is all right.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. You would rather operate from scuttlebutt, innuendo and rumour than fact. It is like listening to the Opposition Leader talk about power prices.
It is a pack of lies and you make it up as you go along. It is as simple as that and you know it. If she does not know what is going on, she makes it up, like she is making up the fact there will be a 43% increase in power bills. What a load of nonsense. Even you, member for Barkly, know that is not happening. Yet you sit idly by and nod while she makes those absurd claims and tries to fearmonger in the community. You do not pull her up. You do not say, ‘Look, Delia, come on, love, this has gone a bit too far’. You do not say anything like that. You sit happily by and agree with her making up this sort of nonsense. It is absolute bunkum and you then run these sorts of stupid motions, like how the Territory is going to hell in a hand basket. You are trying to wreck the Territory, depress business confidence and make every Territorian feel insecure about their job. That is your act.
Mr Vatskalis: They are insecure.
Mr TOLLNER: Why are they feeling insecure, member for Casuarina? Why would a bus driver be feeling insecure?
Mr Vatskalis: The bus service has been sold.
Mr TOLLNER: The bus service has been sold so bus drivers should feel insecure? Is that how it works? This is the mindless logic that you come up with. No one said buses are being shut down; the buses will keep operating. There is a demand for bus drivers, I do not know if you have noticed that. Why would they feel insecure? Why would anybody in the Northern Territory feel insecure when they know there are more jobs here than people to fill them?
This is the sort of nonsense you people come up with. You preach fear and concern, trying to whip up as much hysteria as you possibly can, making stuff up about the Power and Water Corporation and telling outright lies which you know are lies. You do not seem to care; you think this is just the game. It is a disgrace; what sort of opposition are you? At least do your homework. There are some things the government has got wrong. I am quite prepared to take the hits on that.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Would the minister be prepared to table those, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have a document you would like to table?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am a member of Cabinet and I support Cabinet decisions.
It is not my job to do yours for you. There have been a couple of little hiccups; every government has a couple and it is your job to dig them up, not make them. Get some facts, but I do not think there is a single person on this side of the House who would say they are not prepared to make a few mistakes along the way. In government, we are prepared to have a go, and when you have a go, every now and again you make a few mistakes. That is the nature of having a go, the nature of taking risks, of sticking your neck out and trying to do something. You do make the odd mistake here and there. Providing on balance you get more right than you get wrong, you will progress forward.
You guys think you can toss out any sort of nonsense you like and we will swallow it. Well, we will not. I have just called you out on this power network stuff and I challenge the Opposition Leader to have a rational argument about it. She knows I am right and you know I am right. You know the Utilities Commission is independent, you know it is not government making the determination and it is the Utilities Commission. It has nothing to do with generation or the separation of Power and Water. You only have to go to their website and read why they made the determination. I will guarantee you right now, you will not find the words ‘structural separation’ mentioned in any of that determination. That has no impact at all on network tariff increases, absolutely none. The Utilities Commission makes the determination, not the government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Fong Lim be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not really need to be doing the opposition’s job, filibustering for them because they have nothing else to say. I relished the opportunity to set the record straight, to some extent, on this network determination, where the Opposition Leader feels she has a moral right to mislead Territorians, tell them blatant porky pies and scare the daylights out of them about what she sees as potential terrible price rises. What a load of nonsense.
I also love the indignation you guys display every time the word ‘privatisation’ is mentioned. You cannot privatise anyone according to these guys, these knuckleheads across the room. That is not allowed. Ignore the fact Telstra was privatised by Labor, all the utilities around the country were privatised by Labor and probably about 95% of all privatisations in Australia have occurred under a Labor government. You guys conveniently ignore that but will whip up fear and hysteria that something will be privatised, even though there has been no mention of it. You will keep going, keep saying the government will privatise this or do that, or we will sack thousands of people here, thousands of people there, cut jobs, or that we have a philosophical desire to smash up education. How bizarre are you people? Do you think about anything that comes out of your gobs? It is beyond the pale.
I will sit down and hopefully we will get on to a more sensible motion. I see we have something coming up on the Tiwi Islands and the carbon tax, and I am sure that will be a fantastic debate as well.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak on this, but I cannot resist when I hear big Dave give us lectures on privatisation and utilities. I am dumbfounded because obviously the CLP has been on the road to Damascus, especially with privatisation, and big Dave is preparing everybody for privatisation of Power and Water. I remind the member for Fong Lim it was the CLP government that resisted privatising power supply and distribution in the Territory. Should I remind CLP members, including the member for Fong Lim, that the CLP resisted Paul Everingham’s attempt to enter the energy market in the Territory? As a result, Mr Everingham took the Territory government to court and the Territory government found it had breached the legislation and was fined $16m to pay Mr Everingham. Unfortunately, it was not a CLP government at the time; it was a Labor government, our government, which had to pay $16m for the mistakes of the CLP.
Does the CLP have a record of privatisation? Yes, it has. Should I remind CLP members opposite of the Sheraton saga, Darwin Joinery or Yulara, all failed privatisation attempts of the CLP? If you do not believe it, have a look. I know quite a few of your members are new to the Territory, but I have been here for more than 20 years. I know quite a lot of the history of the CLP and its failed attempts to enter private enterprise or privatise public assets.
Yes, I agree with the member for Fong Lim that the Utilities Commission is an independent body and can make a determination. However, ultimately the decision rests with the government of the day, which is the CLP government. Of course, there are problems in the Territory; we are not the same as down south. You have a determination which tells you there has to be a 43% increase and you say there will not be an increase in power prices. Who are you kidding? You have told us in the past few weeks and months that Power and Water is in serious trouble and you have to increase power. As a matter of fact, you increased power by 30% when you first came to government. You quickly backtracked and dropped it to 20% or 25%. Will you tell your members from rural and remote areas, your Indigenous members, that if you are to reflect the real price of production and distribution of power in the Territory, you will increase their power by 50% to 60% to reflect that real cost of generation and distribution? Will you tell people on the Tiwi Islands that because they are utilising diesel, they have to pay two or three times more than what people in Darwin pay because they use gas? Will you do that? Be brave and do it; you have been telling us how bad things are with Power and Water and how bad we were because we did not increase power prices. Be brave, Dave. Say how you will do it, because you are a serious government and want to bring power, water and economic strength, not what you did before.
You conveniently mentioned that nothing happened in 2009. For the last two years, you have been telling the public the Labor government did not put prices up and saying that is the reason Power and Water is in such trouble. A few minutes ago you admitted that in 2009 our government increased power prices by 18%. What is true and what is a lie? Is it true we increased power prices? Or is it a lie and we did not increase power prices when we were in government? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One of the two is a fib and I know which one is a fib.
Let us have a look at the cuts. Why do you not ask your colleague, the member for Blain, how many teachers lost their jobs? He has said the number publicly in the media. Ask him how many people lost their jobs. Ask him how many people have left the public service. It was your Minister for Health, in the media, who said, quite happily, that she will have a 10% cut in her department. She was surprised soon afterwards when the CEO of the Health department resigned and is leaving the Territory. He is going back to his old job in Western Australia, because he realises what kind of government this is and in what state the Health department will be in a few months, or a couple of years, because of your cuts. These are not imagined cuts. These are reality, the things all your members state publicly in the media.
You said we spread fear to the people, people are afraid. When you made a statement in this parliament, you mentioned nothing about privatising the bus service. The day after, you issued a media release saying you will privatise the bus service. You said, ‘Yes, we will negotiate for drivers to go to the new service if they want to’. What you did not say was that if drivers do not want to go to the new service provider, they will not be retained; they will simply lose their job. Drivers for the Darwin bus service are afraid for their jobs, because they know they have to go to the new provider or they will be without a job. There is no guarantee the new provider will give them the same conditions they have now. Is there any guarantee road safety officers will have their jobs? How will you force a private provider to maintain the same number of road safety officers? You cannot.
This privatisation is not because the service was bad, not because privatisation will save you money, but it is on ideological grounds. I know very well, because I have been advised by the department that it and the government have to continue subsidising the private provider for the next seven years with millions of dollars. The privatisation is not to save money for the government, it is on ideological grounds. The Government Printing Office – those people have 30 years’ experience and all of a sudden they find themselves, just before Christmas, with the announcement the office will close. Some people are old enough to retire and the others have to find another job. How many printing jobs are in the Health department? How many printing jobs are in the Education department or Transport? There are not many; these people will have to go. That is why they are afraid for their jobs.
