2012-11-29
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Henbury School students accompanied by Mrs Janet Podsiadly, Mr Peter Fuller and Mrs Tina Glover and Year 7 Nemarluk School students accompanied by Mrs Karen Wagland and Mrs Jaimee Cook. Welcome to you all and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start Question Time I will say a few words. We are in a period of time with new arrangements, a new government, new roles, learning times and new challenges. Yesterday, and the day before, there were many points of order raised, some relevant, some not so relevant and some downright frivolous.
I will be watching Question Time very carefully today and if the behaviour goes towards frivolous points of order the member risks not being given the call.
As you know, I have enforced the rule of one member at a time on their feet and that will continue to occur. Question Time is an opportunity to hear the details of the government’s activity and program so it is important that all members, those listening to this broadcast and any in the gallery, are given that opportunity.
Are there any questions?
Continued from 28 November 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important area.
Our national parks are held and managed on trust for the people now and in the future. They are not, and should never be, the play things of government. One of the most important foundations of good park management practice is that each of our national parks has a well thought out and professionally prepared plan of management. It is all about accountability, transparency and good management. We hear endlessly that accountability and transparency are the hallmarks of this government.
Yesterday I heard this said time and time again from the government benches.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, if I could interrupt. I acknowledge in the gallery a former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour. Welcome again! Good to see you here.
Ms FYLES: Plans, management and park planning processes are all about accountability and transparency. Our legislation, like that of other jurisdictions, requires that plans of management be prepared as soon as practically possible for our national parks. It is good practice and there is community expectation that the effort is made to have a plan for each park and to maintain contemporary plans of management for our parks. Plans provide clarity on objectives, opportunity for community engagement and involvement in understanding management issues, and setting management objectives on behalf of the community.
They are a safety net providing confidence to the community that the park estate will be managed. They provide guidance to park managers, setting out park management KPIs and establishing a platform for evaluating management effectiveness. They provide certainty, opportunity for the tourism industry and joint management opportunities.
Yesterday, the minister announced he was disallowing two management plans, one of them for Litchfield National Park. I have a very strong history with Litchfield National Park. It is one of the first places my family took me camping and I grew up with memories of camping at the bottom of Wangi Falls long before it was a park, when it was a station. Time and time again our families visited this park.
It is one of our major national parks and is very important to Top Enders. It is the one place you must take visitors. The park has 300 000 visitors per year. The park is under pressure and the long-awaited second plan is intended to guide its continued development. This is extremely important as I would like to offer my family the same opportunities I had growing up and visiting this park.
The plan for Mary River National Park was the first joint management plan for that park and a long-awaited milestone but this has been dismissed and put aside.
Many Territorians will be concerned about disallowing the plans. This is a little used power reserved for a major flaw and I am yet to see the minister explain this flaw to us. There has been no consultation about repealing these plans. These plans had a thorough consultation process. Long before I was in this position I participated in the consultation process providing my input as an everyday Territory citizen as to how I thought Litchfield park could be improved, providing access for locals.
What about the time and energy that has gone into these plans from the hard-working and professional Parks and Wildlife staff, public contributions - I have just spoken of mine, but there would have been many from Territorians – contributions from the tourism industry and the views of the traditional owners?
This was the first joint management plan for Mary River National Park. What message is being sent to the traditional owners who have worked so hard and waited so long for this milestone to be achieved?
In recognition of these issues you would expect some significant matter has initiated this disallowance motion, some major technical irregularity or an omission, yet we have not seen this. Perhaps the new minister has some concern about overarching management objectives outlined in the plan. If so, it is time to be clear on what the reasons are.
Does his concern relate to joint management objectives being applied in our parks? Is the new minister unhappy with the professional standards of these plans? Has the minister spoken to key stakeholders about his concerns - traditional owners, the NLC, the Environment Centre, local communities and the tourism sector? I understand there was a meeting in Darwin yesterday, and this may clarify it. Does the minister want to disallow the plans so he can recast the plans of management to provide for his pet development opportunities?
I know you are a new minister and you want to stamp your authority on this, but please do not throw out all this hard work. If you want to make changes why not make arrangements to amend the plans rather than disallow the whole plans and throw out the hard work of the Territorians who have contributed to these plans to date?
These plans were not the previous government’s plans; they were the people’s plans. We were involved in their development, particularly the Litchfield National Park plan. Section 20 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provides for amendment of the plans. If the minister can explain why he wants these plans disallowed without amendment I look forward to hearing that.
Park management is about balance: providing amenities for current users while preserving these parks for future generations to enjoy. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this motion. Whether I agree with it or not is another issue. My problem with this type of motion is that there are many questions I would like to ask and this process does not allow the type of debate that needs to occur.
I have done my best to read what the minister said yesterday and had a look at the draft management plans for both Litchfield and Mary River National Parks. I have some questions.
The minister stated two reasons for the disallowance of these management plans. The one for Mary River is that the tourism industry was not consulted sufficiently. The only reason for disallowing the entire plan of management for Litchfield National Park appears to be antisocial behaviour. He says:
The minister has said this plan can be amended. You could amend it under the existing arrangements but the minister is asking us to disallow the whole plan.
I looked at the back of the plan and there is a section on antisocial behaviour: section 2.9. It says it has a high priority and states:
Considering there is a huge number of things in the management plan and it is just one item – I am not saying it is not an important item because it does mention high priority - I am concerned this entire management plan would be disallowed based on a single clause. That is saying we have an issue we are concerned about and we are going to disallow the whole document. If I was slightly cynical I would say there are other reasons. Surely, you are not going to disallow all this work for a single item?
As the minister said, the plan can be amended. I am asking the minister whether he is saying he cannot amend anything in this plan without disallowing it, or is it the case that under the existing rules of management plans you are able to amend the plan? If you are able to amend it without disallowing it, why are you disallowing it?
The bigger question is what other reasons do you have for disallowing this plan of management if the only reason, as you state in your reading, is you want to consult with the community regarding antisocial behaviour? I do not have a problem with that, but there is nothing else here that would raise such alarm over this management plan that is in such a serious state as to be disallowed. I ask the minister, if you are disallowing it under this pretext, are you saying you are going to relook at this whole plan from top to bottom? You have not said that; you have only mentioned antisocial behaviour.
If you had said in your reading you are not happy with this management plan and feel there is a range of issues, I could say okay. But you have only quoted one reason for disallowing it, which makes me a little suspicious. I do not mind if the government has other plans. The way you develop your national parks is something we all should be looking at. You might have heard me a number of times in Estimates Committee say how disappointing it is to see the number of visitors to many of our national parks falling off. One of our best national parks is the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Even the good old Howard Springs Nature Park, until recently, was going backwards. Since then there have been some developments there with the rock pool and the recreation area which has started to bring people back to the area.
If the government – noting this has come from not only the Minister for Parks and Wildlife but the minister for Tourism – is considering other options it wants to bring into this management plan, then it needs to say what those options are. The antisocial behaviour issue raised by the minister seems to be an excuse to disallow it. I cannot accept that one small item - which is an important item as stated in the plan of management; it says it is a high priority – would require you to throw the baby out with the bath water. That is exactly what is happening. Minister, I am interested to see if you have other issues you did not tell us about yesterday in relation to that management plan besides the issue of antisocial behaviour.
In relation to the Mary River National Park, you said the issue there was:
I totally agree, minister. It is not much good having these parks if people cannot visit them and they are an important part of the tourism industry – they go hand in hand. But I am interested to know the process. You said the management plan was prepared without full and proper consultation. I am quite happy for you to tell me whether I have this right or not, but what normally happens is - and here is the Mary River National Park Joint Management Plan, it is a draft – it is advertised in the newspaper, the Government Gazette and everyone has the right to comment on that draft joint management plan.
We have had many of these draft joint management plans. We have many management plans throughout our national parks in the Northern Territory. What has gone wrong with this management plan?
When it went out to the community, when it was advertised, did the tourism industry in some shape or form respond? I imagine all the other management plans have gone through a similar process. Has the process for this national park somehow gone skewwhiff? Has it not gone down the path of the Gregory National Park? Has it not been through the process of other national parks that have joint management plans?
I expect that when you develop a joint management plan there are discussions with the traditional owners. I understand in this case this land - I just want to see the status of this land – it says:
I thought I saw something about the status of the land in relation to land rights but I cannot see it at present.
It was being negotiated through the Northern Land Council in association with Parks and Wildlife, and planning for formal joint management of the park began in 2005. So this plan has taken seven years to reach this stage.
It is an unusual park. It has 14 parcels of land which include Point Stuart Coastal Reserve, Stuart’s Tree Historical Reserve, Mary River Conservation Reserve, Point Stuart Road Corridor, Alligator Lagoon, Swim Creek, Shady Camp, Opium Creek, Boggy Springs, Jimmy’s Creek Monsoon Forest, Wildman River, Annaburroo Delta Block, Mary River Crossing and McKinlay Sector.
It is a well-used area, especially by fishermen, so there is a large public impact on these parks and you would need to have a good joint management plan to make sure the area is available for the community, while at the same time protecting the values of the park. This joint management plan was signed off in September 2011, planning started in 2005; it has taken six years to reach this stage.
What has happened that has caused this to be now disallowed? Where has the consultation process fallen off the rails? As I said, there was public notification of a draft management plan - it says September 2011. We are now nearly at the end of 2012. I ask the minister what feedback the department received about the park that could not be dealt with in that negotiation stage?
Has there been some problem in the negotiation stage and, if so, why? Was there a response from tourism when this draft was released? Did people like the Amateur Fishing Association respond? Do you have a list of all those people who responded to this joint management plan? Were there complaints about the way the plan was being developed? Did the department receive submissions from the tourism industry saying they were not happy with the joint management plan? We do not know that. All I have is that you are saying it was prepared without full and proper consultation.
Minister, we have a process that applied to other parks; we have now come to the Mary River National Park. What was the difference between the preparation and consultation for those other parks, such as the Gregory National Park where there is now a new broader park? What has changed between those other parks, which do not seem to have attracted any attention, and this park and the Litchfield National Park?
It is difficult to have this debate because I can ask 100 questions and you can give me some answers, but it is not a to-and-fro process where one can gain at least some understanding of what the department is trying to do and whether there are other things within this disallowance that have not been raised. To summarise, I cannot see why the whole draft management plan for the Litchfield National Park has to be disallowed on the basis of one item, regardless of whether it has a high priority. I cannot see why the management plan cannot be amended as the minister mentioned in his opening remarks about this issue.
The minister said the plan for the Mary River National Park was not prepared with full and proper consultation and he mentioned the tourism industry. I would like to know the process of the advertising of this draft management plan. Who responded to this management plan, if the matters raised by these people were looked at seriously, and how many of those matters were included in the draft management plan. If there was a problem with the consultation, what was that problem, considering there do not appear to be problems in the management plans or the consultation over other national parks.
I hope, minister, that is a reasonable summary of the issues. I would like to have some answers to today. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr CONLAN (Parks and Wildlife): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So out of all that indignation yesterday you had a chance to eventually speak on this. That song and dance yesterday was for nothing. This was always going to come back and there was going to be an opportunity to speak on it. So, a cracker, as you said, and it is going to make The Australian, or something from the Super Mario Brothers over here who were so indignant that we were shutting or gagging a debate.
I notice there was no media release and nothing about it on any radio station; there was no media about it because they did not move on it. They realised very quickly they had a big ‘whoops’ moment, that they overreached and this debate was coming back to the Chamber and here it is today for you to speak about. So, the only cracker is back on the Super Mario Brother over there. When you line them up together and the bloke on the back they are the Super Mario Brothers.
First of all, this is not being disallowed. We need to make that clear. This is purely a mechanism to stop this plan from being enacted. Once it is enacted it is in place for 10 years and there is nothing we can do about it. This is a mechanism, through the parliament of the Northern Territory, to place it on the Notice Paper, to put the brakes on these plans being put into place.
This is the way to stop and look at it. We have that said all we want to do is use the mechanism through the parliament of the Northern Territory to get this disallowance - it is called a disallowance motion. That is the technical term. It is not being disallowed as such, it is a disallowance motion to stop the plans from being enacted because if they were they would be in place for a decade and, legally there would be nothing we could do. That is all this is. It is a technical mechanism for us to stop, put the brakes on and look at the plans.
They were deemed to be tabled, as I said in my speech, in the previous parliament, the Eleventh Assembly. Parliament was prorogued on 6 August and, as a result, this was still deemed. You get seven clear parliamentary sitting days with the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to disallow the plan. If you do not disallow the plan then it is in force. Hence, when you count the seven days and add it up, it fell yesterday, the first sitting of the second week Twelfth Assembly. That is why the disallowance motion came up like it did. All we have to do is get it onto the Notice Paper. Once it is on the Notice Paper it is right; we are clear, the plan will not be enacted.
We now have some time to sit back and look at it. That is the law. That is the way it works. That is the way the parliament works; that is the way the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act works. That is how it has unfolded today and that is why we are doing it.
While it is called a disallowance motion it is not being disallowed, not yet. We may disallow it. We want some time to stop and look before this plan is put in place.
We want to ensure they are right because there has been an election and there is a new government. The new government has a different focus, a strong focus on tourism, and we believe some of the areas of these plans are a little inwardly looking and do not take into account the needs of our tourism operators, those that will drive the economy.
It is not a plaything, member for Nightcliff, quite the opposite; we take it very seriously. The plans were not necessarily well thought out. Perhaps they were in parts but we do not know because we need to have a look.
This has just been brought to the new government’s attention and parliament has just begun under the new government. That is why it is happening so quickly. We could have done it last week. It has just emerged and yesterday was the last day we could put the brakes on this and say, ‘Whoa, let us stop and look before we commit the Northern Territory to a decade under these two plans’.
Opportunities for Territorians will still exist; you will still be able to visit the parks. There has been consultation. In some cases, there has been extensive consultation but that consultation has not been reflected in the plans and we are not convinced that consultation - in some cases widespread consultation with industry. The 50-odd operators at Litchfield National Park, the business operators, the tourism operators. those trying to earn a living and drive the economy of the Northern Territory have been, in some cases, consulted and in some cases consulted quite widely, but their views and wishes have not been reflected in the management plans.
Delaying the implementation, member for Nelson, is all it is really doing through a technical term called a disallowance motion by the parliament of the Northern Territory.
You mention antisocial behaviour at Litchfield National Park. I know it is only one issue but it is a big issue at Litchfield National Park and it destroys tourism, the park, the look and feel of the park, and visitation. It is counterproductive to the park. It is a very big issue. While it is one of the only things I mentioned in the speech, it is significant.
There was consultation with some of the tourism operators in the Mary River area. Again I am not convinced, by looking at the plans, that the consultation has been reflective of the wishes of everyone. Remember the parks are there for all Territorians, not just one group of people: not just traditional owners or the tourism operators; they are there for all of us who live in the Territory and want to visit the parks. These management plans need to reflect that.
I will not get into the broader philosophy of the other parks. I know you mentioned some of the other parks, the difference between the Gregory National Park and the like. If you want to have a conversation about that we can. You can put those questions to me in writing and I will make sure you receive answers, or we can have a briefing with the Parks and Wildlife department and go through that. Now is not the time. This is simply a motion to stop the implementation of these plans; they have not yet been disallowed.
We have a couple of months to look at these plans, to consult widely again, to talk to the Northern Land Council, the traditional owners, the tourism operators throughout the Litchfield and Mary River National Parks, to go back to them and ask in which parts of these plans have their wishes or desires not been reflected. Is what they wanted out of these plans represented in them? If it is not, maybe we can do it better. That is the feeling I am getting from TOs, the land council and the tourism operators. Yes, we can do it better because it has been a long time in the making, and if we do not get it right, they sit for 10 years. We do not have time to mess around.
I revert back to part of what I said yesterday - disallowing the plan will give the opportunity to further consult with the community regarding antisocial behaviour and other areas. This can be amended clearly to describe the management actions. That is what that means, member for Nelson: it can be amended. We can amend the current draft if we want but once it is in place we cannot. That is what is so crucial and it has been lost on the parliament. The severity of this was lost on me until it was brought to my attention. I did not realise this is quite serious. If we do not get this right, it is in place for 10 years.
There has been a change of government and our philosophies are different to the opposition’s. We value tourism. We want to ensure tourism is part of this mix. The traditional owners and the Northern Land Council also want to ensure tourism is part of the mix. That is the message I am getting – they want it; they want business to thrive. They do not want the parks to be shut down or road blocks put up.
Mr Chandler: Open the gates.
Mr CONLAN: Open it up, definitely. They want it to be enjoyed by all Territorians. They want existing businesses to thrive there, and their own people to be able to run businesses.
The way some of these parks are set up is counterproductive, it is not happening. Take car parking, for example. There is very limited car parking and people have to park along the side of the road or the side of the track which is (a) dangerous and (b) they get pinged by the rangers. It is not conducive to opening the parks for tourists and businesses. You have to walk from the car park to the falls in one area and it is a hike-and-a-half.
Essentially, it is saying we do not particularly want people to embark on this experience. That is the way we see it and that is the feedback I am getting from the operators, the locals, the land councils, the traditional owners, and all those who live there and share those parks. They are saying it is not good enough, it is not a world-class tourism experience because it is hard to access; it is hard to get to and it is hard to develop business opportunities there.
Geographically and physically it is absolutely beautiful, but it is difficult to run a successful tourism operation there under the current regime, and that is our concern with these management plans. All we want to do is stop these from being enacted because that is what will happen if we do not disallow it today, or at least get the disallowance motion on the Notice Paper. It is as simple as that.
So all the indignation over there - okay, you have had your say today, member for Nightcliff, and by having your say today, unfortunately, you do not get a say when it comes back up in February, and neither do you, member for Nelson. You fought tooth and nail and kicked and screamed about it yesterday. How sad, how unfortunate.
Mr Wood: All I wanted was a date for it to come back.
Mr CONLAN: We will give you a date.
Mr Wood: Yes, but we did not know when you would speak.
Mr CONLAN: I will give you a date in a second.
It is a responsible thing to do. A new government has been elected and we have a different focus. We put a heavy focus on tourism and businesses and we want it to be all inclusive. We are about one product for the Northern Territory and that is the Northern Territory. It is about the Northern Territory for all of us, not playing one off against the other. Everyone has a stake in this place and everyone should be able to share in it. It is about one Northern Territory and that is the focus of tourism, it is the focus on parks.
Mr McCarthy: Joint management of parks.
Mr CONLAN: That is what it is about.
Mr McCarthy: Good on you, minister.
Mr CONLAN: It is about one Northern Territory. So we are …
Mr Mills: Together, jointly.
Mr CONLAN: I am not sure what Super Mario is on about but he wants to make light of everything in this place because he does not have much else to offer. They are all very tired over there because they have to do some work for the first time in their lives. Nevertheless, let us move on.
Mr McCarthy: Stop the abuse, minister. Get with the plot. I want to talk about joint management.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot hear you, member for Barkly. Madam Speaker, I cannot hear myself think with the interjections.
I think I have made it clear. Member for Nelson, I hope you understand exactly where we are at with this and what this is about - the thrust of this. It is about getting this onto the Notice Paper so we can put the brakes on these plans before they become law and before they are deemed, or seen to be deemed. Once they are deemed, that is it for 10 years. It is only responsible that we have a good hard look at it and make sure all Territorians are part of the new management plan.
Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned until the second week of the February 2013 sittings.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Police Administration Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 4) passing through all stages today, 29 November 2012.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to insert new mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for assaults into the Sentencing Act and to remove the ability of the court to suspend the sentence for that minimum period of time. The mandatory periods apply to serious assaults and repeat offenders of aggravated assault. The bill does not intend to remove the effect of the current mandatory imprisonment provisions for violent offences in section 78BA of the Sentencing Act. It retains the effect of those provisions and supplements them with new mandatory minimum sentences for specified offences.
In the campaign for the general election in August this year, the County Liberals promised that if elected we would introduce a bill to amend the Sentencing Act to make it clear that offenders convicted of serious assault would not be eligible for a suspended sentence. We promised also to introduce new mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders, namely, that genuine gaol time will be imposed for repeat offenders.
The purpose of setting the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill is to maintain a consistent standard for sentencing of violent offences. It is intended to send a clear message to serious and repeat violent offenders that if they commit a violent offence they will serve genuine gaol time and that there is a mandated bottom line to the sentence they will receive.
These mandatory minimum sentences are also intended to demonstrate to victims of serious violent offenders that the perpetrator will suffer the consequence of prison for their violent offence. Mandatory sentencing is not a new phenomenon. Mandatory sentencing exists in Part 5 of the Traffic Act for drink driving and drug driving offences. It also exists for breaches of the domestic violence orders in sections 121 and 122 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
It was a Country Liberal government which first introduced mandatory sentencing for assaults in the Sentencing Act (No 2) 1999. This amendment act was inserted into the Sentencing Act section 78BA to provide that where an offender is found guilty of a violent offence and has previously been found guilty of a violent offence, a conviction must be recorded and the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment that may be partly but not wholly suspended.
Violent offence is defined by the list of offences in Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act. A Schedule 2 violent offence includes serious violent offences such as manslaughter (section160 of the Criminal Code), attempted murder (section 166), assault and aggravated assault (section 188), and other specific assault offences such as assaulting a police officer, (section 189A).
In 2008, the Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills, then Leader of the Opposition, introduced a private member’s bill, the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill 2008. That bill held the position that legislation which only required a court to impose actual imprisonment that could be partly suspended was unsatisfactory and was not working because it still enabled the court to suspend the sentence so the offender could be released on the rising of the court and would only have to have served the time in remand.
‘On the rising of the court’ means the offender is held in custody until the court adjourns following the sentencing. This means that if the offender was on bail prior to being sentenced the only term of actual imprisonment would be for the period of restraint in the courtroom during the sentencing. If the offender had been held in remand the sentence would effectively be time served on remand. The public does not expect actual imprisonment to mean that the offender can be released immediately; the public expects it to mean genuine gaol time as punishment for the violent offence committed.
By introducing the current section 78BA(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act, the former Labor government implemented a form of mandatory sentencing in 2008 which still relied on the notion of actual imprisonment that could be partly suspended. That section states that if an offender is found guilty of an offence against section 181 (causing serious harm), section 186 (causing harm), section 188 (common assault or aggravated assault) or section 189A (assaulting a police officer) of the Criminal Code, and the victim suffers physical harm that interferes with the victim’s health, the court must record a conviction and order a term of actual imprisonment which may be partly suspended.
Current section 78BA(1)(b) retains the original mandatory sentencing for assault provisions introduced by the Country Liberals in 1999. The changes made by the former Labor government in 2008 did not go far enough as they did not include mandatory minimum sentences.
During the election campaign of August this year, the Country Liberals promised to change this position so that gaol means gaol and there are meaningful minimum sentences for assaults. The bill I present to the Assembly today implements that promise.
I now turn to the primary features of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012.
The bill repeals the current Division 6A, including section 78BA of the Sentencing Act and replaces it with Division 6A.
The bill introduces five new levels of violent offence which are defined in the new clause 78CA and they carry corresponding mandatory minimum sentences. ‘Violent offence’ maintains the current definition of the Sentencing Act and is any offence listed in Schedule 2. However, Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act is amended to include unlawful stalking, robbery, assault within intent to steal, and kidnapping.
These offences are not currently listed as violent offences in Schedule 2, yet ordinary persons would consider those offences to be violent in nature. Schedule 2 will also include a new offence of assaults on workers. A level five offence means the offence of causing serious harm under section 181 of the Criminal Code or any assault if the assault is committed in circumstances involving an offensive weapon and where the victim suffers physical injury that interferes with the health of the victim.
Clauses 78D and 78DA provide for the consequences of conviction of a level five offence. If an offender is convicted of a level five violent offence and it is his or her first violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months of actual imprisonment.
This gives the effect to the election commitment to remove the ability of the courts to suspend a sentence for a serious assault, but also permits the court to suspend the sentence after a three month period.
If an offender is found guilty of a level five offence and it is his or her second or subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of 12 months actual imprisonment. This gives effect to the election commitment to require a 12 month mandatory term of imprisonment where the second violent offence is one that causes serious harm.
A level four offence means an offence against proposed section 188A, being a new offence of assault on a worker which will be introduced by the Criminal Code Amendment (Assaults on Workers) Bill 2012, or an assault on a police officer under section 189A, where the victim suffers physical injury interfering with his or her health.
The new clause 78DB provides that if an offender is found guilty of a level four offence the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months actual imprisonment. This applies even when it is the offender’s second or subsequent violent offence.
This provision gives effect to the election commitment to make the penalty for the new offence of assault on a worker a minimum of three months’ imprisonment. The minimum penalty for the offence of assaulting a police officer is also made consistent with the penalty for an assault on a worker.
A level three offence means an offence of assault committed in any of the circumstances of aggravation under section 188(2) of the Criminal Code except section 188(2)(k), which is an indecent assault. That section is a sexual offence and a separate mandatory sentencing provision applies to it.
The new clause 78DC of the Sentencing Act provides that if an offender is found guilty of a level three offence, physical injury interfering with the victim’s health is caused and it is an offender’s first offence, the offender must receive a sentence of actual imprisonment.
The new clause 78DG clarifies what a term of actual imprisonment means - that the court may, partly but not wholly, suspend the term of imprisonment. This retains the effect of the current section 78BA(1)(a) because it is not our intent to remove it.
The new clause 78DD states that if the offender is found guilty of a level three offence and it is the offender’s second or subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months’ actual imprisonment. This gives effect to the election commitment to require mandatory three-month imprisonment where the second offence is aggravated assault.
A level two offence is an offence of causing harm against section 186 of the Criminal Code where the victim suffers physical injury that interferes with his or her health. New clause 78DE of the Sentencing Act states that if an offender has been found guilty of a level two offence the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment. The actual imprisonment applies whether or not it is the offender’s second or subsequent offence. Again, the new clause 78DG clarifies that a term of actual imprisonment means a court may, partly but not wholly, suspend the term of imprisonment. This clause also retains the residual effect of the current section 78BA(1)(a).
Finally, a level one violent offence is any other violent offence that is listed in Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act, but it is not a level two to five violent offence. The new clause 78DF states that if the offender has been found guilty of a level one offence and it is his or her second subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment. This section retains the effect of the current section 78BA(1)(b).
The bill makes clear in its new clause 78DH that where a court is required to impose a minimum sentence for a specified period the court may not make an order to suspend the specified period under section 40 of the Sentencing Act or under section 44 by home detention order. The sentence may only be suspended after the minimum period has been served.
The bill also amends section 54 of the Sentencing Act to make it clear that the prescribed mandatory minimum of 12 months imprisonment for a second or subsequent serious assault will not be reduced by the setting of a non-parole period where the sentence is not suspended. This amendment is made because the interaction of sections 53 and 54 and the new clause 78DA could otherwise erode the policy of requiring 12 months actual imprisonment where the second offence is a serious assault.
The bill provides for a balance in this new mandatory sentencing regime. New clause 78DH(2) of the bill provides the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment do not apply to youths as defined in the Youth Justice Act. The government is aware that to make them apply to youths would be inconsistent with the principles of the Youth Justice Act. However, clause 78DG does apply to youths sentenced under the Sentencing Act so youths can receive a term of actual imprisonment. This is the current effect of section 78BA.
Additionally, the bill provides for an exemption for exceptional circumstances in the new clause 78DI. This exemption provides that where a court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the court will not have to impose the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three or 12 months. The court will still have to order actual imprisonment, although that can be partly but not wholly suspended as is currently the case under section 78BA.
The exemption for exceptional circumstances is intended to be broad and the court may consider any matters it considers relevant. The bill provides that the court may take into account a victim impact statement or a victim report presented to the court before sentencing, which the court is required to take into account when sentencing an offender.
I note that a victim impact statement or victim report may include a statement about the victim’s wishes with respect to the sentence the offender should receive and that may include that the victim wishes for the court to sentence the offender more leniently. I am aware that the courts routinely deal with victim impact statements and victim reports and even victims who express wishes with respect to sentences, and so are well-versed in according a victim’s wishes the appropriate weight in the sentencing process. Whether a victim’s wishes are taken into account as exceptional circumstances will be a matter entirely for the court.
The bill does make it clear that exceptional circumstances do not include that the offender was voluntarily intoxicated. Also, exceptional circumstances do not include the fact that the offender was not alone in committing the offence and, for example, that he or she played a lesser role or was coerced into committing the offence.
This bill, together with two other bills, the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Bill 2012 and the Criminal Code Amendment (Assaults on Workers) Bill 2012, demonstrates this government’s election commitment to delivering new offences to protect vulnerable victims of violent crimes and deliver tougher sentences upon those who commit violent offences.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PETITION
Power and Water Price Increases
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 956 petitioners relating to power and water price increases. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we commence with business, I enlighten, particularly the new members, that when a member is put on a warning the warning is for the full parliamentary day and not for the hour or two hours in which the warning is given.
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the Territory opposition will support this bill as we did all the heavy lifting around it when in government. I thank the new Minister for Transport, the member for Braitling, for continuing that work. I also thank the member for Braitling for the briefing which was provided by the department and for shifting those times to accommodate me as a member who lives well and truly out of town and could not make the first opportunity. Then I had parliamentary obligations and had to ask for another time. Finally, I got to meet with the department representatives, and it was good to reconnect and talk, very briefly, through the bill.
After what happened yesterday in parliament with the Planning Commission bill, I would love to take the minister to committee stage. However, in the interests of the advice he provided me yesterday, I will just ask a few questions and I am sure the minister will respond in closing the debate.
For members in the House, the model rail safety legislation was developed by the National Transport Commission following extensive consultations with the rail industry, state and territory governments, and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. It commenced in 2005, and has been a lot of work in national harmonisation of legislation in the areas of maritime, road and heavy vehicle, and rail, and it is continuing. It is a very interesting area of legislative reform that I encourage members to take an interest in.
The states and the Northern Territory adopted their own versions of the model laws and the NT’s version of the model law, the Rail Safety Act, came into force on 31 October 2010. The objective of having a national law administered by a national regulator is to develop a seamless and coordinated national approach to rail safety regulation. South Australia became the host jurisdiction for the national rail safety law on 10 May 2012. The Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012 received partial assent for the commencement of the administrative provisions of the act in South Australia. This means the national regulator now exists as a legal entity in South Australia.
If you are interested, this legislation represents part of the National Transport Commission and Council of Australian Governments’ agreement to develop national uniform model legislation for rail, marine and heavy vehicles. As I said, the Territory opposition supports the bill.
The questions that would be good to have answered by the minister in his closing debate relate to, ‘the national regulator will be based in Adelaide’, and the minister said in the second reading speech:
That is good. We thank you for that minister; that is reassuring.
The question is about access to the rail safety regulator, which is very important, and the Northern Territory office. A logical question is: Will it be based in Darwin or Alice Springs?
Another logical follow-up question is: What will be the staffing numbers for that office and will the staff be existing Department of Transport staff? If the office is in Alice Springs will that mean a relocation of staff from Darwin to Alice Springs?
The minister also said in the second reading speech that, ‘... the Territory community can rest assured’, and I would like the minister to elaborate on that. I am sure he will give us that reassurance in his reply. It is about the minister’s commitment to the rail industry and business to guarantee proper access to the regulator by industry. There is no doubt that the rail industry will be one of the many growth industries in the Northern Territory.
There is a lot of planning by, not only the rail operator, but by industry and we can talk right across the regions, and particularly in the Barkly region - and that relates to new customers who are coming on line and want to ship their product by rail to Darwin to be exported by ship. People in the Barkly have been very keen on the connection of the rail from Mt Isa to Tennant Creek which will link the east coast, the Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and north Queensland line, to Mt Isa and then into that north Australian rail. This will be very important in the future and these questions relate to access to the regulator and that regulator’s ongoing work.
The purpose of the bill is to adopt the rail safety national laws as set out in the schedule to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012 as the law of the Northern Territory and to make provision for drug and alcohol testing for workers carrying out rail safety work. Because jurisdictional law enforcement agencies will be involved in the enforcement of alcohol and drug offences, each jurisdiction has to adopt its own alcohol and drug testing procedures and evidential provisions.
So we are talking about alcohol and drug testing in the Northern Territory in the rail industry. I am sure the minister will outline for the House who will conduct the testing, who will pay for the testing and who will maintain the instruments used for drug and alcohol testing. Who will service them, who will monitor their calibration and will they be serviced in the Northern Territory?
Will the improvement to rail safety workers’ training, including administering alcohol and drug testing, be conducted in the Northern Territory and is there any more information the minister would like to provide on that? I ask that because I think it runs out at the end of this year, but I had a national rail safe track accreditation that related to the work I was doing with the juvenile diversion program and youth in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. I will put on the public record, once again, my thanks to BJB, the rail maintenance contractors, and the boss of the Tennant Creek gang at the time, Bob Szeremenda who facilitated a work placement and work experience program where we had quite troubled youth involved in working with the rail contractors on the Northern Australian rail line.
The member for Namatjira might be interested in this because it was real work in real industry. It was even more beneficial because some of these young people had challenges in terms of high-support behaviour and emotional needs and the mainstream school sector could not really cope with them and vice versa. I was often asked the how you deal with taking them into this real-world industry environment. It was very easy to answer because the first part of the induction they had was delivered by the rail safety officer and that induction was very thorough, very intense and, as I say, was in a real world context. It outlined that they were stepping up in the adult world and had responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others around them.
It meant I had to be accredited, so BJB paid for me and I went to Alice Springs where they ran a course. I passed and achieved the accreditation that allowed me to take these students into a rail corridor. Then we worked with the rail safety officer and various other contractors, and that was a very good alternative education program. In Question Time, the member for Namatjira said there were no outcomes and there was nothing happening. Well, there is a lot happening and I encourage the Minister for Education to seriously look at alternative education models. The rail sector was just one of many industries to offer that opportunity.
I will never forget the day when we were given permission to join and travel in a locomotive. Some of those students were talking to a locomotive driver and learnt about that exciting occupation and the incredible remuneration that those operators receive. Part of that work was alcohol and drug testing, of course, so I am interested in what the minister would like to elaborate on regarding the rail safety workers. How will that be conducted? Who will be administering those tests? Who will pay for that testing regime and the servicing and monitoring of the calibration of the instruments used?
In the second reading speech the minister alludes to the industry when he says there will be changes to our existing rail laws, including:
I am interested in that because we all went through a number of rail accidents in the Northern Territory; one particularly close to my heart in Tennant Creek where the then owner of Tennant Creek Station was tragically killed on a crossing on his return from loading cattle into a yard just west of the rail crossing on Tennant Creek Station. There were a number of other rail fatalities and in December 2011 we witnessed the Edith River derailment and the compounding effects of a major derailment involving sensitive material.
In relation to that statement in the second reading speech, it would be good to hear from the minister about any changes to, or the clear setting of, the standards and benchmarks related to the manner in which risk assessments are made and, generally, if there is time or commitment, to hear about any other developments in the rail sector. I thank the minister for the opportunity to speak on this bill.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill and thank you for the time.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before the House introduced by the Minister for Transport. As we have heard from the minister, the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill, when enacted, will be a major reform to rail safety regulation in Australia.
As things currently stand in the Northern Territory, our rail operators are governed by the Rail Safety Act based on the national rail safety model legislation which came into force on 31 October 2010 off the back of extensive consultations with the rail industry, all state and territory governments, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, and the National Transport Commission in 2005.
It might, at first blush, seem like the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill is a result of a duplication of previous efforts to consolidate rail safety regulation. I can assure the House those reforms have served their purpose and do not go as far as the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill before us does.
The national model rail safety legislation was not uniformly adopted by states and territories. Each made changes to deal with their own local preferences for doing business and, once adopted in each state and territory, the law was regulated by state-based regulators. This led to rail operators having to comply with different legislative requirements as they crossed borders.
In practical terms, this meant the rail operators in the Northern Territory who also operate in South Australia needed to be accredited in both South Australia and the Northern Territory. If they operate in other states as well, they also needed to be accredited in each state in which they operate. This meant an operator needed to comply with seven different sets of laws administered by seven different regulators.
On 19 August 2011, the Council of Australian Governments signed an intergovernmental agreement committing to the development of national rail safety legislation which would be administered by a single national regulator to be implemented by January 2013. It was determined that South Australia would host this new rail safety reform and, as a result, an office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was set up in Adelaide. The South Australian parliament passed the rail safety national law in its entirety in May 2012 but only enacted the provisions to establish the National Regulator’s office and administrative functions. The remaining part of the act will commence on 20 January 2013. This is the same time the Northern Territory act is proposed to commence, thereby providing harmonisation for the industry.
The bill before the House adopts the law passed in South Australia. There are very limited deviations from the rail safety national law and I will highlight the local provisions for the avoidance of doubt. There is a sequence of generic terms in the rail safety national law specific to the Northern Territory. These are the words ‘court’, ‘emergency services’, ‘gazette’, ‘health practitioner regulation national law’, ‘magistrate’, ‘medical practitioner’, ‘minister’ and ‘police officer’, ‘prescribed notifiable occurrence’, ‘public sector auditor’, ‘registered nurse’, ‘road’, ‘road vehicle’, ‘shared path’ and ‘the or this jurisdiction’.
The rail safety national law also excludes the operation of the following Northern Territory laws: Interpretation Act, Audit Act, Financial Management Act, provisions in the Information Act, Ombudsman Act, Procurement Act 1995, Public Information Act 2010, Public Interest Disclosure Act and Public Sector Employment and Management Act. This allows the national regulator to comply only with the South Australian laws relating to governance of its operations.
There is also significant provision in the rail safety national law that relates specifically to alcohol and other drug testing. The alcohol and drug testing provisions are unique to each jurisdiction so as to align with each jurisdiction’s enforcement processes and evidential provisions. Because of the national application of this law reform it was critical that each jurisdiction had the appropriate level of input into the development of what is more broadly referred to as the national rail safety project.
The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has a project board which is a subgroup of the national Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee and reports to all transport ministers. The Northern Territory is currently represented on this board by the Department of Transport. The primary responsibility of this project board is to deliver the outputs required to ensure the National Rail Safety Regulator is fully operational by January 2013.
The project office has been working with stakeholders and advisory groups to have the national regulator established within this time frame. The project office has also worked closely with the National Transport Commission and is supporting the passing of the South Australian legislation through the remaining jurisdictions to ensure commencement in January 2013.
The Northern Territory, through the Department of Transport, has also had input into the terms of the enterprise bargaining agreements for staff employed by the national regulator. The enterprise bargaining agreement was ratified by Fair Work Australia on 30 October and came into effect on 6 November. This is a significant milestone as the national regulator is now able to recruit its own staff.
A substantial body of work has been completed in anticipation of this national reform. The National Rail Safety Project Office and Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, following its establishment, has held stakeholder meetings in all jurisdictions including the Northern Territory. These meetings have provided the opportunity for industry, unions and jurisdictions to provide input into the process and for the project team and the national regulator to hear and share the opportunities and challenges which will result from this reform.
The national regulator has also developed an information system and a corporate system which will contain all accreditation information and rail occurrence data across the country, providing a national overview of rail safety for the first time. The information collected by the national regulator will inform the policy and assist with direction setting nationally. The national regulator will also collect Category A incident reports, which are serious incidents which include derailment and death. This will be the first time the rail industry has had one number to call and one contact point to provide these reports to.
How does this new scheme impact on our rail operators in the Northern Territory? In the Northern Territory we currently have nine accredited rail transport operators. One of these operators is a heritage organisation and eight are commercial railway operators. Of these eight, seven are national companies and one is a Territory organisation which provides track maintenance services. Under the current regime, these companies would need to be accredited in every jurisdiction in which they operate.
When the national legislation comes into force the accreditation of these nine rail operators will immediately transfer across to the national scheme at no cost to the operators. This ensures a fair and seamless transition between the schemes. It also provides tangible cost benefits to operators as they will only pay one fee upon renewal. Currently, the Department of Transport regulates rail safety in the Northern Territory. Once this law commences, the National Regulator will be responsible for rail regulation in the Northern Territory. The Department of Transport will continue to provide policy advice to government and input into national rail safety policy and legislation.
The national rail safety act will not apply retrospectively in relation to offences committed under the current NT Rail Safety Act which is to be repealed by this new legislation. The transition from the Rail Safety Act to the national rail safety act will see the Northern Territory contribution to the national scheme continue on its current level of approximately $300 000 to cover rail regulation in the Territory. Discussions are currently under way to finalise staffing arrangements in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory’s contribution is expected to reduce over time as the national regulator moves to full cost recovery. Once established, the National Rail Safety Regulator will be responsible for:
enforcing and monitoring compliance with the national law
Some of the key changes under the national law as compared with the model laws adopted following the 2005 consultations include:
an express obligation on persons, including corporations, who load onto or unload from rolling stock to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, that these operations are carried out safely
There are also directors’ duties and due diligence obligations imposed on officers of corporations who have rail safety obligations. These include:
acquiring up-to-date information on rail safety matters
These provisions mirror those of the uniform occupational health and safety laws. Rail operators will be expected to continue to operate under the obligations of both the occupational health and safety and national rail safety legislation as compliance with one does not extinguish the obligations imposed by the other.
In conclusion, all jurisdictions have committed to implement this important national reform. South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory are on track to commence in January 2013. Victoria is likely to commence during the first quarter of 2013, with Queensland and Western Australia commencing in late 2013.
Delays in commencement are not due to an unwillingness to commit to the reforms, they merely relate to competing legislative programs and the complexity of passing legislation in larger jurisdictions. However, once the national reform is fully implemented it is expected that this will deliver a national rail network with improved safety and efficiency for governments and industry alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, what a fulsome contribution to the debate. It was very good. You probably answered all the member for Barkly’s questions in your contribution, member for Drysdale.
While this topic may not seem sexy to many people, it is very important for the future of the Northern Territory. The national harmonisation role which the rail legislation will take part in represents an economic opportunity for the Northern Territory. The real motive behind this national reform agenda on rail - and it is similar to the principles for maritime and heavy vehicle transport - is getting us all on a level footing.
While it is important we do not forget who we are as Territorians and that this is our area and our business, in the interests of working for a national agenda it is also important to identify ways we can reduce barriers and break down mechanisms that make it difficult to operate a cross-border relationship. Having said that, we have difficulties with the heavy vehicle national reform agenda, but we are working towards the national maritime role.
I thank the member for Barkly for his contribution today. I will seek to answer some of his questions. He had a large role in preparing this legislation in the first place. I also thank Guy and Nick from the department and Paul, the department liaison officer, for their assistance in this process.
This is a very important reform process. It will not make the national media and it will not make the Territory papers, but it breaks down the barriers and provides a better open access opportunity for rail operators to come to the Territory as a jurisdiction that, more and more, is becoming the gateway to Asia, particularly through Darwin. With opportunities around Central Australia for an inland port, the future of rail as an access point to the rest of the nation is very important. To see a seamless model where people can come and go with national accreditation schemes is very important. It is a sign of the Northern Territory, as I have often said, putting our big boy pants on and starting to play in the national scheme and not being a backwater.
The member for Barkly briefly spoke about his briefing and I am glad we were accommodating to you, member for Barkly. As we move forward the debate in this House always has to improve and if we can work together on a more open and transparent basis, with greater access, it creates an opportunity for better debate as we try to grow the Northern Territory economy. This rail legislation is about growth of the Northern Territory economy.
To answer specifically, there are currently two rail safety officers in the Northern Territory employed by the Department of Transport. The federal office, or the new office, will be based in the Territory. They are looking at setting up in Darwin. I anticipate that will be located in Darwin. Those two officers have been offered positions in that new regulatory office. They are considering whether they want to take those positions. Those two positions would move straight across if those people want to take them. That is where that is at the moment and I anticipate that to be in Darwin. I have spoken to the regulator and that has been the conversation to date.
The initial drug and alcohol testing will be done by police as it always is. It may differ in the future. There may be a position where the national regulator may want to tender it to someone else, but at this point it will be the police. I do not anticipate the police pulling trains over for random breath testing but they will undertake the necessary testing.
You did touch a little on rail around Tennant Creek and there has always been this conversation, particularly by Everald Compton, about the Iron Boomerang and what opportunities that may provide the Northern Territory. As an idea or a concept it is generally seen as being ‘out there’. It is a very good concept but there needs to be a lot of economic modelling to make it come to fruition. It is a philosophical position that would be very good to embrace but it is a long way off. However, I would be very happy to entertain that idea.
You touched a little on Edith River and I pass on a couple of comments about the Edith River rail incident in December last year. For those who do not know, the water that passed through the area was 74% above the 100-year flood mark. There had not been enough preventative measurements put in place in anticipation of unlikely flooding events. That is a failure of the past but we learn from our mistakes. Fortunately, no one was killed in that accident and there have been a number of measures put in place by Genesse & Wyoming. I will touch on a couple of those.
They now have flood indicator warnings on the major bridges. There are monitoring devices on six of the major rail bridges in the Top End where the six major water crossings are. There are new training regimes being put in place for the rail operators; there are monitors now more than 2 km from the bridge to ensure any rail operators have the opportunity of stopping before they get to those bridges, and that is another good measure.
Another thing they have done is engage meteorological experts to provide advice about extreme weather conditions or information about impending extreme weather conditions which is passed through their national office, with a direct 24-hour access hotline on which to contact drivers. So an improved regime is being put in place which should prevent these things.
I will not continue discussing this bill as the member for Barkly has given his support. The second reading speech provided information and the member for Drysdale put much information into her contribution. It is an important reform agenda for the Northern Territory.
I look forward to working intensively around the maritime legislation and, as I said in the early part of this speech, I think heavy vehicle reform imposes significant challenges for us in the Northern Territory. The reform agenda I am busily looking at is the Western Australian model and how we may need, like, or look to link with Western Australia. I will be happy to have a professional debate or conversation with the shadow minister to see how we might move forward with those issues.
It will be difficult for the Northern Territory. We run an open access regime for transport here. Some of the charging regimes under consideration would be difficult for us and much debate needs to happen about that. I am happy to engage you in the lead-up to any future events that may take place from the reform agenda.
Madam Speaker, we have major support. The Independent member is not in the House. I congratulate and thank members for Barkly and Drysdale for their contributions. I think it is a good day for an unsexy bill in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport)(by leave): I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this bill allows for saliva samples to be taken from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs. Senior police officers will be authorised to take samples by force, if necessary, under the conditions outlined in the bill.
We all see a community concern about the connection between dangerous drugs and violence. It is frightening to hear the stories from police, but also from citizens, about the violence that takes place in the nightclubs and public places all around Australia, certainly here in Darwin. It is also concerning to hear that new dangerous drugs are regularly hitting the streets making it even harder for police and health professionals to respond.
The opposition wholeheartedly supports this legislation. Despite the rhetoric of the Country Liberal Party that it is part of its community law and order program, it should be placed on the record this legislation was developed by the previous Labor government. It is similar to how the Country Liberal Party now claims the police were recruited in the election promise tally and claims this as an important initiative. This happens. A change of government takes place, but the reality is both the parties in this parliament supported this legislation. We were in the process of drafting this legislation and bringing it to parliament.
Nevertheless, I take it as a compliment that the government now implements our programs and supports our legislation. My only concern about this legislation is resources. It takes much effort and time, especially on the weekend, and I have concerns about how the government will pay for this important program with the cuts to the public sector and a horror mini-budget next week.
Will the appropriate training and testing kits be made available to all officers on the front line and will the testing of these samples be adequately funded? In other words, will the police be able to use the powers we are giving them today or will they be constrained by funding cuts?
If we are going to put such comprehensive and strong legislation in place it is important that police have not only the power but all the equipment, skills and competencies to apply this legislation on the ground, especially because there will not be only one or two incidents. Come Friday night, sometimes there will be more than one incident and we have to ensure policemen can take samples. We also have to ensure there will be adequate forensic scientists and laboratories to test the samples.
There is nothing worse than putting great legislation in place but having things thrown out of court because people were not competent to take the samples, the samples were compromised, or the analysis was not done according to the prescribed standards by a fully qualified and accredited laboratory.
I assure the minister that while we support this legislation now, we will be continually watching to ensure the police are supported, fully funded for their own safety and the safety of the community, and this is not undermined by an ideologically driven mini-budget.
The opposition supports this legislation and will support legislation concerning the safety of the community. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition for this important bill which comes in two parts. Once this bill becomes an act it will activate the second part, the legal frame in which this sits. I thank the honourable member representing the opposition for support of this bill which inserts new powers into the Police Administration Act to allow police to obtain a sample of saliva from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs.
Honourable members would be aware, particularly the opposition spokesperson, that there needs to be, once the legal frame is established, some regulation around the link between what events would trigger a search for sampling of saliva to determine the link between that offence, that activity, and the presence of a substance. That is work to be done after stage 2.
In responding to the comments about resourcing, it is a new government; there is a change of government. By the way, I acknowledge the comments around, ‘this was our idea’ so good on you. I do not recall it to be honest; however, it is not so much a proprietorship of ideas, it is the support for good initiatives that strengthen law and order - respect for the law and strengthened social order. Providing these additional powers to the police is a step in the right direction.
Nearly every day you hear anecdotal evidence about the presence of drugs on our streets and in our communities. We see, at the same time, an increase in violent assaults and other activities. This takes us in the direction of getting a clearer picture of what is driving the behaviour on the streets or in our communities. It is too easy to pick alcohol and then to craft your policy response almost exclusively around it. This will raise the challenge that there are other factors which are driving behaviour on our streets, particularly violent crime, and this will provide us with the additional tool to gain greater insights into what is happening. Once you have a clearer picture, then you can craft your policy responses more accurately and drive change and deliver a better result for the community.
The opposition spokesman made comments about his grave concerns about resourcing and the horror mini-budget and, quite astoundingly, the ideologically driven mini-budget. You could claim good stewardship to be an ideology. Our fundamental responsibility is good stewardship. This new government will stand on its principle of honouring an election commitment. After saying when in opposition this is what we would do, we now bring legislation within the first 100 days to effect that promise. We will be putting the appropriate allocations behind that commitment to achieve the result and maintain that contract with the community.
Unlike the former minister and the government he represented, we have found, on many investigations, promises and commitments made which were unfunded. The 90 childcare workers was a response to a real need; fine, but it was unfunded. The hospital in Palmerston was a response to a need going into an election and we find there are problems or questions that are not easily resolved as to the ongoing funding commitment or allocation made by the previous government.
I do not feel too challenged by or hold much value for the concern being raised that he only hopes we resource our commitments. That is part of the problem we have been left to deal with: unfunded commitments, legacy commitments in a large quantity. I cannot see how you make the link between ideology and good stewardship, and being responsible for your actions, and tie that up into ideology. Your reference to ideology says more about you than it says about me.
That said and responded to, I thank the shadow minister for police, fire and emergency services for his support. I welcome the support of the opposition. This is but one step of a two-step process. This will not come into effect until the second step has been taken, which is the legal frame in which this sits. With the acknowledgement that this will not affect results on the street tomorrow, this important step allows the Attorney-General to complete the work in which this bill’s passage will take effect and deliver strong outcomes on the street.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, during Question Time I took a question on notice from the shadow minister for police, fire and emergency services. As there is no question before the House, I seek leave to answer that question.
Leave granted.
Mr MILLS: The question related to the closure of Warruwi, which is the Goulburn Island Police Station. I offer this as a response.
Only one officer was located at the Warruwi community and, to date, no applicants have been received for the other vacancy. Due to operational requirements, that officer has been relocated to Ramingining. Arrangements have been made for police from Jabiru and Oenpelli to attend Warruwi on 6 and 7 December. Arrangements are also being made to provide a fortnightly or weekly presence depending on resources. That is for two police to attend for two days, staying overnight.
Any urgent calls for police assistance or response will be responded to fro Jabiru or Oenpelli in the first instance, depending on the nature of the report and the capacity to charter aircraft to respond. If the situation is such that they are unable to respond, then the divisional officer will put other measures in place using resources from other areas. The local GEC has been advised and will be contacted by Oenpelli and Jabiru police when they are scheduled to patrol Warruwi so that the community is aware. This will allow them to have prior knowledge to do things such as MVR. There are currently police officers at Warruwi as part of the community patrols.
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, housing is a very important issue that we have to deal with in the Northern Territory. I welcome the minister’s statement because the housing policies of the former government are writ large in the bills people have to pay nowadays in their weekly payments. Whilst the government has told us ad nauseum about the shortcomings of our decision to add costs to power and water prices, they forget to talk about their contribution to the housing problems we have in the Northern Territory.
I draw honourable members’ attention to April 2007, when the then Planning minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, made a few comments, I think to the Stateline program. She was asked about where she thought housing would need to be in regard to land release. She said that only 230 blocks would need to be released in the Top End.
The problem with that is she was way off the mark with that prediction of demand. She was way off the mark by about a factor of 10 because within a year or two her budget papers were saying thousands of dwellings would have to enter the marketplace each year.
That is a problem because the former government placed itself in a position where it was not ready for demand and when you are not ready for demand in the fashion we found ourselves - when I say ‘ourselves’, I am talking about the Northern Territory - then you will always be playing catch up. If you look at the media releases and the newspaper advertising in about 2009 you can see they were talking about releasing land in Johnston, Zuccoli and other places and they said, ‘These will be our benchmarks and targets’. They did not meet those benchmarks and targets so we were falling further and further behind.
I was not intending to speak long on this statement but I wanted to remind Territorians that it was the shortcomings of the former government that finally translated into the house prices and, moreover, the rental prices we have in the Northern Territory. I have heard stories in recent times that rent is increasing by about $150 to $200 a week. If we want to talk about pain being inflicted on Territory families then we should consider the legacy of poor planning in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful the Chief Minister has attended to the planning issues of the Northern Territory and we have a Housing minister who is switched on to the housing issues so we can start to roll back some of the pressure Territory families feel.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is very good to be able to address an issue critical to the future of the Northern Territory. I thank the honourable member, the Minister for Housing, for bringing this important statement to the House. Rather than describing principally a problem, it acknowledges a problem and sets out a solution.
In the first week of this Twelfth Assembly we were subjected to an outpouring of misinformation about housing, housing prices, lands and planning and land release from the Leader of the Opposition and the former Minister for Lands and Planning. This misinformation underscored what Territorians have been aware of for the past 10 years: that the Labor Party has no idea how to plan for the future of the Northern Territory and, astonishingly, last night even voted against the Planning Commission, which is a final testament to their lack of commitment to forward planning.
They brought INPEX into the centre of the harbour and there is no doubt that the Ichthys project is of great importance to our long-term prosperity. Fine, but when the current opposition were in government they made no plans for the people or where the people would live as our city rapidly became unaffordable for residents. The former Labor government had no strategy in place to combat that trend, obvious to all when you look at the pressure on housing in Gladstone and Karratha for example, and other resource-rich areas of Australia. Do not tell me they were not forewarned. We do not have a land shortage.
One of the most important decisions I have made is to establish a Planning Commission, not that the opposition sees it that way. Such is their lack of commitment to planning that they rejected it. Fortunately, the decision was able to be carried through this parliament by a new government. This Planning Commission is capable of determining the big picture scenario for the Northern Territory, long-term strategic planning for our future growth. Yes, we already have a Development Consent Authority that is a statutory planning process and that body should be focusing on consent to do something that has already been strategically thought out and defined.
Consultancy and departmental work completed on Weddell will not be overlooked, but like anything Labor promised, nothing has materialised.
Unlike the previous Labor government, I do not hold a belief that any planning work undertaken over the course of previous decades is destined for the rubbish tip because it was commissioned under the other political party and must therefore be discarded - revealing of the attitude of the other side. That is not the case. Planning must be above both local government and Territory government politics. Planning must provide certainty and stability.
My belief is that strategic planning is a bipartisan issue, not that the opposition takes that view, sadly, as evidenced by the mess we have had to fix up. It has to be long-term planning and by its very nature exists beyond a four-year term. It is not about the government. We have to look at work from the earliest days of town planning, the detailed reports and the consultancies that examined the issues objectively and thoughtfully, and we need to take stock of what we have to work with, resolve challenges and assess the best way forward.
We have to consider the way we are growing whether in Stuart Park or the suburbs, Coolalinga or Cox Peninsula, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs or even Borroloola. A reminder, it was as far back as 1985 that Weddell was first marked on the map as an integral part of the big picture.
Subsequent deliberations considered the benefits of consolidation with Palmerston for the best value of shared amenity. Weddell was not discovered by the Labor Party, it was simply an obvious option as our residential requirements expanded, like Murrumujuk, south of Gunn Point.
Let me also emphasise that what the former Labor government had in place was a statutory planning process. No one was looking at the whole picture, not last night when we debated the Planning Commission. They could not see it for the politics and rejected it. Rezoning should not only rely on a block-by-block analysis as it was in the previous government’s fractured policy, it should be outlined in a total strategic manner. There are holistic aspects to urban infill and development.
We also have to recognise the efficiencies of private enterprise, not scorn it. We need to work together, not alienate each other. We must ensure integrated strategic plans are put in place which allow for the Territory’s potential growth. Any development, industrial, commercial or residential, has to be serviced and planners assess whether or not there is properly considered infrastructure in place such as utilities and corridors for road and rail now and into the future.
Businesses seeking to invest in the Northern Territory, whether interstate or homegrown companies, research where the needs and pressures are and respond to the opportunities. They work out the margins of risk and reward taking into account statutory costs, project costs, consultants and taxes. They decide whether or not, if the market drops, a prospective development will become over-exposed. The businessman adds up all these costs and mitigates accordingly.
I question why the Leader of the Opposition, the former Minister for Lands and Planning and the Labor Party believe ‘reward’ is a dirty word, so much so that there is a repeated pattern of the Labor Party taking any opportunity to imply reward equals greed. Their rhetoric is laughable given that people who came here years ago and remain here have proven time and time again they believe in the Territory, they invest in the future of the Territory.
These long-standing business leaders have poured their heart and soul into creating wealth for the Northern Territory: wealth we enjoy today as a community. All the former Labor government can do is whip up the politics of envy and decry the ‘white shoe brigade’, referred to by the former Minister for Public and Affordable Housing and former member for Johnston, also by the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, as can been seen in Hansard of 3 May 2012. Not that I have ever seen a member of the white shoe brigade, whoever they might be: perhaps the occasional previous advisor in the office of the Chief Minister in Palmerston.
Instead, for goodness sake, recognise that those who run businesses in the Northern Territory on the front end make the opportunities. They employ people - consultants, contractors, subcontractors, apprentices, suppliers - then they direct returns from the projects back into the Territory. When a development is finished, everybody benefits from the investment; councils receive taxes, governments receive stamp duty, residents have new home choices, and there are new offices and new retail outlets available.
Unless someone has the drive nothing is created and nothing is achieved for our community. The local developers are totally focused on local content and have stayed here, their families stay here, and their successes consolidate their companies here. It staggers me that those who created landmark developments we take for granted, landmarks repeatedly portrayed on the covers of endless Labor government spin promotions, those businessmen and women continue to call the Territory home even after more than a decade of being derided by Labor.
They came here often with nothing, worked hard, held the Territory close to their hearts and reinvested their rewards. Not, as the opposition constantly likes to insinuate, into personal materialism, but into the next project, into university scholarships and sponsorships, our sporting teams and arts organisations.
No one has the right to denigrate the efforts of those prepared to take risks and achieve on behalf of the community. Many have been here their entire working life and have witnessed the hiatus in planning until the CLP produced the substantive 2010 discussion paper titled Planning for Greater Darwin – it came from opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly have been quick to deride our policies for long-term planning. Mock and scoff! You should note there has also been a major CLP priority and, I together with my colleagues, have spent a great deal of time being informed by professional bodies and Territorians involved in planning. The commission’s objectives, including implementing essential change and supporting sustained growth, were flagged two years ago within our 2010 discussion paper.
Member for Nelson, you asked why a top-grade strategic planner cannot fulfil this task. It is because we need the skills and long-term commitment of a team not an individual. The need, although pressing, had not been a priority for the Department of Lands and Planning for years; short-term pressures drove their agenda. Landholders will release land once there is certainty about the parameters for development. Landholders will be prepared to start new projects as former frustrations are alleviated.
In the rural area, for instance, the previous government had no strategic plan for nodes of development or how to service them. For years, everything hit a brick wall because no one had to put a structure in place to connect things together, such as critical sewerage and waste disposal, roads, and power. The current Coolinginga project is only under way due to a developer’s initiative.
The former Labor government believed it should not be there at all, but rural pressure mounted and businesses which believed in the area committed to building up the area. Coles, Kmart and McDonalds are only happening in the rural area because those top 100 companies were engaged with a developer with foresight and initiative. He resolved the challenges and created an attractive proposition that secures key anchor tenants.
Leader of the Opposition, you initially knocked back Coolalinga only to revisit it two years later in a panic as a need to do so became glaringly obvious. Member for Barkly, you were in the driving seat when departments were batting an urgent need for sewerage infrastructure back and forth. The member for Barkly referred to it in the Legislative Assembly on 27 November 2012, and I quote Hansard:
What does that say for land release in the next few years when there is such pressure? No one was telling the truth that the lack of infrastructure and planning for new infrastructure were the real reasons why land release was so slow to come on stream. Let me explain this further. The previous Labor government was never on the front foot when it came to planning ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could the minister outline which development he is talking about?
Mr MILLS: It is not a point of order. Instead of having a ...
Mr McCarthy: Oh, minister, come on. Which one are you talking about? You have not told me which one you are talking about.
Mr MILLS: Yes I have.
Mr McCarthy: There are quite a number.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Mr MILLS: It is not a point of order and I did say it. I was illustrating a point if you just listen ...
Mr McCarthy: I do not think you named it, minister.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I did.
Mr McCarthy: We will find out from Hansard.
Mr MILLS: Oh, good on you. You could have listened instead of making a fool of yourself.
Mr McCarthy: I am listening.
Mr MILLS: Instead of having a forward looking structure, it was reactive. To make matters worse they claimed it was everyone’s fault but their own. They were convinced that if they repeatedly claimed it was not their fault it might be true, but it patently is not true. What are governments elected to do? Make decisions, get some push back, cut through: not the former government.
The former Chief Minister and his team were repeatedly told by the industry there were no cranes on the skyline because of one issue outside of government: banks. So you pick one issue - the banks - but you do not talk about the raft of other issues and impediments which are the responsibility of the former Labor government.
Setbacks, volumetrics, heights, planning processes and variations, retrospective rulings, Unit Titles Act, car parking rules, delays to subdivision titles, percentage land payments etcetera. In the case of setbacks and volumetrics as one example, the former Minister for Lands and Planning commissioned an interstate consultant and asked for submissions and comments.
Let me emphasise. The former Minister for Lands and Planning received submissions and comments. At no point did he provide information on the content of those submissions, why would he? He simply introduced what he had put up in the first place, ignoring the results of the consultation process. When those within the industry checked with each other they realised none of them had agreed with the outcome. When the media asked the former minister why the construction industry was not happy, he responded, with a typical spin, ‘Oh, that is not true because we have consulted with them and this is the result after consultation.’
All the former Chief Minister could do was hold continual media events blaming only, and always only, the banks. He and his Cabinet closed their ears to all the issues they could have and should have been tackling. The crucial point was conveniently overlooked: why not look to ease rather than exacerbate the problem of over-regulation and stop putting more nails in the coffin of housing choice, supply and affordability?
An example would have been to consider the scale of infrastructure the initial developer in a particular area has to provide in total when subsequent developers simply hook on without any additional contribution. The cost of this initial infrastructure obviously bumps up the price of every block in the first development, but instead of discounting for services already provided, subsequent developers continue to use the same benchmark.
The problem is obvious. An economic benchmark has been set and we are off at a level that makes it difficult for others to get in on. The new Planning Commission will have to consider this and many other factors. These include all the constraints starting from the availability of land including the task to look at forthcoming urban development proposals under a contextual plan. Constraints are numerous, and we are all well aware of them.
In the early part of this year we released a manifesto that clearly states we will restore the balance between supply and demand of land and will work with private enterprise to promote the development of denser housing projects resulting in more efficient use of services.
My government has moved to act on the issue of housing affordability. On Saturday 17 November, Minister for Housing, Hon Peter Chandler MLA, launched the new home bill access home loan package that commences 1 January 2013. This package will address factors impacting on the delivery of new housing supply and stimulate affordable new supply, thereby lessening market pressure for rentals.
The previous Labor government’s schemes had not increased home ownership rates. Shock! In fact, we saw home ownership rates in the Northern Territory decrease from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011. When implementing schemes, there cannot be an unsustainable continued liability for government. Adding to fiscal problems is not an option for the future of the Northern Territory. We have enough of them already – a big enough problem to deal with.
My government’s goals are to create a vehicle for Territorians to enter into home ownership and to provide the stimulus to increase supply at a more affordable end of the housing market, which is a priority.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. There has been no bigger impact on Territorians than the pressure of increased housing costs in the last few years. It is down to a number of reasons that have been detailed today and the last time this motion was debated. Purely and simply it is due to a government that lost control of land release, introducing policies that worked against lowering the cost of housing and so much against it that the prices of rent went up as much as $200 a week.
I have seen some passionate debate in this House before, during the last week, and in the media in the last couple of weeks about power increases that, of course, no one likes to see. For the average family those power increases may be around the $20 a week mark, which is not a small amount of money for many families to find. However, what I find fascinating in this debate is where was that passion from the former government, now the opposition, when people’s rents were going up $200 a week in most cases?
That has hit Territorians more than any other thing in recent memory. That is the fact, the truth. The price of housing in the Northern Territory has reached a level that is basically unsustainable. Where was the passion in the argument from the then government, now opposition? Where was the sustained passion in the media driven wildly by accusations and information put out by the former Treasurer who suggested things like childcare fees would increase $5 a day per child? No wonder the figures of the previous government were in a mess if you have a Treasurer who works on figures like that.
Housing prices went up as much as $200 a week! Only last week I had a lady in my office pleading with me about the power prices and how they would impact on her. During the year 2010-11, rent on her Palmerston house went from $470 a week to $550 per week and she thought it was madness. In the past 12 months, the last lease she signed went from $550 to $750. There is another indication of a $200 a week rent increase.
We know the new housing policies we are working on will add stock to the market, add land to an area where there has not been enough land released in many years, and will have a direct influence on the cost of housing. If we can see rents in the Northern Territory drop $50 a week or mortgages drop $50 a week, that is a huge difference compared to the price of power increasing by $20 a week. It is the one area where government can have some influence through balanced land release and programs that will add more stock to the market.
On Tuesday 27 November in the matter of public importance, the Opposition Leader spoke about the new Home Access Scheme, and I read from Hansard:
Our philosophy is to try to support affordability. We are trying to target the market at people who need to get into homes for the first time. Most people in the affordable market will never afford, at this time, a house worth $750 000. The policies of the previous government were forcing prices up so much they had to change their own scheme. They had to lift the cap on the scheme.
To me, there is no clearer measure of a failed scheme when targeting affordability than when you have to lift the cap. What does that tell you? Prices are still increasing. In simple terms - we have the statistics - 93% of applications for the former schemes were for existing homes. If there are 100 houses for sale and 80 to 100 people in the market for those 100 homes, you will see a pretty stable market.
If, by chance or ill-thought policy, you introduce a scheme where you add 150 or 160 buyers into a marketplace where there are 100 homes, the price will go up. You would have to be pretty silly not to recognise that if there are more people capable of purchasing homes but you do not increase the stock you will be left in a situation where the prices will go up. If the former Treasurer and government could not recognise that, there is no doubt in my mind why the budget is in the mess it is.
For the record, there were a few other things the Opposition Leader said in debate on the matter of public importance, but I want to place on the record 15 new house – not units – house and land packages have been bought by Territorians this financial year, all of which are under the $550 000 cap. One of those happens to be in Muirhead. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should get her facts straight and stop misleading the public on radio by saying our cap is too low for affordable housing. That is the key; we are talking about affordable housing.
The 15 house and land packages range in price from as low as $307 000 up to $530 000, which clearly demonstrates the Terry Mills government knows the market. The rate of home ownership in the Territory decreased, as I heard the Chief Minister say before, from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011, another demonstration of how the previous government’s policies were failing.
Housing prices went up because the previous government’s scheme increased the purchasing capacity, plain and simple. Labor schemes did not add to the housing pool and resulted in a turnover of the existing housing market. As I said previously, 93% of HOMESTART Extra loans were for existing stock. Again, no better measure was when they had to lift the cap on a scheme designed to get people into their home and attract people to stay in the Northern Territory. After trying to hit the market for affordability, they had to lift the cap.
Labor’s scheme did not stabilise the housing market. Darwin has experienced the highest housing price index growth rate of all capital cities: 8.2% compared to Australia at 0.03%. The previous government subsidised scheme parameters were amended as prices went up. That further increases the cost not only to government – again, no better measure that their scheme was failing. They ignored the advice of Treasury experts with HOMESTART Extra worsening the Territory’s fiscal balance nett debt by an estimated $59m in 2012-13 and $68m in 2013.
On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition said their schemes helped high income earners. Providing affordable housing is a key priority of this government. Obviously, they were not looking at targeting people in the affordability area. Having a cap of $550 000 will give developers, home builders, a really good cap to set their design parameters around to ensure we do not see prices continually creep up as we saw in the last couple of years.
I have, which is wonderful news for Territorians, a list of – I will just name a few – Abode Homes, About Homes, Habitat Homes, Casale Homes, Overlander Homes, Beare Homes, Tropical Lifestyle Homes, Killarney Homes, Brindabella Group, Vanguard Homes, the Total Group, NIMM Constructions. These are all house packages in the new suburb of Johnston which range in price from $358 500 through to $468 500. As you can see, they are quite well below the $550 000 cap we have set with our new home package.
For the Opposition Leader, the former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, to pour cold water over this scheme before giving it a chance to start and understand perhaps - actually I do not think she will ever understand it. They did not understand how their last schemes were impacting on the hip pocket of Territorians in two areas; that is, through their failed release of land and their schemes that just poured hot oil and flames on an already overheated market. For them not to recognise that is just poor management.
I listened yesterday to some of the other debates. The member for Fannie Bay asked me a couple of questions about businesses and power. In one of the debates he, and many of the members on the other side, said power was an essential service and, therefore, it should be subsidised in the Northern Territory.
If you believe in that philosophy, power should be free. If you seriously believe in your philosophy that governments should be providing subsidies to essential services, you should not be paying for it at all. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have an argument that you are wanting money for something if your philosophy is it is an essential service and should be subsidised.
Where does it stop? You are talking about philosophies, about a government that is trying to get out of a very dangerous financial situation and needs to take the courageous decisions to deal with some of the serious issues with power and water. On the other hand, we had a government that thought it should continually subsidise power and water in the Northern Territory to the point where it goes broke. That is not sustainable.
There are ways people can deal with some of these issues. Before I got into this House I paid my power fortnightly because of the bills that would come in every three months. I struggled with those bills. I started to have $100 taken out of my pay every fortnight and paid directly to the Power and Water Corporation, and that avoided - I suppose you would call it sticker shock - bill shock when those bills came in. I encourage as many people as possible to put away just $20 each week towards their bill. It makes a dramatic difference and helps with budgeting. You are not left with that huge bill every three months.
There are many things people can do to reduce their power usage. We know there are technologies; there are companies which can help you, particularly for businesses. There was a previous Labor government scheme, ecoBiz NT, which they dramatically cut in the last couple of years. It was a good program and the former government should be commended for introducing that program which shows initiative and shows businesses how they can reduce costs.
The same thing can happen in our homes to help reduce the cost of electricity. I heard the Opposition Leader say the other day that in 2009, when they put up the price, she spoke about all these new initiatives such as LED lighting. LED lighting then was very expensive. It has dropped dramatically and I encourage more people to turn to that kind of technology. There are real savings. I have battles every day with my own children - turning the lights off. I do not know how many times I walk into a bedroom and ask why the fan is on, the air conditioner is on, the lights are on. ‘Turn the lights off, for goodness sake!’ That probably happens in most households across the Northern Territory, in fact, right across Australia.
The reality is energy costs money. None of us walk into a shop expecting not to pay for things. You go in, you get what you need, and you pay for it when you leave. It is the same with energy. When we turn a light switch on, we realise it will cost us money, so we need to think about what we are doing and there are things we can do.
The biggest impact on Territorians in the last few years has been the cost of housing. Every business person I have spoken to in the last few months, in every conversation, one thing that comes up constantly is the difficulty they have keeping staff and finding staff because of the cost of housing in the Northern Territory. That is not just in the Darwin area, that is right across the Northern Territory.
Businesses have had to buy houses or rent houses to put their staff in because the wages they are paying do not sustain rent or a mortgage in the Northern Territory. Government can do something about it. Over public housing, some of my colleagues have said it is the poisoned chalice. Goodness gracious, you have to deal with public housing!
It is exciting to be given this portfolio because I know the issues and philosophy based on the strategies we are putting in place now will make a huge difference to Territorians in the next few years - from public housing to affordable housing to the top end of the market, through the timely release of land and having policies and procedures that will focus on adding homes to the marketplace. That will do one thing: stabilise a market that has gone out of control and which will not be stable until people’s wages catch up. It could take a decade from now to catch up if things continued the way they were going.
I thank everyone for contributing to the debate. I only wish the sustained attack on this government for taking the courageous decisions needed to get the fiscal balance right in the Northern Territory was applauded rather than having rotten eggs and rocks thrown at it. There is real passion in the community, and I can understand it. We are part of the community as well but it is being driven by an opposition and media.
Yes, power prices will increase and, yes, it will make a difference across the board. It will affect business, it will affect homes. Where was the same passion when rents were going up $50, $100, up to $200 a week due to the market created by a government out of control in the last few years?
They have not managed well; they have not had the strategies in place to deal with many of these issues. Where was the passion then? Where was the passion of the government of the day when they were watching house prices go through the roof? When they were watching rents going through the roof? Where was the media? Where were the radio shock jocks? Where was the Northern Territory News? Where were other forms of media? Where was the passion to drive that issue, the biggest price increase ever bestowed on Territorians in the last few years, the price of housing? This was all through a lack of managed land release and policies introduced by the former government that did nothing more than drive up the prices of houses in the Northern Territory.
I thank everyone for contributing to this debate. I will not rest until we fix the mess that has been created. I will not rest until we get public housing back where it needs to be, where we have decent housing for people to live in, houses that have not rotted to the core. It will take initiative, and real drive and leadership for this to occur. I have some inspiring people within the Department of Housing. There are some inspiring developers in the Northern Territory who are willing to work hand-in-hand, acknowledging the government does not have any money but has a huge problem to solve.
Madam Speaker, I make a commitment that we will be working to solve that problem.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 1 November 2012.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on this side of House for their contribution because it is an important issue. I take this opportunity also to thank many people around the country for their overwhelming support given through my personal e-mail, personal letters and my ministerial e-mail system. The way I look at it is that my dream is not only my dream; it is the dream of many Territorians and many Australians. I thank the Deputy Chief Minister for her support and comments about our obligations to children so they can gain the knowledge and skills to get themselves real jobs.
Deputy Chief Minister, I congratulate you again for understanding, in depth, why we need to move Territorians forward. Why we need to get them out of passive welfare, properly educated, and into real jobs. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for those comments.
Also, my colleague the member for Arnhem, deserves my thanks. The dream she identified as hers and that of many of her people was an inspiration, just as she is an inspiration to all people in the Northern Territory. I am proud to call her a colleague and we are proud to be part of the Terry Mills government.
I am equally proud of the third of we Indigenous women in this House - who all just happen to be on this side - the member for Stuart. Her comments and support of my statement are particularly valued because she pointed out how, between her, the member for Arnhem and me, we cover almost all the language groups in the Northern Territory, making us living, breathing examples of how education enhances our culture, our engagement with our communities and the rest of the world.
Member for Daly, I thank you for your support of the statement and the fact you reinforced the need for education. You said education is number one in lifting Aboriginal people out of poverty. I could not say it better myself, member for Daly. I will be working alongside the Minister for Education to make sure this remains a focus of this government. I want to make sure that when I have finished here I can look back at a significant increase in education outcomes.
I truly welcome the lesson provided by the Attorney-General in his speech and his support of my statement. His lesson in history shed a new light on some of the issues I raised. His setting of the 1970s welfarism in its historical context was as informative as it was entertaining, but the message of his statement that we not only need education but also need to use education was a key. I thank him for his support.
I respond to the comments made by the member for Nhulunbuy. While I accept her offer of best wishes, I was pleased to hear her admit that the previous government lost the last election because it dropped the ball on Indigenous development. The member for Nhulunbuy went on to criticise my comments about homelands policy after my response to a question from the member for Nelson.
Unlike the previous government, we are determined not to make our policy on the fly. Homelands policy is complex; it involves many people, a lot of money and an incredible amount of coordination to get it right. We know that because we live on outstations. Our kids have grown up on outstations, our parents have become elderly on outstations and we are determined to get it right. If it takes a bit longer to make good then we will take that time.
The member from Barkly stated that I thought of him as a whitefella. He is wrong. I think of him as a Territorian; one who is misguided in his critical beliefs but, nonetheless, a Territorian. He also advised me to get my fair share of what he called ‘the cake’ in Cabinet. If he had listened to my statement he would have realised that we see the strength in government as cooperation and coordination. Grabbing the cake to benefit my portfolio at the expense of other Territorians is not the answer. Let me remind the House what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday:
The Leader of the Opposition is skating very close to offensive racist comments. I have never seen such troublesome political games played with a community uniquely and wholly Territorian. Then I remembered I have seen offensive comments like that. I wonder if I have unintentionally uncovered the Leader of the Opposition’s speech writer?
I will quote a biased writer from the NT News who appeared on a radio program recently. It is unfortunate I have to quote exactly what he said, and sometimes you wonder how this person became a journalist.
These are truly mean, nasty, hurtful words that have, at their heart, a very racist sentiment. Shame on you, Opposition Leader! Take note, Leader of the Opposition, we are not like you and your ghost writer: not urban, not northern suburbs, not bush, we are Territorians, one and all. Your ghost writer and the opposition like to divide the community into camps and pit one against the other: Northern suburbs of Darwin against south Darwin against Palmerston, north of the Berrimah Line versus the south and most, importantly, city against bush. We are all Territorians as one, black or white, bush or city, north or south, wet or dry.
Labor, while classifying people like this, fails to take into account the fact that due to the state of the Territory’s finances, we are all in this together and together we must dig ourselves out of the hole Labor has dug for us. The Mills government is a government for all Territorians. We do not pit one part of the Territory against another. Our election commitments are spread throughout the depth and breadth of the Territory and we will ensure they are delivered.
Yes, member for Barkly, I will, as you requested, remember you and your electorate because on this side of the House we are about looking after all Territorians, something your government forgot, like punishing Papunya because of Alison Anderson.
To highlight this, I will reiterate some of the points I made in my speech. I raised the issue of education in remote areas, the problem with school attendance and how we cannot simply use carrots and sticks to get children to school. We must make school the place to be so children want to be there. I also mentioned employment. Not only must there be jobs in the regions, but people must be encouraged to apply for them. I raised the importance of housing and connection to country.
This government respects the importance of cultural connections to land. We support the right of people to live on their country. One of the things this means is housing. At the moment, about 10 000 Indigenous people live in 2400 houses in homelands and outstations but they have been badly managed from a distance. As with everything else, the previous government tried to solve problems from Darwin. People need to be taught how to look after themselves. If a drain is blocked or a door hinge is loose they need to be able to fix it themselves.
I will speak again about something that really annoys me, the frequent failures of NGOs. So much money goes into NGOs and they are not accountable to anyone. They just run around in communities not really having an impact. We have to pull them back. They are annoying communities and making them very tired because communities are having to have meetings with 10 different people. We do not hear about the failures of NGOs because there are no records. An NGO gets a contract, they do what they think is best, tick the boxes and the job is done. This is not enough because they do not understand the communities they work in.
I spoke of the need for more culturally appropriate delivery of services by Indigenous people. I stand by that. But, let me make one thing perfectly clear: that does not mean simply throwing dollars at communities and telling them to fix problems themselves. There has been some of that over the years and we know too often it does not work.
We, as a government are going to change things. We will stop using lazy Labor ways of measuring the amount of money given to NGOs and, if they spend it all, call it a success. Instead, if - that is a big ‘if’ - we fund NGOs they will have to prove how they spend the money. They will also have to prove they consulted and worked with the community and there are real achievements that benefit that community.
One of the problems we have is these NGOs are foreigners. What I mean by foreigners is they do not come from the Northern Territory; some of them do, some of them are from outside the Northern Territory. They are not familiar with the problems. It takes them months and months just to get their contacts, and there goes the program. People get really tired because they have to continuously talk to these people. Therefore, delivery of the program does not happen.
I once again thank my colleagues for their contribution to the statement. It is a journey, a new journey, an exciting journey, and we thank everyone who has contributed. We thank our people who got us into these roles of representing them and we will be voices for them. We will be working hard to make sure things are being done on the communities. However, as I said, it is not about throwing good money and wasting it; it is about making sure we are starting to achieve results. Those results are getting good quality education, good housing, making sure houses have fans, air conditioners and verandahs.
One of the things we saw on my visit to Ngukurr was a classic example. The houses there had no air conditioners, no verandahs, and just small fans. You were just complaining people will not be able to turn on their air conditioners because of the tariff increases, yet, you did not care about not putting air conditioners in remote Aboriginal communities. What a shame! It is a shame that you thought you were the friends of Aboriginal people and did nothing for them. As I said, member for Barkly, we will look after Tennant Creek because we are here to look after every Territorian, unlike you who punished my community for the sake of one person. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I will reiterate on cultural connections. I am a Nampijinpa because I was born a Nampijinpa. As I am Nampijinpa, I inherit certain parts of the land. In the beginning, in the journey of that Dreaming to the end, I am connected to certain relatives of mine. That is my inheritance. Some people have skin names that have just been given to them. You cannot use that because it is not your inherent right. You are not born into that culture, you do not have a mother and a father who come from that culture in order for you to inherit that skin name. It can be given to you, but you should not overuse it; it is a gift you hold for a certain period of time and you must know when to use it and when to give it back.
Ms Lee: And how to use to.
Ms ANDERSON: Exactly right, member for Arnhem. When an Aboriginal person is born with that skin name and you just got it as a gift you cannot stand up to that person. That is our inherent right. We are born with it because we have different skin name parents. I am a Nampijinpa from Nungerai. I am a Jungala - water and fire Dreaming. I inherit that through birth. You did not inherit your Japangardi in the Barkly region, you were given that as a gift. You must remember that because that is the respect you pay to those people who gifted you, that is not your inherent right.
I will continue talking about how important it is to make sure there is a good quality education. Education is the key to the future for anyone. Education has freed millions, not just in the Northern Territory, not just in Australia, but around the world. It does free you. It gives you opportunities to be a person in society who socialises and interacts, and that interaction must be both ways: economically and having the freedom to go around the country, be able to ring Qantas and book a flight to Bali for your family, book the hotel, get your passport. That is a disability you have created with my people and the NAPLAN results show that.
We now have two generations of kids - the future generation of the Territory – who will be disabled. That is a real shame not just for us as Territorians, but as Australians. When we look at all the RAPs that organisations have - Reconciliation Action Plans – are they true, are they something we can believe in, are they something that will help my people? I do not think so. They are just ‘look good’ RAPs that acknowledge Indigenous people in the Northern Territory or in Australia. There is no real commitment through these Reconciliation Action Plans. They are just there to make an organisation look good.
If we have NAPLAN results coming out in 2012, such as we have seen today, that is a real shame, because it has put the hobbles on the next two generations of Indigenous kids of this Northern Territory. We will be long gone when these kids are struggling. Who will defend them? There will be no one here to defend them, and that is why we have to get things right and the Country Liberal Party and the Terry Mills government is about working hand-in-hand with all Territorians, moving them all forward with a good quality education and healthy people interacting and operating in this society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank, once again, my colleagues for contributing to such an enormous discussion we have had on Indigenous affairs.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 1 November 2012.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman for her report into the approval process and subsequent subdivision of land in Herbert. The ability for such matters to be referred for independent investigation by the Ombudsman is crucial to enable an unbiased assessment of not only what went wrong, but how it went wrong and a frank analysis of what processes need fixing.
The focus of this investigation travels back 12 years to the original development application in May 2000. As a result of her investigation, the Ombudsman found that the advice received by the Development Consent Authority for the first five years of the approval process consistently referred to the proposed subdivision of lots 3103 to 3105 Hundred of Strangways as being unsuitable for subdivision due to seasonal inundation, and that the area should either be excluded from the proposed subdivision or incorporated as one lot.
This advice was based on, and I quote:
and was supported by NRETAS and the Department of Lands and Planning throughout the first six years of consultation. As a result, in October 2005, the application was approved by the Development Consent Authority with amendments excluding from the subdivision those lots subject to inundation.
Only seven months later, in June 2006, the developer submitted another development application for the same parcel of land incorporating the inundated blocks earlier excluded in the application approval of October 2005. Submissions from NRETAS and the Department of Lands and Planning in 2006 contradicted their earlier positions of the preceding six years, a reversal of position that was not substantiated by any conclusive data or tests and directly contradicted recommendations contained in the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives 2002 and the Litchfield Area Plan 2004.
In 2010, those lots were purchased and, somewhat predictably, given the 20/20 vision of hindsight, underwent a major flood event in February 2011 after the significant rainfalls associated with Cyclone Carlos. Flooding was again reported by residents of the affected blocks in 2012 despite the 2011-12 Wet Season recording less than average rainfall.
Despite negotiations to resolve the matter commencing in 2011, the fact remains that there is still no resolution for the residents 18 months after the first flood event. This is astounding to me personally and obviously extremely stressful for those affected. What is even more astounding is that this could have been so easily prevented with due diligence being paid to a proper planning and assessment process.
Loss of corporate knowledge due to personnel changes should be no reason for previous dissenting submissions and scientific data to be discounted, especially given the short time between rejection and the development proposal in October 2005 and its approval in July 2006.
Whether it is a lack of responsible filing and archiving over a period where there was more and more reliance placed on electronic storage of documents, or loss of corporate knowledge or miscommunication, a very costly and distressing mistake was made by allowing these blocks to be subdivided.
Unfortunately, despite the best intentions, mistakes will be made - we are only human after all - but it is how these mistakes are handled and overcome that defines a person or, in this case, a government. It would be easy to stand here now and simply admonish the former Labor government’s failure. It is easy to do that, say it was all their fault and shame on them, or blame the public servants, as my predecessor is very apt to do. However, the stark reality is that it has fallen on my watch to do what they should have done and not only engineer solutions to resolve what is in front of me but also ensure that procedures are in place to prevent it happening again.
I am happy to announce that I accept all ten recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report. I agree with the Ombudsman that claims by the department that the purchasers should have conducted their own surveys for land use suitability are unsatisfactory. As a potential purchaser it would be reasonable to assume that, if there is a requirement for a residential rural block to have 1 ha of dry land adjoining an access road, then that is what it will have. That would have been considered and established during the development application process.
It would also be reasonable to assume that subdivision would not be permitted unless the land was fit for purpose. The department is currently working on updating its electronic information system to better capture and track documents, studies and collected data pertaining to an individual lot or area subject to development proposal.
During the last sittings in October, I introduced a bill to amend the Planning Act. The bill establishes the Northern Territory Planning Commission, which was opposed by the Labor opposition, and which will be able to address many of the issues around flood mapping and changing land use.
It will also be able to provide an extra level of professional scrutiny to that which is already in place. Further amendments to the Planning Act are being considered to ensure developers are held responsible for failing to adhere to the act. I am committed to negotiating a satisfactory outcome for all affected landowners. Where appropriate, those negotiations will include acquisition of land on just terms for those landowners who wish to remain on their blocks. Negotiations will focus on creating drainage to ensure the minimum requirement of 1 ha of land will remain free of inundation.
It is unfortunate the former minister did not pursue a resolution with the vigour the affected residents deserved and that negotiations were allowed to stagnate so as to prevent timely resolution prior to the upcoming Wet Season. That is a shame.
The front page of the Ombudsman report contains the appropriate, if often used, quote from Harvey Mackay, ‘If you fail to plan then you plan to fail’.
Unfortunately, that is a succinct summation of a philosophy carried through 11 years of the Labor government.
I had in mind another maxim to take the Territory forward through the next four years, ‘Proper prior planning prevents poor performance’. There is another ‘P’ there somewhere.
Through the establishment of the Planning Commission I endeavour to make processes that will be more transparent and departments and ministers will be held accountable to Territorians. I will establish this as a requirement through all systems, especially when it comes to planning, and particularly at a time when residential expansion shows no sign of slowing down. I predict it will speed up.
On a final note, the member for Nelson should be commended for his dogged pursuit of this matter and championing the cause of the affected residents. Thank you, member for Nelson, well done.
I again thank the Ombudsman for her thorough and detail investigation. Her work is very much appreciated. It will assist my government to work with the affected families to find a solution satisfactory to all parties, to leave a better system in place and to learn from these terrible mistakes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, as the former Minister for Lands and Planning, I had instructed the department to work on a resolution for the affected residents. We were working on a drainage solution. Unfortunately, there was not a complete resolution for affected residents but, as I instructed the department, we were working on that solution and getting a resolution for all the affected residents. Unfortunately, I have lost carriage of that work and will be very interested to follow the new government and minister reaching a resolution. I believe the best solution was the drainage plan we were working on when in government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker and member for Goyder, I know you will take an interest in this as it is in your electorate. I am interested because I was involved in planning for some time through the Litchfield Shire Council. I also knew about this land before it was subdivided and, in the end, also realised it was a matter of justice that people who should have been protected by the department and the DCA were not.
I thank the Chief Minister for his kind words. We have not finished this yet, Chief Minister. I will be dogged to the end, until these people receive the justice they should from government.
There is nothing wrong with the NT Planning Scheme. I am not saying it should not be reviewed, but there is nothing wrong with it, especially in relation to this subdivision.
If anyone has seen the maps for this development - you only have to look at the Ombudsman’s report which shows a map on the front deliberately put there by the Ombudsman. It shows a very large shaded area taken from the drawings supplied for part of an application by Mr Graham Chrisp, the developer for subdivision PA000317 in May 2000:
In 2006, that same parcel of land - and you will not see it because it is too small - had an area marked as ‘wet’ which was about half that size and was approved by the DCA. You can see that from the beginning the development maps were inaccurate. It is up to, not only the developer to be giving an honest assessment of the land he wishes to develop, but also the departments to check it and, to some extent, the Development Consent Authority. There were some issues here which have been missed.
First of all, the land should have been assessed correctly. That could have been assessed by simply looking at the vegetation. If anyone knows the Top End they know what vegetation is a sign of wet areas and what is a sign of dry areas. You only have to have some basic knowledge of vegetation types, and you will come up with a good idea of what is wet.
A basic idea would be to not allow that subdivision until it has been assessed in March. There is a good chance there will be water in an area like this in March, so you can just use ground truthing. Ground truthing is something the department and the Litchfield Council used to do quite often – gumboots; the gumboots test. If it squelched you knew you had a high seepage line. If it was pouring in the top of your gumboots, you knew you were in a flood zone. If it did not make any difference except an imprint in the soil, you knew you were in good country. Some of those basic things were not done.
The department also was lacking a decent contour map of the area. The contour map and the vegetation map were required by the minister from the department after the complaints came through. When you get these two maps which should have been done in 2006, you realise straightaway this land should never have been subdivided. Unfortunately, that has all happened. The Ombudsman has criticised the departments for not doing their job.
The NT Planning Scheme does not need too much change; the departments need to follow the rules. I also should put this in the context of the DCA. Most of the blame has been put on the departments but the DCA has to act under the planning scheme, which is part of the Planning Act. Under the planning scheme there are certain things which should not happen. You do not have to travel to this block of land to realise this application for this development required this wet area, which is a lagoon, to be subdivided by four fence lines.
The subdivision requirements in the planning scheme clearly say you should incorporate:
Straightaway, this goes against the NT Planning Scheme. You should minimise the number of watercourse crossings. There are 4 m firebreaks going through a watercourse; actually they are 8 m because you have four on each side of the fence. You should make sure slopes are outside seepage zones when following drainage lines. All these slopes go straight into the middle of the wet area. You should ensure that each lot has a minimum of 1 ha of unconstrained land, which we know that land did not have.
What is more telling is section 11.4.1 which the Development Consent Authority and the department should have known. It says:
You only had to look at the map; you did not have to go out there to realise this land should not have been subdivided. It should:
Anyone who had been there would have realised this was a beautiful area, now it has been subdivided into four or five blocks with 8 m of cleared land right through it in different directions.
You should:
Again, in a wetland you should:
This land certainly was affected by the 1% AEP which, in the old terms, is the 1 in 100 year flood line. You should:
Again, you only have to look at the map, even though the map was incorrect. The bit of the map that was there was enough to show you there was something wrong. You had to:
All these things in the NT Planning Scheme already exist, as the Ombudsman found out, and she concentrated more on the lack of care by the department. After they rejected this subdivision up until 2005, somehow, in 2006, the same parcel of land was given approval.
I wonder about the DCA’s role. I used to be on the DCA and, generally speaking, when you are dealing with subdivisions, especially in your own area, you just go and look at it. That is good practice if you are a member of the Development Consent Authority. I do not think that happens anymore; they rely on the department to do the job.
I was interested because we set up an EPA last night and my understanding is that it can be sued. The EPA is being set up as an authority and in the bill it stated it can be sued. I was told the DCA cannot be sued and I am not sure whether that is correct. It is surprising because, if the DCA has made a decision outside of the NT Planning Scheme, which is therefore outside the act, why can it not be sued for making a decision which was clearly in breach of the NT Planning Scheme?
I raise that because there are some basic rules about subdivision in the rural area that the DCA is responsible for making sure are carried out. They can get advice from the department but they also have eyes and legs, they can look at maps and they can go out and have a look. They were told by locals, including me, that this land was not suitable. I asked why there was no response to this. Usually, if you say something in a DCA meeting - that land is not suitable - someone will say if that is true or not. There was no response to those comments.
The lady who lives on a nearby block of land, lot 3407, who has been there for some time had said many times that this land had a flooding problem because she has lived next to this parcel of land. We found out that her block is the one all the water goes through.
To add an aside, you would have heard some discussion about what a waterway is in the rural area. When this area was going to be drained by the developer who realised there were problems, he popped in there with a big pump and pumped all the water out. When I asked the department how he could do that without permission from the department - you cannot affect a watercourse - they said it was not a waterway.
You might know that at the last Estimates Committee they came up with this lovely list of what is considered a waterway in the Litchfield area and what is not. Some of them have artificial drains and they said that is a waterway because it has a defined area through which the water moves out. This area has an area where the water moves out but, because it is not a concrete drain or a creek, they have decided to declare this watercourse not a waterway. Therefore, anyone who wishes to pump water out of it can.
I raise that as an aside because that issue has not been sorted yet. This lagoon has no protection under the guidelines the department has brought out. We now know by the contour maps that the water flows through lot 3407 into the neighbouring lagoon. How it is not protected under the Water Act I do not know. It is an excuse of the department to allow the developer to do what he likes. He did. He was allowed to pump the water without permission. That area needs to be sorted out. What protection do these wet areas in the rural area have?
The Chief Minister mentioned there was a drainage solution. For the people who do not understand what happened here, this area was approved in 2006 - people bought the land. It was expensive a few years ago at $275 000-$285 000, so it is probably worth over $300 000 a block now. Because they had the stamp of the Development Consent Authority, one would presume all the rules within the NT Planning Scheme had been applied to this block of land.
Therefore, it is not a case of buyer beware, it is a matter for the government which polices the subdivision. Do I trust the government? Hopefully. There should have been 1 ha of dry land at least. They built their houses on the top side of these blocks. One house went within about one millimetre of going under water. The Saunders’ house was standing in water, it was only a demountable as they had not started to build their house and the Lewis’s house next door had water up to the back of the house; the chook yard had gone under water, all the septics were under water. They could not live in those places until the water went down.
When the hue and cry started on this the developer wanted to build a drain so he brought a bulldozer in and cleared some land. He was going to build this enormous drain. It was such a Wet Season that the whole drain collapsed because the water table was so high; it just fell in like custard. Then he got a big pump and decided to pump the water out. He pumped for about two or three weeks, full time, big pump going day and night until he just about emptied the whole lot. But that was not the solution because you cannot have a pump for the next 100 years and you cannot build a drain, it is just not going to happen in the direction he wanted it.
So the government said they would put in a drain and the only place suitable was through the Walkers’ block and the Walkers did not want it. Two of the three people who were badly affected said they did not want to live there anymore. They were told this land was suitable. Their land now had a bad name. Even if you drained the land so there was 1 ha of dry land, they did not want to live with it anymore; it had caused them so much pain they would rather get out. The government could, if it had to build a drain, lower the water so there would be 1 ha and sell it to people who know that part of the land will be flooded. They could start their lives again and people who bought it would at least know that part of that land will be flooded, not like these people. One of these blocks of land was not shown with any water on it and was 80% flooded. One of these blocks had 5% shown on the map and was about 80% flooded, and one of the blocks had about 50% and was about 80% flooded. That is how inaccurate these maps were.
It has not been a simple thing trying to sort it out with drainage. That might be the developer’s way of trying to fix it, and the government needs to be talking to him about compensation as well. Somehow, he gets off scot free and we blame the department. He should be also brought to task because, as you can see from the original maps and the map that was approved, there was quite a big variation. How come, all of a sudden, this piece of land shrunk? There is no drain out of it - not a formal drain. All of a sudden, from 2000, it was this size and in 2006 it was under half that size.