People, when they see what is happening with the Darwin bus service and Government Printing Office, are afraid for their jobs. What is next? The Royal Darwin Hospital laundry services? It has been floated in the past and we resisted it, but I bet you the minister is looking at it because it is not a core business of the Health department. I beg your pardon, but I think it is. It is the only way you can guarantee safe linen for the hospital, which is the biggest hospital in the Northern Territory. Also, people are worried about other services in Darwin. One thing I learnt when I came to Darwin, member for Fong Lim, is that this place is a public service town. When you have nearly one in four or five workers working for the public service, you should know you will be in serious trouble, because every person who works in the public service and worries about their job has a partner, wife, husband, mother, sister or cousin; they all talk. This place is too small and everybody knows each other, and that means for every person who loses their job, you will lose four to five votes.
It is not about votes, it is about how you will operate departments that require the necessary people. I work in the public service. I was sad at that time when CRESAP was finished. That decimated Palmerston and the Health department. It took years to recover because we lost people with experience; they did not stay and left to go down south.
That is what is happening with teachers now. Teachers who are uncertain of their future will not hang around. They will go away; they are teachers whose training and education we paid for in the Northern Territory because we want them to stay here. We want the home-grown to stay here to pick up their education and experience, but they go to Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, somewhere other than the Northern Territory. You might not see the results immediately, but you will see them in two, three, four or five years’ time. The next government, whatever government is in place at the time, will say they need more teachers. ‘Where are they?’ We will not have any and it will cost a lot of money to bring people from down south, if they come, because they will not trust the Territory government with the way they have been treated before. Yes, this CLP government has lost the plot and admitted making a mistake. You make mistakes when in government. The problem with you mob is you keep making mistakes; you have not got many things right.
If you look today at what has happened – first of all, one after the other, the decisions you have made and things you have done are coming back to haunt you. The Minister for Education is still reeling and licking his wounds. He will not even dare to go to the classroom. The Minister for Education backed down on his decision to sack teachers when he saw their reaction. One thing you have got right – I have to admit I admire you for this one – I cannot believe how quickly you mob have politicised the public of the Northern Territory. I have never seen so many massive, loud rallies in my time in parliament, and I have been in parliament for 20 years. We had some blows with some of our public servants, but I never saw that number of people outside parliament, shouting and booing members of the government. You should be proud of that; I admire you for that and I do not think I am the only one.
Many Territorians came here not only for the lifestyle, but the opportunities. They knew they could get a job here; you are promoted on merit, not because of a particular school and a particular school tie. Those people are packing up and going. First of all, they can see there is no future here with this government cutting the numbers of public servants. They are not prepared to do the job of two or three people, because this government has decided the best way to cut expenses and expenditure is by sacking people, especially public servants. That will come back to bite you. I have seen it before with the previous CLP government and I will see it again. One thing I know very well is that people in the Territory do not forget. If you do not believe me, ask ex-Chief Minister, Denis Burke. He had a jab at me for my Greek accent. Many people did not forgive him for that one and he paid the price. Be prepared to pay the price.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion before the House essentially says, how do you turn you back on Territory workers? It asks the question how, when and why would you turn your back on Territory workers? It is very simple and all the jibes from that side of the House about socialists, communists and the Labor Party – essentially, you have a group of Territorians who are standing in this place, standing on the street, who walk and drive in their electorates and connect with Territorians to be their voice and defend their case to a government that has turned its back on Territorians.
I ask individual members to consider the game plan or the executive decision from the boy from the Blue Mountains who leads this strategy to turn his back on public servants and Territory workers.
For the member for Namatjira: I grew up in an overcrowded house. It was a three bedroom asbestos-clad housing commission house, with a grandmother, uncle, mum, dad, four brothers and sisters, my aunt and her two children who needed to come to live with us when they had to resettle at one stage, and various other people from the neighbourhood who my mother used to take in from time to time. It was an overcrowded house, a happy house, where my father ran an auto electrician business in the back yard. You can imagine the block was covered with cars, so pretty similar sort of scenes. I was growing up in that environment around workers. Those workers had a big influence on my values. How could I turn my back on workers after the experience and the support those people gave me in my formative years? Member for Namatjira, you are playing with a team that has turned its back on the workers.
I looked to the next door neighbours, the Gratton brothers, who obviously made a deal with my father and set me up with a job in the school holidays. I was underage, I was about 14 or 15 at the time. They told me to report to the TNT transport freight depot. They got me on the line. They made sure my union subscription would be signed and the fees would come out of my first casual rate wages, paid on a daily basis. I started unloading trucks and trains and loading trucks with frozen beef. The only advice they gave was, ‘Work twice as hard as the older guys, mate’, and I did. I was surrounded by workers. I am wondering how I could turn my back on those workers who supported me through my formative years?
Member for Arafura, do you really consider what you have signed up for and what you will support for the next few years? I was very fortunate to get a job in a steel fabrication factory, again underage, again supported by a union subscription, a union membership paid out of my casual wages after I earned the first day’s wages. That was supported by a good friend and his father. Member for Arafura, I was in an environment of migrant workers. They were mainly eastern Europeans, and we made industrial chains. I honestly say, those people influenced my life and taught me a lot. Frank, one of the Aussie guys on the factory floor, taught me an enormous amount about how to work, what it means to have a job and how to keep a job. I ask you, member for Arafura, how could I turn my back on workers who supported me in my formative years?
We will ask the member for Stuart. We all went for summer leave away from this House. How many communities did you visit to discuss the loss of teachers in bush schools? I had to go back to Tennant Creek and talk to colleagues I had worked with, some for over 30 years. I had to have discussions about the eight teachers we have lost from Tennant Creek High School, the teachers we have lost in the regions, the administrative officer and library coordinator at Tennant Creek High School, who lost her job after 17 years of service. How many did you talk to, member for Stuart? How could we turn our back on those workers? You are a teacher, I am a teacher; we have shared many years in the Territory. It did not sit easy with me, going back to the Barkly and having conversations with people who were hurting and had lost their jobs. They were existing in an environment where the government was issuing media statements to ramp up the media around this and that, and, ironically, put teachers, support staff and administrative officers down and made them feel bad. It sent the message through the media that they were not doing a good job, outcomes are lousy, and this government is prepared to sacrifice a heap of them because it has a big plan to improve things. It is going to cut teachers, support staff and administrative positions in the education sector to improve student outcomes. People did not get it, did not accept it and did not like it.
Member for Stuart, how many people did you talk to? How did you feel about turning your back on your teaching colleagues? It now goes into other sectors and to an economic debate raised by the Treasurer. Remember, we did not get a chance to exercise our fiscal step-out strategy. We were taken out in the election of 2012. The new management came in and the members opposite are supporting the game plan of the boy from the Blue Mountains, who is continually making it up as he goes along, with his Treasurer by his side, determined not to listen or take a backward step. ‘This is bitter medicine, but just take it. Cop it sweet and we will all be good in 2016.’ Territorians do not forget.
There is no doubt the Chief Minister plays the political game; he is a very good political game player. We watched him closely in opposition. We watched him orchestrate the bush strategy, and we watched him take out a Chief Minister and get himself to the front bench. That is the way the political game is being played, but I continually remind members opposite and members from the bush, like me: how can you seriously turn your back on Territory workers?
Member for Arnhem, I question your interpretation of Vincent Lingiari and your interpretation of the labour movement. When you hear your colleagues jibe, ridicule, make fun and be quite aggressive in their insults towards socialists, communists and the Labor Party, what about that fellow called Gough Whitlam? What about that fellow called Vincent Lingiari? What about the story of eight months in Wattie Creek and those bad Labor people? Does that mean nothing to you now? You are from a young generation, an emerging young leader in the Indigenous community. You are an elected member of parliament and you let these colleagues run those jibes, completely contradicting Australian history and devaluing that incredible struggle for land rights.
As the Treasurer said, everybody makes mistakes. Not everything goes to plan, but I daresay you would want to acknowledge Vincent Lingiari’s plan and acknowledge the government of the day and the ambitions government had. Member for Arnhem, how do you turn your back on the workers, your countrymen and your ancestors? The cattle industry in the Northern Territory was built on their backs. Those workers built the industry alongside the pastoral community and you, essentially, are ignoring the fact that under these policies and this plan, you are turning your back on the workers.