What we have here is a case where the previous government had to battle against the bureaucracy, I would be interested to see what the bureaucracy is saying under the new government. There was certainly resistance by the bureaucracy because they did not want to take the blame. They did not want to be seen to be the reason this subdivision failed. I blame the department. They did not do the sort of homework you would expect from a department who knows the rules, who would have checked to see if this land had been subdivided under the rules.
There was some resistance there. Eventually, the Chief Minister stepped in and said, ‘We will pay compensation. We will do what the Ombudsman has asked for.’ There are 10 recommendations. The first one is:
The reason we have those three blocks is one block would be purchased so the government can put a drain through because the owners of that block of land are not in agreement with a drain going through their block. The only alternative was to buy that parcel of land, which I believe they would accept, and then the government can put whatever drain it likes on that block. Sections 5212 and 5215, belonging to Saunders and Lewis -- they would like to move out and start their lives again. That is a very good recommendation.
The Ombudsman went on further and said it is not just a case of acquisition; you have to look at the land and improvements. There is fencing, a house, a demountable, bores. In this case the developer might have agreed to put bores down, but there are septic tanks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landowners be compensated for the following:
On those points, it has been extremely stressful for those people. One family is staying and I suppose their hope is this will go through, the drain will be put in, and that house can probably be high and dry. There is no guarantee of any of that happening at the moment, so that family with their completed house will be subject to the possibility of flooding this year unless the government does something fairly urgently.
It has been stressful for the other people as well. One of the owners was pregnant at the time the floods came up around the demountable. She was having a baby, starting a new life, building a house and, all of a sudden, that was destroyed. The people next door put a great deal of time into building a nice house on stilts, getting the chooks going - all the reasons you live in the rural area - when all of a sudden there was no septic tank, the chooks had to go for a swim and they took their boat for a ride around the fire break.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: It has taken so long, and you can see the size of the file. I realise it is difficult to bring this into a small discussion.
I will quickly go on, minister, to some of the other things that have been recommended.
I do not think that will happen. Those people simply want out.
I do not mind that happening but, generally speaking, if you read the planning scheme the guidelines are clear; it is a matter of people ensuring they are carried out.
By all means. We have waterlogging maps that have not been looked at for many years. They are not too accurate from a detail point of view, but they give you an idea where wet areas are likely to occur in the Litchfield Shire.
It is also simply a case of people looking at the land. It might be that the developers have to put more pegs in the ground so we can see exactly where the blocks are, but you sometimes have to do what we used to call ‘ground truthing’. You have to make an effort. Cuts to departments may have made it difficult but before you start to give approvals you need to be saying - I believe the Ombudsman said - you need pretend it is your block of land so you will ensure your block of land will not go under water. You have to feel as if you are the purchaser because this involves the life savings of most people. This is the biggest purchase of their life and to see that destroyed because of poor planning is heartbreaking.
It states both DLP and NRETAS introduced an electronic information management system to capture and retain all available information and data, including both corporate and local knowledge, planning file documents, land capabilities, waterlogged soils, seasonal inundation and flooding mapping for future reference etcetera.
I know the Chief Minister is talking about inputs from the departments. Locals offered input and Labor offered input many times and said it was not suitable for development. I offered my input from the times when I was on the council and said it was not suitable. For some reason, the civilians are not listened to, the department knows best. In this case, the department did not do its job and did not know best.
I agree. Responsibility has to go back to developers as well. They cannot just say they put the plan in and it should have been checked by the department. There is a moral and legal obligation required if a person puts a map in and it is different from the actual map, or the actual wet area, some responsibility should be borne by the developer.
I have a copy of that because I wrote to the EPA at the beginning in February 2010. This is how long it has gone on. It has been nearly two years and there is no solution yet.
They highlighted a number of things; the Ombudsman has highlighted all these concerns and submitted recommendations. On 21 August, the ABC reported:
I know the Chief Minister said they will look at the possibility of acquiring. The issue became a bit clouded because there were also solutions proposed to the drainage. The Ombudsman’s recommendations will do all the things necessary to clear this issue up once and for all.
If those three blocks of land are purchased they are not lost to the government. The government can put a drain in of its own design, enough to allow the water table to drop to allow 1 ha of dry land. They then can legitimately sell those blocks and get most of their money back because you can sell that land with 1 ha of dry ground. You are putting a drain in which will lower the water table and mean the land is not flooded. It is not as though you will pay out an enormous amount of money like $1m. I reckon you would get most of that money back.
My understanding is the government has been talking with the developer. He, at least, is taking some responsibility by building the drain. That is good but none of this should have happened if the whole thing had been done correctly.
I hope the Chief Minister, when he is responding to this Ombudsman’s report, will make a guarantee in this parliament that he will meet all the recommendations made by the Ombudsman. The previous Chief Minister said he would; I hope the new Chief Minister will do that. These people need justice; they were done by the system. It was not their fault, it was not a case of buyer beware. In 2006, and even back to 2000, they should have been able to have a firm belief that any land subdivided in that time would have been subdivided according to the rules and regulations that have been part of the Planning Act, that is, the NT Planning Scheme. That said, you cannot approve a subdivision with less than 1 ha of dry land.
The department did not do its work. The Development Consent Authority accepted some of that information but it was negligent because it only had to look at the maps and it did not fit within some of the other rules in the NT Planning Scheme.
I am not sure what the Chief Minister will do in response to what I am saying. The people want closure; they want justice and they want to move on with their lives. This will not cost the government much money. It will not be a precedent because things happened here which were negligent but can be fixed. I say to the government, please take up the recommendations of the Ombudsman.
Madam Speaker, this has being going on for a long time and that is just the file; it is one of the biggest in my office. I will be quite happy to stick it into the archives if this is ever completed. Member for Goyder, I will be happy to invite you, along with the residents, when this is finally signed off. Chief Minister, please make a statement in this House. Forget the bureaucrats, forget the financial discipline; that is not going to help the people; they are not to blame for any of this. Fix it, promise you will go ahead with all the recommendations, and let us move on.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, local government is the vital third sphere of government in Australia. Despite its role and function, local government in Australia has often found itself in the position where, although it may be efficiently fulfilling its functions in the community, the elected members are often forgotten or silent partners in the Australian political landscape. The elected members of our municipal and shire councils are responsible for making decisions and setting priorities at the local level that have a real and direct impact on Territorians.
Elected members are, or at least should be, leaders and a voice for their community. Unfortunately, especially in the case of remote shires, this role as a leader has being diminished to the point there is disinterest or disengagement from the shire at the individual or community level, disengagement that seriously threatens the viability of local government. The municipal and shire councils of the Northern Territory have a combined annual operational expenditure in excess of $400m. The local government sector is a substantial contributor to the Territory economy as an employer and a purchaser of goods and contracted services.
The shire councils collectively employ more than 2000 persons making the local government sector one of our largest regional employers. The shire workforce consists predominately of local Indigenous persons with 72% of the workforce being Indigenous. The role of local government in rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory is often not well understood by those of us who only travel into remote regions for recreational purposes or as we speed along to some other destination.
Throughout remote Australia, local government is very often the provider of services that are delivered as an agent of another level of government. For example, in the Northern Territory, local government delivers aged care, childcare, youth services, community safety services, Centrelink operations, postal services, maintains and manages aerodromes and barge landing facilities, and provides public housing tenancy and maintenance services.
All these functions, and often more, are performed as a contractor or agent for the Territory or Commonwealth government. The total revenue of the eight regional shire councils is around $250m per year, but more than three-quarters of that revenue relates to the delivery of services for other levels of government. Less than 5% of the shire council’s revenue is derived from their own source revenue; that is, council land rates and service charges.
The recently completed review of the shires’ financial sustainability concluded that while the shire councils are viable in the short term and are not at risk of being unable to pay their way over the short-to-medium term, in the longer term the shires are unsustainable in that they do not have sufficient income to maintain their current asset base. I am determined to ensure that the local government sector in the Northern Territory remains a vital contributor to the community across the spectrum of its functions and is recognised as such by Territory residents and by the Territory and Commonwealth governments. I am also determined to rebuild local decision-making and capacity-building within local governments as this is critical to re-engaging people with their local government body.
By and large, the community regards the Territory municipal councils in Alice Springs, Katherine, Litchfield, Palmerston and Darwin to be sound contributors to their local service areas and generally well-managed both financially and administratively. Like any elected body, our municipal councils are the subject of public debate within their respective constituencies as to the appropriate level of services, the adequacy of community engagement and consultation, the level of land rates that are levied and the level of council service charges. At times this debate is spirited both within council and in the community, as is expected in any participatory democracy.
Unfortunately, and in contrast to the municipal council, the shire councils that were created through the compulsory council amalgamations in July 2008 do not enjoy the same level of healthy interaction within their constituencies. As I have said earlier, there is a level of disengagement from the shire councils that needs to be addressed to ensure vibrant local government is restored and continues to strengthen in the Territory’s rural and remote regions.
There is also an apparent level of misunderstanding about the role the shires play in their communities. Shire councils are not there to replace other spheres or levels of government. They are not there to manage people’s lives for them or to replace the roles and functions of private industry. In fact, when shire councils actively seek out and perform work that would normally be performed by private companies or individuals, they are disempowering people as well as contributing to the problem of the lack of an economy and the lack of jobs that can and should be created. This disengagement and misunderstanding is not healthy for good governance.
While these problems were evident in the old community government’s councils, they are significantly worse now under the super shire model introduced by the previous government. Some shire councils are now unable to attract nominations to fill vacancies. A significant number of casual vacancies in general elections have been filled by the automatic election of uncontested nominees. The level of interest is so low that shire employees are not required to conduct community consultation on what is needed by residents or they are unable to conduct such discussions simply because no one is interested in nominating to represent the community. This is not to say there is no interest from individuals to represent the community’s wishes. They have simply lost all interest in working with the existing shire model.
Elected councillors are also looking for additional support and guidance to help them fulfil the role they have taken on as elected members of large councils. There is significant work to be done in assisting elected members understand not only their roles and responsibilities but also their responsibilities and obligations as councillors. Not understanding these important aspects of the role is only feeding into the growing apathy surrounding the shire model.
In summary, the shire councils that were created in July 2008 may have made significant progress across a wide range of issues on the management front but, in most cases, have failed to recognise and value the input of their community members. In short, we need to put the local back into local government. As I travel, I hear many calls for change and have been hearing similar calls for change for some time. Since becoming Minister for Local Government, I have travelled to several communities to talk to the people and let them know that any change will not be fast and will be carefully considered.
Local government was a key reason we were elected as a Country Liberals government and I acknowledge the strong opinions on what needs to be done better, particularly in the bush. I am very proud to be part of what will become a new era of local government in the Territory. The key areas that I see are important in strengthening local government are:
ensuring local government is respectful of cultural authority and is connected with the people it governs. This means boundaries that satisfy communities of interest and community connection tests
Today I inform the Assembly of the progress already being made toward strengthening regional governance and giving local people a real say in what happens in their communities. I took the opportunity of speaking at the 2012 annual general meeting of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, LGANT as we call it, which was held in Alice Springs to reconfirm the government’s commitment to listening to the range of stakeholders and their ideas about how we can work together to make local government better.
As minister, I will be listening to all the different views and perspectives from local residents who want better services, from elected members representing their electorates, from council staff who provide services day to day, to LGANT as the peak local government body, and to the program managers who rely on local government to deliver their services in the bush.
To assist in gathering feedback about alternative models for local government, I have appointed a regional governance working group with members drawn from across the Territory whose task it is to develop an options paper of alternative models for strengthening regional governance. The appropriate structure to provide strong regional governance may differ depending on the location. A key principle is that the council is responsive and connected to the people.
However, as I advised the LGANT annual general meeting, we are not going back to the small localised community government councils which existed prior to July 2008. Members of the regional governance working group will meet during the course of the November/December 2012 Legislative Assembly sittings. The first face-to-face meeting of the group will be in Parliament House tomorrow.
The working group will prepare on options paper which will form the basis for widespread community consultation and feedback. I thank the members of the working group for their willingness to undertake this important task and I look forward to their deliberations.
The consultation paper will be extensive so all Territorians, particularly those living in regional and remote areas, can have their say about any potential new arrangements. Working in parallel with and assisting this working group will be people brought in to provide advice on governance issues and training issues that will be required to be developed in order to implement any potential new local government model or models recommended through the process.
Rebuilding and re-establishing local government in the regions is important, but what is even more important is that the model implemented must be appropriate and must be understood and accepted by the community. It must be financially sustainable, accepted by all stakeholders and must last.
One of my first actions as Minister for Local Government was to disband the task force established by the former government to oversee the implementation of the recommendations flowing from the financial sustainability review of the eight regional and three smaller shire councils, commonly known as the Deloitte report. This does not mean work has stopped, and I thank the task force members for their participation in that work. A dedicated team within the Department of Local Government is continuing to progress the priority remedial actions identified in the Deloitte report. These actions are relevant to improving business practices across councils regardless of any changes to structure.
For example, among other priority actions, work is currently under way to develop a standardised budgeting framework and methodology for councils, an appropriate methodology for allocating council overheads in funding agreements with other levels of government, and practice note guidance for forming and operating council audit committees. This team will continue to work closely with LGANT and its various reference groups to develop practical tools and methodologies which will strengthen sustainability and accountability.
There are many points of view about local government and this government is keen to see evidence of what is working and what is not. Nonetheless, it is clear we need to change the way local government is going about its business. We need to strike a balance between organisations which have links with local people and have cultural authority, and with organisations that can deliver efficient and effective services.
As I have said previously in this Assembly, the challenge is to recognise the hard work and efforts of the majority who work in the shires and local government, and to make the necessary changes to return a greater balance to community engagement and cultural governance while maintaining financial security. This government continues to make important steps towards a greater voice for all Territorians regardless of whether they live in Karama or Kintore.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House and for his commitment to continue with the development of local government reforms in the Northern Territory following on from the reforms Labor brought in, in 2008, after many years of it being talked about and recognising the existing structure was not delivering services. They were tough reforms and some tough decisions had to be made when Labor brought in those local government reforms.
The minister has stepped into a big portfolio. He did not hold the portfolio in opposition as a shadow, although I know he had many insights into it in his capacity as the shadow for Indigenous Policy in the last term of parliament. Obviously, those two portfolios go very closely together. As I have heard him say on many occasions during the past four years, he travelled the length and breadth of the Territory talking with Territorians, going to remote communities and understanding what people’s issues are. That is what I will be doing. I have travelled a fair bit but, obviously, I have a lot more to do in the next term of government.
I take some reassurance from the statement the minister has delivered because roles are very different when you are on this side from when you are in government. You always wonder when a person goes to that side and gets that portfolio, how they will handle it. Will they be a wrecker or a builder? I am getting a sense from the minister - I cannot speak for the whole of his government - that he will be a collaborator, a builder. There are a few signals that tell me that. It starts with the language of the statement compared to the language the member used when he was in opposition.
It speaks volumes about the fact that when you are in opposition you have the opportunity to raise many questions, many issues, and share many stories. You do not necessarily have to find the solutions. You do, at some stage, have to find the policy area about what will differentiate you from the government, or the government from opposition. The minister is on that journey as he settles into his new role where he has to find the answers, listen to Territorians, work with what is currently in place to find solutions to some of the issues we all know have arisen out of local government reforms and with our current shires.
I attended the LGANT AGM in Alice Springs a number of weeks ago and the minister was present. I would have been very surprised if he was not, but he was there and addressed those gathered. I could not help but have a little smile to myself when he was addressing those gathered. He said that when he was in opposition he did not have the portfolio of local government. He said he was not the spokesperson, and I thought to myself that it never stopped him from talking about it. I had that chat over a cup of tea at the morning tea. It is such a shame you did not stay, minister, because people wanted to have a chat with you. I know you are really busy and trying to get around but ...
Mr Giles: I had to go to the SCOTI conference and talk about rail legislation.
Ms WALKER: That is a shame because a few people commented that the previous minister used to stay for a cup of tea and chat with people. You did not have that opportunity; however, I am sure you will make sure you do next time.
I had the conversation with a few people about the fact you were not the spokesperson but you were never short of a view to share on the shires. I will tell you which comment you are famous for and that people remember most. I bet I do not even have to say it because you will know it, ‘the shires are toxic’.
That is what the minister used to say. ‘They are toxic! They are a basket case!’ Maybe there is a little lesson there about what you say and what sticks because everyone there remembered that. Not only did they remember it - I believe they will forgive you - but they resent it. That sort of comment does damage to people. Whilst I know you tried to talk your way out of it eventually, ‘Oh no, I am not talking about the people who work there. I am not talking about the elected councillors. I am just talking about the concept of shires.’ That is not how people saw it and there are elected councillors and people who work for the shire who did not see the shires as toxic, did not believe they were toxic, and resented those comments the minister made when he was in opposition.
I am sure now he is on the other side he will take a different approach and I know he will not be toxic.
Mr Giles: I will give you a couple of good stories when I retire.
Ms WALKER: I look forward to it, minister.
In this statement, I am very pleased to hear the minister is focusing on what will be a key area of work: supporting local people who are stepping up to the plate and offering their services and commitment to be an elected councillor to represent their community, their ward, in local government. That is a really important area to focus on. When we were in government we knew that area of focus had to be addressed and it was a road we were travelling down in review and policy reform in the lead up to the election.
I cannot remember the number of local government ministers under Labor, but it was something that we were working on and the fact that the minister is doing it is good. It is where we need to be going. It is important because these reforms are relatively new. It was a significant change for people in these areas who had lived and breathed under a community government council structure to then, on 1 July 2008 with new legislative reforms, see the establishment of shires and with it the elected councillors. It is important for those people who are in those roles to have support to build capacity, build their confidence, and build the governance structure around that because without those things in place, and effectively so, you will never get the ownership or the buy-in. I witnessed in my own electorate with the East Arnhem Shire, the growth of that shire, not just the councillors but those who are employed in the shire in their various roles.
When invited and available I have attended shire council meetings and my observation over the four years I have been there - and we have had elections so from March of last year, there are some new councillors - you get a very strong sense when sit around the table that these people are in control of what they are doing with formal meetings around a table and what their roles are in discussions.
People talk to me outside of these meetings as well, not just at the formal meetings, but we have to recognise that shire reforms are just over four years’ old. Change will take time, change will be challenging. Not everyone will want to come along for the ride as part of that change, but it is the reality of how these change processes work. I cannot speak for all shires, but I believe we are starting to see they are turning the corner and elected members are starting to take control of the business for which they are responsible.
Apart from supporting elected members, which was a key priority of the Labor government, priority was also given to developing a skilled local government workforce - creating jobs and career paths in local government for the residents in the bush communities. There is nothing more important than that. I know for the years I have lived in a regional area - Nhulunbuy is almost urban compared to some of the communities within my electorate - about making sure we do not accept that for now and forever we will rely on workforces that fly in and out to do jobs that could be done within that community. We are talking about skilled jobs, tradesmen’s jobs, jobs that people can learn and jobs which I know over the years, certainly in north-east Arnhem Land, Yolngu people have done.
Continually striving to build a workforce and capacity in a local community to have those jobs undertaken by people in that community, rather than them being out of work and on welfare, is clearly the path we have to keep working on. That workforce needs to have access to professional support, personal development plans and to build those skills. When you build those skills you will build the quality of the work and the services being provided for local people. I am talking about those who are employed within the shires on communities.
Local people understand those lines of cultural authority I heard the minister talk about and the cultural context local government works in. That is why it is so important to have the buy-in and the very valuable contributions of those elected members around the tables representing their communities.
It is not just about shires when we talk about jobs working in isolation. Coming from an education background myself, it is about working with the education sector, the schools, the providers of VET within schools, so we are lining up the programs being offered in schools around VET to match up with jobs in the community. Not all of those young people who are moving on from school necessarily want to stay in their community, but it is about choice and they should have the choice to be able to move on to their community, to move into Darwin, or wherever they might like to go for further work and study.
For those people who want to remain in their communities it is important that the shire, being the major employer in each of these communities, has pathways from schools into the shire if those jobs are there. I know that in some places such good networks and pathways have been established that it is about looking at where the pathways through education are to map out what all of those jobs might be in that community across ranger programs, through police, through administrative jobs, through the health clinic, for instance.
The minister said that 72% of people in shire workforces are Indigenous. That is a really good figure …
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms WALKER: You will have your turn to talk in a moment, member for Arnhem, by all means.
Seventy-two percent is a good figure. I do not know what the employment figures were under community government councils as to the percentage of Indigenous people. I do not know if anyone knows that, knowing that one of the issues around community government council ways was the capturing of data and records. While 72% is a good figure, it can and needs to be higher. I am sure that the minister will have that on his radar.
If I look back at the Labor government’s commitment to building these jobs in communities through shires - there was a $30m jobs package. I note that the minister is committed to driving and developing those jobs and I commend him for taking that on because it is incredibly important.
Knowing that we want to build jobs in the communities, there are a couple of things I need to mention. There are concerns around cuts to jobs and, therefore, potential cuts to services in the shires as a cost saving measure. We know there are clear indicators that funding for frontline support, and sport and recreation officers within local government, is a strong possibility. I know the minister will not be able to answer that; we have to wait until the mini-budget is handed down on Tuesday. However, whilst you are having to make some decisions, I would not want to see cuts to jobs in the bush.
Of all the things the minister said when he address LGANT, this was the one that popped up in the media. He made a comment about the ratio of employees in shires to the number of constituents they serve alongside the ratio of employees in our municipal councils - Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Palmerston - to the number of constituents they were serving. The ratio of employer to constituent in municipal councils is quite small compared to the ratio in the shires.
There are many reasons for that. The employment figures for some of these municipal councils may not be clear because they work with many contractors. If the suggestion from the minister was that the shires were incredibly inefficient for employing X number of people to X number of constituents, then I am a little concerned that was flagging that he may be considering looking at job cuts, which would be a real shame.
Minister, you talked about the importance of the Deloitte report. Financial sustainability for the shires is a big issue. The previous minister instructed the agency to commission that report from Deloitte so we could get a real handle on the situation of shires and their financial positions. I am pleased to hear the minister say that report continues to be at the centre of much work in trying to implement the recommendations, find the cost efficiencies and inefficiencies in how the shires are financed, and what can be done to turn the situation around for those in short-term financial viability to a more secure sustainable and longer-term future.
We know power and water tariffs are on the increase. The Treasurer has been very clear that the pain will be felt right around the Northern Territory. That is a real concern in remote areas where the cost of living is already much higher than in urban areas. If shires have to meet the increased operational costs associated with power and water then where will they find those cost savings?
It is the same as the health clinic, the schools, and other education facilities. The first place to save money will be in a reduction in programs, services and/or jobs. We will be very interested to hear what is handed down in the mini-budget next week as to where those cuts will be.
For those associated with the municipal councils, this statement is predominately about shires. It is the area of greatest need, but I want to mention what the municipal councils are up against. When I attended the LGANT conference it was good to meet those mayors and CEOs from the municipal councils. Some of them I had met previously, but it must have been on that day the power increases were flagged as being significant; I believe they were the words of the Chief Minister.
I remember on that day Mayor Fong Lim from Darwin issued a media release about the very serious impact the increases would have on Darwin City Council. Ian Abbott, Mayor for Palmerston, had also mentioned how worrying it was for Palmerston City Council and how they would deal with it. I think they have announced a 6% increase and are less than happy they had to take back some street lighting infrastructure which previously they were not responsible for and, somehow have to find an additional $300 000 to service that. The only way they can manage those costs is to pass on rate increases to ratepayers who are already being hit with 30% power increases in their homes.
Minister, you correctly pointed out that shires do not have the same ability to raise revenue through rates. How will shires or local government in the bush be able to move forward with these new power and water charges? I trust that in Cabinet you are thumping the table and lobbying hard for any relief you might be able to find for these charges. Obviously, a little pressure yesterday from the member for Nelson has had the Treasurer rethink relief for the non-government school sector, given the hammering she got about that. I trust you are working with your colleagues to find ways we can get some relief for those in the shires.
In your statement you spoke of the task force that had been established. I know you have thanked them, I know it has been disbanded, but it is disappointing as it was a group of people who are eminently qualified to take on the job to, essentially, do what you are asking your new group to do - a different name, very much the same purpose. We have lost 13 weeks into review now by going through that changeover. I understand when a new government comes in it is determined to make its mark and do things its own way, but I trust this does not mean now there will be a rush on the new regional governance committee which is meeting tomorrow, as you said, for them to produce something within a certain period of time. Rushing things is not a good way to go.
The matters around the shires, reform and looking at regional governance are too important to rush, especially given the time of year we are coming into: December, January. Many people may be away, or maybe they will not be because not everyone can afford holidays now. It is generally not a good time of year to be engaging with people in communities. I am interested to hear from you as to what time frame you were looking at in getting feedback from this group - the options papers you are anticipating they will produce - knowing this group will consult with people right around the Northern Territory.
From what I know from working with Indigenous groups, time is precious, time is gold. One of the first lessons I learnt when I became a local member was to ask every stakeholder I met with for their best advice and what I needed to be doing. I will never forget the advice I received from the Executive Officer of the Northern Land Council in the Nhulunbuy office. He thought about it and said, ‘Time. Just remember to give people time when you are talking with Indigenous people, talking through an issue, looking for their feedback, maybe looking for their consent or opinion. You have to give people time.’ I am hoping, minister, this group you are forming has the time to properly consult and come out with the best outcome.
What was I going to say next?
Mr Giles: You have made a solid contribution already, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I am a little tired today, minister, so you will have to forgive me. I wanted to talk about the history of local government reforms. In the Northern Territory, we had community government councils for years. Under the CLP government it was, for whatever reason, too hard to address. Reforms were never brought in even though we knew there was a level of dysfunction which translated into services not being delivered, and the cost factor, the lack of transparency and accountability. Our reforms are only four years old ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms WALKER: You will have your turn in a minute, member for Arnhem. I am sure you will have plenty to talk about representing a bush electorate. You and I share the East Arnhem Shire.
What I found interesting at the LGANT conference was an address given by one of the keynote speakers. She was the president or chair - I cannot remember the term - but she was from the Western Australian local government authority. She gave an overview of the history of local government reforms in Australia. I am telling people this to illustrate the fact that the Northern Territory has been the last place in Australia to catch up with the reforms in local government.
In Victoria, under Jeff Kennett, the Liberal premier in the 1990s, they went from 210 local government authorities to 78. In Tasmania, they went from 46 local government authorities to 29 in the early 1990s. Then in 2011, they had a review of governance structures.
Mr Giles: Can you just read those numbers out again for me, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Tasmania, 46 local government authorities to 29. In South Australia, their process of amalgamation around local government occurred in 1997-98 and they went from 122 local government authorities to 68. Under Premier Beattie in Queensland, they went from 157 to 73. Obviously, Western Australia is on the brink of local government reforms. It will be a very big election issue for them come March next year. In the Northern Territory, we have gone from 61 to 17. This process of local government reform was not plucked out of thin air. When it came to the Northern Territory, it followed a natural progression of what had been happening around the country.
I will also talk about building service delivery capacity in shires capitalising on Australian government funding to address Indigenous disadvantage in the bush and where the minister’s plans are in that sphere in supporting local government to build that service delivery capacity. I did note that at the LGANT conference, amongst the things you talked about minister, there was a focus on the need for customer service and the fact that is what shires are for - to look after the people, their roads, rates and rubbish. They are the core functions, the basic ones, but we know the shires are delivering much more than that. The minister has listed in his statement the other things shires and councils are responsible for: aged care, childcare services. As much as they probably do not want to be doing it - I know they do not - postal services for Australia Post. I know they are seriously underfunded to carry out that task in the absence of a post office in some of these communities.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: I want to go back to this business of service delivery. I want to go back to that debate about community government council versus shires when the current government was sitting on this side and the objections they were raising to government and the expectations they were raising in the electorate around the fact that they would be prepared to bring back the old community government councils because these shires are toxic. I found an interview which the then shadow for Local Government had with Pete Davies on Mix FM. Pete puts it to him as the interviewer:
And the member for Katherine replied:
Very sensible words from the member from Katherine. This is what is at the heart of that move from community government councils to the shires.
Madam SPEAKER: Member from Nhulunbuy, can I interrupt to welcome some students? I advise honourable members of the presence in the Gallery of Katherine School of the Air students accompanied by Ms Leanne Bugg. The students are upper primary students from Warebun community, approximately 70 km northeast of Katherine. The students are enrolled with Katherine School of the Air and their teachers visit the community three days per week. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your visit and tour of Parliament House.
Ms WALKER: Regarding this quandary faced by successive governments about how best to deliver services under a local government model that works, I want to go back to a speech made by Elliott McAdam in 2006 to LGANT in Alice Springs when he was Minister for Local Government. Labor had been in government for five years and knew they had to do something about the community government councils and service delivery to the communities, something the CLP were never prepared to tackle because it was an incredibly hard and challenging reform.
This is part of what Elliott McAdam said in that speech:
A situation such as that was not sustainable and, worse than being not sustainable, it meant services were not being delivered into these communities where funds were being provided. That was in 2006. It was no wonder Labor continued on its commitment to implement reforms in local government because it had to be done. That simply, as Elliott McAdam said, could not continue.
I want the minister and the government to address the key issue of employee housing and how that is currently limiting improvements to service delivery in our remote communities. One of the reasons we have people fly in and out to do jobs is there is not the infrastructure there to house them. There has been a huge housing program for residents, and so there should be. I know how weary people got before the SIHIP program started seeing new houses going up, ‘New houses over there, they are not for us; they are for teachers’ or ‘They are not for us; they are for the new policeman’.
SIHIP has delivered an incredible number of houses. It has not resolved the entire situation, but it goes a long way. However, we have to go back to the fact we need employee housing for people in the shires, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous. There needs to be a serious re-examination of the old policy around, ‘You are a local recruit, you are not entitled to housing’.
Minister, the other key area I will address is working with elected members and land councils. Land councils are part of this regional governance group, so that is fantastic. They need to be a part of that so we can look at their vision of how we can work in shires and, in relation to building new infrastructure, how we will work with land councils and traditional owners to break through some of the barriers we have come up against in establishing leases.
We look forward to seeing what comes out of that report, hoping it is not a rushed report, understanding there are a number of options coming out of that and those options go around the Territory for consultation. I am sure you will talk about that. Whether it will be a road map for the future, we do not know, we will wait to see.
It is funny what a contrast it seems to be to the very dramatic and determined promise from the CLP prior to the election to dismantle the shires. There might be some dispute about that, but that message was certainly out around the bush, certainly in and around my electorate. You were right when you said shires featured heavily in the election and it was like the game changer. I do not know how you will manage that message about the shires being dismantled. Even as recently as – I have a transcript from the ABC on 22 November, when the Chief Minister was still using the language of ‘dismantled’, which is entirely at odds with what you are telling us today. Minister, I am much more assured by your words than those of the Chief Minister.
The transcript says, and this is paraphrasing, that the Northern Territory government says there will be many issues to work through as it dismantles the super shires and sets up a new system for local decision-making.
I trust we are not throwing the baby out with the bath water. It concerns me that the messages coming from the Chief Minister and you, member for Braitling, are so at odds with one another. At LGANT you said you are not about wholesale massive change. That is a reassuring message because I do not read wholesale massive change as aligned with dismantling.
Madam Speaker, I have to talk very quickly, I have one minute to go. Minister, I know you have your work cut out for you. We will be interested to see where you are in four years time in relation to what you have delivered. You have made some big promises under the commitment which says, ‘We will fix the bush’. You will establish regional councils. The contracts we have seen for Wadeye and Borroloola - Borroloola is like a template for the major communities. There is a commitment there about all types of things you are intending to do. We look forward to seeing what comes out of the report from the Regional Governance Working Group and hope to see a government which moves forward collaboratively as builders not wreckers.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be very short so I am sure the member for Nelson will not mind.
I thank the minister for keeping the House informed on the importance of local government issues. Those bush seats which were won from Labor members of the previous government by the Country Liberals clearly indicate the dissatisfaction of constituents with the current situation of disengagement brought about as part of the shires implementation.
By way of general comment on the minister’s speech, he seems to have hit the mark with many of his observations and conclusions. He started with the way local representatives are elected to the shires and the way they interact locally, though the local board does not seem to be giving results or outcomes, but as he put it, ‘disinterest and disengagement’. The local board at Nauiyu or Daly River is a clear example of how a growing disinterest has developed. At the last meeting I attended before the election the only attendees were community members who were on paid salary. There were no private business representatives from the area, no self-employed people. Cynically, I suggest some simply attended to get out of their day-to-day jobs. Do not get me wrong, some members clearly have an interest in the local board, but it is not what would be expected. This interest needs to be revived if any new structure is to be introduced.
An expenditure budget of $400m, 2000 employees, 73% Indigenous employees, a revenue base of around $250m – they are big numbers and we need to keep them in focus.
Some see the shires as a problem unique to remote Indigenous communities, but this is not correct. In the electorate of Daly we have been left with, as the member for Barkly would say - and I have been taking lessons from him, it is very good - a dog’s breakfast. It is interesting that the Minister for Local Government at the 2000 election was none other than the previous member for Daly. As cynical as I am, is it the case that a freeze was put on the implementation of further reforms at that time because the minister saw problems for his re-election? If he had put more impost on areas of his electorate he would have been re-elected.
I will briefly describe the structure of shires, councils, local government councils, unincorporated land etcetera, left in the Daly electorate. Victoria Daly Shire covers all those areas west of the Daly, Pine Creek, and some areas around Timber Creek; Coomalie Local Government Council covers Adelaide River, Batchelor and most of the surrounding area; Litchfield Council covers those areas around Berry Springs and out to Darwin River - I am sure the member for Nelson will correct me if I get my boundaries wrong. As for Dundee, Milne and that area around Bynoe Harbour, there is no local government structure. Wagait has a local government council. Can we remember the Top End Shire? Yes, it disappeared. And we cannot forget the Douglas Daly - again left out.
This dog’s breakfast has caused much concern and many day-to-day problems. Those small numbers of private ratepayers in the super shire of Victoria Daly ask why they have to pay for a much-reduced rate revenue base yet they still seem to have an administrative structure for a much larger shire that is based in Katherine when the main service area is north of Katherine.
Coomalie Council has been left in limbo, its funding frozen and employment uncertain for its staff - people affected by incompetence of the previous government. What is it, re-election before people? Dundee: throw in some funds to carry out a strategic plan to ascertain the wish of the locals. This consultation is still being done and will be completed by early next year. However, the question must be: what was the previous government doing by this isolated consultation? Re-election, I suspect. As for Wagait, that is where the previous member resided. What was the plan there?
I am not sure how the recently completed review of the shires’ financial sustainability concluded that councils, especially Victoria Daly, are financially sustainable in the short term when we have such a large area left out of the Victoria Daly. What they concluded for the Top End Shire anybody knows. Why did the previous government not get such a financial review of its borrowings, or maybe that is what the report stated about the long-term unsustainability of the shires - there will be no money left.
The key areas in strengthening local government have been outlined in the minister’s speech and I agree with them. The establishment of a consultative group is supported, but we need to remember the areas I have mentioned which were left out of the grand plan. They need input into the process and final decision-making of a model to go forward with.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s report and support the direction it is taking.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is one of the best statements I have seen about local government for years because it is positive. There is no doubt that fixing local government is a very difficult thing to do. It is not simple. We have a small population and a very large area, with very limited funding from the Commonwealth and the Territory and very small rate bases. That makes it very difficult to run an efficient local government.
I was intending to raise the ‘toxic’ issue but that has been well covered. I know where the debate was at the time. I was interested to know how the local government people had taken to it but that is history. We need to move on. I have never been a fan of the super shires. I was part of the protests that went around Parliament House twice.
Mr Giles: I joined you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. There were plenty of red, black and white balloons because, as I felt right through the development of the super shires - and I am not saying reform was not needed – that it was forced and rushed. I know because I went to one of those meetings we used to have at Litchfield Shire and I was told, (1) I had to get permission to speak, and (2) I had one minute to speak! If that is community input into local government I will ‘go he’.
My local government experiences go back to where Frances Xavier came from. I had my first decent taste of local government working at the then Nguiu Shire Council, a true local government council that represented the community. That is one of the areas in which we have to find that balance. I have never believed a council that is about one-and-a-half times as big as Tasmania can have the word ‘local’ attached to it. I know that before the election the CLP was talking about regional councils. That was a mistake. ‘Regional’ has always been a very large conglomeration of councils.
It is good to see, minister, that in your statement you bring back the word ‘local’. One of the nice things is your very first line:
For many years, people used the third ‘tier’ as if it was at the bottom. It is just as important as the other forms of government. It is the grass roots and, unfortunately, the grass roots in the case of the super shires has disappeared from the concept of local government. I have been to Daly River; it is part of where I lived for a long time. I was married at Daly River. I know they have lost their sense of ownership because of this. They had a good council before; not all the councils were bad. As mentioned, there were X number of councils that were regarded as basket cases, but there were many good councils.
Our council at Nguiu ran quite well. There were some bad councils but I have always felt it unfair on those good councils. They get lumped into this historical debate about councils being dysfunctional when there were good councils. How you start to develop a new model I do not know, but you have a good foundation for it in this statement. It is talking to people
I am not trying to be paternalistic or preaching, but I have always had some ideas. What you say here, for instance, about cultural authority is right, but you want a democratically elected local government that has the authority to act on that land but then to act as a democratically elected body. The provision of essential services - cleaning up the oval, picking up the rubbish, doing all the other things which are the core functions for council - need to be provided equally for all citizens not based on culture, skin group, or what colour your skin is. They are rights people should have regardless of where they live, who they are and what gender they are.
Using local government has to be based on some democratic principles. Otherwise, some people will get more and some will get less. If you want to add the cultural authority to that, it will give you the underlying rights to operate on their land if that is where we are looking. Of course, not all councils are on Aboriginal land, so it would vary from place to place.
The other problem I see is, especially if we are talking about Aboriginal councils, if you are trying to give them ownership of their councils the worst thing you can do is put in a structure required by the Local Government Act that is so complex you have to employ people on very high wages, who usually come from interstate as you might remember when originally the local government CEOs where employed, and plonk them in a piece of country that is not in the centre of the community. The member for Daly made the classic point about where the centre of the Victoria Daly Shire is; it is in Katherine. It should have been at Wadeye. It might have been difficult for people but it should have been at Wadeye to show that council people are part of the community; they live in the community. If there are problems in the community they know about them, they live, breathe and are part of the community. Putting people in Katherine does not send that signal.
The other problem is if Aboriginal people are to take over and learn about the responsibilities of managing local government, we have made it more complex instead of making it simpler. If you only have to look after the core functions why do you need mammoth piles of computers and managers and sub-managers and all sorts of people? We have a top heavy council that has to provide a basic service to the community. Councils are top heavy because they were required to take on functions - this is one of the reasons we had a protest here - that are not council functions.
Childcare is not necessarily a council function, especially when you are starting to develop a shire. Neither is aged care. That is a Department of Health or Families responsibility. This was happening in federal and Territory governments where they were moving their responsibilities on to local government at the expense of local government performing its basic functions: fixing potholes, making sure the rubbish is picked up, getting the oval ready for Saturday’s football - some of the things people expected their local government to do.
It got caught up in the post office and Centrelink, all those sorts of things. Maybe some time in the future it could take those over, but get the basic things going. When we were at Bathurst Island that is what we stuck to. We did not take on heaps of other things. The Health department ran the clinics. I do not know why local government has taken those things on.
Perhaps I am thinking in the past too much, but I still believe local government is the key to employment. It is the key to getting rid of welfare because it is the centre of the communities and it is the ideal place for the Commonwealth government to supply money instead of welfare to those bodies to get people jobs. Of course, it has to be topped up a bit more so people earn a reasonable dollar per hour rate, and they must have capital equipment to help people who have jobs.
I have heard the members for Namatjira and Port Darwin, and I have said many times that welfare is the scourge of the Northern Territory ever getting anywhere, especially when it relates to Aboriginal advancement. The councils have the opportunity to be at the bottom, where people can get a job, learn to turn up in time for work, maybe work the hours they want not eight hours a day; some people might want to work four but at least they would be involving themselves in the community. They are working for some money, working to help their family, giving themselves dignity as human beings and we are getting people off the welfare merry-go-round.
When I was at Bathurst Island in the older days the Department of Aboriginal Affairs handed the Nguiu Shire Council a lump sum of money and we employed every person who turned up at that council and wanted a job. We found them work. You can find plenty of work to do on any Aboriginal community: repairing houses, painting houses, fixing leaking taps, erosion work at the beach, looking after the airstrip. If you have people with a mentality that says we have to find work for people, you will find work in those communities. I see that as a key role if local government is being reformed. It is not just part of the community, it is the community. It does not want people sitting around. We know what happens when people sit around, we get social problems. You will not get rid of all the social problems but you will reduce some of them. The council has more roles than fixing potholes, picking up rubbish and keeping the place nice and tidy. It could be the key agency for employment.
I heard the other day that the federal government has $1m plus for another employment program. I have heard this time and time again, year in year out. Has anything changed when it comes to the number of people employed in Aboriginal communities? It is a simple process where you have people in communities and you know where the work is. Then, you move on from there. If you want to advance you will get experience and find jobs you can take on in other - there might be some private industry jobs. You have experience from working for the council, you have learnt how to run the backhoe, and you might pick up jobs in the mining industry. There are all types of things, but you have to start in life and that is the start.
We do not all start at the top being executives. We start here and move up the ladder. This is the opportunity to do it and I see a great opportunity, minister, with the reforms, to put those employment opportunities into action. I was happy to hear what you said about keeping the standards going. It is important. If you look after the roads, the waste and the reserves, they have to be kept at a good standard. People expect a good standard.
I have just come back from the Cook Islands. I hardly saw one piece of rubbish on the Cook Islands; I have never seen a cleaner place in my life. It is a beautiful island. It has cars and motor scooters running around everywhere, but there was only one place where I saw a bit of rubbish. It looked like someone had thrown a party the night before. That island was spotless. People had gardens they were proud of. It is like Darwin. There were hibiscus, aralias and coconut trees. It reminded me of old Darwin but it was spotless.
The other thing the council does by raising standards is raise pride in the community. I will give you another example - I will get into trouble for reminiscing. The council had a nursery which I ran. We grew basic plants: hibiscus, aralias and a few gum trees. I went around on Saturday morning in the car and sold them to people. People started to grow their own gardens. Part of what we were trying to do was to have pride. When there is pride in a community there is less chance of throwing the rubbish around and you can have garden competitions. You can start to develop a real belonging to that community. How you do it without having small councils like before is the trick.
You have to have smaller councils, how many, I am not sure. Originally, Jack Ah Kit was looking at 21. His model may be worth revisiting, minister. He had another model which did not get off the ground. I am not sure what the reasons were. Jack lived out bush and knew a fair bit about local government. I will not tell you how to do it with your task force. I know I am on this side of the world, but I have always believed in ....
A member: The Labor side.
Mr WOOD: ... we had our Council of Territory Cooperation. I have always felt I am part of a parliament and if I can contribute I am happy to. It is not preaching, but I can probably give some experience. I would be happy to be part of the discussion.
The other big issue you have, minister, will be rates. How do you collect rates? On: (1) Aboriginal land trust land, that is a big issue, and (2) pastoral properties; they do not want to be the cash cow, they oppose rates. Leases are the big issue. I have always said I do not agree and I am not sure what the present government thinks. There should be a peppercorn rent on Aboriginal land because they are providing a service. All you are doing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You tell the local government it has to pay unimproved capital value based leases and then serve the people. You will give less service as you have less money because you had to pay these leases.
The issue of leases, especially for government instrumentalities, is something I hope the new government looks at because it is not the right way. It is like, as I have said before, ‘We are providing services to you picking up rubbish and all that stuff. Thank you very much but here is the bill.’ Hang on, we are providing the service for those people in that community. I know some people do not agree, but it is an issue.
Public roads, especially on Aboriginal land: technically a council should not be maintaining a private road. It receives funds from the Commonwealth government in roads grants. Those roads grants are for public roads. There are roads on Aboriginal land that, technically, are private roads. I do not see that as the council’s responsibility, unless there is a process which turns those roads into gazetted public roads, or they are leased. That is an area which needs to be looked at. The federal government gives money for public roads. If a road requires a permit, then it is a private road. How can it be funded by federal government funds? It could only be funded through its own basic resources.
Of course, the amount of money for maintaining roads - one of the failings of the Labor Party and they had to admit it. They never got around to working out who would take over or where the money would come from for all those roads being looked after between councils. Nothing has ever quite got there. It is a difficult area, I know, but councils would not take them over unless they were guaranteed they would have enough funds from the Territory government to maintain those roads.
There was talk - you may remember, minister – about reaching an agreement similar to the South Australian agreement with the federal government over the Pitjantjatjara lands. It did not happen. You cannot expect councils to take over vast areas of land when they only have about 5500 people in the shire and about 5% of them pay rates. That is not possible. I presume part of the discussion would be who is to maintain those roads. There are many in the Northern Territory. The cattle stations, the pastoral properties, obviously have to be included in the discussions because whilst they may not be a large number of ratepayers, they take up a large portion of the country you are looking at.
The Litchfield expansion: I know it has been a hot potato, and I can guarantee what the member for Daly said was exactly right. The government did not want to know about it before an election. You left out Rose Christie’s area, the Marrakai. Watch out! I am brave; I will at least mention her name. It is an area that has to be looked at; it cannot be left for the rest of the taxpayers to look after. You need equality over the Territory, and some people cannot be left out of the equation of local government.
It is not easy; you have a difficult area. I have my opinions. I do not want to see places like Litchfield having people come into the council and using their resources but not paying for those services.
There was one other thing I wanted to say, minister. When we are looking at boundaries, there is a lot of talk about languages - that will be the boundary. There will be a lot of talk about a big area. Bathurst and Melville Islands are classic. It is one council, but it is subdivided by the Apsley Strait. It might not look very wide at Nguiu – I forget the new name, I am too old-fashioned, Francis. Sorry, member for Arafura. Sorry, Madam Speaker.
You have to take geography into account because if you have to cart graders across the Apsley Strait it costs a lot of money. Is it better to have two shires - the Bathurst Island shire and the Melville Island shire - simply because you have complications getting people across some water?
In Arnhem Land, which way do the roads go? Where can you get the best access in the Wet Season? Maybe that is where the council should be. As I said, it is about providing essential services not based on whether you are black, white, this tribe or that tribe, but provision of essential services most. Do not place councils in the middle of nowhere where you cannot provide services. That has to be part of the mix when you are talking about where the boundaries will go.
It is a really important area. I have always been passionate about local government. Generally speaking, governments - and the CLP in its day when I was on Litchfield Council - did not like councils. They thought they were a pest. Even though they will not get planning, it is good to see the Chief Minister put in the Planning Commission representatives of local government. I would even be happy to have one from the south and one from the north, or one from rural and one from urban areas, because they have different responsibilities ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I heard what the member for Nhulunbuy said and it is really important. Do not rush it; the world will not come to an end. We have problems at the moment. Do not rush it; talk to people! Make sure we make it more local than it is at the moment. It may not be perfect and boards are not necessarily the answer. I can start up the Daly River Progress Association which has as much authority as the board, because the board is purely voluntary. Everyone has a right to set up an association and go to the council and say, ‘Oi, oi!.
I do not know how you can make that better. That will be a real challenge but it has to become more local; people have to have more ownership. They have to feel like there is someone there they can talk to during the day who will make some decisions and that is what has gone. I keep harping back to Daly. I know what it was like before and I know what it is like now. There is a lot of, ‘Who do I go to see now?’. It is like I was the secretary typing letters or something. There is no sort of ownership. There are other issues that happened with Daly, such as no more new houses and the CDEP, which did not help either.
I congratulate you, minister. For all the criticism you might have had on this side of the table, I understand you were in opposition but I ...
Mr Giles: I am happy to explain that when I respond.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is all right. We belong to the Westminster system, whether I like it or not, and you did keep the government on its toes. The opposition has that responsibility.
I like what is in this statement. It is positive. One of the statements yesterday had 16 pages out of 22 pages bagging the old government. This is a far more mature approach. You have your criticisms and I have my criticisms of the way the shires have been put together. They were too big and it was too rushed, etcetera. They tried their best, but you have the chance to do something and what you have in this statement is a good start. You have covered many of the issues we have to deal with. As I said, I do not want to butt in; I am not government, but if I can be of any assistance I am willing to help. It is important that local government is given its rightful place in the Northern Territory because it is at the grass roots where ownership of a community occurs, which bonds a community.
Put pride back into the community so peole do not drop their rubbish. People can tell their neighbours, ‘Look what a great place I have’, and have a bit of competition between their place and their neighbour’s place. Pride and ownership has to come back as well as a democratic institution that people can feel is their own. If we can do all that - it will not be easy - then you will have done a great service to the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. It is a great statement. The proof will be in the pudding but good luck and if I can help, I certainly will.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is a delight to be able to speak to this. I agree with the sentiment shown. It has done what I said to the new government yesterday; it has raised the bar. It is a good positive statement and I acknowledge it on a couple of levels. Not only is it a positive statement that adds to debate, but it brings a very important issue to this House to debate: local government.
I have one regret, which is that Chris Burns is not here to share it with us. Chris Burns would relish participating in this debate and reflecting on the history that was one of the major factors to why, minister, you are sitting now on the right hand side of the Speaker and I am sitting on the left. It was one of the factors that - I believe the member for Nhulunbuy coined it - was ‘a game changer’ and has created a really interesting dynamic in Territory politics with the four new Indigenous members of the CLP on that side.
Let us stick to the positive because it is good to keep on that run. I quote from the speech from the minister where he said:
That is a positive minister. That has to be challenged because you are right.
Let us deconstruct what happened there. Why did this take place? I have spent the last four years in the regions visiting towns and communities and tirelessly using the language of empowerment because I got negative after negative after negative. Minister, what you did with a number of other colleagues in this House was very effective. You ran a very effective campaign through the media and the language has been mentioned, your wonderful metaphors and clichs.
You hammered away at that time after time and used the media very purposefully to get those messages into the regions, then followed that with a CLP visiting regime, the language turned into mass media which turned into very negative imagery and people started believing that message. That reinforced the disengagement you talk about. I spent four years trying to turn that around with a language of empowerment, the reality of the big reform and the realistic challenges to do with getting down to it and talking about why service delivery is breaking down.
It is a historical change in the Territory, minister, and was a very effective campaign. Unfortunately it exploited vulnerable people. Now the member for Namatjira in the Twelfth Assembly has entered a new realm where she is talking about people with low educational levels being disabled. That is wrong. They are not disabled but they are vulnerable. The new world of mass media, social media and messaging has the potential to exploit vulnerable people. That negative psychology disempowers people and has the effect of disengaging people. Frankly, minister, when that relates to the reality in the regions where the employment programs of the Roper Gulf and the Barkly Shire are running at less than 30%, it means people are not going to work.
With all respect to the shire services, managers, the bureaucracy and the systems in place, you cannot get the wheelie bin emptied if no one is working. When employment programs in these organisations are running at less than 30% participation, you start to see the breakdown as the rubbish spreads, the negativity spreads, then that disengagement is magnified and the system breaks down.
The politicians can either make excuses for it or exploit it. Unfortunately, vulnerable people were exploited in this space. As I said, I tirelessly spent four years with the language of empowerment and in the election campaign of 2012 went toe-to-toe across the Barkly debating this as the final stand and, member for Braitling, here I am on the left hand side of the Speaker and you are on the right. That was the result and the people have decided. As Chris Burns says, the people are not wrong.
Let us get back to the positives in this statement and talk about what we can do to continue your journey in what has been a major reform in the Northern Territory. Your language has moderated, the shoe is on the other foot, you have risen to the occasion. You are now mature about this debate. You are in the saddle, minister and you are driving the reform.
I will give you some ideas around that. They relate to the minister for Corrections in the new CLP government. In Question Time, today especially, he put his stamp on correctional services in the Northern Territory under the CLP government, and that stamp is to imprison people. He does not talk about anything else. I am very disappointed that today he attacked me as being useless and doing nothing in the new era of corrections. It is unfortunate you cannot get the message out in Question Time, but the new minister for Corrections is not telling the Territory about the massive reform package implemented by the previous Labor government which represents the community corrections pathways, the new orders, the community work orders, the community custody orders and that philosophy, psychology and program that keeps people out of gaol.
The new Indigenous members of the CLP would know that 82% of the prison population in the Northern Territory is Indigenous and around 60% of that population is in prison for low-level offending which relates to alcohol and motor traffic offences. What we did with our new era thinking was put an enormous amount of time, energy and resources into a strategy to keep people out of gaol where we can deal with their offending behaviour and, as the member for Namatjira says so importantly, provide education, training and rehabilitation.
The member for Port Darwin needs to fess up and say that is all over or start telling the Territory about it and about those initiatives. I look forward to him bringing to the House stories in Question Time, dorothy dixers talking about what the Department of Correctional Services is doing, the amazing work they are doing in the new era with implementation around education, rehabilitation and training, directly dealing with offending behaviour, keeping people out of prison and making them productive citizens with increasing education levels to allow them to make the right choices.
How does this relate to local government, minister? As minister for Corrections I travelled the Territory and the first people I wanted to make contact with was the shires because they represented the organisations that had the infrastructure and services where I could apply the correctional services philosophy. That related to the new community custody orders and community work orders. I do not have time to go into that, take it on definition.
The shire services managers were saying they were really struggling when less than 30% of people were working and there was no one to man rubbish trucks to pick up the wheelie bins. All the services were breaking down and they said, ‘If it takes the correctional services approach then let’s do it’. Those guys offer structure, infrastructure and resources where community corrections clients can start to change their offending behaviour. They can start to learn about work, go to work, receive training, mix with real people talking about real things and make a conscious decision that this is a better life than recidivism and continual offending with low-level, alcohol, motor traffic and all the other chaos that goes on, ending up in a big house, ending up in prison.
The shires represented this golden opportunity. We took a community Cabinet to Yuendumu and I took the then Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and my Cabinet colleagues around the community to talk about the opportunities for our new era in corrections which they were debating with me; however, they were deciding on resourcing. It was a very important time. There were 58 community corrections clients between, Yuelamu, Laramba and Yuendumu on the day we were there. Fifty-eight community corrections clients - that was the existing model. We had not gone anywhere near the new orders because they had not been passed in this House.
I remember the committee stage well with the member for Port Darwin, who must have taken more than four hours on a serious prosecution of that legislation. He voted against it in the end. However, we got it through and it is now a part of the new era in Northern Territory correctional services. Fifty-eight community correctional clients at Yuelamu, Larremba or Yuendumu on any one day could be working, training and directly addressing their offending behaviour.
The shires represented the real deal; the infrastructure where a person had to get their licence back to be able to operate vehicles. We did that. In the new era of corrections we changed the legislation to say if you engaged in a driver offending program you can get a licence to operate a vehicle or a construction machine under supervision after you have done all the courses - done the drink-driver stuff, got your licence back - under supervised conditions. We really pushed the envelope in the new era in corrections. The member for Port Darwin argued vigorously against those reforms. He went against it, he lost. It is now in place. It is happening as we speak. However, your new minister does not want to talk about it.
Let us talk about those opportunities for empowering the shires. When a guy at Ali Curung is put onto a community corrections order, he needs structure around that life. He needs structure with real purpose, real work, a real job, which will change his thinking. I used to use the this simple image: when that punter goes home and sits down with the family and tells them what he achieved that day, we will see the turnaround in unacceptable recidivism rates in the Territory, which are some of the highest in the country.
Minister, I hope you take that on board because that is something really positive which is happening out there. I hope you get together with the minister for Corrections and ask him questions about what else is happening in Correctional Services. All you are talking about is prisons and banging people up. The previous mob has set up very sophisticated, innovative systems which have been resourced, and there is a wealth of public servants in Correctional Services and associated departments who are working this together. I very much regret not being able to continue as a part of that because it was great work.
There are other positives in this statement. I would like to throw in a quick mention for the Elliott shire’s aged care service which does a fantastic job, the childcare in Elliott, as well, which is run by the Barkly Shire Council; the award winning Roper Gulf Shire for youth services and the Borroloola soccer program. I think they are in Indonesia as we speak, or they may have just come home. That is a great youth initiative being run by the Roper Gulf Shire. Borroloola is a world beater in soccer. They have been to Singapore, they are in Indonesia; they cleaned up some local teams in Darwin on their regular visits over the years. Go, Borroloola Cyclones!
Minister, you talked about the shires providing public housing, tenancy and maintenance services. Once again, the work we were doing in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, working with the Department of Business, was starting to explore ways through legitimate procurement outcomes where we could break down the packages for housing maintenance. That work, you will discover, is on your desk. You probably already know about it. You can make those really positive links now, being the Minister for Local Government and the minister for construction.
We wanted to see real, meaningful work - and those packages around housing maintenance being delivered by the shires which were directly resourcing their labour from the local communities. Many of the old community government councils had history in civil construction. That is a whole different era, a whole different story. However, they have ambitions to revisit that.
Within the department of Construction, you will see I was a little more guarded and a little more reserved in the civil construction area. However, there are opportunities to do exactly the same thing where you start to integrate these opportunities where departments can look at legitimate and real procurement processes to allow the shires to pick up this work. Let’s face it, by the time you mobilise a grader to do work on the Sandover Highway opposite the community of Alpurrurulam on the Queensland border, you have bitten into the budget. Why not look at Alpurrurulam to do civil works in road maintenance, which was happening before the election. I am sure it still is happening. You will find that will be a very exciting element of your positive reform, minister, when you start to talk about those opportunities.
The housing maintenance programs were something real and with that you attach training, with that you can apply community corrections pathways for people and, suddenly, you have people speaking the language of empowerment. They are not being bombarded by media and social media telling them how bad things are. They are starting to turn their lives around and experience a growth in positive self-esteem.
Minister, it is great to see that you are turning this around. However, you have some challenges; there is no doubt about that. In the speech, you state:
They are wise words. But, unfortunately, you have a bit of a legacy. You have to share this around; you have to share this with the Chief Minister because you have created major perceptions, through a very successful negative campaign over four years which has destabilised the psychology and created negative psychology, a ‘victim blame’ mentality to a large degree. I can name places in the Barkly where people are still sitting on the verandah waiting for the low loader that is bringing in the grader, the dozer, the scrapers, the tip trucks, the Toyotas, the cheque book to go with them, and the keys to the vehicles; they are still waiting for that.
They are the perceptions that were created. Whilst the campaign was robust, rigorous and ruthless, it did create these perceptions. You will have to share it with your boss because the Chief Minister put it all in writing; it is in the public arena. If we go to one small example, that is Borroloola, the Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills MLA, says that for Borroloola:
And what is he talking about?
The Borroloola contract which was signed …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed.
Mr McCARTHY: It is important to talk about this element of the reform, the positive reform the minister has launched and how you will deal with those perceptions.
When the Chief Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, flew into Borroloola, jumped out of an aeroplane into a town that was gazetted in 1885, had two television crews behind him, whipped the billboard out of the plane, set up a big media event and then had a couple of identified community leaders sign-off to make the news that night, that created some perceptions.
There is not only the local government reform; there are many other issues in that contract. Your government will have to deal with that and the people of Borroloola. You will have to share the load with your boss, with the Chief Minister, because he has set up many perceptions and you will be dealing with those. It is the language of empowerment once again. It is a reality check; it has to be a reality check because if you look at the files and the history you will see that each of the shire councils in this major government reform had to clean up a lot of mess and many debts. It was not so rosy there.
It is good to hear the member for Nelson speak but he speaks about a different era. I can speak about that era; I can tell you about a guy at Ali Curung who learnt his trade at Warrabri and operated a grader for 30 years but, unfortunately, there was no succession planning. No young people have come along behind him to take over that position. So, we have two different eras. In many of these places there are employment programs running at less than 30% and we have the member for Namatjira talking about ‘passive’. I disagree with that too - there are two in one speech.
It is not passive resistance out there anymore, minister, it is very active resistance. You have to ask yourself why people are not going to work. There are many reasons for that; I do not have time to debate it now. Be aware, it is not passive anymore; in the post-modern era, in many Indigenous communities there is active resistance and there are all sorts of reasons for that. We could address one of those. It is a bit hard for the men or the women to do anything in a community if they are in gaol. If we keep them in the community and implement the new era in corrections programs that are up for grabs and were resourced by the previous government, they will be at home, they will be with their kids, they will be participating in ceremony, and they will be building their self-esteem. They will not be doing much if they are all in gaol. There is a challenge, minister, and you know how to handle those challenges.
The perceptions will start to break down to more micro-levels. In the Barkly there is a strong belief that Canteen Creek, which has stayed outside of the shire development and continues as the Orwaitilla Association, and the Barkly shire community of Epenarra, will be able to amalgamate and run their own regional council. There is a very strong perception. They got that perception from an election campaign, from a CLP candidate who went there and made these promises. You will have to deal with the macro-level and then there will be the micro-level to deal with.
It is good that the minister’s statement continues to stay on a positive level. On a positive level, I record in this debate congratulations to Lucy Jackson at Ali Curung, the most recently elected Barkly Shire Council member for the Alyawarr Ward. That is wonderful. I have known Lucy for a long time as an emerging Aboriginal leader. Lucy is not the only emerging Indigenous or Aboriginal leader in the Barkly Shire; there are a number.
Minister, it is very good when you talk about cultural aspects, you are aware of the issues and will be able to explore them on a new level. You are an Indigenous man and have good solid members on that side. You will start exploring how to empower these shires using cultural knowledge. That will be exciting work, no doubt. When you think about some of the old community government councils - there will be some inherent challenges around governance and service delivery related to kinship, but in a negative sense.
The debate we need to have today about overlaying government bureaucratic systems on regional and remote communities is about kinship. If we get down to the reality, the kinship system of Indigenous Australians was one of the most sophisticated societal systems known on this planet; however, now in a post-modern world there are many opportunities to exploit that. The overlay of a bureaucratic system on a remote Indigenous community will have to start to massage those elements of the kinship system so it has a positive application and you start to deconstruct and isolate the negative aspects that occurred in the community government councils.
The member for Nhulunbuy gave us a statistical analysis about that. As Territorians, as people who have lived in the bush, you have the images in your head, you know why those things were happening. It was unfortunate but they were happening, and so we have to ensure traditional values and kinship are held in the highest regard and determine positive empowerment, as opposed to any exploitation and negative issues that focus around the cargo cult.
Minister, I have talked about empowerment, I have talked about education and awareness, something that will change the world. I have talked about, ‘bringing in the low loaders’ but that is a reality, that is a perception, and it would be nice to see some low loaders and civil work. As I said, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure was heading down that road. Alpurrurulam is one of the communities you should ask the department about because there were some really positive things happening there.
There are more positives in this statement and it is really good to see this being debated in the House. There will be real, positive developments around it. I like the paragraph where the minister said:
That is the innovative approach I like. I encourage the minister to ensure all these reform packages are inclusive of the young. Under the kinship system - what I have been looking at in those bureaucratic systems overlaid into Indigenous communities - when you take our values and people are elected based on non-Indigenous values, then it falls to the kinship system and the elders are generally elected and put forward, and so they should be.
Unfortunately, some of the elders now need to be supported and rested. In relation to my language of empowerment for the last four years, if you have an elected elder make sure there is a young person sitting right next to them. That young person is guarded and protected through the kinship system and the cultural values yet they are learning and engaged in a real and pragmatic education process. We should enforce that through legislation. That was scoffed at; that was too tricky. Minister, you are taking on this new era of local government reform which relates to cultural authority and you can start to explore that. If you have a community corrections client sitting with an elder, you are on a winner.
Thank you, minister, for bringing this to the House. Thank you for being positive, raising the bar and being a role model for the new government because in the last three days you have set the pace. In everything we do, in all the reform, never forget that at the end of the day you cannot get away from individual responsibility and family responsibility if you really want to make a difference. Forget the victim blame; forget the finger pointing and it is always someone else’s fault.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all contributors to the debate.
Ms Walker: What, no other contributors?
Mr GILES: You know there are no other contributors, member for Nhulunbuy. I advised you of that earlier today. This is a short sharp statement to talk about where we are going.
Ms Walker: I would still have liked to hear what the bush members had to say on this.
Mr GILES: I provided counsel to my colleagues and asked that we kept this statement short and sharp with the member for Daly and me saying a few words. That is the direction we have taken.
I start by thanking those who spoke today for their temperament. It was a positive contribution. I will touch on two things of interest.
The final speaker, the member for Barkly, spoke about how successful the campaign was to disengage and denigrate the shires. Well, that was not the campaign. I will explain it and I will come to the second point. The issue was that shires in the bush were a concern and no one was listening. I, my colleagues, many other people, the member for Nelson, over a number of years tried to raise this as an issue and no one was listening.
It reached the point where, in this Chamber - it was not flogged through media. It may have been played, I did not hear it, but it was not deliberately flogged that way. In this Chamber I said the shires were toxic. That reflected a degree of frustration people had across the Territory, which was coming to me and so many people but was not acted upon. I know from your colleagues and previous colleagues, who told me the former minister for Local Government was not listening to your concerns inside Cabinet, where they were saying the shires were not working.
The issue became what I call a tarnished brand. No matter how successful or otherwise people in those shires were, the brand was tarnished. We raised concerns; I raised it as an issue. I may have used the word ‘toxic’ once in the media, other than that it was in this Chamber. I was not out there flogging this, to my recollection; I am happy to be corrected. That is how it reached that point.
I appreciated the sincerity of the comments from the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I will take the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments at face value. I am very happy to provide her more information along the way. The member for Nelson asked if he could contribute. That is a positive offer.
I will finish my statement before my time is up and adjourn it, because I have a meeting tomorrow. I am happy to sit down with you next week, have dinner or a chat, and tell you how it goes tomorrow. I will try to get the statement back on next week so I can update the House on what happens tomorrow. I am happy to work with you in that way.
I was voicing my concerns about the shires before; it was a concern that was reflected out there. No one was listening. I have a very big voice, and voiced it extremely, as you know. It is my role, with my Country Liberals’ team, to try to fix it. That is the position we are taking. I will try to take you along all the way. If you want to keep a very temperate debate on this issue, I am more than happy to do that. If you want to escalate it, as you know, I am quite prepared to have a heated debate.
Mr Wood: Constructive criticism with a bit of passion.
Mr GILES: I am happy to go either way, member for Nelson.
I will touch on two quick things before I adjourn. The former member, Jack Ah Kit, had some modelling which considered between 22 and 25 regional councils. Should we need to get to that debate I am more than happy to have it.
When the member for Nhulunbuy - and forgive me, I might have written some of these numbers down incorrectly. Consider some of these shire reforms which have occurred interstate: Queensland went from a 177 to 73 - you could probably say a bit over halfway, without getting your calculator out - Tasmania went from 46 to 29, not quite 50%; South Australia went from 120 to 68, not quite 50%. I did not get the numbers for Victoria, but I think it was around the 50% mark, and the member for Nhulunbuy might nod either way to me. The Northern Territory went from 63 to 8 shires. That is a telling statistic numerically and a reflection on a geographical sense. It is interesting.
This talk about how we stirred up all the constituents, voters, and people who live in the shire boundaries - at a land council meeting with the Chief Minister in Finke in Aputula last week, at a rough estimate there would have been about 30 questions, probably about 28 or 29 were about shires and homelands, shires particularly. That is not new, that is a recurrent theme that has been coming for a long time, way before the election. That is very interesting.
Finally, I have made comment publicly through media releases and so forth that I will work as fast as possible, but with a slow agenda to make sure we bring people with us. That is a challenge because everyone wants change now. It would be easy for me to make a decision now, but we have many good people working in shires, working on boards. We have to bring everyone with us to make sure those people have a level of confidence in their professional and personal capacity while we develop a way forward.
There is no thinking in my mind about a definitive approach. The consultative group or regional governments’ working group is not there with written orders to do one specific thing. They are there to develop a proper options paper which will be made public. The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about time frames. I know things need to be done quickly. I am not setting a time frame because if we do then everyone will have to work to it; you will hold me to account for it and then things will go wrong.
In a couple of months we will publish that paper - January, February, around there somewhere. If it goes longer, well it goes longer. I do not mind but it is about doing what is right and trying to bring people with us. I am happy to sit down with you privately and have a chat. I am sure the member for Nelson wants to be involved and provide feedback. I am happy to take that on, member for Nelson, and work with you. I am happy to provide updates to parliament. If you are happy to keep it at a temperate approach, I am happy to do that but you all know I am happy to have a good fight and barney. I will leave that in your gross hands. You pull the trigger and I am happy to go for it.
Thank you very much for the debate. I seek leave to continue my comments at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a very fine principal whom I know personally and had a lot to do with by virtue of the fact he is the principal of the school my two daughters attend, Larrakeyah Primary School. I am referring to Graham Chadwick. Mr Chadwick will be starting at Nightcliff Primary School in 2013 as the new principal after being principal at the Larrakeyah school for more than six years. We, the parents of Larrakeyah school, will certainly miss him. Mr Chadwick is a homegrown product, raised in the Northern Territory and a graduate of Casuarina High School in 1977. Graham began his career with the Department of Education in 1980 and was promoted through the ranks to be a principal in 2001.
Larrakeyah Primary School has achieved high standards in academic achievements since Graham’s tenure as principal. Graham has developed a comprehensive reading and comprehension program which has improved the school’s reading standards and academic achievement outcomes, with the school consistently achieving above the national mean in NAPLAN assessments. I have a daughter in grade two who is seven years old who currently has a reading standard which would get her comfortably into middle school because of Mr Chadwick’s efforts.
I have a daughter in transition whose reading standard is extraordinary. They have twenty-four reading levels to achieve before they can graduate into middle school. My daughter in transition is in level fourteen of those twenty-four reading levels. Those kids, like my eldest daughter who has already surpassed that level, go towards what is called lexile reading and I find it astonishing when I watch my seven-year old daughter reading books that are standard novels. It is really surprising as I drive around town having my five-year-old daughter sitting in the car reading all the signs of the vehicles driving past and asking what the signs mean. That is a testimony to this gentleman’s approach.
Graham has established subjects such as the whole-of-school science program and the land care program which were established two years ago. A positive partnership with the heritage precinct at Myilly Terrace and the botanical gardens has been established. The school has achieved a pleasing result through its art program and was chosen to show a feature art display at the local art gallery in March 2011. The school has won two Territory and national awards for its entries in the national Veterans’ Affairs community awards.
Mr Chadwick strongly believes in building the capacity of school leaders to drive school improvement and has been the president of the Australian Council for Education Leaders in the Northern Territory in the past six years, a national board member of the ACEL for six years, and is currently a member of the ACEL Audit and Risk Committee.
Graham convened the ACEL national conference in Darwin in 2009 and the conference is still awarded as one of the best ACEL national conferences. He had a brief stint and ascended as an acting general manager for School Leadership, Learning and Development when it was established in 2011 and as a member of the developing nations education project. Graham facilitated tripod learning communities programs in three countries: South Africa, Papua New Guinea and Australia, the program developing future pathways and collegial international education partnerships. Mr Chadwick has post-graduate degrees from Charles Darwin University and won a national Quality Schooling award in 2006 for his work in remote Indigenous community education.
As principal at the Maningrida community education school in Arnhem Land, Graham developed a specialist in senior education vocational education program to improve education and vocational outcomes for remote Indigenous students. Graham has a keen interest in the advancement of Indigenous education and authored and co-authored articles for journals such as the Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology on the subject of education pathways for remote Indigenous students.
Mr Chadwick is also an acclaimed drummer and he has played with jazz trumpeter, James Morrison, and many noted international jazz musicians, including as a support band member for Stevie Wonder.
This is an exceptional teacher, and every so often you get a teacher in the education system who you would describe as a Mr Chips. This is definitely a Mr Chips. Larrakeyah School’s loss is the gain of Nightcliff Primary School. But he has had enough foresight to leave a program behind at Larrakeyah that, when adopted, will continue to work without his presence. The real achievement of Mr Chadwick is that he will be able to leave behind a system which works without him.
I also speak tonight of Dr Nannette Rogers, Senior Counsel and somebody who is known to everyone in this Chamber. We have to acknowledge the efforts Dr Rogers has made for the Northern Territory. Sadly, she will be departing shortly for colder climes. I place on the record my very sincere thanks to Dr Rogers for what she has done in the Northern Territory to make advances, particularly in the area of child protection.
Dr Nanette Rogers SC, Assistant Director of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, has resigned effective 31 December 2012. Dr Rogers obtained her Bachelor of Arts in 1977 and Bachelor of Laws in 1979 from the Australian National University. She was admitted to the NSW Supreme Court in July 1979 as a solicitor, and as legal practitioner to the Supreme Court in February 1990.
From 1979 through to 1989 Dr Rogers worked as a solicitor with the Redfern Legal Centre. Her primary area of practice was defence-based criminal law assisting clients where legal aid had been refused by the NSW Legal Aid Commission. In 1990, Dr Rogers obtained her Masters of Laws First Class Honours from the University of Sydney and was awarded the Nancy Gordon Smith post-graduate prize for Masters of Laws by course work.
During that same year Dr Rogers relocated to Alice Springs where she was employed as a legal practitioner for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Between 1994 and 1998, Dr Rogers worked on a casual basis as a legal practitioner for various organisations including: the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service, the Domestic Violence Legal Help Service, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, and the Central Land Council.
In 1998, Dr Rogers was employed as a Crown Prosecutor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Alice Springs. In 1999, Dr Rogers graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Sydney; her thesis was titled Aboriginal Customary Law and Sentencing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court at Alice Springs 1986–1995. In 2000, she was promoted to the position of Crown Prosecutor in Charge, Alice Springs, a position which not only required use of her legal expertise, but also her exceptional managerial skills.
Dr Rogers has been in charge of the southern region since 2000 undertaking both prosecutorial roles in complex indictable matters and managing the day-to-day operations of the office. In October 2008, Dr Rogers was appointed as Senior Counsel in the Northern Territory. Dr Rogers has managed the Alice Springs office in a highly effective and productive manner and is very well-regarded by all stakeholders. She is renowned for her ability to get the best for Indigenous victims. Although the title of the position has changed with the current title being Assistant Director, Dr Rogers has continued to hold that position. Dr Rogers has resigned and we, in the Northern Territory, will miss her and the Northern Territory’s loss will be the gain for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a person who recently left the Department of the Legislative Assembly, Helen Allmich. Helen Allmich was born in Ndola, Zambia. If anyone cares to see exactly where that city is, you will find it is on the border. Why and how she came to be born there I am not really sure.
Her parents and family came to Darwin in 1971 from South Australia - mother Betty, father Kevin, sister Paula and brother Patrick. Her student life was at St Mary’s Primary School and St John’s College, with a couple of years after Cyclone Tracy back at school in South Australia. From a very early age, Helen displayed great musical talent. This passion continued throughout her life in many forms. The musical interest included being part of the St Mary’s Cathedral musical liturgy for over 40 years as a choir member, an organist, a piano player, and also supporting and encouraging others. I believe at the age of 13 not only was she singing and in the choir, but was also playing the organ at the cathedral.
Apart from St Mary’s, Helen was involved with St Paul’s and Holy Spirit parishes and played the organ and piano at various ceremonies and activities at those churches. Apart from Mass, Helen played for weddings and funerals. Playing at funerals, whether it be a piano or organ, definitely requires a special skill to suit the occasion.
There were very special occasions where Helen participated in musical activities associated with the church. One of the most notable was the Papal Mass which was held at the showgrounds in 1986 for Pope John Paul II when he visited. Some members here may recall - the member for Nelson, perhaps – there was a massive storm the night before the Mass was due to take place at the showgrounds. It buckled much of the scaffolding and a whole lot crashed down right where the choir was going to stand. They fixed it, had it pulled away and the choir and Helen performed for the Pope. I recall from my family’s comments it was a very successful time.
At that time, and for the Papal visit, her father, Kevin, was the Cantor, which is the leader of the music. He too was very involved in the musical activities of the churches.
Another special occasion for Helen was playing the organ at the funeral of the late Mr Tipiloura.
The music interest, passion and contribution extended out of the church scene and included the Quota Club’s Christmas carols at Tracy Aged Care and Terrace Gardens. It is a lovely, generous gesture to give up your time to put on those performances for people who live in aged and medical care facilities.
Helen was also involved with eisteddfods which went on for many, many years, as a participant, and a great supporter of her daughter, Lenora, who sang. She was a participant in the Brown’s Mart activities and, for many years, was piano accompanist for the Charles Darwin University Woodwind Ensemble.
Now, with that many musical preoccupation and activities in her life you would not have thought there was much room for anything else, apart from, of course, employment. No, Helen was a very accomplished sportsperson in many areas. While she did not play hockey, Helen was an accredited technical bench official and can officiate at Australian Hockey League tournaments. She also officiated at Masters Games tournaments in Alice Springs and Darwin, and the veterans carnivals in Darwin.
By my way of thinking, all that involvement in hockey was a good way to go because she could get all the activities and enjoyment but not get hot and bothered running around a field.
Apart from the musical talents she clearly had - I know she reached a high grade, and as someone who has learnt the piano, she got to the level of eighth grade, which is a tremendous achievement; hence her contribution to the music scene in and around Darwin in the churches and helping elderly people.
Helen also had a great love for dogs, and I believe she still does. She had Salukis and showed Salukis in the Darwin Show ring. Whilst I am not fully knowledgeable about how well she went in the show ring, I am sure she did very well given her commitment and the passion she put into the other parts of her life. I know she was involved with that Hound Club; that is, of course, the club that houses Salukis.
Helen commenced her employment in Darwin with the Commonwealth Public Service in the Department of Health in the old Darwin Hospital in the payroll section in January 1978. From there, she went to Treasury, then into the Housing Commission, and also into Primary Production which, at that time, was Block 1 at the end of Mitchell Street, working in all aspects of HR, payroll, recruitment, official travel, workers compensation and records management. During her time at Primary Production, she moved across to HR in Correctional Services on a temporary contract. On returning to the Department of Primary Production she found the job of Serjeant-at-Arms was advertised, applied for the job in October 1985, and was awarded that job. She was the first woman Serjeant-at-Arms in the Northern Territory and was located in the Nelson Building. Her first sitting day was 11 November 1985 and the Speaker was Hon Roger Steele.
Working in the Chamber in those days, Helen did first draft of the minutes of proceedings, was responsible for security office accommodation, members entitlements under the RTD, travel, was Secretary to the Subordinate Legislation and Tabling Papers committee, HR, and finance for the Department of the Legislative Assembly. Helen also, at that time, conducted public tours, the school education program, and collaborated with the Department of Education when a teacher was assigned to the program. When that teacher was withdrawn, Helen went on to run the program herself. She also allocated press passes to the media gallery at the direction of the Speaker. It certainly is different to what that person does these days.
The Speaker when Helen came to the Assembly was Roger Steele as I said, the Chief Minister was Ian Tuxworth, the Leader of the Opposition was Bob Collins and the Administrator was Eric Johnston. During her workat the Legislative Assembly, Helen served with Speakers Roger Vale, Nick Dondas, Terry McCarthy, Loraine Braham and, of course, Jane Aagaard. Sadly, I did not get to work with Helen but that is the way life goes.
Helen was once contacted by ABC radio with a request to conduct an interview about the fact that she was a woman and was the Serjeant-at-Arms. The interviewer was Clare Martin, and 10 years later in June 1995, Helen admitted the new member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, to the Assembly.
In her own words, one of the highlights of Helen’s career in the Legislative Assembly was the presentation of the Remonstrance to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1996. The Remonstrance was in relation to the overturning of the Northern Territory’s euthanasia legislation. A party comprising Speaker McCarthy, Chief Minister Shane Stone, Deputy Chief Minister Mike Reed, Clerk Ian McNeill, and Helen travelled to Canberra to present the Remonstrance to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. The Mace had to come too as part of the formal presentation and Helen had to wear her official uniform of lace jabot and cuffs with black skirt and jacket. The presentation was to take place on a Sunday afternoon at Parliament House. The printed presentation speech was rolled in a scroll, then they discovered they had no ribbon with which to tie it up and make it look nice. The Clerk and Helen looked through the hotel gift shop to find something suitable and all they could find was a cord to attach to glasses that you hang around your neck. At least it was red, so they cut the loops off the end, put some knots in it and tied it around so it looked halfway presentable.
When the taxi came to the hotel to collect them for the ceremony they discovered the Mace box would not fit into the boot, no matter which way they put it, so it ended up on the back seat on the laps of Peter Murphy, Paul Cowdy and Helen. When they arrived at Parliament House, the taxi driver wanted to drop them off at the bottom of the hill because he said there was no vehicle access to the forecourt area. Helen and the party had visions of lugging the Mace in its box up the hill - not good. Finally, the driver was convinced they were on official business and expected he should take them to the front door. Given that they were all dressed up in their regalia, perhaps he thought they were in fancy dress and, after all, they were from Darwin.
On arrival at the forecourt, they managed to extract the Mace from the back seat and started to assemble the group. At that time, a busload of Japanese tourists came upon them. They immediately pulled out their cameras and started to take photos, jostling with the official journalists and photographers for the best vantage points. Perhaps those tourists thought this was the sort of thing that happened every day.
Of course, Helen, being a woman, had a handbag. Of course, a Serjeant-at-Arms carrying a Mace and a handbag was not a good thing, so Peter Murphy kindly agreed to take the handbag and carried it all around Parliament House until the end of the official proceedings. Apparently, the colour matched his shoes.
In all the excitement of getting to Parliament House, wrestling with the Mace box and the Japanese tourists, Helen said that later she discovered she had laddered both her stockings but, thankfully, she said you could not see them because of her skirt.
Another highlight of her time here - it is something that does not happen here very often clearly - was the delivery of a summons to Andy Bruyn, the then Acting General Manager for Territory Television Channel 8, to appear before the Bar of the Assembly to be reprimanded by the Speaker. This was in relation to the publication by Channel 8 of material contained in the unexpurgated Mulholland report which had been embargoed by the Assembly.
The Privileges Committee considered the matter and a motion was passed by the Assembly to the effect that Mr Bruyn was required to attend the Legislative Assembly on a particular date and time. In order for this to be done, the Serjeant-at-Arms was instructed to deliver the summons to Mr Bruyn at his place of work. He was contacted and advised this would be happening and when Helen turned up at Channel 8 the cameras were rolling. I think that was the first story of the night. Mr Bruyn duly arrived as summoned and appeared at the Bar to be reprimanded by the Assembly through the Speaker Dondas.
Part of the job of managing security in the first two parliamentary buildings was mainly the issuing of keys to members and staff, members’ travel entitlements under the RTD and looking after the public gallery. The only real security incident occurred when the grounds of the Assembly on the site were stormed by disgruntled public servants protesting over changes to the public service legislation. I can remember that occasion. The police came and had the situation under control but it was quite serious with people trying to climb over the fence from the Esplanade side and trying to get through the wrought iron locked gates on the Mitchell Street frontage. If I recall, Steve Hatton was the Chief Minister. However, with the new Parliament House security took on a whole new meaning. Helen was responsible for programming and maintaining the electronic security system and issuing electronic passes as well as door keys for the whole building.
Part of the job of the Serjeant-of-Arms was ceremonial and Helen has been involved with many ceremonial occasions from openings of parliament, the opening of the new Parliament House and the Swearing-in of Administrators Conn, Anictomatis, and Pauling. In these roles, Helen met Governors-General of Australia - Bill Hayden, Sir William Dean, Major General Michael Jeffery and, of course, Quentin Bryce, recently - and also met the President of the Philippines, Mr Ramos, when he visited Parliament House and addressed the Legislative Assembly, and Jose Ramos-Horta, the President of Timor Leste.
Helen has also been involved in many presentations of the official Address-in Reply at Government House from when the Commodore Eric Johnston was the Administrator, and to Hon James Muirhead, Hon Austin Ashe, Dr Neil Conn, John Anictomatis and, of course, Tom Pauling. In August 1994, Helen was fortunate to attend the House of Commons for the inaugural Commonwealth Serjeant-at-Arms conference. Of the 22 Serjeants at the conference, Helen was the only woman. This caused the official photographer much concern. The first photo taken was a group photo of the Serjeants and the accompanying wives. The ladies were then told to go on a sightseeing tour of London. An announcement was made that the ladies should proceed to the main entrance to get on the bus. Helen did not move. The photographer came over and said very slowly and gently, ‘The ladies are going on the bus now, dear, you best go’. She said, ‘Yes, they are very lucky’. He looked at her again and said even more slowly, ‘The bus is leaving’. Helen was saved from having to explain by the arrival of the House of Commons Serjeant who said that since she was the only woman at the conference she should have a front row seat in the official photograph. The photographer looked startled and proceeded to check his camera for film. Serjeants at that conference were from Australia – the Commonwealth and New South Wales - Canada, the South Pacific, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea. Since that time, Helen has attended similar conferences and renewed the friendships she made at the first conference and, of course, made new friends.
One of the roles of the Serjeant-of-Arms is to maintain order in the Chamber at the direction of the Speaker. Even with the number of times members have been asked to leave the Chamber, Helen, when she was Serjeant-at-Arms and in the Chamber, did not have to actually escort a member out. A former member for Macdonnell, Neil Bell, was regularly asked to leave the Chamber and, one day, he was heard to remark that he always left before Helen was called upon because, ‘She is pretty scary and I would not want to test her’. However, Helen did have to often clear the public galleries of rowdy teachers - which I find very unusual member for Nhulunbuy; teachers are not rowdy - and the occasional individual who wanted to join the debate.
Helen’s role with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as the Serjeant-at-Arms was largely ceremonial but her main duties were as Editor of Debates. Her grounding in the Chamber drafting minutes of proceedings was invaluable in understanding parliamentary processes and the application of the Standing Orders which need to be applied to accurately report on the parliamentary debates.
Helen left on 12 October to take up a position in the Parliament of Tasmania as the Editor of Debates. Her time in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was some 27 years, and I know all members will join with me in wishing Helen well in her new ventures in Tasmania with the Tasmanian parliament. I, for one, believe that the loss for the Northern Territory is definitely Tasmania’s gain. I pass on to her my thanks for all the times she has helped me at this job and helped me understand the role of Hansard and the parliament.
I also put on the record, to pass through to her, the best wishes of my mother, Noel Padgham, who started when Helen started. They used to sit together somewhere in these seats, and when things got a little quiet or boring in debates they used to exchange notes and have a good old chat about things. I pass on to Helen my mother Noel Padgham’s best wishes, and I wish her and her family all the very best in her new venture.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I continue with some information arising out of Question Time that should be placed on the Parliamentary Record. I do make mistakes sometimes, and one of the mistakes I made today was trying to squeeze too much information into an answer I had prepared during Question Time about the state of the Department of Mines and Energy when I took over as the new minister.
The theatrics of Question Time aside, it is important to get this information onto the public record. It does give an insight into the priorities of the former Labor government in the Northern Territory. It will be on the Parliamentary Record so we can look at that as a starting point for the way forward for the Department of Mines and Energy, and Primary Industry and Fisheries for that matter, in the years ahead.
I started by saying that I thought the good work the previous minister had done was little short of just a veneer, and I believe that to be the case. I thought the former minister, throughout my four years in opposition, was doing a fairly reasonable job and I complimented him on record and in public many times for doing a good job.
However, I have discovered through now having access to the records of the department, where things were really sitting. I know that since 2001, and let us use that as the time frame, exploration activity in minerals and petroleum has increased significantly. That is great. That is really good news for the Territory, there is no doubt about that. What concerns me is the lack of resourcing the former government applied to the department. I will talk a little about some of those specific statistics.
I mentioned earlier that while full-time equivalents across the Northern Territory government from 2005-12 rose by 25%, the Department of Mines and Energy’s FTEs fell by 14%. Over the same period their real funding also fell. Even though you can point to the budget papers and say yes, the dollar figures rose over time, those figures were eroded by the CPI and enterprise agreements, which means the same staff had to be paid more. The resourcing of the department was a real disappointment to me, and now I find I am in the position of having to work through those types of issues.
The Labor government previously has been, according to all reports, fairly strong on the environment and you could argue that in some ways they have been. But when you look at how they viewed environmental regulation in the Department of Mines and Energy over the period they were in, there were some significant shortfalls. I managed to get out in the question today that the environmental regulation of mining was unfunded under the previous government to the tune of $0.45m within the Minerals Division. That meant an increased workload had to be taken care of by fewer staff.
The onshore petroleum industry was much the same. Some members in the House will know, some will not, that at the beginning of the year the Commonwealth government ceased funding onshore petroleum activity regulation and monitoring in the Northern Territory. We were left with a $0.68m black hole and that money had to be found from resources from within the normal budget allocation for the Mines and Energy division.
In the same vein as the environmental regulation around mines and energy, petroleum regulation was left in a position where you had more and more work coming in. I showed that map and the former minister nodded and said, ‘Isn’t it great’, and it is great we have all that activity happening. However, we need to remind the former minister that the Labor government did not put these resources in the ground, they were already there. These maps indicate the increase in the amount of petroleum activity, yet we found ourselves in the position of a shortfall of over $680 000 to fund regulation around that onshore petroleum industry.
I also found there were a number of other unfunded items within Mines and Energy including, as I mentioned, the former minister’s flagship program which he constantly talked about, the Bringing Forward Discovery program. This program was designed to encourage explorers to come to the Northern Territory; there were investment incentives for them. Yet, once again, funding for that program came out of the general budget appropriation for that division and was not funded appropriately. We were left in a position of finding another unfunded program as we came to government.
I do not want to make this overly critical or political. I do not want to attract the ire of the other side, but it concerns me that we find ourselves in the position of having a shrinking department. Mines and Energy is one, the department of Primary Industries is another.
When I was the shadow minister for Tourism I discovered the state that was in as well. My examination of the budget paper around estimates this year showed me that even though the funding for the department of Tourism had stayed relatively stable over the last six, seven or eight years, the reality was it fell to half of what it had been receiving in that same period of time compared to the size of the total appropriation of the Northern Territory. Tourism, for example, attracted 1.8% of the Territory’s total appropriation six, seven or eight years ago, yet in the budget released in May this year by the Labor government it had fallen to 0.9% so, in fact, it had halved.
It comes back to - and I mentioned this the other day - some philosophical differences between the Labor paradigm, the way they think and the way they operate, versus the conservatives, and the way we operate. We focus on building economies around industry and letting industry get on and create the wealth within the Northern Territory, allowing that wealth to grow the economy through real jobs, and building infrastructure and growing communities out of that. Whereas the former minister for Tourism, Malarndirri McCarthy said - she made no apologies - the cut in the tourism budget was being applied to address social issues. Therein lies the difference.
I want to point out to the House - I will not go back to Primary Industry, I covered that pretty well - the future for the Northern Territory under a Country Liberal’s government will be that we place far more emphasis on those three hubs we talked about during the election campaign and since. There will be better resourcing of those departments, there must be. If we are to provide an environment where industry feels comfortable investing in the Northern Territory, then we need to back that up with the departmental assistance to provide the right sort of environment. When I say environment, I also mean the environment out there, making sure we cover the regulatory side because, even though I said before the Northern Territory is open for business, we will not do it at the expense of the environment.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to growing the economy through expanding the capacity of my departments over time.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I complete the story of the Attorney-General and the minister for Corrections not providing correctly for Territory taxpayers and Territorians regarding what the Minister for Correctional Services refers to as the ‘new prison’. I will tell Territory taxpayers exactly what the project is about.
It is about the construction of a new Darwin corrections precinct. The precinct will include an 800-bed Doug Owston Correctional Centre, the Territory’s first secure mental health facility of 30 beds, and a 48-bed supported accommodation treatment centre. The public private partnership with consortium SeNTinel delivers best value for Territorians in a 30-year partnership to design, build, and maintain the facility. It is important Territorians understand this public/private partnership designs the precinct, builds the precinct, and maintains the facility for the period of the partnership, which is a 30-year partnership.
It has been assessed by the Auditor-General as well and truly the way to go in the Territory, as opposed to what the Country Liberal Party were putting up as a renovation of Berrimah gaol which was built in the 1970s to the 1960s design and is outdated and beyond repair.
In a Lands and Planning outcome, the new Darwin corrections precinct has brought power and water into the area of Holtze Road. As we know now, that brings the headwork infrastructure to support good outcomes in opening up new areas and new land. There is an additional outcome for Territory taxpayers with what has occurred through the previous government’s public private partnership to deliver the Darwin corrections precinct.
The other area the Minister for Correctional Services was very critical about was that under my stewardship as the previous minister for Corrections there were no developments in the new era. First, I talk about the incredible partnership between Northern Territory correctional services and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in developing the employability skills of inmates in the construction industry. The work there has been phenomenal. One project we were very proud of was where the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education engaged to construct five alcohol and other drugs treatment beds at the Venndale rehabilitation facility in Katherine, with the assistance of 10 inmates from the Darwin Correctional Centre as trainees to assist with the construction whilst undertaking Construction Certificates I, II and III and Certificate II in Civil Construction, Resources, and Infrastructure.
The minister for Corrections touched on the Barkly Work Camp. For Territory taxpayers, the Barkly Work Camp was officially opened on 8 September 2011. It opened initially with 50 beds and has since been expanded to 74 beds. The camp houses inmates who are getting close to release back into the community and, at the end of a custodial sentence, it provides them with an opportunity to affirm family ties and undertake community work providing reparation and preparing for return to a law-abiding life. The Barkly Work Camp is celebrated by the community of Tennant Creek and the wider Barkly area and, under the previous government, was very much the test case to prove a model in a new era of correctional services that can be rolled out across the Territory into other regional areas.
I also put on record for the Territory taxpayer some of the other initiatives that relate to the new era in corrections. This comes from Budget 2012. Once again, if you want to see the real figures then go to the budget papers. Budget 2012 delivers $20.4m under the $120m package for a new era in corrections and break the cycle of reoffending through improving prisoner rehabilitation options, and targeting education and training in skills shortage areas to get prisoners into jobs after release. In my brief time in that portfolio I was proud to witness 15 inmates who left the Darwin Correctional Centre, the existing one at Berrimah, to be given jobs in the construction industry.
I look forward to the minister briefing the House on the progress of what the previous government put in place one of the fundamental planks in the new era of corrections, and that is the new court orders to get offenders into education and rehabilitation. Prisoners at the Barkly Work Camp are pioneering this concept and are working in community work projects. They are linking prisoner rehabilitation to jobs and are breaking the cycle of crime.
Budget 2012 also provided for the headworks for the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre, the secure mental health behavioural management facility in Holtze, and the purpose-built 24-bed treatment centre. The purpose-built facilities in the corrections precinct will enable the delivery of rehabilitation, education and training programs needed to reduce reoffending rates and provide appropriate accommodation for prisoners with mental health issues.
Budget 2012 also delivers 189 new prisoner beds including:
$3.5m for the provision of additional 95 prisoner beds at the Darwin Correctional Centre to be established in existing buildings
$1.55m for the provision of an additional 24 beds at the Barkly Prisoner Work Camp near Tennant Creek boosting capacity to 74 beds
What the Territory taxpayer should be asking the new minister for Corrections is what is happening to keep the low level recidivist out of prison and hard at work in the community, addressing directly their offending behaviour, paying back their debt to society and, most importantly, learning about making positive choices and not going back to prison.
I could go on and talk for hours on what the new era represents. The minister is using a political strategy to try to claw back some sort of public perception that the new government has no other choice but to hike up prices and deliver a major increase in the cost of living for Territorians because everything is so bad. He should not use Correctional Services because there are significant resources there to address what will be major savings, not just economic savings, but real savings in human lives in the community where people will start to turn around their offending behaviour and we will start to see a reduction in what is an unacceptable recidivism rate in the Northern Territory.
It would be good to hear from the new Minister for Correctional Services about what is happening with a major positive in correctional services, to hear about the things Territorians are interested in. Most importantly, I place on record my acknowledgement and sincere appreciation to the women and men who not only work on the front line of Correctional Services but the administrative and support staff who sustain those staff and deliver foundational services that form the backbone of the Northern Territory correctional services department in delivering what was started and should continue and will deliver a new era in corrections to turn around the unacceptable behaviour in our community and address the unacceptable recidivism rate. All Territorians have a stake in these developments. What price does the new minister for Corrections put on a human life?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about a wonderful event that occurred at the Darwin Entertainment Centre on 16 and 17 November. It was a ballet called Coppelia, which was produced by the Palmerston Association for Dancing and was a wonderful occasion. Last year I went to watch the same association put on the Nutcracker ballet and people loved it. I do not come from a ballet background but I have learnt that to see ballet live is really something special. Not only is it beautiful to watch, but it is very athletic and if you see the effort the ballerinas, male and female - I do not know if there is a difference in the terms one should use - but they have to be extremely fit. It is not something that blokes like me, a little overweight, would try, especially doing pirouettes or leaping into the air and landing on one foot. But, that is exactly what I saw.
What was so special about this performance is that the Palmerston Association for Dancing brought in three very fine people: Jin Yao, who is the principal artist at the Hong Kong Ballet; Adam Thurlow from the Australian Ballet and Paris Opera Ballet - he also performed last year in the Nutcracker - and Adrian Dimitrievitch, who is a former ballet master of the Berlin Ballet. I will mention a little bit more about the last two soon. As well as that, there were some wonderful people like Jan Hedenig, who is our local artistic director and has worked for many years with the dance association. She is one of those who thrives on getting the best out of young people. If you saw the number of local children dressed up in their tutus or finery you would have seen what a wonderful occasion it was.