We have to really assess what this is about. Essentially, in an academic context, it is economic rationalism, a very definitive policy run by the Liberal coalition in Canberra, the east coast block of Liberal states, and followed blindly by the Northern Territory into this belief that everything will be good around the corner. Unfortunately, we are leaving the workers behind, and that is what this motion is about. That is why it was brought to this House of debate.
The members for Arnhem, Namatjira, Stuart and Arafura might be interested in a bit of contemporary history, because I have been through this before. The member for Fong Lim can deny 27 years of the CLP. He can deny any responsibility for what represents, in real time, two-thirds of political history since self-government. Let us throw the ball around – a Labor policy and a Labor plan executed with the federal government over 10 years to provide 200 extra teachers.
That is the real deal, and the member for Fong Lim wants to talk about porky pies. Two hundred teachers and a deal with the feds and that ongoing plan was scrapped. I have been through this before. Those of us who were around at that time might remember the economic rational committee: the ERC of the CLP. I remember it so well. It did exactly what you guys are doing and continued it in the 1980s and 1990s, sent the Territory broke and was thrown out of government.
Mr Elferink: Sent it broke?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, the Territory was very broke when Labor came in in 2001, but you want to ignore history. The ERC cuts essentially used the same strategy the CLP used in 2012 and 2013, and is using in 2014. They started to sack public servants, and if anybody put their head up to complain, they were bullied and oppressed. I said to teachers when we started this campaign together, ‘It is rough and will get a lot rougher. You will probably find that new concepts used by the CLP government will be lockouts and you will then start losing pay.’ It was not long before the lockouts came down, just like the 1980s and 1990s, and then the payroll deductions started.
Mrs Lambley: Rubbish.
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Araluen said ‘rubbish’ – no lockouts, no deductions of pay. Ask your local teachers who went on strike on a very defined protest against cutting education in the Northern Territory. They stood strong and I advised them to stay strong. This year I said there will be more pain. They have mortgages, children and they like to take holiday leave. They work hard and try their best. They have been smeared, through CLP media campaigns, as being worth nothing, that they have delivered no outcomes and should be thrown on the scrap heap. They will stand strong, will be locked out and will suffer more pay cuts. Bush members, like me, will have to face the music in the regions and talk to those workers the government has turned its back on.
The Leader of the Opposition presents a clear alternative: to negotiate, listen and look at the difference between 3% and 4.4%, which is the inflation CPI figure that has been created in the Territory. However, all I hear is laughter and jibes. All I hear is ridicule and contempt. You do not have to worry about me, you have to worry about Territorians. You are responsible for Territory families. In macroeconomic policy delivery under the CLP, consider the micro results, the public servants who no longer buy their sandwiches in cafs on the main street in Tennant Creek. Consider the caf owners who come to see me and say that without consumer confidence, with hefty increases in utilities charges and the other factors of the cost of living, cuts to the infrastructure budget and less contractors in town doing work, they are losing money. It makes sense to me and they ask why. It really comes back to the big boys on the other side, the ones who are managing the macroeconomic policy. They refuse to accept that people are hurting down the line, and we are told there is no other choice. Yet, the public can advise you of choices, the opposition can advise you of choices; it is whether you are prepared to listen.
As an elected community member, how do I turn my back on the workers? They are workers who guided me through my formative years. I remember my father seriously debating the final move in his career from an auto electrician in a back yard with a housing commission block covered in cars, to an avionics engineer with Ansett ANA. He explained it to me quite well; it was the day he was going from being a worker to being on staff.
He got a promotion he did not want to take. He got a promotion that took him from being a worker with the people who had surrounded him all his life, like his family, his sons and daughters, and he was suddenly going to be on staff. He was to be responsible for workers, and he did not want to take that step. My mother, member for Namatjira, who used to wash clothes in a copper before we could ever afford a washing machine, said, ‘Bob, you owe it to your family, because there will be considerably more money and we need it’. My father made the decision to go onto staff. He had to leave the union behind as well.
It was a monumental change in his working life, and I remember, as a teenager, being guided through those formative years by workers, unionists and battlers. They said, ‘You go with our good grace, because it is good to know we will have people on the inside who understand us. It is good to know that Bob McCarthy will be in charge of workers, with an honest and accountable approach to their future, their families’ future and their livelihoods.’ It was a very powerful lesson.
When I came to the Territory, I joined a union; I worked with colleagues as workers. I went on strike for the beliefs of the profession and the children we worked for. I challenged government, and I witnessed professionals who had their careers capped. What I would like to conclude with is that now in the public sector, it is just like back to the future. It is just like back in the 1980s and the 90s, where people feel intimidated, people are scared they are going to lose their job and where people are operating under pressure.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: That culture of fear is not healthy. It is very unproductive in people performing important jobs, but it is also very unproductive and unsustainable economically when families are living under fiscal pressure. Essentially, they start to make the decision: can we really stay here?
The public sector represents a major sector in the Northern Territory, a very important delivery of public services, and if public servants are contemplating leaving, it is not like New South Wales or Victoria. You do not get another job in the next suburb or in the next town. You pack the truck and leave the Territory. We start to then experience a shortage in our skilled workforce, of our knowledge workers. Now, this may fit the plan of the CLP because it has a very clear target to reduce the numbers in the public sector considerably. Politically, you went to an election and announced that. I thought it was very brave. It was clouded in spin, but so much of that election was, because Territorians are telling me now how many promises have been broken. You went to that election and clearly said, ‘We will reduce the public sector’.
No one really understood the levels. I do not think anyone really believed you would attack teachers and education when we have bipartisan agreement in the House that education is the only key foundation stone to really change things. You attacked teachers, support workers and administrative officers. I ask the members for Arafura, Namatjira, Stuart, Arnhem and Daly, how many schools have you visited where local jobs have gone? Not only have I visited Barkly schools, I am doing as many kilometres as I did when we were in government. I am covering a hell a lot of the Territory with a very simple mantra: go out and win the bush back. That is what I say to myself when I set off on trips week after week.
I get to tell stories about you guys. The first story I tell is about you guys, because you are the government now. When I roll into places and get a litany of complaints, I have to audit through them, and I remind people who the local member is, if they do not know. I remind them who is in government, if they do not know. I then really go to town and do some serious education and awareness, something which I am very qualified to do. When I teach lessons in the bush, mate, you can bet your bottom dollar people sit up and listen. They have done for 33 years, and you all headline …
Ms Finocchiaro interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: Ah, very good. I got a reaction from the girl in the corner. I had many students like the member for Drysdale.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member for Barkly withdraw calling me a ‘girl’. I find that highly offensive.
Mr McCARTHY: I withdraw. I will go back to teaching lessons; the other side of that is learning lessons. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, time is running out, and if you guys do not start learning lessons really quick, then time is running out.
The members for Namatjira, Stuart, Arnhem, Arafura and Daly know the promises that have been made just in the bush. That is just the bush, and time is running out. I know the time frames around building roads, and I know the budgets around building roads. I know that $3.5m to put the edges around the new CLP public speedway is extremely valuable road building money. It could be used in any of our electorates and could be used under a policy like Labor’s beef, mining and community, where the road is assessed for the values of the goods that transact over that road and through that gate. That is a good policy, but a public speedway is your policy – $3.5m. Bush members, in a bipartisan sense, know exactly how much that would do for bush roads, where people risk life and limb to get into town to receive services, interact with the community, do their shopping or attend a renal dialysis unit. That $3.5m is a policy decision of this government and people do not forget. As the Leader of the Opposition said, time is running out.
I know how long it takes to deliver a subdivision, a greenfield land release site. I know how long it takes for government and developers, because with the previous Labor government, I was privileged to be involved in both. We will wait to see whether you guys do what I said you would from the start when the member for Blain was the minister: wheel and deal in the rural area to try to fast-track land release, then weld the NRAS Commonwealth component for 2000 rental units in a desperate attempt to try to deliver some credibility when running down the straight to the 2016 election. The public will judge you accordingly. The clock is ticking, the meter is running, but in the meantime, I go back to my parliamentary colleagues from the bush and ask how they can turn their backs on workers and their families?
A lady who worked in the Tennant Creek High School library for 17 years lost her job because of education cuts and nobody wants to talk about that. Nobody wants to accept the fact that bad policy decisions and bad economic management cut to the bone. The workers cop it in the neck, and the minister can deny and make excuses, but that minister will be a headline like the ministers in the 1980s and 1990s, like the famous CLP Chief Ministers. Those guys went down in history and you guys are headlining as well. You can deny it all you like, but as members on this side have said, it is not us stirring this up; people are coming to us asking for their voices to be heard.