I asked Adam Thurlow if he often performs with lots of little kids running around his feet and he said, ‘Only once a year’, which meant when he came to Darwin. What is so great is that these young people, young women and children – I believe some are about three years old; there is a range of ages - have an opportunity to see the very best and they did see the very best. I will give you an idea of the wonderful people who came out to help with this performance.
Jin Yao was born in Jilin, China. Jin Yao graduated from the Beijing Dance Academy in 1997 and joined the National Ballet of China in the same year. She was promoted to principal dancer in 2003, and was later ranked a top grade China national dancer. Jin Yao won the bronze prize of the Shanghai International Ballet Competition in 2001 and a gold medal at the Nevada International Ballet Competition in 2002. Yin joined the Hong Kong Ballet as the senior soloist in August 2004 and was promoted to principal dancer in 2005.
She was awarded the Dancers’ Dancer of the Season, Ballet Master’s Award and the Dancers’ Award held by Friends of Hong Kong Ballet. In 2007 she was awarded the Hong Kong Dance Award by the Hong Kong Dance Alliance for her superb performance in Giselle and Balanchine’s Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux; I hope my French is okay. She received the award of Best Artist of the Year dance category from the Hong Kong Arts Development Awards 2010. She has performed in numerous ballet such as Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, Giselle, Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet and Cinderella.
Adam Thurlow performed in The Nutcracker last year. Adam Thurlow is a principal dancer with the Melbourne Ballet Company. Adam was born in Melbourne and trained with his twin brother under the direction of Lorraine Blackburn OAM. At the age of 14, he was accepted into the Australian Ballet School from which he graduated with honours as the dux of his year.
Adam’s professional career began with the Australian Ballet under the direction of Ross Stretton where he performed many solo and principal roles. He was promoted to the rank of soloist after only two years. In 2000, Adam joined the English National Ballet as a soloist. In 2003, Adam became the first and only Australian to join the Opera National de Paris where he worked with many of the world’s top choreographers. In August 2006, Adam returned to the Australian Ballet before leaving for a freelance career in 2008.
Adrian Dimitrievitch is a dancer, choreographer and artistic director. He trained in the Russian and French styles of dance studying ballet under the direction of George Balanchine, Alexander Minz, Alexander Godunov, Vakhtang Chabukiani and Yura and Roberto Dimitrievitch.
Adrian has performed in the role of principal dancer in Argentina, where he was born, as well as throughout Europe and Australia. He was guest ballet master at the Berlin Ballet as well as ballet master and assistant director to Meryl Tankard in Canberra and the Meryl Tankard Australian Dance Theatre in Adelaide. Adrian has worked in performing arts for 44 years and has been teaching ballet for 22 years. He has taught for the Australian Ballet, the Sydney Dance Company, the International Ballet Tokyo, the Australian Dance Theatre, the National Institute of Circus Arts and the Australian Institute of Sport to name a few, and he has been the artistic director of several dance companies in his successful career.
Three of the top people in the world were in this performance in Darwin. Not only did you see a great performance because you had these great people in it, you also had the opportunity to see the best of our young children. We have some people in our local community who will be able to copy our guest artists because their performances were outstanding. The thing I loved about it was everyone enjoyed themselves. It was not just about dancing; people thoroughly enjoyed what they were doing.
My wife went to the performance on the Friday night. She has never been to the ballet before and she is a bit finicky when it comes to what she likes and what she does not. I asked her when I got home from the concert and she said it was wonderful. She thought it was a magnificent and very beautiful performance.
What is wonderful about living in Darwin is we have the ability to have a variety of dance and theatre that is good for our community. We are able to have other kinds of art, not just acting - hip hop, folk music or chorales, we also have ballet. It is a wonderful thing for Darwin and Palmerston - it comes from Palmerston - that we have such a wonderful group of people involved in making this a part of our life.
I will mention a few people. Jan Hedenig is the artistic director and choreographer. Martin Jarvis was the musical director. We had a live orchestra, many people playing many instruments; that is what makes theatre so great, a live orchestra. The producer was the Palmerston Association for Dancing; production manager, Chris Osborne; lighting designer, Chris Osborne; sound production, Darwin Entertainment Centre; makeup design, Jane Marshall; wardrobe management, Juliet Feige; costume construction, Beautiful Costumes. The effort that went into the costumes is unbelievable. That is part of what makes it such a beautiful performance. Maxine Way, local lady, the captain of the local fire brigade at Howard Springs; Pam McLeod; Janome; headpieces by Lara Kershaw; set production, Darren Williams; photographer/media, Garry Haslett; backdrop artist, Stacey Albano; program, Julia Martin; resident musician, Doug Loft; and marketing, Darwin Entertainment Centre.
Some other members of the cast: Dawn was performed by Aurora Feige-Falconer; Prayer was Emily Corpus; Swanhilde’s friends were Michelle Buse and Michelle Wilson, a local lady from Howards Springs; Harlequin was Samantha Gleeson; Monkey was Karina Osborne; the automated doll was Crystal Loft; the priest was Gerry Wood; Lord of the Manor was Adam Falconer; Lady of the Manor was Sheree Illious; Mayor was Morris Pitt; and Mayoress was Kate Mornane.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Palmerston Association for Dancing for putting this performance on. I thank everyone who performed in it; it is a wonderful thing for Darwin. I cannot name all – there must have been 50 children there, and all the mothers who organised them. Can you imagine organising these kids for rehearsals? These kids were organised perfectly for rehearsals. The Palmerston Association for Dancing does a wonderful job, making this such a successful event in Darwin. I congratulate everyone who was involved and hope next year something is presented, because everyone should go to the ballet in Darwin.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Henbury School students accompanied by Mrs Janet Podsiadly, Mr Peter Fuller and Mrs Tina Glover and Year 7 Nemarluk School students accompanied by Mrs Karen Wagland and Mrs Jaimee Cook. Welcome to you all and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Frivolous Points of Order
Frivolous Points of Order
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start Question Time I will say a few words. We are in a period of time with new arrangements, a new government, new roles, learning times and new challenges. Yesterday, and the day before, there were many points of order raised, some relevant, some not so relevant and some downright frivolous.
I will be watching Question Time very carefully today and if the behaviour goes towards frivolous points of order the member risks not being given the call.
As you know, I have enforced the rule of one member at a time on their feet and that will continue to occur. Question Time is an opportunity to hear the details of the government’s activity and program so it is important that all members, those listening to this broadcast and any in the gallery, are given that opportunity.
Are there any questions?
MOTION
Disallow Management Plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park
Disallow Management Plans for the Mary River National Park and the Litchfield National Park
Continued from 28 November 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important area.
Our national parks are held and managed on trust for the people now and in the future. They are not, and should never be, the play things of government. One of the most important foundations of good park management practice is that each of our national parks has a well thought out and professionally prepared plan of management. It is all about accountability, transparency and good management. We hear endlessly that accountability and transparency are the hallmarks of this government.
Yesterday I heard this said time and time again from the government benches.
____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Ms Marion Scrymgour
Ms Marion Scrymgour
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, if I could interrupt. I acknowledge in the gallery a former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour. Welcome again! Good to see you here.
____________________
Ms FYLES: Plans, management and park planning processes are all about accountability and transparency. Our legislation, like that of other jurisdictions, requires that plans of management be prepared as soon as practically possible for our national parks. It is good practice and there is community expectation that the effort is made to have a plan for each park and to maintain contemporary plans of management for our parks. Plans provide clarity on objectives, opportunity for community engagement and involvement in understanding management issues, and setting management objectives on behalf of the community.
They are a safety net providing confidence to the community that the park estate will be managed. They provide guidance to park managers, setting out park management KPIs and establishing a platform for evaluating management effectiveness. They provide certainty, opportunity for the tourism industry and joint management opportunities.
Yesterday, the minister announced he was disallowing two management plans, one of them for Litchfield National Park. I have a very strong history with Litchfield National Park. It is one of the first places my family took me camping and I grew up with memories of camping at the bottom of Wangi Falls long before it was a park, when it was a station. Time and time again our families visited this park.
It is one of our major national parks and is very important to Top Enders. It is the one place you must take visitors. The park has 300 000 visitors per year. The park is under pressure and the long-awaited second plan is intended to guide its continued development. This is extremely important as I would like to offer my family the same opportunities I had growing up and visiting this park.
The plan for Mary River National Park was the first joint management plan for that park and a long-awaited milestone but this has been dismissed and put aside.
Many Territorians will be concerned about disallowing the plans. This is a little used power reserved for a major flaw and I am yet to see the minister explain this flaw to us. There has been no consultation about repealing these plans. These plans had a thorough consultation process. Long before I was in this position I participated in the consultation process providing my input as an everyday Territory citizen as to how I thought Litchfield park could be improved, providing access for locals.
What about the time and energy that has gone into these plans from the hard-working and professional Parks and Wildlife staff, public contributions - I have just spoken of mine, but there would have been many from Territorians – contributions from the tourism industry and the views of the traditional owners?
This was the first joint management plan for Mary River National Park. What message is being sent to the traditional owners who have worked so hard and waited so long for this milestone to be achieved?
In recognition of these issues you would expect some significant matter has initiated this disallowance motion, some major technical irregularity or an omission, yet we have not seen this. Perhaps the new minister has some concern about overarching management objectives outlined in the plan. If so, it is time to be clear on what the reasons are.
Does his concern relate to joint management objectives being applied in our parks? Is the new minister unhappy with the professional standards of these plans? Has the minister spoken to key stakeholders about his concerns - traditional owners, the NLC, the Environment Centre, local communities and the tourism sector? I understand there was a meeting in Darwin yesterday, and this may clarify it. Does the minister want to disallow the plans so he can recast the plans of management to provide for his pet development opportunities?
I know you are a new minister and you want to stamp your authority on this, but please do not throw out all this hard work. If you want to make changes why not make arrangements to amend the plans rather than disallow the whole plans and throw out the hard work of the Territorians who have contributed to these plans to date?
These plans were not the previous government’s plans; they were the people’s plans. We were involved in their development, particularly the Litchfield National Park plan. Section 20 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provides for amendment of the plans. If the minister can explain why he wants these plans disallowed without amendment I look forward to hearing that.
Park management is about balance: providing amenities for current users while preserving these parks for future generations to enjoy. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this motion. Whether I agree with it or not is another issue. My problem with this type of motion is that there are many questions I would like to ask and this process does not allow the type of debate that needs to occur.
I have done my best to read what the minister said yesterday and had a look at the draft management plans for both Litchfield and Mary River National Parks. I have some questions.
The minister stated two reasons for the disallowance of these management plans. The one for Mary River is that the tourism industry was not consulted sufficiently. The only reason for disallowing the entire plan of management for Litchfield National Park appears to be antisocial behaviour. He says:
- When the Litchfield National Park Plan of Management was released for public comment it attracted a number of submissions about antisocial behaviour. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to further consult with the community about antisocial behaviour. This plan can be amended to clearly describe the management actions that will be implemented to reduce or hopefully remove antisocial behaviour from this iconic park.
The minister has said this plan can be amended. You could amend it under the existing arrangements but the minister is asking us to disallow the whole plan.
I looked at the back of the plan and there is a section on antisocial behaviour: section 2.9. It says it has a high priority and states:
- After the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation By-laws are enacted ban glass from all designated swimming areas in the Park ...
Considering there is a huge number of things in the management plan and it is just one item – I am not saying it is not an important item because it does mention high priority - I am concerned this entire management plan would be disallowed based on a single clause. That is saying we have an issue we are concerned about and we are going to disallow the whole document. If I was slightly cynical I would say there are other reasons. Surely, you are not going to disallow all this work for a single item?
As the minister said, the plan can be amended. I am asking the minister whether he is saying he cannot amend anything in this plan without disallowing it, or is it the case that under the existing rules of management plans you are able to amend the plan? If you are able to amend it without disallowing it, why are you disallowing it?
The bigger question is what other reasons do you have for disallowing this plan of management if the only reason, as you state in your reading, is you want to consult with the community regarding antisocial behaviour? I do not have a problem with that, but there is nothing else here that would raise such alarm over this management plan that is in such a serious state as to be disallowed. I ask the minister, if you are disallowing it under this pretext, are you saying you are going to relook at this whole plan from top to bottom? You have not said that; you have only mentioned antisocial behaviour.
If you had said in your reading you are not happy with this management plan and feel there is a range of issues, I could say okay. But you have only quoted one reason for disallowing it, which makes me a little suspicious. I do not mind if the government has other plans. The way you develop your national parks is something we all should be looking at. You might have heard me a number of times in Estimates Committee say how disappointing it is to see the number of visitors to many of our national parks falling off. One of our best national parks is the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Even the good old Howard Springs Nature Park, until recently, was going backwards. Since then there have been some developments there with the rock pool and the recreation area which has started to bring people back to the area.
If the government – noting this has come from not only the Minister for Parks and Wildlife but the minister for Tourism – is considering other options it wants to bring into this management plan, then it needs to say what those options are. The antisocial behaviour issue raised by the minister seems to be an excuse to disallow it. I cannot accept that one small item - which is an important item as stated in the plan of management; it says it is a high priority – would require you to throw the baby out with the bath water. That is exactly what is happening. Minister, I am interested to see if you have other issues you did not tell us about yesterday in relation to that management plan besides the issue of antisocial behaviour.
In relation to the Mary River National Park, you said the issue there was:
- The Mary River National Park Joint Management Plan was prepared without full and proper consultation. This will affect hundreds of thousands of people and it was developed without proper consultation. This plan did not take into consideration the many people it would affect. One stakeholder group not consulted by the previous government about this plan was the tourism sector.
The government has made it very clear we recognise tourism as a major pillar of our economy and a significant contributor of jobs for all Territorians. Disallowing this plan will give the opportunity to consult with key tourism operators. These operators’ livelihoods depend upon these parks. Tourists who visit these parks want a wonderful and unique outdoor experience in a picturesque setting and we want to see that these experiences can continue.
I totally agree, minister. It is not much good having these parks if people cannot visit them and they are an important part of the tourism industry – they go hand in hand. But I am interested to know the process. You said the management plan was prepared without full and proper consultation. I am quite happy for you to tell me whether I have this right or not, but what normally happens is - and here is the Mary River National Park Joint Management Plan, it is a draft – it is advertised in the newspaper, the Government Gazette and everyone has the right to comment on that draft joint management plan.
We have had many of these draft joint management plans. We have many management plans throughout our national parks in the Northern Territory. What has gone wrong with this management plan?
When it went out to the community, when it was advertised, did the tourism industry in some shape or form respond? I imagine all the other management plans have gone through a similar process. Has the process for this national park somehow gone skewwhiff? Has it not gone down the path of the Gregory National Park? Has it not been through the process of other national parks that have joint management plans?
I expect that when you develop a joint management plan there are discussions with the traditional owners. I understand in this case this land - I just want to see the status of this land – it says:
- The park is within the traditional country of the Limilngan people in the north and west and Unwinymil people to the south. The Parks and Wildlife Service represent the Northern Territory government in this partnership.
I thought I saw something about the status of the land in relation to land rights but I cannot see it at present.
It was being negotiated through the Northern Land Council in association with Parks and Wildlife, and planning for formal joint management of the park began in 2005. So this plan has taken seven years to reach this stage.
It is an unusual park. It has 14 parcels of land which include Point Stuart Coastal Reserve, Stuart’s Tree Historical Reserve, Mary River Conservation Reserve, Point Stuart Road Corridor, Alligator Lagoon, Swim Creek, Shady Camp, Opium Creek, Boggy Springs, Jimmy’s Creek Monsoon Forest, Wildman River, Annaburroo Delta Block, Mary River Crossing and McKinlay Sector.
It is a well-used area, especially by fishermen, so there is a large public impact on these parks and you would need to have a good joint management plan to make sure the area is available for the community, while at the same time protecting the values of the park. This joint management plan was signed off in September 2011, planning started in 2005; it has taken six years to reach this stage.
What has happened that has caused this to be now disallowed? Where has the consultation process fallen off the rails? As I said, there was public notification of a draft management plan - it says September 2011. We are now nearly at the end of 2012. I ask the minister what feedback the department received about the park that could not be dealt with in that negotiation stage?
Has there been some problem in the negotiation stage and, if so, why? Was there a response from tourism when this draft was released? Did people like the Amateur Fishing Association respond? Do you have a list of all those people who responded to this joint management plan? Were there complaints about the way the plan was being developed? Did the department receive submissions from the tourism industry saying they were not happy with the joint management plan? We do not know that. All I have is that you are saying it was prepared without full and proper consultation.
Minister, we have a process that applied to other parks; we have now come to the Mary River National Park. What was the difference between the preparation and consultation for those other parks, such as the Gregory National Park where there is now a new broader park? What has changed between those other parks, which do not seem to have attracted any attention, and this park and the Litchfield National Park?
It is difficult to have this debate because I can ask 100 questions and you can give me some answers, but it is not a to-and-fro process where one can gain at least some understanding of what the department is trying to do and whether there are other things within this disallowance that have not been raised. To summarise, I cannot see why the whole draft management plan for the Litchfield National Park has to be disallowed on the basis of one item, regardless of whether it has a high priority. I cannot see why the management plan cannot be amended as the minister mentioned in his opening remarks about this issue.
The minister said the plan for the Mary River National Park was not prepared with full and proper consultation and he mentioned the tourism industry. I would like to know the process of the advertising of this draft management plan. Who responded to this management plan, if the matters raised by these people were looked at seriously, and how many of those matters were included in the draft management plan. If there was a problem with the consultation, what was that problem, considering there do not appear to be problems in the management plans or the consultation over other national parks.
I hope, minister, that is a reasonable summary of the issues. I would like to have some answers to today. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr CONLAN (Parks and Wildlife): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So out of all that indignation yesterday you had a chance to eventually speak on this. That song and dance yesterday was for nothing. This was always going to come back and there was going to be an opportunity to speak on it. So, a cracker, as you said, and it is going to make The Australian, or something from the Super Mario Brothers over here who were so indignant that we were shutting or gagging a debate.
I notice there was no media release and nothing about it on any radio station; there was no media about it because they did not move on it. They realised very quickly they had a big ‘whoops’ moment, that they overreached and this debate was coming back to the Chamber and here it is today for you to speak about. So, the only cracker is back on the Super Mario Brother over there. When you line them up together and the bloke on the back they are the Super Mario Brothers.
First of all, this is not being disallowed. We need to make that clear. This is purely a mechanism to stop this plan from being enacted. Once it is enacted it is in place for 10 years and there is nothing we can do about it. This is a mechanism, through the parliament of the Northern Territory, to place it on the Notice Paper, to put the brakes on these plans being put into place.
This is the way to stop and look at it. We have that said all we want to do is use the mechanism through the parliament of the Northern Territory to get this disallowance - it is called a disallowance motion. That is the technical term. It is not being disallowed as such, it is a disallowance motion to stop the plans from being enacted because if they were they would be in place for a decade and, legally there would be nothing we could do. That is all this is. It is a technical mechanism for us to stop, put the brakes on and look at the plans.
They were deemed to be tabled, as I said in my speech, in the previous parliament, the Eleventh Assembly. Parliament was prorogued on 6 August and, as a result, this was still deemed. You get seven clear parliamentary sitting days with the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to disallow the plan. If you do not disallow the plan then it is in force. Hence, when you count the seven days and add it up, it fell yesterday, the first sitting of the second week Twelfth Assembly. That is why the disallowance motion came up like it did. All we have to do is get it onto the Notice Paper. Once it is on the Notice Paper it is right; we are clear, the plan will not be enacted.
We now have some time to sit back and look at it. That is the law. That is the way it works. That is the way the parliament works; that is the way the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act works. That is how it has unfolded today and that is why we are doing it.
While it is called a disallowance motion it is not being disallowed, not yet. We may disallow it. We want some time to stop and look before this plan is put in place.
We want to ensure they are right because there has been an election and there is a new government. The new government has a different focus, a strong focus on tourism, and we believe some of the areas of these plans are a little inwardly looking and do not take into account the needs of our tourism operators, those that will drive the economy.
It is not a plaything, member for Nightcliff, quite the opposite; we take it very seriously. The plans were not necessarily well thought out. Perhaps they were in parts but we do not know because we need to have a look.
This has just been brought to the new government’s attention and parliament has just begun under the new government. That is why it is happening so quickly. We could have done it last week. It has just emerged and yesterday was the last day we could put the brakes on this and say, ‘Whoa, let us stop and look before we commit the Northern Territory to a decade under these two plans’.
Opportunities for Territorians will still exist; you will still be able to visit the parks. There has been consultation. In some cases, there has been extensive consultation but that consultation has not been reflected in the plans and we are not convinced that consultation - in some cases widespread consultation with industry. The 50-odd operators at Litchfield National Park, the business operators, the tourism operators. those trying to earn a living and drive the economy of the Northern Territory have been, in some cases, consulted and in some cases consulted quite widely, but their views and wishes have not been reflected in the management plans.
Delaying the implementation, member for Nelson, is all it is really doing through a technical term called a disallowance motion by the parliament of the Northern Territory.
You mention antisocial behaviour at Litchfield National Park. I know it is only one issue but it is a big issue at Litchfield National Park and it destroys tourism, the park, the look and feel of the park, and visitation. It is counterproductive to the park. It is a very big issue. While it is one of the only things I mentioned in the speech, it is significant.
There was consultation with some of the tourism operators in the Mary River area. Again I am not convinced, by looking at the plans, that the consultation has been reflective of the wishes of everyone. Remember the parks are there for all Territorians, not just one group of people: not just traditional owners or the tourism operators; they are there for all of us who live in the Territory and want to visit the parks. These management plans need to reflect that.
I will not get into the broader philosophy of the other parks. I know you mentioned some of the other parks, the difference between the Gregory National Park and the like. If you want to have a conversation about that we can. You can put those questions to me in writing and I will make sure you receive answers, or we can have a briefing with the Parks and Wildlife department and go through that. Now is not the time. This is simply a motion to stop the implementation of these plans; they have not yet been disallowed.
We have a couple of months to look at these plans, to consult widely again, to talk to the Northern Land Council, the traditional owners, the tourism operators throughout the Litchfield and Mary River National Parks, to go back to them and ask in which parts of these plans have their wishes or desires not been reflected. Is what they wanted out of these plans represented in them? If it is not, maybe we can do it better. That is the feeling I am getting from TOs, the land council and the tourism operators. Yes, we can do it better because it has been a long time in the making, and if we do not get it right, they sit for 10 years. We do not have time to mess around.
I revert back to part of what I said yesterday - disallowing the plan will give the opportunity to further consult with the community regarding antisocial behaviour and other areas. This can be amended clearly to describe the management actions. That is what that means, member for Nelson: it can be amended. We can amend the current draft if we want but once it is in place we cannot. That is what is so crucial and it has been lost on the parliament. The severity of this was lost on me until it was brought to my attention. I did not realise this is quite serious. If we do not get this right, it is in place for 10 years.
There has been a change of government and our philosophies are different to the opposition’s. We value tourism. We want to ensure tourism is part of this mix. The traditional owners and the Northern Land Council also want to ensure tourism is part of the mix. That is the message I am getting – they want it; they want business to thrive. They do not want the parks to be shut down or road blocks put up.
Mr Chandler: Open the gates.
Mr CONLAN: Open it up, definitely. They want it to be enjoyed by all Territorians. They want existing businesses to thrive there, and their own people to be able to run businesses.
The way some of these parks are set up is counterproductive, it is not happening. Take car parking, for example. There is very limited car parking and people have to park along the side of the road or the side of the track which is (a) dangerous and (b) they get pinged by the rangers. It is not conducive to opening the parks for tourists and businesses. You have to walk from the car park to the falls in one area and it is a hike-and-a-half.
Essentially, it is saying we do not particularly want people to embark on this experience. That is the way we see it and that is the feedback I am getting from the operators, the locals, the land councils, the traditional owners, and all those who live there and share those parks. They are saying it is not good enough, it is not a world-class tourism experience because it is hard to access; it is hard to get to and it is hard to develop business opportunities there.
Geographically and physically it is absolutely beautiful, but it is difficult to run a successful tourism operation there under the current regime, and that is our concern with these management plans. All we want to do is stop these from being enacted because that is what will happen if we do not disallow it today, or at least get the disallowance motion on the Notice Paper. It is as simple as that.
So all the indignation over there - okay, you have had your say today, member for Nightcliff, and by having your say today, unfortunately, you do not get a say when it comes back up in February, and neither do you, member for Nelson. You fought tooth and nail and kicked and screamed about it yesterday. How sad, how unfortunate.
Mr Wood: All I wanted was a date for it to come back.
Mr CONLAN: We will give you a date.
Mr Wood: Yes, but we did not know when you would speak.
Mr CONLAN: I will give you a date in a second.
It is a responsible thing to do. A new government has been elected and we have a different focus. We put a heavy focus on tourism and businesses and we want it to be all inclusive. We are about one product for the Northern Territory and that is the Northern Territory. It is about the Northern Territory for all of us, not playing one off against the other. Everyone has a stake in this place and everyone should be able to share in it. It is about one Northern Territory and that is the focus of tourism, it is the focus on parks.
Mr McCarthy: Joint management of parks.
Mr CONLAN: That is what it is about.
Mr McCarthy: Good on you, minister.
Mr CONLAN: It is about one Northern Territory. So we are …
Mr Mills: Together, jointly.
Mr CONLAN: I am not sure what Super Mario is on about but he wants to make light of everything in this place because he does not have much else to offer. They are all very tired over there because they have to do some work for the first time in their lives. Nevertheless, let us move on.
Mr McCarthy: Stop the abuse, minister. Get with the plot. I want to talk about joint management.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot hear you, member for Barkly. Madam Speaker, I cannot hear myself think with the interjections.
I think I have made it clear. Member for Nelson, I hope you understand exactly where we are at with this and what this is about - the thrust of this. It is about getting this onto the Notice Paper so we can put the brakes on these plans before they become law and before they are deemed, or seen to be deemed. Once they are deemed, that is it for 10 years. It is only responsible that we have a good hard look at it and make sure all Territorians are part of the new management plan.
Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned until the second week of the February 2013 sittings.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Police Administration Amendment Bill
(Serial 4)
Pass Bill through all Stages
Police Administration Amendment Bill
(Serial 4)
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Police Administration Amendment Bill 2012 (Serial 4) passing through all stages today, 29 November 2012.
Motion agreed to.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES) BILL
(Serial 12)
(Serial 12)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to insert new mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for assaults into the Sentencing Act and to remove the ability of the court to suspend the sentence for that minimum period of time. The mandatory periods apply to serious assaults and repeat offenders of aggravated assault. The bill does not intend to remove the effect of the current mandatory imprisonment provisions for violent offences in section 78BA of the Sentencing Act. It retains the effect of those provisions and supplements them with new mandatory minimum sentences for specified offences.
In the campaign for the general election in August this year, the County Liberals promised that if elected we would introduce a bill to amend the Sentencing Act to make it clear that offenders convicted of serious assault would not be eligible for a suspended sentence. We promised also to introduce new mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders, namely, that genuine gaol time will be imposed for repeat offenders.
The purpose of setting the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill is to maintain a consistent standard for sentencing of violent offences. It is intended to send a clear message to serious and repeat violent offenders that if they commit a violent offence they will serve genuine gaol time and that there is a mandated bottom line to the sentence they will receive.
These mandatory minimum sentences are also intended to demonstrate to victims of serious violent offenders that the perpetrator will suffer the consequence of prison for their violent offence. Mandatory sentencing is not a new phenomenon. Mandatory sentencing exists in Part 5 of the Traffic Act for drink driving and drug driving offences. It also exists for breaches of the domestic violence orders in sections 121 and 122 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
It was a Country Liberal government which first introduced mandatory sentencing for assaults in the Sentencing Act (No 2) 1999. This amendment act was inserted into the Sentencing Act section 78BA to provide that where an offender is found guilty of a violent offence and has previously been found guilty of a violent offence, a conviction must be recorded and the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment that may be partly but not wholly suspended.
Violent offence is defined by the list of offences in Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act. A Schedule 2 violent offence includes serious violent offences such as manslaughter (section160 of the Criminal Code), attempted murder (section 166), assault and aggravated assault (section 188), and other specific assault offences such as assaulting a police officer, (section 189A).
In 2008, the Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills, then Leader of the Opposition, introduced a private member’s bill, the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill 2008. That bill held the position that legislation which only required a court to impose actual imprisonment that could be partly suspended was unsatisfactory and was not working because it still enabled the court to suspend the sentence so the offender could be released on the rising of the court and would only have to have served the time in remand.
‘On the rising of the court’ means the offender is held in custody until the court adjourns following the sentencing. This means that if the offender was on bail prior to being sentenced the only term of actual imprisonment would be for the period of restraint in the courtroom during the sentencing. If the offender had been held in remand the sentence would effectively be time served on remand. The public does not expect actual imprisonment to mean that the offender can be released immediately; the public expects it to mean genuine gaol time as punishment for the violent offence committed.
By introducing the current section 78BA(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act, the former Labor government implemented a form of mandatory sentencing in 2008 which still relied on the notion of actual imprisonment that could be partly suspended. That section states that if an offender is found guilty of an offence against section 181 (causing serious harm), section 186 (causing harm), section 188 (common assault or aggravated assault) or section 189A (assaulting a police officer) of the Criminal Code, and the victim suffers physical harm that interferes with the victim’s health, the court must record a conviction and order a term of actual imprisonment which may be partly suspended.
Current section 78BA(1)(b) retains the original mandatory sentencing for assault provisions introduced by the Country Liberals in 1999. The changes made by the former Labor government in 2008 did not go far enough as they did not include mandatory minimum sentences.
During the election campaign of August this year, the Country Liberals promised to change this position so that gaol means gaol and there are meaningful minimum sentences for assaults. The bill I present to the Assembly today implements that promise.
I now turn to the primary features of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012.
The bill repeals the current Division 6A, including section 78BA of the Sentencing Act and replaces it with Division 6A.
The bill introduces five new levels of violent offence which are defined in the new clause 78CA and they carry corresponding mandatory minimum sentences. ‘Violent offence’ maintains the current definition of the Sentencing Act and is any offence listed in Schedule 2. However, Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act is amended to include unlawful stalking, robbery, assault within intent to steal, and kidnapping.
These offences are not currently listed as violent offences in Schedule 2, yet ordinary persons would consider those offences to be violent in nature. Schedule 2 will also include a new offence of assaults on workers. A level five offence means the offence of causing serious harm under section 181 of the Criminal Code or any assault if the assault is committed in circumstances involving an offensive weapon and where the victim suffers physical injury that interferes with the health of the victim.
Clauses 78D and 78DA provide for the consequences of conviction of a level five offence. If an offender is convicted of a level five violent offence and it is his or her first violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months of actual imprisonment.
This gives the effect to the election commitment to remove the ability of the courts to suspend a sentence for a serious assault, but also permits the court to suspend the sentence after a three month period.
If an offender is found guilty of a level five offence and it is his or her second or subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of 12 months actual imprisonment. This gives effect to the election commitment to require a 12 month mandatory term of imprisonment where the second violent offence is one that causes serious harm.
A level four offence means an offence against proposed section 188A, being a new offence of assault on a worker which will be introduced by the Criminal Code Amendment (Assaults on Workers) Bill 2012, or an assault on a police officer under section 189A, where the victim suffers physical injury interfering with his or her health.
The new clause 78DB provides that if an offender is found guilty of a level four offence the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months actual imprisonment. This applies even when it is the offender’s second or subsequent violent offence.
This provision gives effect to the election commitment to make the penalty for the new offence of assault on a worker a minimum of three months’ imprisonment. The minimum penalty for the offence of assaulting a police officer is also made consistent with the penalty for an assault on a worker.
A level three offence means an offence of assault committed in any of the circumstances of aggravation under section 188(2) of the Criminal Code except section 188(2)(k), which is an indecent assault. That section is a sexual offence and a separate mandatory sentencing provision applies to it.
The new clause 78DC of the Sentencing Act provides that if an offender is found guilty of a level three offence, physical injury interfering with the victim’s health is caused and it is an offender’s first offence, the offender must receive a sentence of actual imprisonment.
The new clause 78DG clarifies what a term of actual imprisonment means - that the court may, partly but not wholly, suspend the term of imprisonment. This retains the effect of the current section 78BA(1)(a) because it is not our intent to remove it.
The new clause 78DD states that if the offender is found guilty of a level three offence and it is the offender’s second or subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a minimum sentence of three months’ actual imprisonment. This gives effect to the election commitment to require mandatory three-month imprisonment where the second offence is aggravated assault.
A level two offence is an offence of causing harm against section 186 of the Criminal Code where the victim suffers physical injury that interferes with his or her health. New clause 78DE of the Sentencing Act states that if an offender has been found guilty of a level two offence the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment. The actual imprisonment applies whether or not it is the offender’s second or subsequent offence. Again, the new clause 78DG clarifies that a term of actual imprisonment means a court may, partly but not wholly, suspend the term of imprisonment. This clause also retains the residual effect of the current section 78BA(1)(a).
Finally, a level one violent offence is any other violent offence that is listed in Schedule 2 to the Sentencing Act, but it is not a level two to five violent offence. The new clause 78DF states that if the offender has been found guilty of a level one offence and it is his or her second subsequent violent offence, the offender must receive a term of actual imprisonment. This section retains the effect of the current section 78BA(1)(b).
The bill makes clear in its new clause 78DH that where a court is required to impose a minimum sentence for a specified period the court may not make an order to suspend the specified period under section 40 of the Sentencing Act or under section 44 by home detention order. The sentence may only be suspended after the minimum period has been served.
The bill also amends section 54 of the Sentencing Act to make it clear that the prescribed mandatory minimum of 12 months imprisonment for a second or subsequent serious assault will not be reduced by the setting of a non-parole period where the sentence is not suspended. This amendment is made because the interaction of sections 53 and 54 and the new clause 78DA could otherwise erode the policy of requiring 12 months actual imprisonment where the second offence is a serious assault.
The bill provides for a balance in this new mandatory sentencing regime. New clause 78DH(2) of the bill provides the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment do not apply to youths as defined in the Youth Justice Act. The government is aware that to make them apply to youths would be inconsistent with the principles of the Youth Justice Act. However, clause 78DG does apply to youths sentenced under the Sentencing Act so youths can receive a term of actual imprisonment. This is the current effect of section 78BA.
Additionally, the bill provides for an exemption for exceptional circumstances in the new clause 78DI. This exemption provides that where a court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the court will not have to impose the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three or 12 months. The court will still have to order actual imprisonment, although that can be partly but not wholly suspended as is currently the case under section 78BA.
The exemption for exceptional circumstances is intended to be broad and the court may consider any matters it considers relevant. The bill provides that the court may take into account a victim impact statement or a victim report presented to the court before sentencing, which the court is required to take into account when sentencing an offender.
I note that a victim impact statement or victim report may include a statement about the victim’s wishes with respect to the sentence the offender should receive and that may include that the victim wishes for the court to sentence the offender more leniently. I am aware that the courts routinely deal with victim impact statements and victim reports and even victims who express wishes with respect to sentences, and so are well-versed in according a victim’s wishes the appropriate weight in the sentencing process. Whether a victim’s wishes are taken into account as exceptional circumstances will be a matter entirely for the court.
The bill does make it clear that exceptional circumstances do not include that the offender was voluntarily intoxicated. Also, exceptional circumstances do not include the fact that the offender was not alone in committing the offence and, for example, that he or she played a lesser role or was coerced into committing the offence.
This bill, together with two other bills, the Criminal Code Amendment (Violent Act Causing Death) Bill 2012 and the Criminal Code Amendment (Assaults on Workers) Bill 2012, demonstrates this government’s election commitment to delivering new offences to protect vulnerable victims of violent crimes and deliver tougher sentences upon those who commit violent offences.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PETITION
Power and Water Price Increases
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 956 petitioners relating to power and water price increases. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully show that the announced one-off price increase in utility charges, which will take effect from 1 January 2013 as announced by the Chief Minister and Treasurer –
30% increase in the price of power
40% increase in water charges
25% increase in sewerage charges
- will lift the cost of living to an unsustainable level for Territorians, especially families and low-income earners.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:
the Government not introduce the increases as a one-off increase
the Government consider the impact these increases will have on the lives of Territorians
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Warnings
Warnings
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we commence with business, I enlighten, particularly the new members, that when a member is put on a warning the warning is for the full parliamentary day and not for the hour or two hours in which the warning is given.
RAIL SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 5)
(Serial 5)
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the Territory opposition will support this bill as we did all the heavy lifting around it when in government. I thank the new Minister for Transport, the member for Braitling, for continuing that work. I also thank the member for Braitling for the briefing which was provided by the department and for shifting those times to accommodate me as a member who lives well and truly out of town and could not make the first opportunity. Then I had parliamentary obligations and had to ask for another time. Finally, I got to meet with the department representatives, and it was good to reconnect and talk, very briefly, through the bill.
After what happened yesterday in parliament with the Planning Commission bill, I would love to take the minister to committee stage. However, in the interests of the advice he provided me yesterday, I will just ask a few questions and I am sure the minister will respond in closing the debate.
For members in the House, the model rail safety legislation was developed by the National Transport Commission following extensive consultations with the rail industry, state and territory governments, and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. It commenced in 2005, and has been a lot of work in national harmonisation of legislation in the areas of maritime, road and heavy vehicle, and rail, and it is continuing. It is a very interesting area of legislative reform that I encourage members to take an interest in.
The states and the Northern Territory adopted their own versions of the model laws and the NT’s version of the model law, the Rail Safety Act, came into force on 31 October 2010. The objective of having a national law administered by a national regulator is to develop a seamless and coordinated national approach to rail safety regulation. South Australia became the host jurisdiction for the national rail safety law on 10 May 2012. The Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012 received partial assent for the commencement of the administrative provisions of the act in South Australia. This means the national regulator now exists as a legal entity in South Australia.
If you are interested, this legislation represents part of the National Transport Commission and Council of Australian Governments’ agreement to develop national uniform model legislation for rail, marine and heavy vehicles. As I said, the Territory opposition supports the bill.
The questions that would be good to have answered by the minister in his closing debate relate to, ‘the national regulator will be based in Adelaide’, and the minister said in the second reading speech:
- However, industry and the Territory community can be assured that a permanent staffing presence will be retained in the Territory.
That is good. We thank you for that minister; that is reassuring.
The question is about access to the rail safety regulator, which is very important, and the Northern Territory office. A logical question is: Will it be based in Darwin or Alice Springs?
Another logical follow-up question is: What will be the staffing numbers for that office and will the staff be existing Department of Transport staff? If the office is in Alice Springs will that mean a relocation of staff from Darwin to Alice Springs?
The minister also said in the second reading speech that, ‘... the Territory community can rest assured’, and I would like the minister to elaborate on that. I am sure he will give us that reassurance in his reply. It is about the minister’s commitment to the rail industry and business to guarantee proper access to the regulator by industry. There is no doubt that the rail industry will be one of the many growth industries in the Northern Territory.
There is a lot of planning by, not only the rail operator, but by industry and we can talk right across the regions, and particularly in the Barkly region - and that relates to new customers who are coming on line and want to ship their product by rail to Darwin to be exported by ship. People in the Barkly have been very keen on the connection of the rail from Mt Isa to Tennant Creek which will link the east coast, the Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and north Queensland line, to Mt Isa and then into that north Australian rail. This will be very important in the future and these questions relate to access to the regulator and that regulator’s ongoing work.
The purpose of the bill is to adopt the rail safety national laws as set out in the schedule to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012 as the law of the Northern Territory and to make provision for drug and alcohol testing for workers carrying out rail safety work. Because jurisdictional law enforcement agencies will be involved in the enforcement of alcohol and drug offences, each jurisdiction has to adopt its own alcohol and drug testing procedures and evidential provisions.
So we are talking about alcohol and drug testing in the Northern Territory in the rail industry. I am sure the minister will outline for the House who will conduct the testing, who will pay for the testing and who will maintain the instruments used for drug and alcohol testing. Who will service them, who will monitor their calibration and will they be serviced in the Northern Territory?
Will the improvement to rail safety workers’ training, including administering alcohol and drug testing, be conducted in the Northern Territory and is there any more information the minister would like to provide on that? I ask that because I think it runs out at the end of this year, but I had a national rail safe track accreditation that related to the work I was doing with the juvenile diversion program and youth in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. I will put on the public record, once again, my thanks to BJB, the rail maintenance contractors, and the boss of the Tennant Creek gang at the time, Bob Szeremenda who facilitated a work placement and work experience program where we had quite troubled youth involved in working with the rail contractors on the Northern Australian rail line.
The member for Namatjira might be interested in this because it was real work in real industry. It was even more beneficial because some of these young people had challenges in terms of high-support behaviour and emotional needs and the mainstream school sector could not really cope with them and vice versa. I was often asked the how you deal with taking them into this real-world industry environment. It was very easy to answer because the first part of the induction they had was delivered by the rail safety officer and that induction was very thorough, very intense and, as I say, was in a real world context. It outlined that they were stepping up in the adult world and had responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others around them.
It meant I had to be accredited, so BJB paid for me and I went to Alice Springs where they ran a course. I passed and achieved the accreditation that allowed me to take these students into a rail corridor. Then we worked with the rail safety officer and various other contractors, and that was a very good alternative education program. In Question Time, the member for Namatjira said there were no outcomes and there was nothing happening. Well, there is a lot happening and I encourage the Minister for Education to seriously look at alternative education models. The rail sector was just one of many industries to offer that opportunity.
I will never forget the day when we were given permission to join and travel in a locomotive. Some of those students were talking to a locomotive driver and learnt about that exciting occupation and the incredible remuneration that those operators receive. Part of that work was alcohol and drug testing, of course, so I am interested in what the minister would like to elaborate on regarding the rail safety workers. How will that be conducted? Who will be administering those tests? Who will pay for that testing regime and the servicing and monitoring of the calibration of the instruments used?
In the second reading speech the minister alludes to the industry when he says there will be changes to our existing rail laws, including:
- ... clearly setting out the manner in which rail transport operators must make an assessment of risks for the purpose of their safety management system.
I am interested in that because we all went through a number of rail accidents in the Northern Territory; one particularly close to my heart in Tennant Creek where the then owner of Tennant Creek Station was tragically killed on a crossing on his return from loading cattle into a yard just west of the rail crossing on Tennant Creek Station. There were a number of other rail fatalities and in December 2011 we witnessed the Edith River derailment and the compounding effects of a major derailment involving sensitive material.
In relation to that statement in the second reading speech, it would be good to hear from the minister about any changes to, or the clear setting of, the standards and benchmarks related to the manner in which risk assessments are made and, generally, if there is time or commitment, to hear about any other developments in the rail sector. I thank the minister for the opportunity to speak on this bill.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill and thank you for the time.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before the House introduced by the Minister for Transport. As we have heard from the minister, the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill, when enacted, will be a major reform to rail safety regulation in Australia.
As things currently stand in the Northern Territory, our rail operators are governed by the Rail Safety Act based on the national rail safety model legislation which came into force on 31 October 2010 off the back of extensive consultations with the rail industry, all state and territory governments, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, and the National Transport Commission in 2005.
It might, at first blush, seem like the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill is a result of a duplication of previous efforts to consolidate rail safety regulation. I can assure the House those reforms have served their purpose and do not go as far as the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill before us does.
The national model rail safety legislation was not uniformly adopted by states and territories. Each made changes to deal with their own local preferences for doing business and, once adopted in each state and territory, the law was regulated by state-based regulators. This led to rail operators having to comply with different legislative requirements as they crossed borders.
In practical terms, this meant the rail operators in the Northern Territory who also operate in South Australia needed to be accredited in both South Australia and the Northern Territory. If they operate in other states as well, they also needed to be accredited in each state in which they operate. This meant an operator needed to comply with seven different sets of laws administered by seven different regulators.
On 19 August 2011, the Council of Australian Governments signed an intergovernmental agreement committing to the development of national rail safety legislation which would be administered by a single national regulator to be implemented by January 2013. It was determined that South Australia would host this new rail safety reform and, as a result, an office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was set up in Adelaide. The South Australian parliament passed the rail safety national law in its entirety in May 2012 but only enacted the provisions to establish the National Regulator’s office and administrative functions. The remaining part of the act will commence on 20 January 2013. This is the same time the Northern Territory act is proposed to commence, thereby providing harmonisation for the industry.
The bill before the House adopts the law passed in South Australia. There are very limited deviations from the rail safety national law and I will highlight the local provisions for the avoidance of doubt. There is a sequence of generic terms in the rail safety national law specific to the Northern Territory. These are the words ‘court’, ‘emergency services’, ‘gazette’, ‘health practitioner regulation national law’, ‘magistrate’, ‘medical practitioner’, ‘minister’ and ‘police officer’, ‘prescribed notifiable occurrence’, ‘public sector auditor’, ‘registered nurse’, ‘road’, ‘road vehicle’, ‘shared path’ and ‘the or this jurisdiction’.
The rail safety national law also excludes the operation of the following Northern Territory laws: Interpretation Act, Audit Act, Financial Management Act, provisions in the Information Act, Ombudsman Act, Procurement Act 1995, Public Information Act 2010, Public Interest Disclosure Act and Public Sector Employment and Management Act. This allows the national regulator to comply only with the South Australian laws relating to governance of its operations.
There is also significant provision in the rail safety national law that relates specifically to alcohol and other drug testing. The alcohol and drug testing provisions are unique to each jurisdiction so as to align with each jurisdiction’s enforcement processes and evidential provisions. Because of the national application of this law reform it was critical that each jurisdiction had the appropriate level of input into the development of what is more broadly referred to as the national rail safety project.
The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has a project board which is a subgroup of the national Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee and reports to all transport ministers. The Northern Territory is currently represented on this board by the Department of Transport. The primary responsibility of this project board is to deliver the outputs required to ensure the National Rail Safety Regulator is fully operational by January 2013.
The project office has been working with stakeholders and advisory groups to have the national regulator established within this time frame. The project office has also worked closely with the National Transport Commission and is supporting the passing of the South Australian legislation through the remaining jurisdictions to ensure commencement in January 2013.
The Northern Territory, through the Department of Transport, has also had input into the terms of the enterprise bargaining agreements for staff employed by the national regulator. The enterprise bargaining agreement was ratified by Fair Work Australia on 30 October and came into effect on 6 November. This is a significant milestone as the national regulator is now able to recruit its own staff.
A substantial body of work has been completed in anticipation of this national reform. The National Rail Safety Project Office and Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, following its establishment, has held stakeholder meetings in all jurisdictions including the Northern Territory. These meetings have provided the opportunity for industry, unions and jurisdictions to provide input into the process and for the project team and the national regulator to hear and share the opportunities and challenges which will result from this reform.
The national regulator has also developed an information system and a corporate system which will contain all accreditation information and rail occurrence data across the country, providing a national overview of rail safety for the first time. The information collected by the national regulator will inform the policy and assist with direction setting nationally. The national regulator will also collect Category A incident reports, which are serious incidents which include derailment and death. This will be the first time the rail industry has had one number to call and one contact point to provide these reports to.
How does this new scheme impact on our rail operators in the Northern Territory? In the Northern Territory we currently have nine accredited rail transport operators. One of these operators is a heritage organisation and eight are commercial railway operators. Of these eight, seven are national companies and one is a Territory organisation which provides track maintenance services. Under the current regime, these companies would need to be accredited in every jurisdiction in which they operate.
When the national legislation comes into force the accreditation of these nine rail operators will immediately transfer across to the national scheme at no cost to the operators. This ensures a fair and seamless transition between the schemes. It also provides tangible cost benefits to operators as they will only pay one fee upon renewal. Currently, the Department of Transport regulates rail safety in the Northern Territory. Once this law commences, the National Regulator will be responsible for rail regulation in the Northern Territory. The Department of Transport will continue to provide policy advice to government and input into national rail safety policy and legislation.
The national rail safety act will not apply retrospectively in relation to offences committed under the current NT Rail Safety Act which is to be repealed by this new legislation. The transition from the Rail Safety Act to the national rail safety act will see the Northern Territory contribution to the national scheme continue on its current level of approximately $300 000 to cover rail regulation in the Territory. Discussions are currently under way to finalise staffing arrangements in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory’s contribution is expected to reduce over time as the national regulator moves to full cost recovery. Once established, the National Rail Safety Regulator will be responsible for:
enforcing and monitoring compliance with the national law
Some of the key changes under the national law as compared with the model laws adopted following the 2005 consultations include:
an express obligation on persons, including corporations, who load onto or unload from rolling stock to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, that these operations are carried out safely
There are also directors’ duties and due diligence obligations imposed on officers of corporations who have rail safety obligations. These include:
acquiring up-to-date information on rail safety matters
These provisions mirror those of the uniform occupational health and safety laws. Rail operators will be expected to continue to operate under the obligations of both the occupational health and safety and national rail safety legislation as compliance with one does not extinguish the obligations imposed by the other.