After four years sitting on that side, studying you guys as an opposition, I learnt a lot of things. One thing I learnt was what I push into our Caucus regularly: we will never be like they were in opposition. We will be the voice of the people, stand up for workers, support the union movement, call the truth and will not stop until the job is done.
Learning lessons, teaching lessons, plays on semantics, bullying, ridicule – the boy from the Blue Mountains is in charge, let us see how far he takes you. The year 2016 is judgment day, and the clock is ticking; my clock is ticking, your clock is ticking and Territorians do not go away. The people in the Territory with the longest memories are people in the bush. Many of the people in the bush were born there, live there and die there; they do not leave. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I normally really enjoy the member for Barkly’s stories and lectures. I cannot say I enjoyed tonight’s lecture.
Let us talk about the doomsayers over the other side. In opposition, time and time again, we heard, from this side of the Chamber, that we were the doomsayers, always talking the Territory down, catastrophising things and how you were such a good government. Tonight – in fact not just tonight, for the last 18 months - that is exactly what we have heard from the new Labor opposition. They have become the doomsayers of the Northern Territory. There is a lot to be said about spin and truth, but I think, genuinely speaking, the member for Barkly would not tell a lie unknowingly. However, I hope he passes this kind of information on to his parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House, because there is a difference between spin and the truth. Often, to get a point of view across, people will apply a level of spin, if you want to call it that, or a level of bias to ensure they are putting their argument forward, and this is the game of politics. When it comes to the truth, that is a different matter.
I suggest to you - I cannot recall in my time in this House when I have heard the member for Barkly tell a lie unknowingly. I hope he passes on his good nature to his colleagues, because two members on the other side tonight have misled this parliament and have done so before. It is in the reference to - I will read where it started from on 27 August 2013. It was Question Time, question 13. It was the member for Fannie Bay to me, the Minister for Education, and he said:
- You have attacked teachers, calling them lazy and treating them with contempt.
The reality is those words have never come from my lips, yet, they have inferred it to the point where they talk as if it is a fact. It is not true, but this is the flavour we have started to understand and learn, having these lessons from the member for Barkly and others about the way they operate in opposition, spin and truth. Like they did last week when they stood with their union buddies in front of Darwin High School and basically said, spoken as a fact, that Darwin High School had an extra 120 students this year. In fact, this is not true; it is around 40 students and the school will end up with two additional teachers because of additional students. This is the beauty of the system we have today, based on attendance in our schools. Where we see additional students in schools, the schools will see additional resources flow through, as it should be. Schools where there has been a reduction in attendance will see resources taken out, as it should be. Resources should follow where attendance is, and if schools lift their attendance rates, they will see the resources.
Rather than finding out whether it is truthful or not, I went a step further and had a meeting this week with the union. Its national president was in town and Peter Clisby and Matthew Cranitch were there. I asked Mr Clisby where he had come up with the figures of 120, ‘Ah, someone told me’. Someone told him? Did he think to do any evidence-based research before going to the media? No. Do you think the member for Nightcliff would do some research first? No, it is, ‘I heard a rumour, therefore let us run it out as fact’.
In opposition, whenever we were going to put out a media release, we went to the end of the world to find out whether what we were about to say was truthful. We knew we had to be truthful in that role, so we went up hill and down dale to find whether the information we had in front of us was, in fact, accurate. We went to the point of having people back up what we were going to say, rather than just going out with innuendo and making it up as we went along. The truth is that Darwin High School did not have an additional 120 students this year, as the opposition and the union stated, all because they had been told by someone.
A simple phone call or contact to the department would have confirmed exactly what the differences were and how the school was working with the department to work towards additional resources. In fact, there were a number of schools, mainly in the greater Darwin area because that is where we see most of our growth in the education sector. There were around 13 schools, if memory serves me correctly, that had an increase in enrolments over what they expected.
One school principal I spoke to told us how, even the Friday before school returned, they had parents turning up to enrol their children, like every year.
Ms Fyles: Rubbish.
Mr CHANDLER: Are you saying this is some modern issue that has just come out of the woodwork? You are a former teacher, for goodness sake, member for Nightcliff. You know what it was like in the schools and that these things can happen. You know that at the start of every school year schools have to adapt, change and modify because of unexpected attendances, even late resignations from teachers or changes to teaching circumstances.
There are always issues; it is a very fluid environment. There are over 4000 employees who work for the department. There are 2500 teachers, and in any department of that size you will have a level of turnover and uncertainty when it comes to day one in school. In fact, when it comes to vacancy rates this year, it was about 1.4% across the Northern Territory. That is pretty consistent with the 10 years that you guys were in government. In fact, it is better than some of the years you guys were in government. You have catastrophised education to the point where some people thought teachers would not be in classrooms this year and we would have classrooms full of children with no teachers, and that is just not true.
In fact, some of the catastrophisation of education by the opposition and the union last year did scare people because they thought it was truthful. They expected it to be truthful, because they expected the Labor opposition would at least tell the truth. However, they continually ran scare campaigns that did actually scare people.
Unfortunately, in the last 10 years, we have seen around 800 additional employees in the Department of Education. At the same time, there were 170 additional students, but budgets went from $440m per year up to over $800m, an increase of 92%. I said it last year that if that increased investment had led to improved results across the Territory, they could be a very proud government. We just did not see the results improve to the level you would expect, particularly in our remote schools where the results, quite frankly, were and are absolutely shameful. All the catastrophisation by the Labor Party and the union last year has led to a number of people telling me the member for Nightcliff is known as the member who cried wolf, because none of it came to pass.
In fact, schools did open, the sun came up, there were fantastic teachers in our classrooms, full of eager children back from their holidays, ready to learn, and that is what we want. I am excited when I see schools that have more students than anticipated. That is fantastic and is something we should be proud of and encourage more of to get more kids into our system. Something that should be above politics is trying to find a pathway for real opportunity for students in our remote bush locations.
From the moment we announced a review into Indigenous education – and I have heard the innuendos, the slander thrown this way that we do not care about education and that I, as the minister, do not care about education. Why in the world would I want to review remote education if I did not care about it? Why would I want to review education, open to the world some of those results and put this government into a position where we will have to act on the results?
Some of those results are frightening. They will provide many challenges for people, communities and this government. On a day in federal parliament where we have seen both sides of the House come together to talk about closing the gap, I thought and hoped that issue, the Indigenous component of education in the bush, could be above politics. However, on day one we saw the opposition slam us. They are so proud of their results in the bush that they want to continue to do things the way they have always been done. Quite frankly, that is not good enough.
You talk about negotiation. The member for Barkly mentioned before that his Opposition Leader had a clear process she wanted to take, one of negotiation to move forward for the Territory. Let us talk about negotiation.
On day one when we released the interim findings of the report from Bruce Wilson – who has done a magnificent job in going from all sides of the Territory to uncover just some of the issues that we have. He has done a tremendous job, and I thought this could be above politics. That interim report has been released for public consultation. There will be a lot of consultation before it comes back to this government to make a final determination on what we will do for remote education.
Let us get back to negotiation. On day one when the report was released, the union suggested that this would be another Stolen Generation. How poor if that is where they start negotiation, calling this a Stolen Generation. That was the starting point of negotiation with a union that says it stands up for children and teachers in our education system. This is not a government decision at this point; we have not even received the final report. Bruce Wilson is consulting with the community on the findings he has put together after six months of going from one end of the Territory to the other. He went to over 34 remote communities in coming up with the interim results.
On day one, the union talked about a Stolen Generation and taking away opportunities for kids in the bush, and things like boarding schools are wrong.
I look to my right, and I look to members of this House, our Indigenous members, the Country Liberals who went to boarding schools, and I ask do they consider themselves a Stolen Generation?
That is the starting point of consultation, and that is the starting point we get from the Labor Party. That is the starting point we get from our union, supposedly supporting education in the Northern Territory and supporting improvement of education in the Northern Territory.
Consider the process for Indigenous education on coming into government and, for the very first time, being in the position of being able to get real information about results in remote communities. Some of those results told me me that by Year 3, Indigenous students were already two years behind. Not two years behind kids in grammar schools in Melbourne or Sydney, two years behind Indigenous students in areas like Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia and schools in Cape York, like for like. In Year 3, under the former Labor system of education in our bush, these children were already two years behind. By Year 9, they were five years behind their peers. When we should be getting 500 students through Year 12 under their program of secondary education in the bush, last year, there were eight. The year before, under Labor, there were four. On average, over the last five years, that is around 10 a year, where there should be around 500 students passing Year 12 in remote locations. It is a failed system.
Labor wants to say this is working, this is a great investment and will lead to a great outcome for children in the bush. At Year 3, they are two years behind, and at Year 9, they are five years behind. How in the world is this providing pathways for children in remote locations, with attendance rates lower than 30% in some areas? These stats are not things I am making up. I have touched a raw nerve, but the truth is the truth. These are the facts; they are not made up. I am not trying to make up a story …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not warn the members for Nhulunbuy or Nightcliff again. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for touching on a nerve, but the truth is they want to stand behind a system that failed. They want to stand behind a system that has delivered the results I read out tonight. These are not made up. This is not a story, not spin, this is true. It is above politics. We should all be trying to improve these results.
Some of the findings in Bruce Wilson’s report – the final report when it comes to government; I honestly think there will be some challenges. This government will find it challenging, as will the wider community. However, unless we are serious about improving education results in the bush and using results as a real measure of success, rather than how much you throw at something – the only measure you applied to education in the Northern Territory is if you spent more money, you must have ticked the right box. Look at the results, member for Nightcliff. If you are happy with the results in our remote bush schools, you should be ashamed of yourself because we need to do so much better. It is through findings like this review from Bruce Wilson that we will find a way forward. It will take support from you, the union, the communities, this government and the federal government because so many things impact schools which, unfortunately, education cannot fix.
We need to do what we can in education to fix that system. It will take courage and conviction from different levels of government, and not just in this term of government but the next term of government and beyond, both federally and locally. This is not something we can fix overnight; it will take a long-term commitment to get it right. We must get it right and if we do not, it is a crime. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I pay tribute to the Northern Territory’s longest serving prison officer who, sadly, died recently while on duty in Nhulunbuy. Pauliasi Nuku, commonly known as Paul Nuku, passed away as a result of internal injuries, or disease, and was flown to Darwin from Nhulunbuy, but, unfortunately, was unable to be saved. He was born in Lakeba, Fiji on 15 September 1954, to Filipe Jieke, his father, and Amelia Takape, his mother. While living and growing up in Fiji, he learnt the Melanesian way of things, which was that you had a mother and father, but you also had a massive extended family. It is through those childhood experiences that Paul continued to live and develop as a human being. I have always been attracted to the Polynesian/Melanesian sense of family no matter where it occurs in the Pacific. It has always produced gregarious and generous people full of spirit, as expressed through their devotion and faith - we got to see that at Paul’s funeral – and also generous in spirit in the sense they bonded with their family, and the family is an extension of the very fibre of their being. Paul Nuku was no different to this Melanesian concept.
Work, however, forced him to come to Australia, and, in 1976, he commenced his long-standing career as a prison officer at Long Bay gaol. It was not long, I suspect, before the idea of a tropical place became more attractive than Long Bay gaol, and in 1979 he ended up living in Darwin. He then became a prison officer in Darwin, at Fannie Bay Gaol - for those of us who remember it - and continued to serve until the time of his death. He died, pretty much, on duty. His gregarious, generous spirit permeated every aspect of his life, his family - which was clear from his funeral - and also his extended family, which you can find in the family of prison officers who work the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. There was a genuine sense of grief at the funeral because something very special had been taken away from the close-knit family of our prison officers in the Northern Territory.
I listened to the tributes to Paul, as well as listening very carefully to what his family had to say of him. While I met him on a couple of occasions, unfortunately, I was not able to develop a close relationship with him. The time I did meet him, he was having one of his famous lovo’s. To put it into context for members of this House, it is the same as a Maori hangi, which he did on almost a fortnightly basis at the prison officers’ recreation club in Darwin.
I met him briefly. Of course, ministers are always too busy to stop and have a proper chat to people. I regret I did not, because I think I would have come to like Paul in the way so many people around him did. His family knew him as a generous, gregarious and faithful man, a man who loved the people around him. He was a dedicated family man who showed dignity and respect. This is not to mistake him for a soft touch, or a soft man. Like so many people of Melanesian descent, his sense of dignity and generosity was also reflected in a firmness of character, which he carried with him. His discipline showed not only in his pursuit and love of the sport of boxing, but also the way he treated people around him.
When there was trouble at the prison and Paul Nuku arrived, his mere presence was generally enough to calm things down. He worked at Wildman River, and he would have been very tough on the boys who were there. One of the things you know about people of this flavour is while they are tough - you can be very tough on boys; you can be hard as nails to the point of being utterly brittle - but so long as you do it with dignity and treat those boys with respect, they will work themselves to an elevated position in your eyes. Paul Nuku understood that, and lifted those boys he worked with in a way where they were ultimately set on new and different paths. In many instances, these paths changed those boys’ lives forever.
Was he a flashy gentleman? No, he was not. Was he a man who aspired to great and lofty ranks? No, he was not, but that is not in any way to suggest he is diminished in dignity. A person who lives his life with great love and passion for his family earns the respect of his colleagues, leaves indelible marks on people he trained through both boxing and the Wildman River environment, and is a person who has lived his life completely and lived it well.
The major tragedy is he died so young. I am certain Paul Nuku would have relished the opportunity to continue bouncing his many grandchildren on his knee, and bask in the love of his family and the love of his wife for so many years. Sadly, that was not to be the case. Sadly, he died, and I hope he looks down from heaven upon his family below, knowing he will see them again and continues to feel the love, pride and passion he always felt for his family. He will look down upon prison officers he worked with, with all their shortcomings, strengths and weaknesses, with dignity in his eyes and understanding and compassion in his heart.
Decency is a word I could only use to describe a person like Paul Nuku. He leaves behind his wife Sarah - Sera-Kosera is her full name, his eldest daughter Amelia Seipel, married to Matty Seipel with a child Isabella, Anita Stokes, his second daughter married to Peter Stokes with children Tikiri and Jakeb, and Paul Nuku, his youngest son who lives in Perth and is married to Yara, with children Chace and Kai. To them, I extend the sympathies of the Northern Territory government, and my personal sympathies. I am proud to lead this debate in the House tonight so we can place our thanks and appreciation for the life of Paul Nuku on the permanent record of the parliament of the Northern Territory. I am certain all members would agree that Paul Nuku’s life, although short, was a life well-lived and he will remain in the annals of Northern Territory history as a well-regarded man.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Port Darwin, Leader of Government Business and Minister for Correctional Services. I too join in acknowledging the great life of Paul Nuku, and our deepest respects to his family. You have shared with the Territory a truly great man, but his strength and decency, I am sure, is strong through the veins of his family.
As we heard, he passed away recently at the far too young age of 59. Born in Fiji in 1955, he moved to Australia in the 1970s. He leaves behind his loving wife Sarah, daughters Amelia and Anita, and son Paul, and their partners and children. He worked within Correctional Services for 35 years, and was also very well-known as a supporter of boxing. He was much admired by his colleagues, and in many cases his clients in Correctional Services, where he worked for that long 35 years. As we heard, he started out at the old Fannie Bay Gaol back in 1979.
He really became synonymous with operations at Wildman River, as a superintendent at the camp, before his final move into the Darwin Correctional Centre as superintendent. Paul worked in every position there was across Correctional Services, and as we heard is the longest serving Darwin prison officer to date. According to one of his best mates, Brett Schroeder, also a prison officer, even though Paul was a superintendent he always preferred being one of the front liners, one of the blokes. He was so well-respected among workers and prisoners. He would help anyone who was willing to turn their life around. He was known for not being able to say no to anyone who asked for help; he would always be there. Paul was a quiet achiever and shunned the limelight. He preferred a work ethic, and ensured that work ethic would do all the talking.
During his years as superintendent at Wildman River camp Paul worked closely with young men. He wanted them to learn to be independent and develop their self-esteem as a step for them to enter the outside world. They were taught how to look after themselves, and being independent would help them gain employment once they left Wildman River. Reports say his work was very successful. Due to the type of man Paul was, he also kept in touch with the young men once they left the camp to make sure they were doing well and let them know they could go to him for help if they needed anyone to help stay on the right path. His time at the Wildman River camp saw him change the lives of the young men entering. He made them do hard time. They lived in tents, had to train every day and attend school due to most not knowing how to read and write. They lived by very strict rules and a no-nonsense approach from Paul and his right hand man, Monty Baker, who was also a boxer.