In conclusion, all jurisdictions have committed to implement this important national reform. South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory are on track to commence in January 2013. Victoria is likely to commence during the first quarter of 2013, with Queensland and Western Australia commencing in late 2013.
Delays in commencement are not due to an unwillingness to commit to the reforms, they merely relate to competing legislative programs and the complexity of passing legislation in larger jurisdictions. However, once the national reform is fully implemented it is expected that this will deliver a national rail network with improved safety and efficiency for governments and industry alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, what a fulsome contribution to the debate. It was very good. You probably answered all the member for Barkly’s questions in your contribution, member for Drysdale.
While this topic may not seem sexy to many people, it is very important for the future of the Northern Territory. The national harmonisation role which the rail legislation will take part in represents an economic opportunity for the Northern Territory. The real motive behind this national reform agenda on rail - and it is similar to the principles for maritime and heavy vehicle transport - is getting us all on a level footing.
While it is important we do not forget who we are as Territorians and that this is our area and our business, in the interests of working for a national agenda it is also important to identify ways we can reduce barriers and break down mechanisms that make it difficult to operate a cross-border relationship. Having said that, we have difficulties with the heavy vehicle national reform agenda, but we are working towards the national maritime role.
I thank the member for Barkly for his contribution today. I will seek to answer some of his questions. He had a large role in preparing this legislation in the first place. I also thank Guy and Nick from the department and Paul, the department liaison officer, for their assistance in this process.
This is a very important reform process. It will not make the national media and it will not make the Territory papers, but it breaks down the barriers and provides a better open access opportunity for rail operators to come to the Territory as a jurisdiction that, more and more, is becoming the gateway to Asia, particularly through Darwin. With opportunities around Central Australia for an inland port, the future of rail as an access point to the rest of the nation is very important. To see a seamless model where people can come and go with national accreditation schemes is very important. It is a sign of the Northern Territory, as I have often said, putting our big boy pants on and starting to play in the national scheme and not being a backwater.
The member for Barkly briefly spoke about his briefing and I am glad we were accommodating to you, member for Barkly. As we move forward the debate in this House always has to improve and if we can work together on a more open and transparent basis, with greater access, it creates an opportunity for better debate as we try to grow the Northern Territory economy. This rail legislation is about growth of the Northern Territory economy.
To answer specifically, there are currently two rail safety officers in the Northern Territory employed by the Department of Transport. The federal office, or the new office, will be based in the Territory. They are looking at setting up in Darwin. I anticipate that will be located in Darwin. Those two officers have been offered positions in that new regulatory office. They are considering whether they want to take those positions. Those two positions would move straight across if those people want to take them. That is where that is at the moment and I anticipate that to be in Darwin. I have spoken to the regulator and that has been the conversation to date.
The initial drug and alcohol testing will be done by police as it always is. It may differ in the future. There may be a position where the national regulator may want to tender it to someone else, but at this point it will be the police. I do not anticipate the police pulling trains over for random breath testing but they will undertake the necessary testing.
You did touch a little on rail around Tennant Creek and there has always been this conversation, particularly by Everald Compton, about the Iron Boomerang and what opportunities that may provide the Northern Territory. As an idea or a concept it is generally seen as being ‘out there’. It is a very good concept but there needs to be a lot of economic modelling to make it come to fruition. It is a philosophical position that would be very good to embrace but it is a long way off. However, I would be very happy to entertain that idea.
You touched a little on Edith River and I pass on a couple of comments about the Edith River rail incident in December last year. For those who do not know, the water that passed through the area was 74% above the 100-year flood mark. There had not been enough preventative measurements put in place in anticipation of unlikely flooding events. That is a failure of the past but we learn from our mistakes. Fortunately, no one was killed in that accident and there have been a number of measures put in place by Genesse & Wyoming. I will touch on a couple of those.
They now have flood indicator warnings on the major bridges. There are monitoring devices on six of the major rail bridges in the Top End where the six major water crossings are. There are new training regimes being put in place for the rail operators; there are monitors now more than 2 km from the bridge to ensure any rail operators have the opportunity of stopping before they get to those bridges, and that is another good measure.
Another thing they have done is engage meteorological experts to provide advice about extreme weather conditions or information about impending extreme weather conditions which is passed through their national office, with a direct 24-hour access hotline on which to contact drivers. So an improved regime is being put in place which should prevent these things.
I will not continue discussing this bill as the member for Barkly has given his support. The second reading speech provided information and the member for Drysdale put much information into her contribution. It is an important reform agenda for the Northern Territory.
I look forward to working intensively around the maritime legislation and, as I said in the early part of this speech, I think heavy vehicle reform imposes significant challenges for us in the Northern Territory. The reform agenda I am busily looking at is the Western Australian model and how we may need, like, or look to link with Western Australia. I will be happy to have a professional debate or conversation with the shadow minister to see how we might move forward with those issues.
It will be difficult for the Northern Territory. We run an open access regime for transport here. Some of the charging regimes under consideration would be difficult for us and much debate needs to happen about that. I am happy to engage you in the lead-up to any future events that may take place from the reform agenda.
Madam Speaker, we have major support. The Independent member is not in the House. I congratulate and thank members for Barkly and Drysdale for their contributions. I think it is a good day for an unsexy bill in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport)(by leave): I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 4)
(Serial 4)
Continued from 30 October 2012.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this bill allows for saliva samples to be taken from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs. Senior police officers will be authorised to take samples by force, if necessary, under the conditions outlined in the bill.
We all see a community concern about the connection between dangerous drugs and violence. It is frightening to hear the stories from police, but also from citizens, about the violence that takes place in the nightclubs and public places all around Australia, certainly here in Darwin. It is also concerning to hear that new dangerous drugs are regularly hitting the streets making it even harder for police and health professionals to respond.
The opposition wholeheartedly supports this legislation. Despite the rhetoric of the Country Liberal Party that it is part of its community law and order program, it should be placed on the record this legislation was developed by the previous Labor government. It is similar to how the Country Liberal Party now claims the police were recruited in the election promise tally and claims this as an important initiative. This happens. A change of government takes place, but the reality is both the parties in this parliament supported this legislation. We were in the process of drafting this legislation and bringing it to parliament.
Nevertheless, I take it as a compliment that the government now implements our programs and supports our legislation. My only concern about this legislation is resources. It takes much effort and time, especially on the weekend, and I have concerns about how the government will pay for this important program with the cuts to the public sector and a horror mini-budget next week.
Will the appropriate training and testing kits be made available to all officers on the front line and will the testing of these samples be adequately funded? In other words, will the police be able to use the powers we are giving them today or will they be constrained by funding cuts?
If we are going to put such comprehensive and strong legislation in place it is important that police have not only the power but all the equipment, skills and competencies to apply this legislation on the ground, especially because there will not be only one or two incidents. Come Friday night, sometimes there will be more than one incident and we have to ensure policemen can take samples. We also have to ensure there will be adequate forensic scientists and laboratories to test the samples.
There is nothing worse than putting great legislation in place but having things thrown out of court because people were not competent to take the samples, the samples were compromised, or the analysis was not done according to the prescribed standards by a fully qualified and accredited laboratory.
I assure the minister that while we support this legislation now, we will be continually watching to ensure the police are supported, fully funded for their own safety and the safety of the community, and this is not undermined by an ideologically driven mini-budget.
The opposition supports this legislation and will support legislation concerning the safety of the community. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition for this important bill which comes in two parts. Once this bill becomes an act it will activate the second part, the legal frame in which this sits. I thank the honourable member representing the opposition for support of this bill which inserts new powers into the Police Administration Act to allow police to obtain a sample of saliva from a suspect to test for the presence of dangerous drugs.
Honourable members would be aware, particularly the opposition spokesperson, that there needs to be, once the legal frame is established, some regulation around the link between what events would trigger a search for sampling of saliva to determine the link between that offence, that activity, and the presence of a substance. That is work to be done after stage 2.
In responding to the comments about resourcing, it is a new government; there is a change of government. By the way, I acknowledge the comments around, ‘this was our idea’ so good on you. I do not recall it to be honest; however, it is not so much a proprietorship of ideas, it is the support for good initiatives that strengthen law and order - respect for the law and strengthened social order. Providing these additional powers to the police is a step in the right direction.
Nearly every day you hear anecdotal evidence about the presence of drugs on our streets and in our communities. We see, at the same time, an increase in violent assaults and other activities. This takes us in the direction of getting a clearer picture of what is driving the behaviour on the streets or in our communities. It is too easy to pick alcohol and then to craft your policy response almost exclusively around it. This will raise the challenge that there are other factors which are driving behaviour on our streets, particularly violent crime, and this will provide us with the additional tool to gain greater insights into what is happening. Once you have a clearer picture, then you can craft your policy responses more accurately and drive change and deliver a better result for the community.
The opposition spokesman made comments about his grave concerns about resourcing and the horror mini-budget and, quite astoundingly, the ideologically driven mini-budget. You could claim good stewardship to be an ideology. Our fundamental responsibility is good stewardship. This new government will stand on its principle of honouring an election commitment. After saying when in opposition this is what we would do, we now bring legislation within the first 100 days to effect that promise. We will be putting the appropriate allocations behind that commitment to achieve the result and maintain that contract with the community.
Unlike the former minister and the government he represented, we have found, on many investigations, promises and commitments made which were unfunded. The 90 childcare workers was a response to a real need; fine, but it was unfunded. The hospital in Palmerston was a response to a need going into an election and we find there are problems or questions that are not easily resolved as to the ongoing funding commitment or allocation made by the previous government.
I do not feel too challenged by or hold much value for the concern being raised that he only hopes we resource our commitments. That is part of the problem we have been left to deal with: unfunded commitments, legacy commitments in a large quantity. I cannot see how you make the link between ideology and good stewardship, and being responsible for your actions, and tie that up into ideology. Your reference to ideology says more about you than it says about me.
That said and responded to, I thank the shadow minister for police, fire and emergency services for his support. I welcome the support of the opposition. This is but one step of a two-step process. This will not come into effect until the second step has been taken, which is the legal frame in which this sits. With the acknowledgement that this will not affect results on the street tomorrow, this important step allows the Attorney-General to complete the work in which this bill’s passage will take effect and deliver strong outcomes on the street.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ANSWER TO QUESTION
Wurruwi Police Station - Closure
Wurruwi Police Station - Closure
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, during Question Time I took a question on notice from the shadow minister for police, fire and emergency services. As there is no question before the House, I seek leave to answer that question.
Leave granted.
Mr MILLS: The question related to the closure of Warruwi, which is the Goulburn Island Police Station. I offer this as a response.
Only one officer was located at the Warruwi community and, to date, no applicants have been received for the other vacancy. Due to operational requirements, that officer has been relocated to Ramingining. Arrangements have been made for police from Jabiru and Oenpelli to attend Warruwi on 6 and 7 December. Arrangements are also being made to provide a fortnightly or weekly presence depending on resources. That is for two police to attend for two days, staying overnight.
Any urgent calls for police assistance or response will be responded to fro Jabiru or Oenpelli in the first instance, depending on the nature of the report and the capacity to charter aircraft to respond. If the situation is such that they are unable to respond, then the divisional officer will put other measures in place using resources from other areas. The local GEC has been advised and will be contacted by Oenpelli and Jabiru police when they are scheduled to patrol Warruwi so that the community is aware. This will allow them to have prior knowledge to do things such as MVR. There are currently police officers at Warruwi as part of the community patrols.
MOTION
Note Statement - Our Housing Prices
Note Statement - Our Housing Prices
Continued from 25 October 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, housing is a very important issue that we have to deal with in the Northern Territory. I welcome the minister’s statement because the housing policies of the former government are writ large in the bills people have to pay nowadays in their weekly payments. Whilst the government has told us ad nauseum about the shortcomings of our decision to add costs to power and water prices, they forget to talk about their contribution to the housing problems we have in the Northern Territory.
I draw honourable members’ attention to April 2007, when the then Planning minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, made a few comments, I think to the Stateline program. She was asked about where she thought housing would need to be in regard to land release. She said that only 230 blocks would need to be released in the Top End.
The problem with that is she was way off the mark with that prediction of demand. She was way off the mark by about a factor of 10 because within a year or two her budget papers were saying thousands of dwellings would have to enter the marketplace each year.
That is a problem because the former government placed itself in a position where it was not ready for demand and when you are not ready for demand in the fashion we found ourselves - when I say ‘ourselves’, I am talking about the Northern Territory - then you will always be playing catch up. If you look at the media releases and the newspaper advertising in about 2009 you can see they were talking about releasing land in Johnston, Zuccoli and other places and they said, ‘These will be our benchmarks and targets’. They did not meet those benchmarks and targets so we were falling further and further behind.
I was not intending to speak long on this statement but I wanted to remind Territorians that it was the shortcomings of the former government that finally translated into the house prices and, moreover, the rental prices we have in the Northern Territory. I have heard stories in recent times that rent is increasing by about $150 to $200 a week. If we want to talk about pain being inflicted on Territory families then we should consider the legacy of poor planning in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful the Chief Minister has attended to the planning issues of the Northern Territory and we have a Housing minister who is switched on to the housing issues so we can start to roll back some of the pressure Territory families feel.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is very good to be able to address an issue critical to the future of the Northern Territory. I thank the honourable member, the Minister for Housing, for bringing this important statement to the House. Rather than describing principally a problem, it acknowledges a problem and sets out a solution.
In the first week of this Twelfth Assembly we were subjected to an outpouring of misinformation about housing, housing prices, lands and planning and land release from the Leader of the Opposition and the former Minister for Lands and Planning. This misinformation underscored what Territorians have been aware of for the past 10 years: that the Labor Party has no idea how to plan for the future of the Northern Territory and, astonishingly, last night even voted against the Planning Commission, which is a final testament to their lack of commitment to forward planning.
They brought INPEX into the centre of the harbour and there is no doubt that the Ichthys project is of great importance to our long-term prosperity. Fine, but when the current opposition were in government they made no plans for the people or where the people would live as our city rapidly became unaffordable for residents. The former Labor government had no strategy in place to combat that trend, obvious to all when you look at the pressure on housing in Gladstone and Karratha for example, and other resource-rich areas of Australia. Do not tell me they were not forewarned. We do not have a land shortage.
One of the most important decisions I have made is to establish a Planning Commission, not that the opposition sees it that way. Such is their lack of commitment to planning that they rejected it. Fortunately, the decision was able to be carried through this parliament by a new government. This Planning Commission is capable of determining the big picture scenario for the Northern Territory, long-term strategic planning for our future growth. Yes, we already have a Development Consent Authority that is a statutory planning process and that body should be focusing on consent to do something that has already been strategically thought out and defined.
Consultancy and departmental work completed on Weddell will not be overlooked, but like anything Labor promised, nothing has materialised.
Unlike the previous Labor government, I do not hold a belief that any planning work undertaken over the course of previous decades is destined for the rubbish tip because it was commissioned under the other political party and must therefore be discarded - revealing of the attitude of the other side. That is not the case. Planning must be above both local government and Territory government politics. Planning must provide certainty and stability.
My belief is that strategic planning is a bipartisan issue, not that the opposition takes that view, sadly, as evidenced by the mess we have had to fix up. It has to be long-term planning and by its very nature exists beyond a four-year term. It is not about the government. We have to look at work from the earliest days of town planning, the detailed reports and the consultancies that examined the issues objectively and thoughtfully, and we need to take stock of what we have to work with, resolve challenges and assess the best way forward.
We have to consider the way we are growing whether in Stuart Park or the suburbs, Coolalinga or Cox Peninsula, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs or even Borroloola. A reminder, it was as far back as 1985 that Weddell was first marked on the map as an integral part of the big picture.
Subsequent deliberations considered the benefits of consolidation with Palmerston for the best value of shared amenity. Weddell was not discovered by the Labor Party, it was simply an obvious option as our residential requirements expanded, like Murrumujuk, south of Gunn Point.
Let me also emphasise that what the former Labor government had in place was a statutory planning process. No one was looking at the whole picture, not last night when we debated the Planning Commission. They could not see it for the politics and rejected it. Rezoning should not only rely on a block-by-block analysis as it was in the previous government’s fractured policy, it should be outlined in a total strategic manner. There are holistic aspects to urban infill and development.
We also have to recognise the efficiencies of private enterprise, not scorn it. We need to work together, not alienate each other. We must ensure integrated strategic plans are put in place which allow for the Territory’s potential growth. Any development, industrial, commercial or residential, has to be serviced and planners assess whether or not there is properly considered infrastructure in place such as utilities and corridors for road and rail now and into the future.
Businesses seeking to invest in the Northern Territory, whether interstate or homegrown companies, research where the needs and pressures are and respond to the opportunities. They work out the margins of risk and reward taking into account statutory costs, project costs, consultants and taxes. They decide whether or not, if the market drops, a prospective development will become over-exposed. The businessman adds up all these costs and mitigates accordingly.
I question why the Leader of the Opposition, the former Minister for Lands and Planning and the Labor Party believe ‘reward’ is a dirty word, so much so that there is a repeated pattern of the Labor Party taking any opportunity to imply reward equals greed. Their rhetoric is laughable given that people who came here years ago and remain here have proven time and time again they believe in the Territory, they invest in the future of the Territory.
These long-standing business leaders have poured their heart and soul into creating wealth for the Northern Territory: wealth we enjoy today as a community. All the former Labor government can do is whip up the politics of envy and decry the ‘white shoe brigade’, referred to by the former Minister for Public and Affordable Housing and former member for Johnston, also by the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, as can been seen in Hansard of 3 May 2012. Not that I have ever seen a member of the white shoe brigade, whoever they might be: perhaps the occasional previous advisor in the office of the Chief Minister in Palmerston.
Instead, for goodness sake, recognise that those who run businesses in the Northern Territory on the front end make the opportunities. They employ people - consultants, contractors, subcontractors, apprentices, suppliers - then they direct returns from the projects back into the Territory. When a development is finished, everybody benefits from the investment; councils receive taxes, governments receive stamp duty, residents have new home choices, and there are new offices and new retail outlets available.
Unless someone has the drive nothing is created and nothing is achieved for our community. The local developers are totally focused on local content and have stayed here, their families stay here, and their successes consolidate their companies here. It staggers me that those who created landmark developments we take for granted, landmarks repeatedly portrayed on the covers of endless Labor government spin promotions, those businessmen and women continue to call the Territory home even after more than a decade of being derided by Labor.
They came here often with nothing, worked hard, held the Territory close to their hearts and reinvested their rewards. Not, as the opposition constantly likes to insinuate, into personal materialism, but into the next project, into university scholarships and sponsorships, our sporting teams and arts organisations.
No one has the right to denigrate the efforts of those prepared to take risks and achieve on behalf of the community. Many have been here their entire working life and have witnessed the hiatus in planning until the CLP produced the substantive 2010 discussion paper titled Planning for Greater Darwin – it came from opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly have been quick to deride our policies for long-term planning. Mock and scoff! You should note there has also been a major CLP priority and, I together with my colleagues, have spent a great deal of time being informed by professional bodies and Territorians involved in planning. The commission’s objectives, including implementing essential change and supporting sustained growth, were flagged two years ago within our 2010 discussion paper.
Member for Nelson, you asked why a top-grade strategic planner cannot fulfil this task. It is because we need the skills and long-term commitment of a team not an individual. The need, although pressing, had not been a priority for the Department of Lands and Planning for years; short-term pressures drove their agenda. Landholders will release land once there is certainty about the parameters for development. Landholders will be prepared to start new projects as former frustrations are alleviated.
In the rural area, for instance, the previous government had no strategic plan for nodes of development or how to service them. For years, everything hit a brick wall because no one had to put a structure in place to connect things together, such as critical sewerage and waste disposal, roads, and power. The current Coolinginga project is only under way due to a developer’s initiative.
The former Labor government believed it should not be there at all, but rural pressure mounted and businesses which believed in the area committed to building up the area. Coles, Kmart and McDonalds are only happening in the rural area because those top 100 companies were engaged with a developer with foresight and initiative. He resolved the challenges and created an attractive proposition that secures key anchor tenants.
Leader of the Opposition, you initially knocked back Coolalinga only to revisit it two years later in a panic as a need to do so became glaringly obvious. Member for Barkly, you were in the driving seat when departments were batting an urgent need for sewerage infrastructure back and forth. The member for Barkly referred to it in the Legislative Assembly on 27 November 2012, and I quote Hansard:
- I remember a very significant development I was involved with as the minister. All the outcomes seemed good but there was a major challenge around sewerage: effluent disposal. As I took the time and energy to learn about it I started to understand the complex nature and the challenges. The developer wanted to take a different route, very much a shortcut, at a reduced cost, and tried to convince government it would be okay.
What does that say for land release in the next few years when there is such pressure? No one was telling the truth that the lack of infrastructure and planning for new infrastructure were the real reasons why land release was so slow to come on stream. Let me explain this further. The previous Labor government was never on the front foot when it came to planning ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could the minister outline which development he is talking about?
Mr MILLS: It is not a point of order. Instead of having a ...
Mr McCarthy: Oh, minister, come on. Which one are you talking about? You have not told me which one you are talking about.
Mr MILLS: Yes I have.
Mr McCarthy: There are quite a number.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Mr MILLS: It is not a point of order and I did say it. I was illustrating a point if you just listen ...
Mr McCarthy: I do not think you named it, minister.
Mr MILLS: Yes, I did.
Mr McCarthy: We will find out from Hansard.
Mr MILLS: Oh, good on you. You could have listened instead of making a fool of yourself.
Mr McCarthy: I am listening.
Mr MILLS: Instead of having a forward looking structure, it was reactive. To make matters worse they claimed it was everyone’s fault but their own. They were convinced that if they repeatedly claimed it was not their fault it might be true, but it patently is not true. What are governments elected to do? Make decisions, get some push back, cut through: not the former government.
The former Chief Minister and his team were repeatedly told by the industry there were no cranes on the skyline because of one issue outside of government: banks. So you pick one issue - the banks - but you do not talk about the raft of other issues and impediments which are the responsibility of the former Labor government.
Setbacks, volumetrics, heights, planning processes and variations, retrospective rulings, Unit Titles Act, car parking rules, delays to subdivision titles, percentage land payments etcetera. In the case of setbacks and volumetrics as one example, the former Minister for Lands and Planning commissioned an interstate consultant and asked for submissions and comments.
Let me emphasise. The former Minister for Lands and Planning received submissions and comments. At no point did he provide information on the content of those submissions, why would he? He simply introduced what he had put up in the first place, ignoring the results of the consultation process. When those within the industry checked with each other they realised none of them had agreed with the outcome. When the media asked the former minister why the construction industry was not happy, he responded, with a typical spin, ‘Oh, that is not true because we have consulted with them and this is the result after consultation.’
All the former Chief Minister could do was hold continual media events blaming only, and always only, the banks. He and his Cabinet closed their ears to all the issues they could have and should have been tackling. The crucial point was conveniently overlooked: why not look to ease rather than exacerbate the problem of over-regulation and stop putting more nails in the coffin of housing choice, supply and affordability?
An example would have been to consider the scale of infrastructure the initial developer in a particular area has to provide in total when subsequent developers simply hook on without any additional contribution. The cost of this initial infrastructure obviously bumps up the price of every block in the first development, but instead of discounting for services already provided, subsequent developers continue to use the same benchmark.
The problem is obvious. An economic benchmark has been set and we are off at a level that makes it difficult for others to get in on. The new Planning Commission will have to consider this and many other factors. These include all the constraints starting from the availability of land including the task to look at forthcoming urban development proposals under a contextual plan. Constraints are numerous, and we are all well aware of them.
In the early part of this year we released a manifesto that clearly states we will restore the balance between supply and demand of land and will work with private enterprise to promote the development of denser housing projects resulting in more efficient use of services.
My government has moved to act on the issue of housing affordability. On Saturday 17 November, Minister for Housing, Hon Peter Chandler MLA, launched the new home bill access home loan package that commences 1 January 2013. This package will address factors impacting on the delivery of new housing supply and stimulate affordable new supply, thereby lessening market pressure for rentals.
The previous Labor government’s schemes had not increased home ownership rates. Shock! In fact, we saw home ownership rates in the Northern Territory decrease from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011. When implementing schemes, there cannot be an unsustainable continued liability for government. Adding to fiscal problems is not an option for the future of the Northern Territory. We have enough of them already – a big enough problem to deal with.
My government’s goals are to create a vehicle for Territorians to enter into home ownership and to provide the stimulus to increase supply at a more affordable end of the housing market, which is a priority.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. There has been no bigger impact on Territorians than the pressure of increased housing costs in the last few years. It is down to a number of reasons that have been detailed today and the last time this motion was debated. Purely and simply it is due to a government that lost control of land release, introducing policies that worked against lowering the cost of housing and so much against it that the prices of rent went up as much as $200 a week.
I have seen some passionate debate in this House before, during the last week, and in the media in the last couple of weeks about power increases that, of course, no one likes to see. For the average family those power increases may be around the $20 a week mark, which is not a small amount of money for many families to find. However, what I find fascinating in this debate is where was that passion from the former government, now the opposition, when people’s rents were going up $200 a week in most cases?
That has hit Territorians more than any other thing in recent memory. That is the fact, the truth. The price of housing in the Northern Territory has reached a level that is basically unsustainable. Where was the passion in the argument from the then government, now opposition? Where was the sustained passion in the media driven wildly by accusations and information put out by the former Treasurer who suggested things like childcare fees would increase $5 a day per child? No wonder the figures of the previous government were in a mess if you have a Treasurer who works on figures like that.
Housing prices went up as much as $200 a week! Only last week I had a lady in my office pleading with me about the power prices and how they would impact on her. During the year 2010-11, rent on her Palmerston house went from $470 a week to $550 per week and she thought it was madness. In the past 12 months, the last lease she signed went from $550 to $750. There is another indication of a $200 a week rent increase.
We know the new housing policies we are working on will add stock to the market, add land to an area where there has not been enough land released in many years, and will have a direct influence on the cost of housing. If we can see rents in the Northern Territory drop $50 a week or mortgages drop $50 a week, that is a huge difference compared to the price of power increasing by $20 a week. It is the one area where government can have some influence through balanced land release and programs that will add more stock to the market.
On Tuesday 27 November in the matter of public importance, the Opposition Leader spoke about the new Home Access Scheme, and I read from Hansard:
- A housing scheme everyone in industry has basically said is useless; it completely misses the mark of housing finance. A price cap of $550 000 does not cut the mustard. It is pointless and does not give people the opportunity to sell their house in the northern suburbs and upscale into Muirhead.
Our philosophy is to try to support affordability. We are trying to target the market at people who need to get into homes for the first time. Most people in the affordable market will never afford, at this time, a house worth $750 000. The policies of the previous government were forcing prices up so much they had to change their own scheme. They had to lift the cap on the scheme.
To me, there is no clearer measure of a failed scheme when targeting affordability than when you have to lift the cap. What does that tell you? Prices are still increasing. In simple terms - we have the statistics - 93% of applications for the former schemes were for existing homes. If there are 100 houses for sale and 80 to 100 people in the market for those 100 homes, you will see a pretty stable market.
If, by chance or ill-thought policy, you introduce a scheme where you add 150 or 160 buyers into a marketplace where there are 100 homes, the price will go up. You would have to be pretty silly not to recognise that if there are more people capable of purchasing homes but you do not increase the stock you will be left in a situation where the prices will go up. If the former Treasurer and government could not recognise that, there is no doubt in my mind why the budget is in the mess it is.
For the record, there were a few other things the Opposition Leader said in debate on the matter of public importance, but I want to place on the record 15 new house – not units – house and land packages have been bought by Territorians this financial year, all of which are under the $550 000 cap. One of those happens to be in Muirhead. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should get her facts straight and stop misleading the public on radio by saying our cap is too low for affordable housing. That is the key; we are talking about affordable housing.
The 15 house and land packages range in price from as low as $307 000 up to $530 000, which clearly demonstrates the Terry Mills government knows the market. The rate of home ownership in the Territory decreased, as I heard the Chief Minister say before, from 47.6% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2011, another demonstration of how the previous government’s policies were failing.
Housing prices went up because the previous government’s scheme increased the purchasing capacity, plain and simple. Labor schemes did not add to the housing pool and resulted in a turnover of the existing housing market. As I said previously, 93% of HOMESTART Extra loans were for existing stock. Again, no better measure was when they had to lift the cap on a scheme designed to get people into their home and attract people to stay in the Northern Territory. After trying to hit the market for affordability, they had to lift the cap.
Labor’s scheme did not stabilise the housing market. Darwin has experienced the highest housing price index growth rate of all capital cities: 8.2% compared to Australia at 0.03%. The previous government subsidised scheme parameters were amended as prices went up. That further increases the cost not only to government – again, no better measure that their scheme was failing. They ignored the advice of Treasury experts with HOMESTART Extra worsening the Territory’s fiscal balance nett debt by an estimated $59m in 2012-13 and $68m in 2013.
On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition said their schemes helped high income earners. Providing affordable housing is a key priority of this government. Obviously, they were not looking at targeting people in the affordability area. Having a cap of $550 000 will give developers, home builders, a really good cap to set their design parameters around to ensure we do not see prices continually creep up as we saw in the last couple of years.
I have, which is wonderful news for Territorians, a list of – I will just name a few – Abode Homes, About Homes, Habitat Homes, Casale Homes, Overlander Homes, Beare Homes, Tropical Lifestyle Homes, Killarney Homes, Brindabella Group, Vanguard Homes, the Total Group, NIMM Constructions. These are all house packages in the new suburb of Johnston which range in price from $358 500 through to $468 500. As you can see, they are quite well below the $550 000 cap we have set with our new home package.
For the Opposition Leader, the former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, to pour cold water over this scheme before giving it a chance to start and understand perhaps - actually I do not think she will ever understand it. They did not understand how their last schemes were impacting on the hip pocket of Territorians in two areas; that is, through their failed release of land and their schemes that just poured hot oil and flames on an already overheated market. For them not to recognise that is just poor management.
I listened yesterday to some of the other debates. The member for Fannie Bay asked me a couple of questions about businesses and power. In one of the debates he, and many of the members on the other side, said power was an essential service and, therefore, it should be subsidised in the Northern Territory.
If you believe in that philosophy, power should be free. If you seriously believe in your philosophy that governments should be providing subsidies to essential services, you should not be paying for it at all. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have an argument that you are wanting money for something if your philosophy is it is an essential service and should be subsidised.
Where does it stop? You are talking about philosophies, about a government that is trying to get out of a very dangerous financial situation and needs to take the courageous decisions to deal with some of the serious issues with power and water. On the other hand, we had a government that thought it should continually subsidise power and water in the Northern Territory to the point where it goes broke. That is not sustainable.
There are ways people can deal with some of these issues. Before I got into this House I paid my power fortnightly because of the bills that would come in every three months. I struggled with those bills. I started to have $100 taken out of my pay every fortnight and paid directly to the Power and Water Corporation, and that avoided - I suppose you would call it sticker shock - bill shock when those bills came in. I encourage as many people as possible to put away just $20 each week towards their bill. It makes a dramatic difference and helps with budgeting. You are not left with that huge bill every three months.
There are many things people can do to reduce their power usage. We know there are technologies; there are companies which can help you, particularly for businesses. There was a previous Labor government scheme, ecoBiz NT, which they dramatically cut in the last couple of years. It was a good program and the former government should be commended for introducing that program which shows initiative and shows businesses how they can reduce costs.
The same thing can happen in our homes to help reduce the cost of electricity. I heard the Opposition Leader say the other day that in 2009, when they put up the price, she spoke about all these new initiatives such as LED lighting. LED lighting then was very expensive. It has dropped dramatically and I encourage more people to turn to that kind of technology. There are real savings. I have battles every day with my own children - turning the lights off. I do not know how many times I walk into a bedroom and ask why the fan is on, the air conditioner is on, the lights are on. ‘Turn the lights off, for goodness sake!’ That probably happens in most households across the Northern Territory, in fact, right across Australia.
The reality is energy costs money. None of us walk into a shop expecting not to pay for things. You go in, you get what you need, and you pay for it when you leave. It is the same with energy. When we turn a light switch on, we realise it will cost us money, so we need to think about what we are doing and there are things we can do.
The biggest impact on Territorians in the last few years has been the cost of housing. Every business person I have spoken to in the last few months, in every conversation, one thing that comes up constantly is the difficulty they have keeping staff and finding staff because of the cost of housing in the Northern Territory. That is not just in the Darwin area, that is right across the Northern Territory.
Businesses have had to buy houses or rent houses to put their staff in because the wages they are paying do not sustain rent or a mortgage in the Northern Territory. Government can do something about it. Over public housing, some of my colleagues have said it is the poisoned chalice. Goodness gracious, you have to deal with public housing!
It is exciting to be given this portfolio because I know the issues and philosophy based on the strategies we are putting in place now will make a huge difference to Territorians in the next few years - from public housing to affordable housing to the top end of the market, through the timely release of land and having policies and procedures that will focus on adding homes to the marketplace. That will do one thing: stabilise a market that has gone out of control and which will not be stable until people’s wages catch up. It could take a decade from now to catch up if things continued the way they were going.
I thank everyone for contributing to the debate. I only wish the sustained attack on this government for taking the courageous decisions needed to get the fiscal balance right in the Northern Territory was applauded rather than having rotten eggs and rocks thrown at it. There is real passion in the community, and I can understand it. We are part of the community as well but it is being driven by an opposition and media.
Yes, power prices will increase and, yes, it will make a difference across the board. It will affect business, it will affect homes. Where was the same passion when rents were going up $50, $100, up to $200 a week due to the market created by a government out of control in the last few years?
They have not managed well; they have not had the strategies in place to deal with many of these issues. Where was the passion then? Where was the passion of the government of the day when they were watching house prices go through the roof? When they were watching rents going through the roof? Where was the media? Where were the radio shock jocks? Where was the Northern Territory News? Where were other forms of media? Where was the passion to drive that issue, the biggest price increase ever bestowed on Territorians in the last few years, the price of housing? This was all through a lack of managed land release and policies introduced by the former government that did nothing more than drive up the prices of houses in the Northern Territory.
I thank everyone for contributing to this debate. I will not rest until we fix the mess that has been created. I will not rest until we get public housing back where it needs to be, where we have decent housing for people to live in, houses that have not rotted to the core. It will take initiative, and real drive and leadership for this to occur. I have some inspiring people within the Department of Housing. There are some inspiring developers in the Northern Territory who are willing to work hand-in-hand, acknowledging the government does not have any money but has a huge problem to solve.
Madam Speaker, I make a commitment that we will be working to solve that problem.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory
Note Statement - Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory
Continued from 1 November 2012.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on this side of House for their contribution because it is an important issue. I take this opportunity also to thank many people around the country for their overwhelming support given through my personal e-mail, personal letters and my ministerial e-mail system. The way I look at it is that my dream is not only my dream; it is the dream of many Territorians and many Australians. I thank the Deputy Chief Minister for her support and comments about our obligations to children so they can gain the knowledge and skills to get themselves real jobs.
Deputy Chief Minister, I congratulate you again for understanding, in depth, why we need to move Territorians forward. Why we need to get them out of passive welfare, properly educated, and into real jobs. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for those comments.
Also, my colleague the member for Arnhem, deserves my thanks. The dream she identified as hers and that of many of her people was an inspiration, just as she is an inspiration to all people in the Northern Territory. I am proud to call her a colleague and we are proud to be part of the Terry Mills government.
I am equally proud of the third of we Indigenous women in this House - who all just happen to be on this side - the member for Stuart. Her comments and support of my statement are particularly valued because she pointed out how, between her, the member for Arnhem and me, we cover almost all the language groups in the Northern Territory, making us living, breathing examples of how education enhances our culture, our engagement with our communities and the rest of the world.
Member for Daly, I thank you for your support of the statement and the fact you reinforced the need for education. You said education is number one in lifting Aboriginal people out of poverty. I could not say it better myself, member for Daly. I will be working alongside the Minister for Education to make sure this remains a focus of this government. I want to make sure that when I have finished here I can look back at a significant increase in education outcomes.
I truly welcome the lesson provided by the Attorney-General in his speech and his support of my statement. His lesson in history shed a new light on some of the issues I raised. His setting of the 1970s welfarism in its historical context was as informative as it was entertaining, but the message of his statement that we not only need education but also need to use education was a key. I thank him for his support.
I respond to the comments made by the member for Nhulunbuy. While I accept her offer of best wishes, I was pleased to hear her admit that the previous government lost the last election because it dropped the ball on Indigenous development. The member for Nhulunbuy went on to criticise my comments about homelands policy after my response to a question from the member for Nelson.
Unlike the previous government, we are determined not to make our policy on the fly. Homelands policy is complex; it involves many people, a lot of money and an incredible amount of coordination to get it right. We know that because we live on outstations. Our kids have grown up on outstations, our parents have become elderly on outstations and we are determined to get it right. If it takes a bit longer to make good then we will take that time.
The member from Barkly stated that I thought of him as a whitefella. He is wrong. I think of him as a Territorian; one who is misguided in his critical beliefs but, nonetheless, a Territorian. He also advised me to get my fair share of what he called ‘the cake’ in Cabinet. If he had listened to my statement he would have realised that we see the strength in government as cooperation and coordination. Grabbing the cake to benefit my portfolio at the expense of other Territorians is not the answer. Let me remind the House what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday:
- This is only the beginning. As I said before, Territorians have already woken up. Some people are even talking about a deliberate tactic to punish the people in Darwin because they did not vote the CLP into power for the last 10 years. I do not think so. However, one thing they believe is that somehow they have to find money to fulfil the commitments made in the bush, and the easy way out is to slug Territorians in the urban centres with price hikes in water, sewerage, power and services provided by the government.
The Leader of the Opposition is skating very close to offensive racist comments. I have never seen such troublesome political games played with a community uniquely and wholly Territorian. Then I remembered I have seen offensive comments like that. I wonder if I have unintentionally uncovered the Leader of the Opposition’s speech writer?
I will quote a biased writer from the NT News who appeared on a radio program recently. It is unfortunate I have to quote exactly what he said, and sometimes you wonder how this person became a journalist.
- Well, of course, well okay, I maybe, maybe I shouldn’t say it but of course the people in Darwin didn’t elect the present government, did they? ... The present government was put into power by four Indigenous bush seats. So where, where, where paying, where paying electricity bills is not such an issue, I think they don’t pay any. So where this is hurting is in the suburbs, in Palmerston and Darwin, just ordinary people, small business people, the corner-shop people are suffering from this.
These are truly mean, nasty, hurtful words that have, at their heart, a very racist sentiment. Shame on you, Opposition Leader! Take note, Leader of the Opposition, we are not like you and your ghost writer: not urban, not northern suburbs, not bush, we are Territorians, one and all. Your ghost writer and the opposition like to divide the community into camps and pit one against the other: Northern suburbs of Darwin against south Darwin against Palmerston, north of the Berrimah Line versus the south and most, importantly, city against bush. We are all Territorians as one, black or white, bush or city, north or south, wet or dry.
Labor, while classifying people like this, fails to take into account the fact that due to the state of the Territory’s finances, we are all in this together and together we must dig ourselves out of the hole Labor has dug for us. The Mills government is a government for all Territorians. We do not pit one part of the Territory against another. Our election commitments are spread throughout the depth and breadth of the Territory and we will ensure they are delivered.
Yes, member for Barkly, I will, as you requested, remember you and your electorate because on this side of the House we are about looking after all Territorians, something your government forgot, like punishing Papunya because of Alison Anderson.
To highlight this, I will reiterate some of the points I made in my speech. I raised the issue of education in remote areas, the problem with school attendance and how we cannot simply use carrots and sticks to get children to school. We must make school the place to be so children want to be there. I also mentioned employment. Not only must there be jobs in the regions, but people must be encouraged to apply for them. I raised the importance of housing and connection to country.
This government respects the importance of cultural connections to land. We support the right of people to live on their country. One of the things this means is housing. At the moment, about 10 000 Indigenous people live in 2400 houses in homelands and outstations but they have been badly managed from a distance. As with everything else, the previous government tried to solve problems from Darwin. People need to be taught how to look after themselves. If a drain is blocked or a door hinge is loose they need to be able to fix it themselves.
I will speak again about something that really annoys me, the frequent failures of NGOs. So much money goes into NGOs and they are not accountable to anyone. They just run around in communities not really having an impact. We have to pull them back. They are annoying communities and making them very tired because communities are having to have meetings with 10 different people. We do not hear about the failures of NGOs because there are no records. An NGO gets a contract, they do what they think is best, tick the boxes and the job is done. This is not enough because they do not understand the communities they work in.
I spoke of the need for more culturally appropriate delivery of services by Indigenous people. I stand by that. But, let me make one thing perfectly clear: that does not mean simply throwing dollars at communities and telling them to fix problems themselves. There has been some of that over the years and we know too often it does not work.
We, as a government are going to change things. We will stop using lazy Labor ways of measuring the amount of money given to NGOs and, if they spend it all, call it a success. Instead, if - that is a big ‘if’ - we fund NGOs they will have to prove how they spend the money. They will also have to prove they consulted and worked with the community and there are real achievements that benefit that community.
One of the problems we have is these NGOs are foreigners. What I mean by foreigners is they do not come from the Northern Territory; some of them do, some of them are from outside the Northern Territory. They are not familiar with the problems. It takes them months and months just to get their contacts, and there goes the program. People get really tired because they have to continuously talk to these people. Therefore, delivery of the program does not happen.
I once again thank my colleagues for their contribution to the statement. It is a journey, a new journey, an exciting journey, and we thank everyone who has contributed. We thank our people who got us into these roles of representing them and we will be voices for them. We will be working hard to make sure things are being done on the communities. However, as I said, it is not about throwing good money and wasting it; it is about making sure we are starting to achieve results. Those results are getting good quality education, good housing, making sure houses have fans, air conditioners and verandahs.
One of the things we saw on my visit to Ngukurr was a classic example. The houses there had no air conditioners, no verandahs, and just small fans. You were just complaining people will not be able to turn on their air conditioners because of the tariff increases, yet, you did not care about not putting air conditioners in remote Aboriginal communities. What a shame! It is a shame that you thought you were the friends of Aboriginal people and did nothing for them. As I said, member for Barkly, we will look after Tennant Creek because we are here to look after every Territorian, unlike you who punished my community for the sake of one person. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I will reiterate on cultural connections. I am a Nampijinpa because I was born a Nampijinpa. As I am Nampijinpa, I inherit certain parts of the land. In the beginning, in the journey of that Dreaming to the end, I am connected to certain relatives of mine. That is my inheritance. Some people have skin names that have just been given to them. You cannot use that because it is not your inherent right. You are not born into that culture, you do not have a mother and a father who come from that culture in order for you to inherit that skin name. It can be given to you, but you should not overuse it; it is a gift you hold for a certain period of time and you must know when to use it and when to give it back.
Ms Lee: And how to use to.
Ms ANDERSON: Exactly right, member for Arnhem. When an Aboriginal person is born with that skin name and you just got it as a gift you cannot stand up to that person. That is our inherent right. We are born with it because we have different skin name parents. I am a Nampijinpa from Nungerai. I am a Jungala - water and fire Dreaming. I inherit that through birth. You did not inherit your Japangardi in the Barkly region, you were given that as a gift. You must remember that because that is the respect you pay to those people who gifted you, that is not your inherent right.
I will continue talking about how important it is to make sure there is a good quality education. Education is the key to the future for anyone. Education has freed millions, not just in the Northern Territory, not just in Australia, but around the world. It does free you. It gives you opportunities to be a person in society who socialises and interacts, and that interaction must be both ways: economically and having the freedom to go around the country, be able to ring Qantas and book a flight to Bali for your family, book the hotel, get your passport. That is a disability you have created with my people and the NAPLAN results show that.
We now have two generations of kids - the future generation of the Territory – who will be disabled. That is a real shame not just for us as Territorians, but as Australians. When we look at all the RAPs that organisations have - Reconciliation Action Plans – are they true, are they something we can believe in, are they something that will help my people? I do not think so. They are just ‘look good’ RAPs that acknowledge Indigenous people in the Northern Territory or in Australia. There is no real commitment through these Reconciliation Action Plans. They are just there to make an organisation look good.
If we have NAPLAN results coming out in 2012, such as we have seen today, that is a real shame, because it has put the hobbles on the next two generations of Indigenous kids of this Northern Territory. We will be long gone when these kids are struggling. Who will defend them? There will be no one here to defend them, and that is why we have to get things right and the Country Liberal Party and the Terry Mills government is about working hand-in-hand with all Territorians, moving them all forward with a good quality education and healthy people interacting and operating in this society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank, once again, my colleagues for contributing to such an enormous discussion we have had on Indigenous affairs.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Paper - Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Note Paper - Ombudsman NT Report into Residential Development Subdivision at Beddington Road and Pelly Road, Herbert
Continued from 1 November 2012.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman for her report into the approval process and subsequent subdivision of land in Herbert. The ability for such matters to be referred for independent investigation by the Ombudsman is crucial to enable an unbiased assessment of not only what went wrong, but how it went wrong and a frank analysis of what processes need fixing.
The focus of this investigation travels back 12 years to the original development application in May 2000. As a result of her investigation, the Ombudsman found that the advice received by the Development Consent Authority for the first five years of the approval process consistently referred to the proposed subdivision of lots 3103 to 3105 Hundred of Strangways as being unsuitable for subdivision due to seasonal inundation, and that the area should either be excluded from the proposed subdivision or incorporated as one lot.
This advice was based on, and I quote:
- ... significant data knowledge and scientific evidence provided to the DCA ...
and was supported by NRETAS and the Department of Lands and Planning throughout the first six years of consultation. As a result, in October 2005, the application was approved by the Development Consent Authority with amendments excluding from the subdivision those lots subject to inundation.
Only seven months later, in June 2006, the developer submitted another development application for the same parcel of land incorporating the inundated blocks earlier excluded in the application approval of October 2005. Submissions from NRETAS and the Department of Lands and Planning in 2006 contradicted their earlier positions of the preceding six years, a reversal of position that was not substantiated by any conclusive data or tests and directly contradicted recommendations contained in the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives 2002 and the Litchfield Area Plan 2004.
In 2010, those lots were purchased and, somewhat predictably, given the 20/20 vision of hindsight, underwent a major flood event in February 2011 after the significant rainfalls associated with Cyclone Carlos. Flooding was again reported by residents of the affected blocks in 2012 despite the 2011-12 Wet Season recording less than average rainfall.
Despite negotiations to resolve the matter commencing in 2011, the fact remains that there is still no resolution for the residents 18 months after the first flood event. This is astounding to me personally and obviously extremely stressful for those affected. What is even more astounding is that this could have been so easily prevented with due diligence being paid to a proper planning and assessment process.
Loss of corporate knowledge due to personnel changes should be no reason for previous dissenting submissions and scientific data to be discounted, especially given the short time between rejection and the development proposal in October 2005 and its approval in July 2006.
Whether it is a lack of responsible filing and archiving over a period where there was more and more reliance placed on electronic storage of documents, or loss of corporate knowledge or miscommunication, a very costly and distressing mistake was made by allowing these blocks to be subdivided.
Unfortunately, despite the best intentions, mistakes will be made - we are only human after all - but it is how these mistakes are handled and overcome that defines a person or, in this case, a government. It would be easy to stand here now and simply admonish the former Labor government’s failure. It is easy to do that, say it was all their fault and shame on them, or blame the public servants, as my predecessor is very apt to do. However, the stark reality is that it has fallen on my watch to do what they should have done and not only engineer solutions to resolve what is in front of me but also ensure that procedures are in place to prevent it happening again.
I am happy to announce that I accept all ten recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report. I agree with the Ombudsman that claims by the department that the purchasers should have conducted their own surveys for land use suitability are unsatisfactory. As a potential purchaser it would be reasonable to assume that, if there is a requirement for a residential rural block to have 1 ha of dry land adjoining an access road, then that is what it will have. That would have been considered and established during the development application process.
It would also be reasonable to assume that subdivision would not be permitted unless the land was fit for purpose. The department is currently working on updating its electronic information system to better capture and track documents, studies and collected data pertaining to an individual lot or area subject to development proposal.
During the last sittings in October, I introduced a bill to amend the Planning Act. The bill establishes the Northern Territory Planning Commission, which was opposed by the Labor opposition, and which will be able to address many of the issues around flood mapping and changing land use.
It will also be able to provide an extra level of professional scrutiny to that which is already in place. Further amendments to the Planning Act are being considered to ensure developers are held responsible for failing to adhere to the act. I am committed to negotiating a satisfactory outcome for all affected landowners. Where appropriate, those negotiations will include acquisition of land on just terms for those landowners who wish to remain on their blocks. Negotiations will focus on creating drainage to ensure the minimum requirement of 1 ha of land will remain free of inundation.