When Paul was moved out of Wildman and back to desk duties in town it saw changes the young men did not like. The hard work stopped and they would, in the words of a former detainee, ‘Sit around doing nothing but think’, and that did not help them. Four inmates escaped in protest. One of the escaped detainees contacted Paul directly, as he had given the boys his details in case they ever needed him on the outside, to let him know what was happening at Wildman. He then allowed Paul to pick him up and escort him to the Malak detention centre. Eleven Wildman River camp workers also walked off the job for 48 hours due to the changes made after Paul left. This showed how much respect he held among the prisoners and his work colleagues, and there is still such strong respect to this day.
Paul wanted to help children in communities who were involved with petrol sniffing. He was contacted by the Angurugu Council to assist with petrol sniffing problems the community faced, with reports that children as young as five were sniffing petrol. It broke his heart. He wanted to set up something similar to Wildman River on an island to help those children. He earmarked Woodah Island as the best location. Unfortunately, he was unable to get this project up and running.
Paul was also the founder of the Northern Territory Toughman event. He ran this event for many years. This involved anyone from around the Territory and interstate wishing to enter and compete in a boxing match where you progressed through rounds until there was one winner who took it all.
Brett remembers when he first met Paul 20 years earlier. When he and another mate wanted a trainer, Paul took them on. During this time their friendship grew and they became best mates, working together in the Correctional Services area for 18 years. Brett and Paul were looking at hosting the Northern Territory Toughman event again this year. Paul was President of Freds Pass Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Club. He loved working with rural kids and teaching them a real aim in life. He will be missed by so many, and the stories about him throughout his years at Correctional Services will be told by the workers and prisoners he worked with for such a long time.
My sincerest condolences on behalf of the Labor opposition to Sarah, Anita, Amelia, Paul, his grandchildren, extended family and many friends across the Territory. Paul went about his work with such sincerity and compassion, and I believe he truly changed the lives of so many Territorians. Men like that leave a very large footprint on the land of the Northern Territory. Thank God we had Paul for all those years. Deepest condolences.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is not often I agree with too much from the Leader of the Opposition, but in this case she is spot on. I also thank the member for Port Darwin for his kind words about Paul Nuku.
Paul was a champion bloke, a great bloke to be around. I had a bit to do with him in my time. There was never a dull moment with the guy, and he was a really decent person. He was a long-time superintendent, as has been said, at Wildman River juvenile wilderness camp, but he was more than that. He was a role model for the young people he instilled discipline and self-respect into. The camp, for those who do not know, was on 2 ha of land on the edge of Kakadu, and was set up in 1986 by the NT minister for Corrections, Barry Coulter.
Paul was Fijian born, but used the classroom, the boxing ring and a vegetable patch to teach the value of a good, hard day’s work. Working with mainly Aboriginal youngsters with a history of repeat offending, Paul Nuku told the NT News in 1988:
- When they first come here, they aren’t much good to anyone.
…Most can’t read or write, because of bad schooling. They don’t have any work skills or confidence in themselves.
…We soon change that. They do three things here – go to school, work hard and get fit.
They run, box and work out at the camp, and you’d be surprised how much that raises their confidence.
As was said, boxing was a major plank in Paul’s approach. Speaking of the effect the discipline and rigors of boxing had in turning young people around, he once remarked:
- After winning a fight in the ring, they walk tall – it’s the first time they’ve actually achieved anything of worth.
Camp detainees actually won two Golden Gloves titles and two Territory novice titles. In what might be described as a first for the boss of a correctional facility, Wildman River detainees went to great lengths to get Paul Nuku back to the facility when he was transferred to a desk job in Darwin.
In 1989, four teenagers escaped the camp. This was quite a feat in itself and took some guts because it was out of the way from most places. It subsequently came to light when they were picked up that they were protesting their conditions. One of the captured detainees claimed the loss of Paul had destroyed morale among the inmates, and boxing, rugby and touch football had been banned from the camp by the new superintendent.
Another detainee phoned Paul wanting to give himself up. Paul picked the lad up and drove him to Malak House detention centre in Darwin.
Paul was one of the first in the justice system, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, to appreciate the damage done by petrol sniffing, particularly on Groote Eylandt. Angurugu, during the day, was a model community, but come night time it belonged to as many as 60 petrol sniffers and had one of the highest imprisonment rates in Australia. In 1989, when Paul was around 34, he was so concerned about the levels of petrol sniffing on Groote he decided to gather up all the sniffers aged between 15 and 24 and take them to an island. Like Wildman River, his approach was to remove the sniffers from the trappings of modern life and make them rely on their own resources to survive.
In later years, as was mentioned, Paul was president of the Freds Pass Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Club, and a key organiser of the Toughman contest, which attracted big crowds to watch that no holds barred fighting in the late 1990s. They were always enjoyable nights. He was a keen supporter and player for the Brothers Rugby League Club and would often get the Brothers boys to do security. There were sometimes more fights in the crowd than in the ring, but all the Brothers guys deeply respected Paul.
I knew a few of the prison wardens from that time who Paul worked with. There were some pretty tough guys among them. One of the toughest - I will not name him for fear of shaming him - once told me, ‘We get some pretty rough characters in that gaol. Every now and again, we get one or two who have a bit of a go, which is fine, we encourage them. We just send them out the back with Paul. He is always keen to have a go. He says that soon calms them down.’ Without a doubt, he was a tough bloke, but as other speakers have said, he had a heart of gold and was a decent man. He was salt of the earth, a lovely fellow.
When I was living at Beatrice Hill with an infamous bull-catcher and rugby league player, Bobby Hannah, he was there quite regularly. He wanted to set up a South Pacific island camp with various cultures located around the place. He wanted to grow cassava, build grass huts and the like, and really showcase his culture and other Pacific island cultures as well. He was dead keen on it, and it was a shame things did not come out that way. The property was sold and and I think Paul went looking for another place to do it.
He touched the lives of everybody who knew him. He was a great bloke. He had a real passion for hard work; he was one of the hardest working blokes I knew. It was through work that he developed dignity and instilled dignity in other people. It was a fairly simple regime for Paul: work hard, get fit and hit the books. He exhibited that and led by his actions. In that regard, he was a true role model, as the Leader of Government of Business said.
In many respects, Paul reflected what the Territory was all about during the 1980s. He pioneered something with Wildman River that could probably only be kicked off in those times in the Northern Territory, without dying under what would be the massive weight of risk management plans and the like we are subjected to these days. What might now be a 200-page manual on rehabilitation, for Paul was broken down into three things: education, work, getting fit and being healthy. That is admirable. We have lost, in our fight for regulation and keeping people safe, those simple messages. Paul was an advocate of it and it worked. It was simple stuff but it had an effect. Long may those values live on.
Paul was a great Territorian and will be sadly missed. From his friends at the Brothers Rugby League Club and Corrections, I pass on my best wishes and thanks to his family. May Paul rest in peace.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, with respect I participate in this condolence debate as the previous minister for Corrections with the Henderson Labor government. I would like to pay my respects to Prison Officer Nuku, who had a wonderful history in the Territory and a wonderful career as a prison officer. The major milestone in Correctional Services in the Northern Territory that represented the new era in Corrections was definitely the way to go. I commend the Country Liberal Party government for continuing in that vein, but men like Prison Officer Nuku already knew the direction we needed to go. He had been on that pathway for many years; he understood the changes. I have no doubt in knowing that among prison officers, both young and old, he would have been a major figure in mentoring and reinforcing the new government policy to look at employment and training, rehabilitation, regional work camps, a prison farm, major changes within the traditional institutions, and delivering services to the most disadvantaged in our community.
Prison officer Nuku’s family and friends will be able to celebrate for many years the stories of not only a great bloke, as the member for Fong Lim has outlined, but a creative Territorian. He was also a very special person who held the keys - not the keys to a cell or an institution - to real change for Territorians suffering great disadvantage and needing a positive role model. He was able to understand, as the member for Fong Lim outlined, simple tools and simple pathways that provide a starting point to then make choices.