It is unfortunate the former minister did not pursue a resolution with the vigour the affected residents deserved and that negotiations were allowed to stagnate so as to prevent timely resolution prior to the upcoming Wet Season. That is a shame.
The front page of the Ombudsman report contains the appropriate, if often used, quote from Harvey Mackay, ‘If you fail to plan then you plan to fail’.
Unfortunately, that is a succinct summation of a philosophy carried through 11 years of the Labor government.
I had in mind another maxim to take the Territory forward through the next four years, ‘Proper prior planning prevents poor performance’. There is another ‘P’ there somewhere.
Through the establishment of the Planning Commission I endeavour to make processes that will be more transparent and departments and ministers will be held accountable to Territorians. I will establish this as a requirement through all systems, especially when it comes to planning, and particularly at a time when residential expansion shows no sign of slowing down. I predict it will speed up.
On a final note, the member for Nelson should be commended for his dogged pursuit of this matter and championing the cause of the affected residents. Thank you, member for Nelson, well done.
I again thank the Ombudsman for her thorough and detail investigation. Her work is very much appreciated. It will assist my government to work with the affected families to find a solution satisfactory to all parties, to leave a better system in place and to learn from these terrible mistakes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, as the former Minister for Lands and Planning, I had instructed the department to work on a resolution for the affected residents. We were working on a drainage solution. Unfortunately, there was not a complete resolution for affected residents but, as I instructed the department, we were working on that solution and getting a resolution for all the affected residents. Unfortunately, I have lost carriage of that work and will be very interested to follow the new government and minister reaching a resolution. I believe the best solution was the drainage plan we were working on when in government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker and member for Goyder, I know you will take an interest in this as it is in your electorate. I am interested because I was involved in planning for some time through the Litchfield Shire Council. I also knew about this land before it was subdivided and, in the end, also realised it was a matter of justice that people who should have been protected by the department and the DCA were not.
I thank the Chief Minister for his kind words. We have not finished this yet, Chief Minister. I will be dogged to the end, until these people receive the justice they should from government.
There is nothing wrong with the NT Planning Scheme. I am not saying it should not be reviewed, but there is nothing wrong with it, especially in relation to this subdivision.
If anyone has seen the maps for this development - you only have to look at the Ombudsman’s report which shows a map on the front deliberately put there by the Ombudsman. It shows a very large shaded area taken from the drawings supplied for part of an application by Mr Graham Chrisp, the developer for subdivision PA000317 in May 2000:
- The land the subject of this investigation is highlighted in the top left (north-west) corner. Seasonal inundation/waterlogged soils.
In 2006, that same parcel of land - and you will not see it because it is too small - had an area marked as ‘wet’ which was about half that size and was approved by the DCA. You can see that from the beginning the development maps were inaccurate. It is up to, not only the developer to be giving an honest assessment of the land he wishes to develop, but also the departments to check it and, to some extent, the Development Consent Authority. There were some issues here which have been missed.
First of all, the land should have been assessed correctly. That could have been assessed by simply looking at the vegetation. If anyone knows the Top End they know what vegetation is a sign of wet areas and what is a sign of dry areas. You only have to have some basic knowledge of vegetation types, and you will come up with a good idea of what is wet.
A basic idea would be to not allow that subdivision until it has been assessed in March. There is a good chance there will be water in an area like this in March, so you can just use ground truthing. Ground truthing is something the department and the Litchfield Council used to do quite often – gumboots; the gumboots test. If it squelched you knew you had a high seepage line. If it was pouring in the top of your gumboots, you knew you were in a flood zone. If it did not make any difference except an imprint in the soil, you knew you were in good country. Some of those basic things were not done.
The department also was lacking a decent contour map of the area. The contour map and the vegetation map were required by the minister from the department after the complaints came through. When you get these two maps which should have been done in 2006, you realise straightaway this land should never have been subdivided. Unfortunately, that has all happened. The Ombudsman has criticised the departments for not doing their job.
The NT Planning Scheme does not need too much change; the departments need to follow the rules. I also should put this in the context of the DCA. Most of the blame has been put on the departments but the DCA has to act under the planning scheme, which is part of the Planning Act. Under the planning scheme there are certain things which should not happen. You do not have to travel to this block of land to realise this application for this development required this wet area, which is a lagoon, to be subdivided by four fence lines.
The subdivision requirements in the planning scheme clearly say you should incorporate:
- ... as far as practicable, drainage lines and drainage floors wholly within a single lot.
Straightaway, this goes against the NT Planning Scheme. You should minimise the number of watercourse crossings. There are 4 m firebreaks going through a watercourse; actually they are 8 m because you have four on each side of the fence. You should make sure slopes are outside seepage zones when following drainage lines. All these slopes go straight into the middle of the wet area. You should ensure that each lot has a minimum of 1 ha of unconstrained land, which we know that land did not have.
What is more telling is section 11.4.1 which the Development Consent Authority and the department should have known. It says:
- Subdivision design of rural and unzoned land should:
(a) avoid the development of land of excessive slope, unstable, or otherwise unsuitable soils (e.g. seasonally waterlogged) and natural drainage lines;
You only had to look at the map; you did not have to go out there to realise this land should not have been subdivided. It should:
- (b) retain and protect significant natural and cultural features;
Anyone who had been there would have realised this was a beautiful area, now it has been subdivided into four or five blocks with 8 m of cleared land right through it in different directions.
You should:
(c) minimise the number of lots in, or exclude from subdivision, areas of high conservation significance and drainage protection areas;
Again, in a wetland you should:
- (d) avoid development of land affected by a 1% AEP flood or storm surge event and be situated above the RL 6.0 AHD contour where subdivision adjoins tidal areas;
This land certainly was affected by the 1% AEP which, in the old terms, is the 1 in 100 year flood line. You should:
- (e) minimise alteration or disturbance to natural drainage systems including drainage areas, recognisable watercourses, lagoons and seepage areas;
Again, you only have to look at the map, even though the map was incorrect. The bit of the map that was there was enough to show you there was something wrong. You had to:
- (f) minimise potential for erosion, sedimentation and pollution of water courses; and
All these things in the NT Planning Scheme already exist, as the Ombudsman found out, and she concentrated more on the lack of care by the department. After they rejected this subdivision up until 2005, somehow, in 2006, the same parcel of land was given approval.
I wonder about the DCA’s role. I used to be on the DCA and, generally speaking, when you are dealing with subdivisions, especially in your own area, you just go and look at it. That is good practice if you are a member of the Development Consent Authority. I do not think that happens anymore; they rely on the department to do the job.
I was interested because we set up an EPA last night and my understanding is that it can be sued. The EPA is being set up as an authority and in the bill it stated it can be sued. I was told the DCA cannot be sued and I am not sure whether that is correct. It is surprising because, if the DCA has made a decision outside of the NT Planning Scheme, which is therefore outside the act, why can it not be sued for making a decision which was clearly in breach of the NT Planning Scheme?
I raise that because there are some basic rules about subdivision in the rural area that the DCA is responsible for making sure are carried out. They can get advice from the department but they also have eyes and legs, they can look at maps and they can go out and have a look. They were told by locals, including me, that this land was not suitable. I asked why there was no response to this. Usually, if you say something in a DCA meeting - that land is not suitable - someone will say if that is true or not. There was no response to those comments.
The lady who lives on a nearby block of land, lot 3407, who has been there for some time had said many times that this land had a flooding problem because she has lived next to this parcel of land. We found out that her block is the one all the water goes through.
To add an aside, you would have heard some discussion about what a waterway is in the rural area. When this area was going to be drained by the developer who realised there were problems, he popped in there with a big pump and pumped all the water out. When I asked the department how he could do that without permission from the department - you cannot affect a watercourse - they said it was not a waterway.
You might know that at the last Estimates Committee they came up with this lovely list of what is considered a waterway in the Litchfield area and what is not. Some of them have artificial drains and they said that is a waterway because it has a defined area through which the water moves out. This area has an area where the water moves out but, because it is not a concrete drain or a creek, they have decided to declare this watercourse not a waterway. Therefore, anyone who wishes to pump water out of it can.
I raise that as an aside because that issue has not been sorted yet. This lagoon has no protection under the guidelines the department has brought out. We now know by the contour maps that the water flows through lot 3407 into the neighbouring lagoon. How it is not protected under the Water Act I do not know. It is an excuse of the department to allow the developer to do what he likes. He did. He was allowed to pump the water without permission. That area needs to be sorted out. What protection do these wet areas in the rural area have?
The Chief Minister mentioned there was a drainage solution. For the people who do not understand what happened here, this area was approved in 2006 - people bought the land. It was expensive a few years ago at $275 000-$285 000, so it is probably worth over $300 000 a block now. Because they had the stamp of the Development Consent Authority, one would presume all the rules within the NT Planning Scheme had been applied to this block of land.
Therefore, it is not a case of buyer beware, it is a matter for the government which polices the subdivision. Do I trust the government? Hopefully. There should have been 1 ha of dry land at least. They built their houses on the top side of these blocks. One house went within about one millimetre of going under water. The Saunders’ house was standing in water, it was only a demountable as they had not started to build their house and the Lewis’s house next door had water up to the back of the house; the chook yard had gone under water, all the septics were under water. They could not live in those places until the water went down.
When the hue and cry started on this the developer wanted to build a drain so he brought a bulldozer in and cleared some land. He was going to build this enormous drain. It was such a Wet Season that the whole drain collapsed because the water table was so high; it just fell in like custard. Then he got a big pump and decided to pump the water out. He pumped for about two or three weeks, full time, big pump going day and night until he just about emptied the whole lot. But that was not the solution because you cannot have a pump for the next 100 years and you cannot build a drain, it is just not going to happen in the direction he wanted it.
So the government said they would put in a drain and the only place suitable was through the Walkers’ block and the Walkers did not want it. Two of the three people who were badly affected said they did not want to live there anymore. They were told this land was suitable. Their land now had a bad name. Even if you drained the land so there was 1 ha of dry land, they did not want to live with it anymore; it had caused them so much pain they would rather get out. The government could, if it had to build a drain, lower the water so there would be 1 ha and sell it to people who know that part of the land will be flooded. They could start their lives again and people who bought it would at least know that part of that land will be flooded, not like these people. One of these blocks of land was not shown with any water on it and was 80% flooded. One of these blocks had 5% shown on the map and was about 80% flooded, and one of the blocks had about 50% and was about 80% flooded. That is how inaccurate these maps were.
It has not been a simple thing trying to sort it out with drainage. That might be the developer’s way of trying to fix it, and the government needs to be talking to him about compensation as well. Somehow, he gets off scot free and we blame the department. He should be also brought to task because, as you can see from the original maps and the map that was approved, there was quite a big variation. How come, all of a sudden, this piece of land shrunk? There is no drain out of it - not a formal drain. All of a sudden, from 2000, it was this size and in 2006 it was under half that size.
What we have here is a case where the previous government had to battle against the bureaucracy, I would be interested to see what the bureaucracy is saying under the new government. There was certainly resistance by the bureaucracy because they did not want to take the blame. They did not want to be seen to be the reason this subdivision failed. I blame the department. They did not do the sort of homework you would expect from a department who knows the rules, who would have checked to see if this land had been subdivided under the rules.
There was some resistance there. Eventually, the Chief Minister stepped in and said, ‘We will pay compensation. We will do what the Ombudsman has asked for.’ There are 10 recommendations. The first one is:
- The Northern Territory government support the recommendation made by the CEO of the Department of Lands and Planning on 23 February 2012 and recommended by the Minister for Lands and Planning.
- Pursuant to section 31A of the Lands Acquisition Act, the Minister for Lands and Planning approve the acquisition of Sections 3047, 5212 and 5215 Hundred of Strangways (acquisition by agreement).
The reason we have those three blocks is one block would be purchased so the government can put a drain through because the owners of that block of land are not in agreement with a drain going through their block. The only alternative was to buy that parcel of land, which I believe they would accept, and then the government can put whatever drain it likes on that block. Sections 5212 and 5215, belonging to Saunders and Lewis -- they would like to move out and start their lives again. That is a very good recommendation.
The Ombudsman went on further and said it is not just a case of acquisition; you have to look at the land and improvements. There is fencing, a house, a demountable, bores. In this case the developer might have agreed to put bores down, but there are septic tanks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landowners be compensated for the following:
- (ii) waiver of any stamp duty payable on a property purchased in substitution for the flooded land.
(iii) All conveyancer’s LTO fees and other expenses on purchase of a suitable property.
- (iv) Removal and relocation expenses.
(v) General damages to be assessed or agreed for stress and accommodation or of remedial attempts undertaken.
- (vi) Transfer by the landowners of any cause of action they may haveagainst the Developer, Real Estate Agent, Building Certifier, or any other person and co-operation if the Northern Territory conducts proceedings under rights of subrogation in the name of the landowners.
- (vii) Legal costs incurred by the landowners.
On those points, it has been extremely stressful for those people. One family is staying and I suppose their hope is this will go through, the drain will be put in, and that house can probably be high and dry. There is no guarantee of any of that happening at the moment, so that family with their completed house will be subject to the possibility of flooding this year unless the government does something fairly urgently.
It has been stressful for the other people as well. One of the owners was pregnant at the time the floods came up around the demountable. She was having a baby, starting a new life, building a house and, all of a sudden, that was destroyed. The people next door put a great deal of time into building a nice house on stilts, getting the chooks going - all the reasons you live in the rural area - when all of a sudden there was no septic tank, the chooks had to go for a swim and they took their boat for a ride around the fire break.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: It has taken so long, and you can see the size of the file. I realise it is difficult to bring this into a small discussion.
I will quickly go on, minister, to some of the other things that have been recommended.
- Where acquisition is not agreed, the Northern Territory government in consultation with remaining landowners, immediately identify, fund and implement effective flood mitigation and resolution strategies ...
I do not think that will happen. Those people simply want out.
- The Department of Lands and Planning review existing legislation policies and procedures ...
I do not mind that happening but, generally speaking, if you read the planning scheme the guidelines are clear; it is a matter of people ensuring they are carried out.
- The Northern Territory government establish minimum standards for flood mapping to ensure records remain contemporary and meet the minimum requirements ...
By all means. We have waterlogging maps that have not been looked at for many years. They are not too accurate from a detail point of view, but they give you an idea where wet areas are likely to occur in the Litchfield Shire.
It is also simply a case of people looking at the land. It might be that the developers have to put more pegs in the ground so we can see exactly where the blocks are, but you sometimes have to do what we used to call ‘ground truthing’. You have to make an effort. Cuts to departments may have made it difficult but before you start to give approvals you need to be saying - I believe the Ombudsman said - you need pretend it is your block of land so you will ensure your block of land will not go under water. You have to feel as if you are the purchaser because this involves the life savings of most people. This is the biggest purchase of their life and to see that destroyed because of poor planning is heartbreaking.
It states both DLP and NRETAS introduced an electronic information management system to capture and retain all available information and data, including both corporate and local knowledge, planning file documents, land capabilities, waterlogged soils, seasonal inundation and flooding mapping for future reference etcetera.
I know the Chief Minister is talking about inputs from the departments. Locals offered input and Labor offered input many times and said it was not suitable for development. I offered my input from the times when I was on the council and said it was not suitable. For some reason, the civilians are not listened to, the department knows best. In this case, the department did not do its job and did not know best.
- The Minister for Lands and Planning seek an immediate review of and amendments to the NT Planning Act to provide legislative requirements on all developers, including penalty and enforcement provisions for non-compliance.
I agree. Responsibility has to go back to developers as well. They cannot just say they put the plan in and it should have been checked by the department. There is a moral and legal obligation required if a person puts a map in and it is different from the actual map, or the actual wet area, some responsibility should be borne by the developer.
- The Chief Minister appoint a board of inquiry under the Inquiries Act to review, investigate and report on the operations, processes and functions of the Development Consent Authority ...
The Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage release for public access the report of the Environment Protection Authority to him relating to the land the subject of this report ...
I have a copy of that because I wrote to the EPA at the beginning in February 2010. This is how long it has gone on. It has been nearly two years and there is no solution yet.
They highlighted a number of things; the Ombudsman has highlighted all these concerns and submitted recommendations. On 21 August, the ABC reported:
- Chief Minister Paul Henderson says Labor will compensate landowners from the Herbert subdivision in Darwin’s rural area, if re-elected on Saturday.
...
Opposition Leader Terry Mills says the government needs to stop blaming departments and be accountable.
- On Wednesday just passed, I met with the Minister for Lands and Planning, Terry Mills, specifically to talk about the Ombudsman’s report and the commitment by the Country Liberals to implement all the recommendations in the report. Mills stated that the report recommendations are accepted by him and that the process to ‘buy back’ the properties will commence. He indicated also that some time in the near future he would like to visit the properties and to meet with the residents.
I know the Chief Minister said they will look at the possibility of acquiring. The issue became a bit clouded because there were also solutions proposed to the drainage. The Ombudsman’s recommendations will do all the things necessary to clear this issue up once and for all.
If those three blocks of land are purchased they are not lost to the government. The government can put a drain in of its own design, enough to allow the water table to drop to allow 1 ha of dry land. They then can legitimately sell those blocks and get most of their money back because you can sell that land with 1 ha of dry ground. You are putting a drain in which will lower the water table and mean the land is not flooded. It is not as though you will pay out an enormous amount of money like $1m. I reckon you would get most of that money back.
My understanding is the government has been talking with the developer. He, at least, is taking some responsibility by building the drain. That is good but none of this should have happened if the whole thing had been done correctly.
I hope the Chief Minister, when he is responding to this Ombudsman’s report, will make a guarantee in this parliament that he will meet all the recommendations made by the Ombudsman. The previous Chief Minister said he would; I hope the new Chief Minister will do that. These people need justice; they were done by the system. It was not their fault, it was not a case of buyer beware. In 2006, and even back to 2000, they should have been able to have a firm belief that any land subdivided in that time would have been subdivided according to the rules and regulations that have been part of the Planning Act, that is, the NT Planning Scheme. That said, you cannot approve a subdivision with less than 1 ha of dry land.
The department did not do its work. The Development Consent Authority accepted some of that information but it was negligent because it only had to look at the maps and it did not fit within some of the other rules in the NT Planning Scheme.
I am not sure what the Chief Minister will do in response to what I am saying. The people want closure; they want justice and they want to move on with their lives. This will not cost the government much money. It will not be a precedent because things happened here which were negligent but can be fixed. I say to the government, please take up the recommendations of the Ombudsman.
Madam Speaker, this has being going on for a long time and that is just the file; it is one of the biggest in my office. I will be quite happy to stick it into the archives if this is ever completed. Member for Goyder, I will be happy to invite you, along with the residents, when this is finally signed off. Chief Minister, please make a statement in this House. Forget the bureaucrats, forget the financial discipline; that is not going to help the people; they are not to blame for any of this. Fix it, promise you will go ahead with all the recommendations, and let us move on.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Local Government
Local Government
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, local government is the vital third sphere of government in Australia. Despite its role and function, local government in Australia has often found itself in the position where, although it may be efficiently fulfilling its functions in the community, the elected members are often forgotten or silent partners in the Australian political landscape. The elected members of our municipal and shire councils are responsible for making decisions and setting priorities at the local level that have a real and direct impact on Territorians.
Elected members are, or at least should be, leaders and a voice for their community. Unfortunately, especially in the case of remote shires, this role as a leader has being diminished to the point there is disinterest or disengagement from the shire at the individual or community level, disengagement that seriously threatens the viability of local government. The municipal and shire councils of the Northern Territory have a combined annual operational expenditure in excess of $400m. The local government sector is a substantial contributor to the Territory economy as an employer and a purchaser of goods and contracted services.
The shire councils collectively employ more than 2000 persons making the local government sector one of our largest regional employers. The shire workforce consists predominately of local Indigenous persons with 72% of the workforce being Indigenous. The role of local government in rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory is often not well understood by those of us who only travel into remote regions for recreational purposes or as we speed along to some other destination.
Throughout remote Australia, local government is very often the provider of services that are delivered as an agent of another level of government. For example, in the Northern Territory, local government delivers aged care, childcare, youth services, community safety services, Centrelink operations, postal services, maintains and manages aerodromes and barge landing facilities, and provides public housing tenancy and maintenance services.
All these functions, and often more, are performed as a contractor or agent for the Territory or Commonwealth government. The total revenue of the eight regional shire councils is around $250m per year, but more than three-quarters of that revenue relates to the delivery of services for other levels of government. Less than 5% of the shire council’s revenue is derived from their own source revenue; that is, council land rates and service charges.
The recently completed review of the shires’ financial sustainability concluded that while the shire councils are viable in the short term and are not at risk of being unable to pay their way over the short-to-medium term, in the longer term the shires are unsustainable in that they do not have sufficient income to maintain their current asset base. I am determined to ensure that the local government sector in the Northern Territory remains a vital contributor to the community across the spectrum of its functions and is recognised as such by Territory residents and by the Territory and Commonwealth governments. I am also determined to rebuild local decision-making and capacity-building within local governments as this is critical to re-engaging people with their local government body.
By and large, the community regards the Territory municipal councils in Alice Springs, Katherine, Litchfield, Palmerston and Darwin to be sound contributors to their local service areas and generally well-managed both financially and administratively. Like any elected body, our municipal councils are the subject of public debate within their respective constituencies as to the appropriate level of services, the adequacy of community engagement and consultation, the level of land rates that are levied and the level of council service charges. At times this debate is spirited both within council and in the community, as is expected in any participatory democracy.
Unfortunately, and in contrast to the municipal council, the shire councils that were created through the compulsory council amalgamations in July 2008 do not enjoy the same level of healthy interaction within their constituencies. As I have said earlier, there is a level of disengagement from the shire councils that needs to be addressed to ensure vibrant local government is restored and continues to strengthen in the Territory’s rural and remote regions.
There is also an apparent level of misunderstanding about the role the shires play in their communities. Shire councils are not there to replace other spheres or levels of government. They are not there to manage people’s lives for them or to replace the roles and functions of private industry. In fact, when shire councils actively seek out and perform work that would normally be performed by private companies or individuals, they are disempowering people as well as contributing to the problem of the lack of an economy and the lack of jobs that can and should be created. This disengagement and misunderstanding is not healthy for good governance.
While these problems were evident in the old community government’s councils, they are significantly worse now under the super shire model introduced by the previous government. Some shire councils are now unable to attract nominations to fill vacancies. A significant number of casual vacancies in general elections have been filled by the automatic election of uncontested nominees. The level of interest is so low that shire employees are not required to conduct community consultation on what is needed by residents or they are unable to conduct such discussions simply because no one is interested in nominating to represent the community. This is not to say there is no interest from individuals to represent the community’s wishes. They have simply lost all interest in working with the existing shire model.
Elected councillors are also looking for additional support and guidance to help them fulfil the role they have taken on as elected members of large councils. There is significant work to be done in assisting elected members understand not only their roles and responsibilities but also their responsibilities and obligations as councillors. Not understanding these important aspects of the role is only feeding into the growing apathy surrounding the shire model.
In summary, the shire councils that were created in July 2008 may have made significant progress across a wide range of issues on the management front but, in most cases, have failed to recognise and value the input of their community members. In short, we need to put the local back into local government. As I travel, I hear many calls for change and have been hearing similar calls for change for some time. Since becoming Minister for Local Government, I have travelled to several communities to talk to the people and let them know that any change will not be fast and will be carefully considered.
Local government was a key reason we were elected as a Country Liberals government and I acknowledge the strong opinions on what needs to be done better, particularly in the bush. I am very proud to be part of what will become a new era of local government in the Territory. The key areas that I see are important in strengthening local government are:
ensuring local government is respectful of cultural authority and is connected with the people it governs. This means boundaries that satisfy communities of interest and community connection tests
Today I inform the Assembly of the progress already being made toward strengthening regional governance and giving local people a real say in what happens in their communities. I took the opportunity of speaking at the 2012 annual general meeting of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, LGANT as we call it, which was held in Alice Springs to reconfirm the government’s commitment to listening to the range of stakeholders and their ideas about how we can work together to make local government better.
As minister, I will be listening to all the different views and perspectives from local residents who want better services, from elected members representing their electorates, from council staff who provide services day to day, to LGANT as the peak local government body, and to the program managers who rely on local government to deliver their services in the bush.
To assist in gathering feedback about alternative models for local government, I have appointed a regional governance working group with members drawn from across the Territory whose task it is to develop an options paper of alternative models for strengthening regional governance. The appropriate structure to provide strong regional governance may differ depending on the location. A key principle is that the council is responsive and connected to the people.
However, as I advised the LGANT annual general meeting, we are not going back to the small localised community government councils which existed prior to July 2008. Members of the regional governance working group will meet during the course of the November/December 2012 Legislative Assembly sittings. The first face-to-face meeting of the group will be in Parliament House tomorrow.
The working group will prepare on options paper which will form the basis for widespread community consultation and feedback. I thank the members of the working group for their willingness to undertake this important task and I look forward to their deliberations.
The consultation paper will be extensive so all Territorians, particularly those living in regional and remote areas, can have their say about any potential new arrangements. Working in parallel with and assisting this working group will be people brought in to provide advice on governance issues and training issues that will be required to be developed in order to implement any potential new local government model or models recommended through the process.
Rebuilding and re-establishing local government in the regions is important, but what is even more important is that the model implemented must be appropriate and must be understood and accepted by the community. It must be financially sustainable, accepted by all stakeholders and must last.
One of my first actions as Minister for Local Government was to disband the task force established by the former government to oversee the implementation of the recommendations flowing from the financial sustainability review of the eight regional and three smaller shire councils, commonly known as the Deloitte report. This does not mean work has stopped, and I thank the task force members for their participation in that work. A dedicated team within the Department of Local Government is continuing to progress the priority remedial actions identified in the Deloitte report. These actions are relevant to improving business practices across councils regardless of any changes to structure.
For example, among other priority actions, work is currently under way to develop a standardised budgeting framework and methodology for councils, an appropriate methodology for allocating council overheads in funding agreements with other levels of government, and practice note guidance for forming and operating council audit committees. This team will continue to work closely with LGANT and its various reference groups to develop practical tools and methodologies which will strengthen sustainability and accountability.
There are many points of view about local government and this government is keen to see evidence of what is working and what is not. Nonetheless, it is clear we need to change the way local government is going about its business. We need to strike a balance between organisations which have links with local people and have cultural authority, and with organisations that can deliver efficient and effective services.
As I have said previously in this Assembly, the challenge is to recognise the hard work and efforts of the majority who work in the shires and local government, and to make the necessary changes to return a greater balance to community engagement and cultural governance while maintaining financial security. This government continues to make important steps towards a greater voice for all Territorians regardless of whether they live in Karama or Kintore.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House and for his commitment to continue with the development of local government reforms in the Northern Territory following on from the reforms Labor brought in, in 2008, after many years of it being talked about and recognising the existing structure was not delivering services. They were tough reforms and some tough decisions had to be made when Labor brought in those local government reforms.
The minister has stepped into a big portfolio. He did not hold the portfolio in opposition as a shadow, although I know he had many insights into it in his capacity as the shadow for Indigenous Policy in the last term of parliament. Obviously, those two portfolios go very closely together. As I have heard him say on many occasions during the past four years, he travelled the length and breadth of the Territory talking with Territorians, going to remote communities and understanding what people’s issues are. That is what I will be doing. I have travelled a fair bit but, obviously, I have a lot more to do in the next term of government.
I take some reassurance from the statement the minister has delivered because roles are very different when you are on this side from when you are in government. You always wonder when a person goes to that side and gets that portfolio, how they will handle it. Will they be a wrecker or a builder? I am getting a sense from the minister - I cannot speak for the whole of his government - that he will be a collaborator, a builder. There are a few signals that tell me that. It starts with the language of the statement compared to the language the member used when he was in opposition.
It speaks volumes about the fact that when you are in opposition you have the opportunity to raise many questions, many issues, and share many stories. You do not necessarily have to find the solutions. You do, at some stage, have to find the policy area about what will differentiate you from the government, or the government from opposition. The minister is on that journey as he settles into his new role where he has to find the answers, listen to Territorians, work with what is currently in place to find solutions to some of the issues we all know have arisen out of local government reforms and with our current shires.
I attended the LGANT AGM in Alice Springs a number of weeks ago and the minister was present. I would have been very surprised if he was not, but he was there and addressed those gathered. I could not help but have a little smile to myself when he was addressing those gathered. He said that when he was in opposition he did not have the portfolio of local government. He said he was not the spokesperson, and I thought to myself that it never stopped him from talking about it. I had that chat over a cup of tea at the morning tea. It is such a shame you did not stay, minister, because people wanted to have a chat with you. I know you are really busy and trying to get around but ...
Mr Giles: I had to go to the SCOTI conference and talk about rail legislation.
Ms WALKER: That is a shame because a few people commented that the previous minister used to stay for a cup of tea and chat with people. You did not have that opportunity; however, I am sure you will make sure you do next time.
I had the conversation with a few people about the fact you were not the spokesperson but you were never short of a view to share on the shires. I will tell you which comment you are famous for and that people remember most. I bet I do not even have to say it because you will know it, ‘the shires are toxic’.
That is what the minister used to say. ‘They are toxic! They are a basket case!’ Maybe there is a little lesson there about what you say and what sticks because everyone there remembered that. Not only did they remember it - I believe they will forgive you - but they resent it. That sort of comment does damage to people. Whilst I know you tried to talk your way out of it eventually, ‘Oh no, I am not talking about the people who work there. I am not talking about the elected councillors. I am just talking about the concept of shires.’ That is not how people saw it and there are elected councillors and people who work for the shire who did not see the shires as toxic, did not believe they were toxic, and resented those comments the minister made when he was in opposition.
I am sure now he is on the other side he will take a different approach and I know he will not be toxic.
Mr Giles: I will give you a couple of good stories when I retire.
Ms WALKER: I look forward to it, minister.
In this statement, I am very pleased to hear the minister is focusing on what will be a key area of work: supporting local people who are stepping up to the plate and offering their services and commitment to be an elected councillor to represent their community, their ward, in local government. That is a really important area to focus on. When we were in government we knew that area of focus had to be addressed and it was a road we were travelling down in review and policy reform in the lead up to the election.
I cannot remember the number of local government ministers under Labor, but it was something that we were working on and the fact that the minister is doing it is good. It is where we need to be going. It is important because these reforms are relatively new. It was a significant change for people in these areas who had lived and breathed under a community government council structure to then, on 1 July 2008 with new legislative reforms, see the establishment of shires and with it the elected councillors. It is important for those people who are in those roles to have support to build capacity, build their confidence, and build the governance structure around that because without those things in place, and effectively so, you will never get the ownership or the buy-in. I witnessed in my own electorate with the East Arnhem Shire, the growth of that shire, not just the councillors but those who are employed in the shire in their various roles.
When invited and available I have attended shire council meetings and my observation over the four years I have been there - and we have had elections so from March of last year, there are some new councillors - you get a very strong sense when sit around the table that these people are in control of what they are doing with formal meetings around a table and what their roles are in discussions.
People talk to me outside of these meetings as well, not just at the formal meetings, but we have to recognise that shire reforms are just over four years’ old. Change will take time, change will be challenging. Not everyone will want to come along for the ride as part of that change, but it is the reality of how these change processes work. I cannot speak for all shires, but I believe we are starting to see they are turning the corner and elected members are starting to take control of the business for which they are responsible.
Apart from supporting elected members, which was a key priority of the Labor government, priority was also given to developing a skilled local government workforce - creating jobs and career paths in local government for the residents in the bush communities. There is nothing more important than that. I know for the years I have lived in a regional area - Nhulunbuy is almost urban compared to some of the communities within my electorate - about making sure we do not accept that for now and forever we will rely on workforces that fly in and out to do jobs that could be done within that community. We are talking about skilled jobs, tradesmen’s jobs, jobs that people can learn and jobs which I know over the years, certainly in north-east Arnhem Land, Yolngu people have done.
Continually striving to build a workforce and capacity in a local community to have those jobs undertaken by people in that community, rather than them being out of work and on welfare, is clearly the path we have to keep working on. That workforce needs to have access to professional support, personal development plans and to build those skills. When you build those skills you will build the quality of the work and the services being provided for local people. I am talking about those who are employed within the shires on communities.
Local people understand those lines of cultural authority I heard the minister talk about and the cultural context local government works in. That is why it is so important to have the buy-in and the very valuable contributions of those elected members around the tables representing their communities.
It is not just about shires when we talk about jobs working in isolation. Coming from an education background myself, it is about working with the education sector, the schools, the providers of VET within schools, so we are lining up the programs being offered in schools around VET to match up with jobs in the community. Not all of those young people who are moving on from school necessarily want to stay in their community, but it is about choice and they should have the choice to be able to move on to their community, to move into Darwin, or wherever they might like to go for further work and study.
For those people who want to remain in their communities it is important that the shire, being the major employer in each of these communities, has pathways from schools into the shire if those jobs are there. I know that in some places such good networks and pathways have been established that it is about looking at where the pathways through education are to map out what all of those jobs might be in that community across ranger programs, through police, through administrative jobs, through the health clinic, for instance.
The minister said that 72% of people in shire workforces are Indigenous. That is a really good figure …
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms WALKER: You will have your turn to talk in a moment, member for Arnhem, by all means.
Seventy-two percent is a good figure. I do not know what the employment figures were under community government councils as to the percentage of Indigenous people. I do not know if anyone knows that, knowing that one of the issues around community government council ways was the capturing of data and records. While 72% is a good figure, it can and needs to be higher. I am sure that the minister will have that on his radar.
If I look back at the Labor government’s commitment to building these jobs in communities through shires - there was a $30m jobs package. I note that the minister is committed to driving and developing those jobs and I commend him for taking that on because it is incredibly important.
Knowing that we want to build jobs in the communities, there are a couple of things I need to mention. There are concerns around cuts to jobs and, therefore, potential cuts to services in the shires as a cost saving measure. We know there are clear indicators that funding for frontline support, and sport and recreation officers within local government, is a strong possibility. I know the minister will not be able to answer that; we have to wait until the mini-budget is handed down on Tuesday. However, whilst you are having to make some decisions, I would not want to see cuts to jobs in the bush.
Of all the things the minister said when he address LGANT, this was the one that popped up in the media. He made a comment about the ratio of employees in shires to the number of constituents they serve alongside the ratio of employees in our municipal councils - Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Palmerston - to the number of constituents they were serving. The ratio of employer to constituent in municipal councils is quite small compared to the ratio in the shires.
There are many reasons for that. The employment figures for some of these municipal councils may not be clear because they work with many contractors. If the suggestion from the minister was that the shires were incredibly inefficient for employing X number of people to X number of constituents, then I am a little concerned that was flagging that he may be considering looking at job cuts, which would be a real shame.
Minister, you talked about the importance of the Deloitte report. Financial sustainability for the shires is a big issue. The previous minister instructed the agency to commission that report from Deloitte so we could get a real handle on the situation of shires and their financial positions. I am pleased to hear the minister say that report continues to be at the centre of much work in trying to implement the recommendations, find the cost efficiencies and inefficiencies in how the shires are financed, and what can be done to turn the situation around for those in short-term financial viability to a more secure sustainable and longer-term future.
We know power and water tariffs are on the increase. The Treasurer has been very clear that the pain will be felt right around the Northern Territory. That is a real concern in remote areas where the cost of living is already much higher than in urban areas. If shires have to meet the increased operational costs associated with power and water then where will they find those cost savings?
It is the same as the health clinic, the schools, and other education facilities. The first place to save money will be in a reduction in programs, services and/or jobs. We will be very interested to hear what is handed down in the mini-budget next week as to where those cuts will be.
For those associated with the municipal councils, this statement is predominately about shires. It is the area of greatest need, but I want to mention what the municipal councils are up against. When I attended the LGANT conference it was good to meet those mayors and CEOs from the municipal councils. Some of them I had met previously, but it must have been on that day the power increases were flagged as being significant; I believe they were the words of the Chief Minister.
I remember on that day Mayor Fong Lim from Darwin issued a media release about the very serious impact the increases would have on Darwin City Council. Ian Abbott, Mayor for Palmerston, had also mentioned how worrying it was for Palmerston City Council and how they would deal with it. I think they have announced a 6% increase and are less than happy they had to take back some street lighting infrastructure which previously they were not responsible for and, somehow have to find an additional $300 000 to service that. The only way they can manage those costs is to pass on rate increases to ratepayers who are already being hit with 30% power increases in their homes.
Minister, you correctly pointed out that shires do not have the same ability to raise revenue through rates. How will shires or local government in the bush be able to move forward with these new power and water charges? I trust that in Cabinet you are thumping the table and lobbying hard for any relief you might be able to find for these charges. Obviously, a little pressure yesterday from the member for Nelson has had the Treasurer rethink relief for the non-government school sector, given the hammering she got about that. I trust you are working with your colleagues to find ways we can get some relief for those in the shires.
In your statement you spoke of the task force that had been established. I know you have thanked them, I know it has been disbanded, but it is disappointing as it was a group of people who are eminently qualified to take on the job to, essentially, do what you are asking your new group to do - a different name, very much the same purpose. We have lost 13 weeks into review now by going through that changeover. I understand when a new government comes in it is determined to make its mark and do things its own way, but I trust this does not mean now there will be a rush on the new regional governance committee which is meeting tomorrow, as you said, for them to produce something within a certain period of time. Rushing things is not a good way to go.
The matters around the shires, reform and looking at regional governance are too important to rush, especially given the time of year we are coming into: December, January. Many people may be away, or maybe they will not be because not everyone can afford holidays now. It is generally not a good time of year to be engaging with people in communities. I am interested to hear from you as to what time frame you were looking at in getting feedback from this group - the options papers you are anticipating they will produce - knowing this group will consult with people right around the Northern Territory.
From what I know from working with Indigenous groups, time is precious, time is gold. One of the first lessons I learnt when I became a local member was to ask every stakeholder I met with for their best advice and what I needed to be doing. I will never forget the advice I received from the Executive Officer of the Northern Land Council in the Nhulunbuy office. He thought about it and said, ‘Time. Just remember to give people time when you are talking with Indigenous people, talking through an issue, looking for their feedback, maybe looking for their consent or opinion. You have to give people time.’ I am hoping, minister, this group you are forming has the time to properly consult and come out with the best outcome.
What was I going to say next?
Mr Giles: You have made a solid contribution already, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I am a little tired today, minister, so you will have to forgive me. I wanted to talk about the history of local government reforms. In the Northern Territory, we had community government councils for years. Under the CLP government it was, for whatever reason, too hard to address. Reforms were never brought in even though we knew there was a level of dysfunction which translated into services not being delivered, and the cost factor, the lack of transparency and accountability. Our reforms are only four years old ...
Ms Lee interjecting.
Ms WALKER: You will have your turn in a minute, member for Arnhem. I am sure you will have plenty to talk about representing a bush electorate. You and I share the East Arnhem Shire.
What I found interesting at the LGANT conference was an address given by one of the keynote speakers. She was the president or chair - I cannot remember the term - but she was from the Western Australian local government authority. She gave an overview of the history of local government reforms in Australia. I am telling people this to illustrate the fact that the Northern Territory has been the last place in Australia to catch up with the reforms in local government.
In Victoria, under Jeff Kennett, the Liberal premier in the 1990s, they went from 210 local government authorities to 78. In Tasmania, they went from 46 local government authorities to 29 in the early 1990s. Then in 2011, they had a review of governance structures.
Mr Giles: Can you just read those numbers out again for me, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Tasmania, 46 local government authorities to 29. In South Australia, their process of amalgamation around local government occurred in 1997-98 and they went from 122 local government authorities to 68. Under Premier Beattie in Queensland, they went from 157 to 73. Obviously, Western Australia is on the brink of local government reforms. It will be a very big election issue for them come March next year. In the Northern Territory, we have gone from 61 to 17. This process of local government reform was not plucked out of thin air. When it came to the Northern Territory, it followed a natural progression of what had been happening around the country.
I will also talk about building service delivery capacity in shires capitalising on Australian government funding to address Indigenous disadvantage in the bush and where the minister’s plans are in that sphere in supporting local government to build that service delivery capacity. I did note that at the LGANT conference, amongst the things you talked about minister, there was a focus on the need for customer service and the fact that is what shires are for - to look after the people, their roads, rates and rubbish. They are the core functions, the basic ones, but we know the shires are delivering much more than that. The minister has listed in his statement the other things shires and councils are responsible for: aged care, childcare services. As much as they probably do not want to be doing it - I know they do not - postal services for Australia Post. I know they are seriously underfunded to carry out that task in the absence of a post office in some of these communities.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: I want to go back to this business of service delivery. I want to go back to that debate about community government council versus shires when the current government was sitting on this side and the objections they were raising to government and the expectations they were raising in the electorate around the fact that they would be prepared to bring back the old community government councils because these shires are toxic. I found an interview which the then shadow for Local Government had with Pete Davies on Mix FM. Pete puts it to him as the interviewer:
- Willem I mean isn’t the government between a rock and a hard place on this? I mean the old model where you have the smaller individual councils that in many respects did not work because there were some serious flaws in terms of the allocation of resource, the squandering of money. The approach of the super shires whereby services delivery would be streamlined and that resources could be applied in a broader sense is a more cost effective way, would make sense? It is as simple as trying to fine tune that system. Is it not all about service delivery?’
And the member for Katherine replied:
- Oh! Look it certainly is about the delivery of services and Pete you are absolutely right you know. The old system of small community government councils right across the Territory did not work. It was fraught with problems and particularly around governance. I suppose if you could put it under one little heading it would be governance and, you know that, well, I suppose it went down to corrupt practices. You know resources that were perhaps even fraudulently allocated, you know and there was some really major problems... I am very cognisant of, you know, those problems and would never countenance a return to those days. There is no doubt about that.
Very sensible words from the member from Katherine. This is what is at the heart of that move from community government councils to the shires.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member from Nhulunbuy, can I interrupt to welcome some students? I advise honourable members of the presence in the Gallery of Katherine School of the Air students accompanied by Ms Leanne Bugg. The students are upper primary students from Warebun community, approximately 70 km northeast of Katherine. The students are enrolled with Katherine School of the Air and their teachers visit the community three days per week. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your visit and tour of Parliament House.
____________________
Ms WALKER: Regarding this quandary faced by successive governments about how best to deliver services under a local government model that works, I want to go back to a speech made by Elliott McAdam in 2006 to LGANT in Alice Springs when he was Minister for Local Government. Labor had been in government for five years and knew they had to do something about the community government councils and service delivery to the communities, something the CLP were never prepared to tackle because it was an incredibly hard and challenging reform.
This is part of what Elliott McAdam said in that speech:
- In March 2006 my department conducted a risk assessment of 56 councils - that is, the 30 Community Government Councils the 23 association councils and the 3 ‘ORAC’ councils. This risk assessment classified 50% of the councils as either ‘high risk’ or ‘dysfunctional’.
In the last six months, 22 councils (38% of all community government and association councils) have advertised or re-advertised for a chief executive. Eight chief executive positions have been re-advertised within the last 12 months - in other words, we are still seeing high numbers of newly recruited CEOs resigning within a year.
In the last six months the department has been required to make 17 major interventions into the affairs of councils due to financial, administrative and/or governance irregularities.
These interventions included four ‘show cause’ notices to chief executives involving allegations of serious financial mismanagement.
Clearly, this situation cannot continue.
A situation such as that was not sustainable and, worse than being not sustainable, it meant services were not being delivered into these communities where funds were being provided. That was in 2006. It was no wonder Labor continued on its commitment to implement reforms in local government because it had to be done. That simply, as Elliott McAdam said, could not continue.
I want the minister and the government to address the key issue of employee housing and how that is currently limiting improvements to service delivery in our remote communities. One of the reasons we have people fly in and out to do jobs is there is not the infrastructure there to house them. There has been a huge housing program for residents, and so there should be. I know how weary people got before the SIHIP program started seeing new houses going up, ‘New houses over there, they are not for us; they are for teachers’ or ‘They are not for us; they are for the new policeman’.
SIHIP has delivered an incredible number of houses. It has not resolved the entire situation, but it goes a long way. However, we have to go back to the fact we need employee housing for people in the shires, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous. There needs to be a serious re-examination of the old policy around, ‘You are a local recruit, you are not entitled to housing’.
Minister, the other key area I will address is working with elected members and land councils. Land councils are part of this regional governance group, so that is fantastic. They need to be a part of that so we can look at their vision of how we can work in shires and, in relation to building new infrastructure, how we will work with land councils and traditional owners to break through some of the barriers we have come up against in establishing leases.
We look forward to seeing what comes out of that report, hoping it is not a rushed report, understanding there are a number of options coming out of that and those options go around the Territory for consultation. I am sure you will talk about that. Whether it will be a road map for the future, we do not know, we will wait to see.
It is funny what a contrast it seems to be to the very dramatic and determined promise from the CLP prior to the election to dismantle the shires. There might be some dispute about that, but that message was certainly out around the bush, certainly in and around my electorate. You were right when you said shires featured heavily in the election and it was like the game changer. I do not know how you will manage that message about the shires being dismantled. Even as recently as – I have a transcript from the ABC on 22 November, when the Chief Minister was still using the language of ‘dismantled’, which is entirely at odds with what you are telling us today. Minister, I am much more assured by your words than those of the Chief Minister.
The transcript says, and this is paraphrasing, that the Northern Territory government says there will be many issues to work through as it dismantles the super shires and sets up a new system for local decision-making.
I trust we are not throwing the baby out with the bath water. It concerns me that the messages coming from the Chief Minister and you, member for Braitling, are so at odds with one another. At LGANT you said you are not about wholesale massive change. That is a reassuring message because I do not read wholesale massive change as aligned with dismantling.
Madam Speaker, I have to talk very quickly, I have one minute to go. Minister, I know you have your work cut out for you. We will be interested to see where you are in four years time in relation to what you have delivered. You have made some big promises under the commitment which says, ‘We will fix the bush’. You will establish regional councils. The contracts we have seen for Wadeye and Borroloola - Borroloola is like a template for the major communities. There is a commitment there about all types of things you are intending to do. We look forward to seeing what comes out of the report from the Regional Governance Working Group and hope to see a government which moves forward collaboratively as builders not wreckers.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, my contribution will be very short so I am sure the member for Nelson will not mind.
I thank the minister for keeping the House informed on the importance of local government issues. Those bush seats which were won from Labor members of the previous government by the Country Liberals clearly indicate the dissatisfaction of constituents with the current situation of disengagement brought about as part of the shires implementation.
By way of general comment on the minister’s speech, he seems to have hit the mark with many of his observations and conclusions. He started with the way local representatives are elected to the shires and the way they interact locally, though the local board does not seem to be giving results or outcomes, but as he put it, ‘disinterest and disengagement’. The local board at Nauiyu or Daly River is a clear example of how a growing disinterest has developed. At the last meeting I attended before the election the only attendees were community members who were on paid salary. There were no private business representatives from the area, no self-employed people. Cynically, I suggest some simply attended to get out of their day-to-day jobs. Do not get me wrong, some members clearly have an interest in the local board, but it is not what would be expected. This interest needs to be revived if any new structure is to be introduced.
An expenditure budget of $400m, 2000 employees, 73% Indigenous employees, a revenue base of around $250m – they are big numbers and we need to keep them in focus.
Some see the shires as a problem unique to remote Indigenous communities, but this is not correct. In the electorate of Daly we have been left with, as the member for Barkly would say - and I have been taking lessons from him, it is very good - a dog’s breakfast. It is interesting that the Minister for Local Government at the 2000 election was none other than the previous member for Daly. As cynical as I am, is it the case that a freeze was put on the implementation of further reforms at that time because the minister saw problems for his re-election? If he had put more impost on areas of his electorate he would have been re-elected.
I will briefly describe the structure of shires, councils, local government councils, unincorporated land etcetera, left in the Daly electorate. Victoria Daly Shire covers all those areas west of the Daly, Pine Creek, and some areas around Timber Creek; Coomalie Local Government Council covers Adelaide River, Batchelor and most of the surrounding area; Litchfield Council covers those areas around Berry Springs and out to Darwin River - I am sure the member for Nelson will correct me if I get my boundaries wrong. As for Dundee, Milne and that area around Bynoe Harbour, there is no local government structure. Wagait has a local government council. Can we remember the Top End Shire? Yes, it disappeared. And we cannot forget the Douglas Daly - again left out.
This dog’s breakfast has caused much concern and many day-to-day problems. Those small numbers of private ratepayers in the super shire of Victoria Daly ask why they have to pay for a much-reduced rate revenue base yet they still seem to have an administrative structure for a much larger shire that is based in Katherine when the main service area is north of Katherine.
Coomalie Council has been left in limbo, its funding frozen and employment uncertain for its staff - people affected by incompetence of the previous government. What is it, re-election before people? Dundee: throw in some funds to carry out a strategic plan to ascertain the wish of the locals. This consultation is still being done and will be completed by early next year. However, the question must be: what was the previous government doing by this isolated consultation? Re-election, I suspect. As for Wagait, that is where the previous member resided. What was the plan there?