As an elected community member and previous minister who enjoyed every day I worked with the Correctional Services department and its employees, I celebrate with parliamentary colleagues, family and friends the life and career of such a fascinating and wonderful Territorian. I offer the family respect and, in conclusion, say prison officer Nuku rest in peace.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I add to some of the great things said about a great man and a highly respected gentleman in our community. I knew Paul Nuku for close to 30 years. I first met him as a young police officer many years ago. I continued to have a lot to do with Paul over the years, as a police prosecutor, a detective and one who was visiting the gaol on a regular basis, and also in my role as a school-based police officer. I sought Paul out and took advice from him in relation to youth programs, handling youth and what he did. He had an enormous reputation as someone who could do the job and he did it very well. We talk about Paul as a prison officer, and that was his job. My view of Paul was he did not have a job; he just did what he did because it was his life. He loved what he did and every time you spoke to him you could tell that was just part of what he did in life, and his gift to his community.
He came to Australia many years ago from Fiji and became what we would call a really good Aussie bloke. He fitted in extremely well in his community and had a passion for everything he did be it work, family, home or boxing. He helped young people, helped men get into a whole lot of things and even helped women get into football by running boxercise classes for female footy players.
A lot has been said, and I will not repeat what has been said by people in this House. People may not know, but Paul was a constituent of mine and his family lives not far from me. I saw him on a regular basis at the shopping centre, and I talked to him about a whole range of things and he had good opinions on things. He spoke with knowledge on a range of issues in our community, and you could tell that not only did he like to help people in his community, but he did. He used to advocate, as often as he could, for people to do community work if they were not doing any.
He was a quiet achiever. He never sought the limelight, but when you look at what he did at Wildman River one would say he was too successful there because you could not replace him. We all hear, from time to time, none of us are irreplaceable and you know the old story - you put your hand in a bucket of water, you take it out. In this case, Paul had an enormous hand. When he put his hand in a bucket of water, the water overflowed. When he took it out, you would see a massive deficiency in the water. Everywhere he went people would be attracted to him. His enthusiasm gave other people inspiration. He would just do things, and when he left somewhere he always left an enormous hole for someone to fill.
Young people everywhere saw him as a mentor. They looked to him for guidance and advice. We have heard stories tonight about some of those things. He was a real family man. He always had time for me. If I saw him coming through the shopping centre, I would have a yarn with him. When I was a police officer and needed some advice, he always had time for me. He also had time for everybody else in the community. I do not know where he found his time, but he committed so much of it to the things he was passionate about - his sport, what he did for a living and to his family.
It is beholden on us to say, with Paul being Fijian, Fiji has lost one of its greatest sons. The Northern Territory and Australia have lost a great Australian. May he rest in peace, and God bless his family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I did not know Paul, but anyone who has listened to what others have said in parliament tonight would understand he spent his life helping young people get back on the straight and narrow. Any person who does that as a lifetime job deserves recognition in the Northern Territory. We have kids who often move off what we might think is the righteous way and get themselves into trouble, whether it is petrol sniffing, pinching cars or getting into trouble with their girlfriends. Those people need help. When you hear about people like Paul, who made it his job to help those people, someone special has left the Northern Territory. Regardless of whether we knew him personally, we make the effort to recognise him as a fine person who walked on this earth.
He started up the boxing club at Freds Pass recently. I follow boxing, especially in the rural area. We have two other boxing clubs, the Baptist boxing club – that might sound a bit strange – and the Taminmin Boxing Club, so it was good to hear of another one starting up. Paul was trying to help young rural people, and boxing is one way to instil discipline and fitness into people. As the member for Fong Lim said, these are the things we miss in the way we bring up youth today.
I also miss Wildman River. I criticised the closing down of the Wildman River camp for many years; maybe there is an opportunity to start it up again. Because it might be old-fashioned and started some time ago does not mean it is out of date. There is a need for those places, just as Paul thought. It would be good to take the kids to an island to get them away from the temptations they have in places like Groote Eylandt. He led the way in showing getting young people out bush, getting a bit of discipline, learning to keep fit and getting an education was the way to turn these young kids around. We owe him a debt of gratitude. Perhaps the government might think of a way of remembering him more permanently. A fine man like that should be remembered in such a way. My sympathy to his family and fellow prison officers.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I realise there is no standing order, but I am sure all members would agree that standing for a minute in silence in this House to remember this fine Territorian would be an appropriate step to take before we continue the business of the House.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a sign of respect.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, Darwin Harbour is a thriving commercial port which provides an iconic visual backdrop to the great city of Darwin. Monitoring Darwin Harbour water quality and biological health allows us to understand the impact of changes arising from human activity. Since 2009, the Darwin Harbour Report Card has provided the community with an annual snapshot of the health of this important community asset. As of this evening, the 2013 Darwin Harbour Report Card will be available on the Department of Land Resource Management’s website, and is freely available for downloading along with past report cards.
Four standard indicators are used as a basis for measuring water quality. These are: water clarity, dissolved oxygen, algae and nutrients. The natural levels of these indicators can vary greatly throughout the harbour, due to seasonal changes and tidal flows. Water quality within the harbour is consistently of a good quality, with all monitoring sites maintaining the same level of quality since 2009. Buffalo Creek is the only site with poor water quality, but this has been the case in previous years.
I am pleased to advise monitoring by the Department of Health during the 2013 swimming season found all beaches were clean and no closures were necessary. The health of our waterways depends on us and, in particular, I encourage residents exercising dogs on beaches to make a special effort to clean up after their dogs. The biosecurity division of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries monitors marinas and other locations around the harbour most at risk from aquatic pests. Vigilance is required to ensure we can respond quickly to the arrival of any marine pest accidentally transported by vessels into our harbour. There were no pest incursions identified in our harbour during 2013.
The monitoring and management of Darwin Harbour is a collaborative effort across government and the private sector, and I wish to acknowledge the ongoing commitment by the following organisations that help monitor Darwin Harbour and contribute to this report card: the Department of Land Resource Management; the Department of Health; the Power and Water Corporation; the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries; the Parks and Wildlife Commission; Darwin Port Corporation; Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation rangers; Darwin International Airport and INPEX Australia.
A comprehensive program has been put in place by INPEX to monitor the impact of the works associated with the Ichthys project on Darwin Harbour. A total of 13 programs are monitoring the wellbeing of fish, plants, marine mammals and water quality. It is pleasing to see INPEX maintaining its commitment to not only minimising the environmental impacts of its development, but also to the monitoring of any impacts on aquatic health and water quality.
The Darwin Harbour Report Card supports the Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan. This plan was developed with assistance from the Australian government. It is based on the national framework for marine and estuarine water quality protection, which aims to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs into the nation’s waterways.
The Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan emphasises that:
1. water quality across Darwin Harbour is currently in good condition
2. opportunity exists for continuing sustainable development of a working harbour, while ensuring sound land and water resource management in the catchment
3. water quality protection is only one element of the broader coordinated approach to harbour management, which includes monitoring and ongoing research, such as aquatic pest surveillance, sea floor habitat mapping, fish, dolphin and sea grass monitoring
4. the plan identifies a range of agencies and groups within government and the wider community, including industries, that are undertaking actions to support water quality protection and sustainable development.
Darwin Harbour continues to be an important recreational playground for Territorians, and the Darwin Harbour report card provides confidence to the community that the health of this important asset is being maintained.
Darwin Harbour is a focus of considerable recreational fishing activity, and a visit to any of our excellent boat ramps any day of the week demonstrates how popular fishing is for Territorians and tourists alike. Darwin Harbour is an example of this government’s commitment to a balanced environment, which supports an increasingly vibrant port and tourism and recreational opportunities.
The annual release of the Darwin Harbour Report Card provides the community with a benchmark to measure changes over time and identify areas for action. With careful management, Darwin Harbour will continue to be an excellent example of how a thriving commercial port and city can continue to develop hand in hand with a healthy waterway, unique wildlife and diverse recreational opportunities.
I do have a copy of the Darwin Harbour Report Card for 2013 with me. I will not seek to table this document tonight, as it is available on the website and now available to be downloaded. This is actually my only printed copy at the present time, but these are good results for Darwin Harbour, given the results of the report card for 2013. As I said previously, it shows a commitment by this government, the community, and industry in general to maintaining and monitoring the health of this very important part of the Northern Territory for all users, right from the very top to the very bottom. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk tonight about a few things that have been happening in my electorate of Stuart over the past two months.
Firstly, in the southern part of my electorate – which, incidentally, is bigger than the whole state of Tasmania – in the first week of school, I am so thrilled to announce that over 75% of enrolled students attended school at Yuendemu.
This was despite road issues due to rain and ceremonies going on in the community. I am looking forward to working with Senator Scullion and my colleague, the Minister for Education, to get real improvements in attendance rates. Education is critical to our children.
WYDAC, the Mt Theo program, reported that crime is down now school has gone back, which is good news.
The swimming pool at Yuendemu was sensational over the Christmas break, with lots of teenagers working there. It proved to be a great exercise for the community, with kids taking ownership of the pool, keeping it clean, making sure it was run properly, picking up rubbish and making sure everybody was okay. Thanks to my colleague, the minister for Sport and Recreation, for securing the funding to keep this pool going.
Some fantastic news from my electorate is that a brother and sister from Nyirripi have been enrolled in the international school in Geelong, Victoria and are living in a home rather than boarding at the school.
This school deals with cultures from all over the world, and the Nyirripi kids have taken to it like ducks to water. It is a first for this area, and we are very excited about the results so far. The community of Geelong has taken these two to their hearts and the boy has a best friend from Thailand and the girl a friend from India, who also comes from challenging circumstances. I will be following these kids closely, and working with their parents in Nyirripi to ensure the kids stay and get the best education possible.
I turn to the northern part of my huge electorate. Over the past few months, there has not been a lot going on, mainly because of the beautiful rain we get up here. The monsoon rains that have been received in most of my electorate – while causing some flooding and annoyance for residents – are a great thing for our primary producers and cattle stations. The pastoralists will be glad of this rain; it is much needed and even fishing in the Victoria River region this coming year will be a great event.
Before Christmas, I was very fortunate to head to Mataranka to meet up with locals and present a new fire truck to the volunteer fire brigade. I know the Chief Fire Warden, Des Barritt, in Mataranka and his hugely talented group of fire marshals. Congratulations to Des, who was also awarded the Mataranka Australia Day Citizenship Award. I was also privileged to catch up with Helen and John Armstrong at Gilnockie Station. It was very encouraging to talk with people on the land, and understand what has happened to them with the live export ban and how slow the recovery process is for them.
During my trip, it was great to stop at Top Springs, and catch up with Pauline Haseldine and Georgie. It will be a very sad day for this area when Pauline leaves, and I am not sure how Top Springs will cope without the charm, positive presence and humour that she brings. On stopping at Lajamanu, it was good to catch up with family and see the work on the softball field, which is situated next to the childcare centre. The childcare centre has eight Aboriginal women working there who are enthusiastic about getting their children to childcare, looking after them, and it is an employment opportunity for young mothers as well.
The field where the softball diamond is has been closed for a year. Tracey and Norbert Patrick have been making sure the diamond is looked after and cleaned, so the people of Lajamanu can enjoy their oval and the softball diamond. Norbert and Tracey are heavily involved in the sporting community. I was also able to check out the new airstrip, which will assist the community immensely in moving forward, and allow some more residential housing for Lajamanu to continue to grow. I also had a chance to visit the old people’s home at Kalkarindji. I spoke with residents about what is happening in the community.
I was also privileged to be present when a new bus was presented to the community from Vic Daly Shire. The bus is to assist the elderly in getting around the community for activities. Thank you, Vic Daly Shire Council, for the bus. The old people are so happy and looking forward to getting out and about.
After the bus presentation I was able to attend the seniors’ Christmas party and spread some festive cheer. I was also very pleased to meet Georgina McLeod in Kalkarindji, who is a local councillor for the Vic Daly Shire. She has a few concerns and one of them is the availability of land for her community to grow. This is something I need work on with my colleague, the minister for Lands and Planning and Senator Scullion. We need to lease land to allow this community to grow. Sadly, only a few weeks later, this great community had to deal with a horrific tragedy, losing a 14-year old girl in flood waters only last week. I would like to extend to her family my deepest condolences on their loss. I want to say to parents and children: please do not swim in flooded waterways, you simply cannot be safe. I also give my thanks to police who were involved in this search. They were kind enough to give me regular updates, and answer my queries during this stressful time. By extending my condolences, I would like to express my sympathy to the Woods family, who lost Alex recently. He was a major player in the early stages of the development of Katherine Gorge and lived in Pine Creek. Rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Stuart for that summing up of her electorate; it was very interesting. I have a couple of things to say which hinge on things said in debate today, and also a question put forward in Question Time.
There was a bit of laughter when one of the members on this side said workers have concerns about changes the government making in relation to buses and also, to some extent, the Government Printing Office. What concerns me is not so much whether the Government Printing Office or NT bus service will be privatised; it is the manner in which parliament found out and the lack of information surrounding the selling off of those assets.
In the case of the NT bus service, the first we knew about it was via the ABC on the Friday after last sittings. What is so disappointing is not only were we not told in parliament, but about two days before a ministerial statement was read out in this House regarding transport. Not one thing was mentioned about the government selling off the NT bus service. One can only take that as a snub to members of this parliament in that the government is not willing to share information that is very important to the public, and also to the people who work for the NT bus service, but they wanted to hide it from public scrutiny. If the government was making a major announcement on Friday they would know, when the statement was being presented in parliament, they intended to sell the bus service.
That is really discourteous to this parliament. I hope the minister will come back into parliament during these sittings and give us a full briefing as to why the government has decided to sell the NT bus service, an indication of the economic reason - if that is the reason - the future of NT bus service workers and who it is to be sold to.
These are straightforward questions. There might be a perfectly logical answer for what the minister has to say, but they are the questions and answers that should be dealt with in parliament. The selling off of government assets should not be taken lightly. The selling off of government assets are our assets we trust the government will look after. If they make a decision to sell those off, the very least the government can do is come back to parliament and allow us to hear the arguments for the decision, and debate those arguments to see whether they stand up to some scrutiny.
What we have before us now is just a signature on the bottom of a letter, saying ‘We are selling it’. There might be a good, logical reason for doing it, but one is a bit suspicious when there was an opportunity in parliament two days before parliament shut down to tell us it was to be sold. Yet, the minister waited for everyone to go home and announced it the day after parliament closed. That is what the Deputy Leader also did. He announced the government would no longer run its own print business in competition with local businesses. Again, there was no courtesy of telling this House they were selling a government asset. Once again, there might be a perfectly good reason, but because it was an election promise is not a good reason.
When the Labor Party came to power in 2001 its intention was to sell NT Fleet. As this government has discovered, that does not necessarily make any sense. A government should not continue madly forward and carry out election promises just because they made election promises if someone can show the logic behind it. That would be pretty silly and people would think their government was pretty immature. Just because an election promise was made should not necessarily be the reason to do something.
You would expect, as the public and this parliament would expect, a decision would be based on sound reasoning, not because it sounds good and might earn the government some money. You use that as an election sweetener, but when it happens governments have to be a little more serious and show reasons why.
The Northern Territory Government Printing Office has been around for a very long time. It has served a role in printing government requirements such as the budget, annual reports and all those things. Arguably, that could be done through the private sector. Again, there was no explanation as to what will happen to the Government Printing Office - there is some valuable land there. What will happen to the workers? What is the future for government material being printed?
There are times when the advantage of the Government Printing Office is that things like the budget have to be kept secret until the day it is released. What conditions would the government put on some of those matters, even annual reports? Those things have to be tabled in parliament before they are handed out to the public. By turning government printing work over to private companies, what mechanisms have been set up to make sure security of printing normally done by the Government Printing Office is maintained? Has the government got someone in mind to take over the role of the Government Printing Office? It would be interesting to know these things.
The shame is both the Minister for Transport and the Deputy Leader have not had the courtesy to bring those things to parliament so we could debate them. We may support them. There is no doubt there are some issues in relation to the Government Printing Office – modern technology that may make the Government Printing Office out of date – but we have not had that debate. I ask both ministers to make a statement during these sittings as to why they have privatised public assets, and explain why they did not have the courtesy or courage to do it at the last sittings, because it is obvious they both knew.
You do not make those decisions overnight; they both knew during the last sittings this would happen. To make the announcement the day after, when people had gone home, treats the parliament with an element of disrespect. I hope both ministers come back to parliament with a detailed statement giving the reasons why they made those decisions so other members of this House can questions those decisions. That is the reason we are in this House.
The reason parliament exists is to give people the opportunity to question the policies and decisions of government. We have not been able to do that, we have just been told. It has been in the media and parliament has been avoided. It is not good enough, and I hope the ministers will do something before these sittings are over.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016