I am not sure how the recently completed review of the shires’ financial sustainability concluded that councils, especially Victoria Daly, are financially sustainable in the short term when we have such a large area left out of the Victoria Daly. What they concluded for the Top End Shire anybody knows. Why did the previous government not get such a financial review of its borrowings, or maybe that is what the report stated about the long-term unsustainability of the shires - there will be no money left.
The key areas in strengthening local government have been outlined in the minister’s speech and I agree with them. The establishment of a consultative group is supported, but we need to remember the areas I have mentioned which were left out of the grand plan. They need input into the process and final decision-making of a model to go forward with.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s report and support the direction it is taking.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is one of the best statements I have seen about local government for years because it is positive. There is no doubt that fixing local government is a very difficult thing to do. It is not simple. We have a small population and a very large area, with very limited funding from the Commonwealth and the Territory and very small rate bases. That makes it very difficult to run an efficient local government.
I was intending to raise the ‘toxic’ issue but that has been well covered. I know where the debate was at the time. I was interested to know how the local government people had taken to it but that is history. We need to move on. I have never been a fan of the super shires. I was part of the protests that went around Parliament House twice.
Mr Giles: I joined you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. There were plenty of red, black and white balloons because, as I felt right through the development of the super shires - and I am not saying reform was not needed – that it was forced and rushed. I know because I went to one of those meetings we used to have at Litchfield Shire and I was told, (1) I had to get permission to speak, and (2) I had one minute to speak! If that is community input into local government I will ‘go he’.
My local government experiences go back to where Frances Xavier came from. I had my first decent taste of local government working at the then Nguiu Shire Council, a true local government council that represented the community. That is one of the areas in which we have to find that balance. I have never believed a council that is about one-and-a-half times as big as Tasmania can have the word ‘local’ attached to it. I know that before the election the CLP was talking about regional councils. That was a mistake. ‘Regional’ has always been a very large conglomeration of councils.
It is good to see, minister, that in your statement you bring back the word ‘local’. One of the nice things is your very first line:
Local government is the vital third sphere of government in Australia.
For many years, people used the third ‘tier’ as if it was at the bottom. It is just as important as the other forms of government. It is the grass roots and, unfortunately, the grass roots in the case of the super shires has disappeared from the concept of local government. I have been to Daly River; it is part of where I lived for a long time. I was married at Daly River. I know they have lost their sense of ownership because of this. They had a good council before; not all the councils were bad. As mentioned, there were X number of councils that were regarded as basket cases, but there were many good councils.
Our council at Nguiu ran quite well. There were some bad councils but I have always felt it unfair on those good councils. They get lumped into this historical debate about councils being dysfunctional when there were good councils. How you start to develop a new model I do not know, but you have a good foundation for it in this statement. It is talking to people
I am not trying to be paternalistic or preaching, but I have always had some ideas. What you say here, for instance, about cultural authority is right, but you want a democratically elected local government that has the authority to act on that land but then to act as a democratically elected body. The provision of essential services - cleaning up the oval, picking up the rubbish, doing all the other things which are the core functions for council - need to be provided equally for all citizens not based on culture, skin group, or what colour your skin is. They are rights people should have regardless of where they live, who they are and what gender they are.
Using local government has to be based on some democratic principles. Otherwise, some people will get more and some will get less. If you want to add the cultural authority to that, it will give you the underlying rights to operate on their land if that is where we are looking. Of course, not all councils are on Aboriginal land, so it would vary from place to place.
The other problem I see is, especially if we are talking about Aboriginal councils, if you are trying to give them ownership of their councils the worst thing you can do is put in a structure required by the Local Government Act that is so complex you have to employ people on very high wages, who usually come from interstate as you might remember when originally the local government CEOs where employed, and plonk them in a piece of country that is not in the centre of the community. The member for Daly made the classic point about where the centre of the Victoria Daly Shire is; it is in Katherine. It should have been at Wadeye. It might have been difficult for people but it should have been at Wadeye to show that council people are part of the community; they live in the community. If there are problems in the community they know about them, they live, breathe and are part of the community. Putting people in Katherine does not send that signal.
The other problem is if Aboriginal people are to take over and learn about the responsibilities of managing local government, we have made it more complex instead of making it simpler. If you only have to look after the core functions why do you need mammoth piles of computers and managers and sub-managers and all sorts of people? We have a top heavy council that has to provide a basic service to the community. Councils are top heavy because they were required to take on functions - this is one of the reasons we had a protest here - that are not council functions.
Childcare is not necessarily a council function, especially when you are starting to develop a shire. Neither is aged care. That is a Department of Health or Families responsibility. This was happening in federal and Territory governments where they were moving their responsibilities on to local government at the expense of local government performing its basic functions: fixing potholes, making sure the rubbish is picked up, getting the oval ready for Saturday’s football - some of the things people expected their local government to do.
It got caught up in the post office and Centrelink, all those sorts of things. Maybe some time in the future it could take those over, but get the basic things going. When we were at Bathurst Island that is what we stuck to. We did not take on heaps of other things. The Health department ran the clinics. I do not know why local government has taken those things on.
Perhaps I am thinking in the past too much, but I still believe local government is the key to employment. It is the key to getting rid of welfare because it is the centre of the communities and it is the ideal place for the Commonwealth government to supply money instead of welfare to those bodies to get people jobs. Of course, it has to be topped up a bit more so people earn a reasonable dollar per hour rate, and they must have capital equipment to help people who have jobs.
I have heard the members for Namatjira and Port Darwin, and I have said many times that welfare is the scourge of the Northern Territory ever getting anywhere, especially when it relates to Aboriginal advancement. The councils have the opportunity to be at the bottom, where people can get a job, learn to turn up in time for work, maybe work the hours they want not eight hours a day; some people might want to work four but at least they would be involving themselves in the community. They are working for some money, working to help their family, giving themselves dignity as human beings and we are getting people off the welfare merry-go-round.
When I was at Bathurst Island in the older days the Department of Aboriginal Affairs handed the Nguiu Shire Council a lump sum of money and we employed every person who turned up at that council and wanted a job. We found them work. You can find plenty of work to do on any Aboriginal community: repairing houses, painting houses, fixing leaking taps, erosion work at the beach, looking after the airstrip. If you have people with a mentality that says we have to find work for people, you will find work in those communities. I see that as a key role if local government is being reformed. It is not just part of the community, it is the community. It does not want people sitting around. We know what happens when people sit around, we get social problems. You will not get rid of all the social problems but you will reduce some of them. The council has more roles than fixing potholes, picking up rubbish and keeping the place nice and tidy. It could be the key agency for employment.
I heard the other day that the federal government has $1m plus for another employment program. I have heard this time and time again, year in year out. Has anything changed when it comes to the number of people employed in Aboriginal communities? It is a simple process where you have people in communities and you know where the work is. Then, you move on from there. If you want to advance you will get experience and find jobs you can take on in other - there might be some private industry jobs. You have experience from working for the council, you have learnt how to run the backhoe, and you might pick up jobs in the mining industry. There are all types of things, but you have to start in life and that is the start.
We do not all start at the top being executives. We start here and move up the ladder. This is the opportunity to do it and I see a great opportunity, minister, with the reforms, to put those employment opportunities into action. I was happy to hear what you said about keeping the standards going. It is important. If you look after the roads, the waste and the reserves, they have to be kept at a good standard. People expect a good standard.
I have just come back from the Cook Islands. I hardly saw one piece of rubbish on the Cook Islands; I have never seen a cleaner place in my life. It is a beautiful island. It has cars and motor scooters running around everywhere, but there was only one place where I saw a bit of rubbish. It looked like someone had thrown a party the night before. That island was spotless. People had gardens they were proud of. It is like Darwin. There were hibiscus, aralias and coconut trees. It reminded me of old Darwin but it was spotless.
The other thing the council does by raising standards is raise pride in the community. I will give you another example - I will get into trouble for reminiscing. The council had a nursery which I ran. We grew basic plants: hibiscus, aralias and a few gum trees. I went around on Saturday morning in the car and sold them to people. People started to grow their own gardens. Part of what we were trying to do was to have pride. When there is pride in a community there is less chance of throwing the rubbish around and you can have garden competitions. You can start to develop a real belonging to that community. How you do it without having small councils like before is the trick.
You have to have smaller councils, how many, I am not sure. Originally, Jack Ah Kit was looking at 21. His model may be worth revisiting, minister. He had another model which did not get off the ground. I am not sure what the reasons were. Jack lived out bush and knew a fair bit about local government. I will not tell you how to do it with your task force. I know I am on this side of the world, but I have always believed in ....
A member: The Labor side.
Mr WOOD: ... we had our Council of Territory Cooperation. I have always felt I am part of a parliament and if I can contribute I am happy to. It is not preaching, but I can probably give some experience. I would be happy to be part of the discussion.
The other big issue you have, minister, will be rates. How do you collect rates? On: (1) Aboriginal land trust land, that is a big issue, and (2) pastoral properties; they do not want to be the cash cow, they oppose rates. Leases are the big issue. I have always said I do not agree and I am not sure what the present government thinks. There should be a peppercorn rent on Aboriginal land because they are providing a service. All you are doing is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You tell the local government it has to pay unimproved capital value based leases and then serve the people. You will give less service as you have less money because you had to pay these leases.
The issue of leases, especially for government instrumentalities, is something I hope the new government looks at because it is not the right way. It is like, as I have said before, ‘We are providing services to you picking up rubbish and all that stuff. Thank you very much but here is the bill.’ Hang on, we are providing the service for those people in that community. I know some people do not agree, but it is an issue.
Public roads, especially on Aboriginal land: technically a council should not be maintaining a private road. It receives funds from the Commonwealth government in roads grants. Those roads grants are for public roads. There are roads on Aboriginal land that, technically, are private roads. I do not see that as the council’s responsibility, unless there is a process which turns those roads into gazetted public roads, or they are leased. That is an area which needs to be looked at. The federal government gives money for public roads. If a road requires a permit, then it is a private road. How can it be funded by federal government funds? It could only be funded through its own basic resources.
Of course, the amount of money for maintaining roads - one of the failings of the Labor Party and they had to admit it. They never got around to working out who would take over or where the money would come from for all those roads being looked after between councils. Nothing has ever quite got there. It is a difficult area, I know, but councils would not take them over unless they were guaranteed they would have enough funds from the Territory government to maintain those roads.
There was talk - you may remember, minister – about reaching an agreement similar to the South Australian agreement with the federal government over the Pitjantjatjara lands. It did not happen. You cannot expect councils to take over vast areas of land when they only have about 5500 people in the shire and about 5% of them pay rates. That is not possible. I presume part of the discussion would be who is to maintain those roads. There are many in the Northern Territory. The cattle stations, the pastoral properties, obviously have to be included in the discussions because whilst they may not be a large number of ratepayers, they take up a large portion of the country you are looking at.
The Litchfield expansion: I know it has been a hot potato, and I can guarantee what the member for Daly said was exactly right. The government did not want to know about it before an election. You left out Rose Christie’s area, the Marrakai. Watch out! I am brave; I will at least mention her name. It is an area that has to be looked at; it cannot be left for the rest of the taxpayers to look after. You need equality over the Territory, and some people cannot be left out of the equation of local government.
It is not easy; you have a difficult area. I have my opinions. I do not want to see places like Litchfield having people come into the council and using their resources but not paying for those services.
There was one other thing I wanted to say, minister. When we are looking at boundaries, there is a lot of talk about languages - that will be the boundary. There will be a lot of talk about a big area. Bathurst and Melville Islands are classic. It is one council, but it is subdivided by the Apsley Strait. It might not look very wide at Nguiu – I forget the new name, I am too old-fashioned, Francis. Sorry, member for Arafura. Sorry, Madam Speaker.
You have to take geography into account because if you have to cart graders across the Apsley Strait it costs a lot of money. Is it better to have two shires - the Bathurst Island shire and the Melville Island shire - simply because you have complications getting people across some water?
In Arnhem Land, which way do the roads go? Where can you get the best access in the Wet Season? Maybe that is where the council should be. As I said, it is about providing essential services not based on whether you are black, white, this tribe or that tribe, but provision of essential services most. Do not place councils in the middle of nowhere where you cannot provide services. That has to be part of the mix when you are talking about where the boundaries will go.
It is a really important area. I have always been passionate about local government. Generally speaking, governments - and the CLP in its day when I was on Litchfield Council - did not like councils. They thought they were a pest. Even though they will not get planning, it is good to see the Chief Minister put in the Planning Commission representatives of local government. I would even be happy to have one from the south and one from the north, or one from rural and one from urban areas, because they have different responsibilities ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I heard what the member for Nhulunbuy said and it is really important. Do not rush it; the world will not come to an end. We have problems at the moment. Do not rush it; talk to people! Make sure we make it more local than it is at the moment. It may not be perfect and boards are not necessarily the answer. I can start up the Daly River Progress Association which has as much authority as the board, because the board is purely voluntary. Everyone has a right to set up an association and go to the council and say, ‘Oi, oi!.
I do not know how you can make that better. That will be a real challenge but it has to become more local; people have to have more ownership. They have to feel like there is someone there they can talk to during the day who will make some decisions and that is what has gone. I keep harping back to Daly. I know what it was like before and I know what it is like now. There is a lot of, ‘Who do I go to see now?’. It is like I was the secretary typing letters or something. There is no sort of ownership. There are other issues that happened with Daly, such as no more new houses and the CDEP, which did not help either.
I congratulate you, minister. For all the criticism you might have had on this side of the table, I understand you were in opposition but I ...
Mr Giles: I am happy to explain that when I respond.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is all right. We belong to the Westminster system, whether I like it or not, and you did keep the government on its toes. The opposition has that responsibility.
I like what is in this statement. It is positive. One of the statements yesterday had 16 pages out of 22 pages bagging the old government. This is a far more mature approach. You have your criticisms and I have my criticisms of the way the shires have been put together. They were too big and it was too rushed, etcetera. They tried their best, but you have the chance to do something and what you have in this statement is a good start. You have covered many of the issues we have to deal with. As I said, I do not want to butt in; I am not government, but if I can be of any assistance I am willing to help. It is important that local government is given its rightful place in the Northern Territory because it is at the grass roots where ownership of a community occurs, which bonds a community.
Put pride back into the community so peole do not drop their rubbish. People can tell their neighbours, ‘Look what a great place I have’, and have a bit of competition between their place and their neighbour’s place. Pride and ownership has to come back as well as a democratic institution that people can feel is their own. If we can do all that - it will not be easy - then you will have done a great service to the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. It is a great statement. The proof will be in the pudding but good luck and if I can help, I certainly will.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is a delight to be able to speak to this. I agree with the sentiment shown. It has done what I said to the new government yesterday; it has raised the bar. It is a good positive statement and I acknowledge it on a couple of levels. Not only is it a positive statement that adds to debate, but it brings a very important issue to this House to debate: local government.
I have one regret, which is that Chris Burns is not here to share it with us. Chris Burns would relish participating in this debate and reflecting on the history that was one of the major factors to why, minister, you are sitting now on the right hand side of the Speaker and I am sitting on the left. It was one of the factors that - I believe the member for Nhulunbuy coined it - was ‘a game changer’ and has created a really interesting dynamic in Territory politics with the four new Indigenous members of the CLP on that side.
Let us stick to the positive because it is good to keep on that run. I quote from the speech from the minister where he said:
- Elected members are, or at least should be, leaders and a voice for their community. Unfortunately, especially in the case of remote shires, this role as a leader has been diminished to the point there is disinterest or disengagement from the shire at the individual or community level.
That is a positive minister. That has to be challenged because you are right.
Let us deconstruct what happened there. Why did this take place? I have spent the last four years in the regions visiting towns and communities and tirelessly using the language of empowerment because I got negative after negative after negative. Minister, what you did with a number of other colleagues in this House was very effective. You ran a very effective campaign through the media and the language has been mentioned, your wonderful metaphors and clichs.
You hammered away at that time after time and used the media very purposefully to get those messages into the regions, then followed that with a CLP visiting regime, the language turned into mass media which turned into very negative imagery and people started believing that message. That reinforced the disengagement you talk about. I spent four years trying to turn that around with a language of empowerment, the reality of the big reform and the realistic challenges to do with getting down to it and talking about why service delivery is breaking down.
It is a historical change in the Territory, minister, and was a very effective campaign. Unfortunately it exploited vulnerable people. Now the member for Namatjira in the Twelfth Assembly has entered a new realm where she is talking about people with low educational levels being disabled. That is wrong. They are not disabled but they are vulnerable. The new world of mass media, social media and messaging has the potential to exploit vulnerable people. That negative psychology disempowers people and has the effect of disengaging people. Frankly, minister, when that relates to the reality in the regions where the employment programs of the Roper Gulf and the Barkly Shire are running at less than 30%, it means people are not going to work.
With all respect to the shire services, managers, the bureaucracy and the systems in place, you cannot get the wheelie bin emptied if no one is working. When employment programs in these organisations are running at less than 30% participation, you start to see the breakdown as the rubbish spreads, the negativity spreads, then that disengagement is magnified and the system breaks down.
The politicians can either make excuses for it or exploit it. Unfortunately, vulnerable people were exploited in this space. As I said, I tirelessly spent four years with the language of empowerment and in the election campaign of 2012 went toe-to-toe across the Barkly debating this as the final stand and, member for Braitling, here I am on the left hand side of the Speaker and you are on the right. That was the result and the people have decided. As Chris Burns says, the people are not wrong.
Let us get back to the positives in this statement and talk about what we can do to continue your journey in what has been a major reform in the Northern Territory. Your language has moderated, the shoe is on the other foot, you have risen to the occasion. You are now mature about this debate. You are in the saddle, minister and you are driving the reform.
I will give you some ideas around that. They relate to the minister for Corrections in the new CLP government. In Question Time, today especially, he put his stamp on correctional services in the Northern Territory under the CLP government, and that stamp is to imprison people. He does not talk about anything else. I am very disappointed that today he attacked me as being useless and doing nothing in the new era of corrections. It is unfortunate you cannot get the message out in Question Time, but the new minister for Corrections is not telling the Territory about the massive reform package implemented by the previous Labor government which represents the community corrections pathways, the new orders, the community work orders, the community custody orders and that philosophy, psychology and program that keeps people out of gaol.
The new Indigenous members of the CLP would know that 82% of the prison population in the Northern Territory is Indigenous and around 60% of that population is in prison for low-level offending which relates to alcohol and motor traffic offences. What we did with our new era thinking was put an enormous amount of time, energy and resources into a strategy to keep people out of gaol where we can deal with their offending behaviour and, as the member for Namatjira says so importantly, provide education, training and rehabilitation.
The member for Port Darwin needs to fess up and say that is all over or start telling the Territory about it and about those initiatives. I look forward to him bringing to the House stories in Question Time, dorothy dixers talking about what the Department of Correctional Services is doing, the amazing work they are doing in the new era with implementation around education, rehabilitation and training, directly dealing with offending behaviour, keeping people out of prison and making them productive citizens with increasing education levels to allow them to make the right choices.
How does this relate to local government, minister? As minister for Corrections I travelled the Territory and the first people I wanted to make contact with was the shires because they represented the organisations that had the infrastructure and services where I could apply the correctional services philosophy. That related to the new community custody orders and community work orders. I do not have time to go into that, take it on definition.
The shire services managers were saying they were really struggling when less than 30% of people were working and there was no one to man rubbish trucks to pick up the wheelie bins. All the services were breaking down and they said, ‘If it takes the correctional services approach then let’s do it’. Those guys offer structure, infrastructure and resources where community corrections clients can start to change their offending behaviour. They can start to learn about work, go to work, receive training, mix with real people talking about real things and make a conscious decision that this is a better life than recidivism and continual offending with low-level, alcohol, motor traffic and all the other chaos that goes on, ending up in a big house, ending up in prison.
The shires represented this golden opportunity. We took a community Cabinet to Yuendumu and I took the then Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and my Cabinet colleagues around the community to talk about the opportunities for our new era in corrections which they were debating with me; however, they were deciding on resourcing. It was a very important time. There were 58 community corrections clients between, Yuelamu, Laramba and Yuendumu on the day we were there. Fifty-eight community corrections clients - that was the existing model. We had not gone anywhere near the new orders because they had not been passed in this House.
I remember the committee stage well with the member for Port Darwin, who must have taken more than four hours on a serious prosecution of that legislation. He voted against it in the end. However, we got it through and it is now a part of the new era in Northern Territory correctional services. Fifty-eight community correctional clients at Yuelamu, Larremba or Yuendumu on any one day could be working, training and directly addressing their offending behaviour.
The shires represented the real deal; the infrastructure where a person had to get their licence back to be able to operate vehicles. We did that. In the new era of corrections we changed the legislation to say if you engaged in a driver offending program you can get a licence to operate a vehicle or a construction machine under supervision after you have done all the courses - done the drink-driver stuff, got your licence back - under supervised conditions. We really pushed the envelope in the new era in corrections. The member for Port Darwin argued vigorously against those reforms. He went against it, he lost. It is now in place. It is happening as we speak. However, your new minister does not want to talk about it.
Let us talk about those opportunities for empowering the shires. When a guy at Ali Curung is put onto a community corrections order, he needs structure around that life. He needs structure with real purpose, real work, a real job, which will change his thinking. I used to use the this simple image: when that punter goes home and sits down with the family and tells them what he achieved that day, we will see the turnaround in unacceptable recidivism rates in the Territory, which are some of the highest in the country.
Minister, I hope you take that on board because that is something really positive which is happening out there. I hope you get together with the minister for Corrections and ask him questions about what else is happening in Correctional Services. All you are talking about is prisons and banging people up. The previous mob has set up very sophisticated, innovative systems which have been resourced, and there is a wealth of public servants in Correctional Services and associated departments who are working this together. I very much regret not being able to continue as a part of that because it was great work.
There are other positives in this statement. I would like to throw in a quick mention for the Elliott shire’s aged care service which does a fantastic job, the childcare in Elliott, as well, which is run by the Barkly Shire Council; the award winning Roper Gulf Shire for youth services and the Borroloola soccer program. I think they are in Indonesia as we speak, or they may have just come home. That is a great youth initiative being run by the Roper Gulf Shire. Borroloola is a world beater in soccer. They have been to Singapore, they are in Indonesia; they cleaned up some local teams in Darwin on their regular visits over the years. Go, Borroloola Cyclones!
Minister, you talked about the shires providing public housing, tenancy and maintenance services. Once again, the work we were doing in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, working with the Department of Business, was starting to explore ways through legitimate procurement outcomes where we could break down the packages for housing maintenance. That work, you will discover, is on your desk. You probably already know about it. You can make those really positive links now, being the Minister for Local Government and the minister for construction.
We wanted to see real, meaningful work - and those packages around housing maintenance being delivered by the shires which were directly resourcing their labour from the local communities. Many of the old community government councils had history in civil construction. That is a whole different era, a whole different story. However, they have ambitions to revisit that.
Within the department of Construction, you will see I was a little more guarded and a little more reserved in the civil construction area. However, there are opportunities to do exactly the same thing where you start to integrate these opportunities where departments can look at legitimate and real procurement processes to allow the shires to pick up this work. Let’s face it, by the time you mobilise a grader to do work on the Sandover Highway opposite the community of Alpurrurulam on the Queensland border, you have bitten into the budget. Why not look at Alpurrurulam to do civil works in road maintenance, which was happening before the election. I am sure it still is happening. You will find that will be a very exciting element of your positive reform, minister, when you start to talk about those opportunities.
The housing maintenance programs were something real and with that you attach training, with that you can apply community corrections pathways for people and, suddenly, you have people speaking the language of empowerment. They are not being bombarded by media and social media telling them how bad things are. They are starting to turn their lives around and experience a growth in positive self-esteem.
Minister, it is great to see that you are turning this around. However, you have some challenges; there is no doubt about that. In the speech, you state:
- I am also determined to rebuild local decision-making and capacity-building within local governments as this is critical to re-engaging people with their local government body.
They are wise words. But, unfortunately, you have a bit of a legacy. You have to share this around; you have to share this with the Chief Minister because you have created major perceptions, through a very successful negative campaign over four years which has destabilised the psychology and created negative psychology, a ‘victim blame’ mentality to a large degree. I can name places in the Barkly where people are still sitting on the verandah waiting for the low loader that is bringing in the grader, the dozer, the scrapers, the tip trucks, the Toyotas, the cheque book to go with them, and the keys to the vehicles; they are still waiting for that.
They are the perceptions that were created. Whilst the campaign was robust, rigorous and ruthless, it did create these perceptions. You will have to share it with your boss because the Chief Minister put it all in writing; it is in the public arena. If we go to one small example, that is Borroloola, the Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills MLA, says that for Borroloola:
- ... support from a majority of residents within a region, business modelling that supports its future financial sustainability...
And what is he talking about?
- The Country Liberals will establish regional councils ...
The Borroloola contract which was signed …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed.
Mr McCARTHY: It is important to talk about this element of the reform, the positive reform the minister has launched and how you will deal with those perceptions.
When the Chief Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, flew into Borroloola, jumped out of an aeroplane into a town that was gazetted in 1885, had two television crews behind him, whipped the billboard out of the plane, set up a big media event and then had a couple of identified community leaders sign-off to make the news that night, that created some perceptions.
There is not only the local government reform; there are many other issues in that contract. Your government will have to deal with that and the people of Borroloola. You will have to share the load with your boss, with the Chief Minister, because he has set up many perceptions and you will be dealing with those. It is the language of empowerment once again. It is a reality check; it has to be a reality check because if you look at the files and the history you will see that each of the shire councils in this major government reform had to clean up a lot of mess and many debts. It was not so rosy there.
It is good to hear the member for Nelson speak but he speaks about a different era. I can speak about that era; I can tell you about a guy at Ali Curung who learnt his trade at Warrabri and operated a grader for 30 years but, unfortunately, there was no succession planning. No young people have come along behind him to take over that position. So, we have two different eras. In many of these places there are employment programs running at less than 30% and we have the member for Namatjira talking about ‘passive’. I disagree with that too - there are two in one speech.
It is not passive resistance out there anymore, minister, it is very active resistance. You have to ask yourself why people are not going to work. There are many reasons for that; I do not have time to debate it now. Be aware, it is not passive anymore; in the post-modern era, in many Indigenous communities there is active resistance and there are all sorts of reasons for that. We could address one of those. It is a bit hard for the men or the women to do anything in a community if they are in gaol. If we keep them in the community and implement the new era in corrections programs that are up for grabs and were resourced by the previous government, they will be at home, they will be with their kids, they will be participating in ceremony, and they will be building their self-esteem. They will not be doing much if they are all in gaol. There is a challenge, minister, and you know how to handle those challenges.
The perceptions will start to break down to more micro-levels. In the Barkly there is a strong belief that Canteen Creek, which has stayed outside of the shire development and continues as the Orwaitilla Association, and the Barkly shire community of Epenarra, will be able to amalgamate and run their own regional council. There is a very strong perception. They got that perception from an election campaign, from a CLP candidate who went there and made these promises. You will have to deal with the macro-level and then there will be the micro-level to deal with.
It is good that the minister’s statement continues to stay on a positive level. On a positive level, I record in this debate congratulations to Lucy Jackson at Ali Curung, the most recently elected Barkly Shire Council member for the Alyawarr Ward. That is wonderful. I have known Lucy for a long time as an emerging Aboriginal leader. Lucy is not the only emerging Indigenous or Aboriginal leader in the Barkly Shire; there are a number.
Minister, it is very good when you talk about cultural aspects, you are aware of the issues and will be able to explore them on a new level. You are an Indigenous man and have good solid members on that side. You will start exploring how to empower these shires using cultural knowledge. That will be exciting work, no doubt. When you think about some of the old community government councils - there will be some inherent challenges around governance and service delivery related to kinship, but in a negative sense.
The debate we need to have today about overlaying government bureaucratic systems on regional and remote communities is about kinship. If we get down to the reality, the kinship system of Indigenous Australians was one of the most sophisticated societal systems known on this planet; however, now in a post-modern world there are many opportunities to exploit that. The overlay of a bureaucratic system on a remote Indigenous community will have to start to massage those elements of the kinship system so it has a positive application and you start to deconstruct and isolate the negative aspects that occurred in the community government councils.
The member for Nhulunbuy gave us a statistical analysis about that. As Territorians, as people who have lived in the bush, you have the images in your head, you know why those things were happening. It was unfortunate but they were happening, and so we have to ensure traditional values and kinship are held in the highest regard and determine positive empowerment, as opposed to any exploitation and negative issues that focus around the cargo cult.
Minister, I have talked about empowerment, I have talked about education and awareness, something that will change the world. I have talked about, ‘bringing in the low loaders’ but that is a reality, that is a perception, and it would be nice to see some low loaders and civil work. As I said, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure was heading down that road. Alpurrurulam is one of the communities you should ask the department about because there were some really positive things happening there.
There are more positives in this statement and it is really good to see this being debated in the House. There will be real, positive developments around it. I like the paragraph where the minister said:
- We need to strike a balance between organisations which have links with local people and have cultural authority, and with organisations that can deliver efficient and effective services.
That is the innovative approach I like. I encourage the minister to ensure all these reform packages are inclusive of the young. Under the kinship system - what I have been looking at in those bureaucratic systems overlaid into Indigenous communities - when you take our values and people are elected based on non-Indigenous values, then it falls to the kinship system and the elders are generally elected and put forward, and so they should be.
Unfortunately, some of the elders now need to be supported and rested. In relation to my language of empowerment for the last four years, if you have an elected elder make sure there is a young person sitting right next to them. That young person is guarded and protected through the kinship system and the cultural values yet they are learning and engaged in a real and pragmatic education process. We should enforce that through legislation. That was scoffed at; that was too tricky. Minister, you are taking on this new era of local government reform which relates to cultural authority and you can start to explore that. If you have a community corrections client sitting with an elder, you are on a winner.
Thank you, minister, for bringing this to the House. Thank you for being positive, raising the bar and being a role model for the new government because in the last three days you have set the pace. In everything we do, in all the reform, never forget that at the end of the day you cannot get away from individual responsibility and family responsibility if you really want to make a difference. Forget the victim blame; forget the finger pointing and it is always someone else’s fault.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all contributors to the debate.
Ms Walker: What, no other contributors?
Mr GILES: You know there are no other contributors, member for Nhulunbuy. I advised you of that earlier today. This is a short sharp statement to talk about where we are going.
Ms Walker: I would still have liked to hear what the bush members had to say on this.
Mr GILES: I provided counsel to my colleagues and asked that we kept this statement short and sharp with the member for Daly and me saying a few words. That is the direction we have taken.
I start by thanking those who spoke today for their temperament. It was a positive contribution. I will touch on two things of interest.
The final speaker, the member for Barkly, spoke about how successful the campaign was to disengage and denigrate the shires. Well, that was not the campaign. I will explain it and I will come to the second point. The issue was that shires in the bush were a concern and no one was listening. I, my colleagues, many other people, the member for Nelson, over a number of years tried to raise this as an issue and no one was listening.
It reached the point where, in this Chamber - it was not flogged through media. It may have been played, I did not hear it, but it was not deliberately flogged that way. In this Chamber I said the shires were toxic. That reflected a degree of frustration people had across the Territory, which was coming to me and so many people but was not acted upon. I know from your colleagues and previous colleagues, who told me the former minister for Local Government was not listening to your concerns inside Cabinet, where they were saying the shires were not working.
The issue became what I call a tarnished brand. No matter how successful or otherwise people in those shires were, the brand was tarnished. We raised concerns; I raised it as an issue. I may have used the word ‘toxic’ once in the media, other than that it was in this Chamber. I was not out there flogging this, to my recollection; I am happy to be corrected. That is how it reached that point.
I appreciated the sincerity of the comments from the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I will take the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments at face value. I am very happy to provide her more information along the way. The member for Nelson asked if he could contribute. That is a positive offer.
I will finish my statement before my time is up and adjourn it, because I have a meeting tomorrow. I am happy to sit down with you next week, have dinner or a chat, and tell you how it goes tomorrow. I will try to get the statement back on next week so I can update the House on what happens tomorrow. I am happy to work with you in that way.
I was voicing my concerns about the shires before; it was a concern that was reflected out there. No one was listening. I have a very big voice, and voiced it extremely, as you know. It is my role, with my Country Liberals’ team, to try to fix it. That is the position we are taking. I will try to take you along all the way. If you want to keep a very temperate debate on this issue, I am more than happy to do that. If you want to escalate it, as you know, I am quite prepared to have a heated debate.
Mr Wood: Constructive criticism with a bit of passion.
Mr GILES: I am happy to go either way, member for Nelson.
I will touch on two quick things before I adjourn. The former member, Jack Ah Kit, had some modelling which considered between 22 and 25 regional councils. Should we need to get to that debate I am more than happy to have it.
When the member for Nhulunbuy - and forgive me, I might have written some of these numbers down incorrectly. Consider some of these shire reforms which have occurred interstate: Queensland went from a 177 to 73 - you could probably say a bit over halfway, without getting your calculator out - Tasmania went from 46 to 29, not quite 50%; South Australia went from 120 to 68, not quite 50%. I did not get the numbers for Victoria, but I think it was around the 50% mark, and the member for Nhulunbuy might nod either way to me. The Northern Territory went from 63 to 8 shires. That is a telling statistic numerically and a reflection on a geographical sense. It is interesting.
This talk about how we stirred up all the constituents, voters, and people who live in the shire boundaries - at a land council meeting with the Chief Minister in Finke in Aputula last week, at a rough estimate there would have been about 30 questions, probably about 28 or 29 were about shires and homelands, shires particularly. That is not new, that is a recurrent theme that has been coming for a long time, way before the election. That is very interesting.
Finally, I have made comment publicly through media releases and so forth that I will work as fast as possible, but with a slow agenda to make sure we bring people with us. That is a challenge because everyone wants change now. It would be easy for me to make a decision now, but we have many good people working in shires, working on boards. We have to bring everyone with us to make sure those people have a level of confidence in their professional and personal capacity while we develop a way forward.
There is no thinking in my mind about a definitive approach. The consultative group or regional governments’ working group is not there with written orders to do one specific thing. They are there to develop a proper options paper which will be made public. The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about time frames. I know things need to be done quickly. I am not setting a time frame because if we do then everyone will have to work to it; you will hold me to account for it and then things will go wrong.
In a couple of months we will publish that paper - January, February, around there somewhere. If it goes longer, well it goes longer. I do not mind but it is about doing what is right and trying to bring people with us. I am happy to sit down with you privately and have a chat. I am sure the member for Nelson wants to be involved and provide feedback. I am happy to take that on, member for Nelson, and work with you. I am happy to provide updates to parliament. If you are happy to keep it at a temperate approach, I am happy to do that but you all know I am happy to have a good fight and barney. I will leave that in your gross hands. You pull the trigger and I am happy to go for it.
Thank you very much for the debate. I seek leave to continue my comments at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr GILES (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a very fine principal whom I know personally and had a lot to do with by virtue of the fact he is the principal of the school my two daughters attend, Larrakeyah Primary School. I am referring to Graham Chadwick. Mr Chadwick will be starting at Nightcliff Primary School in 2013 as the new principal after being principal at the Larrakeyah school for more than six years. We, the parents of Larrakeyah school, will certainly miss him. Mr Chadwick is a homegrown product, raised in the Northern Territory and a graduate of Casuarina High School in 1977. Graham began his career with the Department of Education in 1980 and was promoted through the ranks to be a principal in 2001.
Larrakeyah Primary School has achieved high standards in academic achievements since Graham’s tenure as principal. Graham has developed a comprehensive reading and comprehension program which has improved the school’s reading standards and academic achievement outcomes, with the school consistently achieving above the national mean in NAPLAN assessments. I have a daughter in grade two who is seven years old who currently has a reading standard which would get her comfortably into middle school because of Mr Chadwick’s efforts.
I have a daughter in transition whose reading standard is extraordinary. They have twenty-four reading levels to achieve before they can graduate into middle school. My daughter in transition is in level fourteen of those twenty-four reading levels. Those kids, like my eldest daughter who has already surpassed that level, go towards what is called lexile reading and I find it astonishing when I watch my seven-year old daughter reading books that are standard novels. It is really surprising as I drive around town having my five-year-old daughter sitting in the car reading all the signs of the vehicles driving past and asking what the signs mean. That is a testimony to this gentleman’s approach.
Graham has established subjects such as the whole-of-school science program and the land care program which were established two years ago. A positive partnership with the heritage precinct at Myilly Terrace and the botanical gardens has been established. The school has achieved a pleasing result through its art program and was chosen to show a feature art display at the local art gallery in March 2011. The school has won two Territory and national awards for its entries in the national Veterans’ Affairs community awards.
Mr Chadwick strongly believes in building the capacity of school leaders to drive school improvement and has been the president of the Australian Council for Education Leaders in the Northern Territory in the past six years, a national board member of the ACEL for six years, and is currently a member of the ACEL Audit and Risk Committee.
Graham convened the ACEL national conference in Darwin in 2009 and the conference is still awarded as one of the best ACEL national conferences. He had a brief stint and ascended as an acting general manager for School Leadership, Learning and Development when it was established in 2011 and as a member of the developing nations education project. Graham facilitated tripod learning communities programs in three countries: South Africa, Papua New Guinea and Australia, the program developing future pathways and collegial international education partnerships. Mr Chadwick has post-graduate degrees from Charles Darwin University and won a national Quality Schooling award in 2006 for his work in remote Indigenous community education.
As principal at the Maningrida community education school in Arnhem Land, Graham developed a specialist in senior education vocational education program to improve education and vocational outcomes for remote Indigenous students. Graham has a keen interest in the advancement of Indigenous education and authored and co-authored articles for journals such as the Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology on the subject of education pathways for remote Indigenous students.
Mr Chadwick is also an acclaimed drummer and he has played with jazz trumpeter, James Morrison, and many noted international jazz musicians, including as a support band member for Stevie Wonder.
This is an exceptional teacher, and every so often you get a teacher in the education system who you would describe as a Mr Chips. This is definitely a Mr Chips. Larrakeyah School’s loss is the gain of Nightcliff Primary School. But he has had enough foresight to leave a program behind at Larrakeyah that, when adopted, will continue to work without his presence. The real achievement of Mr Chadwick is that he will be able to leave behind a system which works without him.
I also speak tonight of Dr Nannette Rogers, Senior Counsel and somebody who is known to everyone in this Chamber. We have to acknowledge the efforts Dr Rogers has made for the Northern Territory. Sadly, she will be departing shortly for colder climes. I place on the record my very sincere thanks to Dr Rogers for what she has done in the Northern Territory to make advances, particularly in the area of child protection.
Dr Nanette Rogers SC, Assistant Director of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, has resigned effective 31 December 2012. Dr Rogers obtained her Bachelor of Arts in 1977 and Bachelor of Laws in 1979 from the Australian National University. She was admitted to the NSW Supreme Court in July 1979 as a solicitor, and as legal practitioner to the Supreme Court in February 1990.
From 1979 through to 1989 Dr Rogers worked as a solicitor with the Redfern Legal Centre. Her primary area of practice was defence-based criminal law assisting clients where legal aid had been refused by the NSW Legal Aid Commission. In 1990, Dr Rogers obtained her Masters of Laws First Class Honours from the University of Sydney and was awarded the Nancy Gordon Smith post-graduate prize for Masters of Laws by course work.
During that same year Dr Rogers relocated to Alice Springs where she was employed as a legal practitioner for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Between 1994 and 1998, Dr Rogers worked on a casual basis as a legal practitioner for various organisations including: the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service, the Domestic Violence Legal Help Service, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, and the Central Land Council.
In 1998, Dr Rogers was employed as a Crown Prosecutor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Alice Springs. In 1999, Dr Rogers graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Sydney; her thesis was titled Aboriginal Customary Law and Sentencing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court at Alice Springs 1986–1995. In 2000, she was promoted to the position of Crown Prosecutor in Charge, Alice Springs, a position which not only required use of her legal expertise, but also her exceptional managerial skills.
Dr Rogers has been in charge of the southern region since 2000 undertaking both prosecutorial roles in complex indictable matters and managing the day-to-day operations of the office. In October 2008, Dr Rogers was appointed as Senior Counsel in the Northern Territory. Dr Rogers has managed the Alice Springs office in a highly effective and productive manner and is very well-regarded by all stakeholders. She is renowned for her ability to get the best for Indigenous victims. Although the title of the position has changed with the current title being Assistant Director, Dr Rogers has continued to hold that position. Dr Rogers has resigned and we, in the Northern Territory, will miss her and the Northern Territory’s loss will be the gain for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a person who recently left the Department of the Legislative Assembly, Helen Allmich. Helen Allmich was born in Ndola, Zambia. If anyone cares to see exactly where that city is, you will find it is on the border. Why and how she came to be born there I am not really sure.
Her parents and family came to Darwin in 1971 from South Australia - mother Betty, father Kevin, sister Paula and brother Patrick. Her student life was at St Mary’s Primary School and St John’s College, with a couple of years after Cyclone Tracy back at school in South Australia. From a very early age, Helen displayed great musical talent. This passion continued throughout her life in many forms. The musical interest included being part of the St Mary’s Cathedral musical liturgy for over 40 years as a choir member, an organist, a piano player, and also supporting and encouraging others. I believe at the age of 13 not only was she singing and in the choir, but was also playing the organ at the cathedral.
Apart from St Mary’s, Helen was involved with St Paul’s and Holy Spirit parishes and played the organ and piano at various ceremonies and activities at those churches. Apart from Mass, Helen played for weddings and funerals. Playing at funerals, whether it be a piano or organ, definitely requires a special skill to suit the occasion.
There were very special occasions where Helen participated in musical activities associated with the church. One of the most notable was the Papal Mass which was held at the showgrounds in 1986 for Pope John Paul II when he visited. Some members here may recall - the member for Nelson, perhaps – there was a massive storm the night before the Mass was due to take place at the showgrounds. It buckled much of the scaffolding and a whole lot crashed down right where the choir was going to stand. They fixed it, had it pulled away and the choir and Helen performed for the Pope. I recall from my family’s comments it was a very successful time.
At that time, and for the Papal visit, her father, Kevin, was the Cantor, which is the leader of the music. He too was very involved in the musical activities of the churches.
Another special occasion for Helen was playing the organ at the funeral of the late Mr Tipiloura.
The music interest, passion and contribution extended out of the church scene and included the Quota Club’s Christmas carols at Tracy Aged Care and Terrace Gardens. It is a lovely, generous gesture to give up your time to put on those performances for people who live in aged and medical care facilities.
Helen was also involved with eisteddfods which went on for many, many years, as a participant, and a great supporter of her daughter, Lenora, who sang. She was a participant in the Brown’s Mart activities and, for many years, was piano accompanist for the Charles Darwin University Woodwind Ensemble.
Now, with that many musical preoccupation and activities in her life you would not have thought there was much room for anything else, apart from, of course, employment. No, Helen was a very accomplished sportsperson in many areas. While she did not play hockey, Helen was an accredited technical bench official and can officiate at Australian Hockey League tournaments. She also officiated at Masters Games tournaments in Alice Springs and Darwin, and the veterans carnivals in Darwin.
By my way of thinking, all that involvement in hockey was a good way to go because she could get all the activities and enjoyment but not get hot and bothered running around a field.
Apart from the musical talents she clearly had - I know she reached a high grade, and as someone who has learnt the piano, she got to the level of eighth grade, which is a tremendous achievement; hence her contribution to the music scene in and around Darwin in the churches and helping elderly people.
Helen also had a great love for dogs, and I believe she still does. She had Salukis and showed Salukis in the Darwin Show ring. Whilst I am not fully knowledgeable about how well she went in the show ring, I am sure she did very well given her commitment and the passion she put into the other parts of her life. I know she was involved with that Hound Club; that is, of course, the club that houses Salukis.
Helen commenced her employment in Darwin with the Commonwealth Public Service in the Department of Health in the old Darwin Hospital in the payroll section in January 1978. From there, she went to Treasury, then into the Housing Commission, and also into Primary Production which, at that time, was Block 1 at the end of Mitchell Street, working in all aspects of HR, payroll, recruitment, official travel, workers compensation and records management. During her time at Primary Production, she moved across to HR in Correctional Services on a temporary contract. On returning to the Department of Primary Production she found the job of Serjeant-at-Arms was advertised, applied for the job in October 1985, and was awarded that job. She was the first woman Serjeant-at-Arms in the Northern Territory and was located in the Nelson Building. Her first sitting day was 11 November 1985 and the Speaker was Hon Roger Steele.
Working in the Chamber in those days, Helen did first draft of the minutes of proceedings, was responsible for security office accommodation, members entitlements under the RTD, travel, was Secretary to the Subordinate Legislation and Tabling Papers committee, HR, and finance for the Department of the Legislative Assembly. Helen also, at that time, conducted public tours, the school education program, and collaborated with the Department of Education when a teacher was assigned to the program. When that teacher was withdrawn, Helen went on to run the program herself. She also allocated press passes to the media gallery at the direction of the Speaker. It certainly is different to what that person does these days.
The Speaker when Helen came to the Assembly was Roger Steele as I said, the Chief Minister was Ian Tuxworth, the Leader of the Opposition was Bob Collins and the Administrator was Eric Johnston. During her workat the Legislative Assembly, Helen served with Speakers Roger Vale, Nick Dondas, Terry McCarthy, Loraine Braham and, of course, Jane Aagaard. Sadly, I did not get to work with Helen but that is the way life goes.
Helen was once contacted by ABC radio with a request to conduct an interview about the fact that she was a woman and was the Serjeant-at-Arms. The interviewer was Clare Martin, and 10 years later in June 1995, Helen admitted the new member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, to the Assembly.
In her own words, one of the highlights of Helen’s career in the Legislative Assembly was the presentation of the Remonstrance to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1996. The Remonstrance was in relation to the overturning of the Northern Territory’s euthanasia legislation. A party comprising Speaker McCarthy, Chief Minister Shane Stone, Deputy Chief Minister Mike Reed, Clerk Ian McNeill, and Helen travelled to Canberra to present the Remonstrance to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. The Mace had to come too as part of the formal presentation and Helen had to wear her official uniform of lace jabot and cuffs with black skirt and jacket. The presentation was to take place on a Sunday afternoon at Parliament House. The printed presentation speech was rolled in a scroll, then they discovered they had no ribbon with which to tie it up and make it look nice. The Clerk and Helen looked through the hotel gift shop to find something suitable and all they could find was a cord to attach to glasses that you hang around your neck. At least it was red, so they cut the loops off the end, put some knots in it and tied it around so it looked halfway presentable.
When the taxi came to the hotel to collect them for the ceremony they discovered the Mace box would not fit into the boot, no matter which way they put it, so it ended up on the back seat on the laps of Peter Murphy, Paul Cowdy and Helen. When they arrived at Parliament House, the taxi driver wanted to drop them off at the bottom of the hill because he said there was no vehicle access to the forecourt area. Helen and the party had visions of lugging the Mace in its box up the hill - not good. Finally, the driver was convinced they were on official business and expected he should take them to the front door. Given that they were all dressed up in their regalia, perhaps he thought they were in fancy dress and, after all, they were from Darwin.
On arrival at the forecourt, they managed to extract the Mace from the back seat and started to assemble the group. At that time, a busload of Japanese tourists came upon them. They immediately pulled out their cameras and started to take photos, jostling with the official journalists and photographers for the best vantage points. Perhaps those tourists thought this was the sort of thing that happened every day.
Of course, Helen, being a woman, had a handbag. Of course, a Serjeant-at-Arms carrying a Mace and a handbag was not a good thing, so Peter Murphy kindly agreed to take the handbag and carried it all around Parliament House until the end of the official proceedings. Apparently, the colour matched his shoes.
In all the excitement of getting to Parliament House, wrestling with the Mace box and the Japanese tourists, Helen said that later she discovered she had laddered both her stockings but, thankfully, she said you could not see them because of her skirt.
Another highlight of her time here - it is something that does not happen here very often clearly - was the delivery of a summons to Andy Bruyn, the then Acting General Manager for Territory Television Channel 8, to appear before the Bar of the Assembly to be reprimanded by the Speaker. This was in relation to the publication by Channel 8 of material contained in the unexpurgated Mulholland report which had been embargoed by the Assembly.
The Privileges Committee considered the matter and a motion was passed by the Assembly to the effect that Mr Bruyn was required to attend the Legislative Assembly on a particular date and time. In order for this to be done, the Serjeant-at-Arms was instructed to deliver the summons to Mr Bruyn at his place of work. He was contacted and advised this would be happening and when Helen turned up at Channel 8 the cameras were rolling. I think that was the first story of the night. Mr Bruyn duly arrived as summoned and appeared at the Bar to be reprimanded by the Assembly through the Speaker Dondas.
Part of the job of managing security in the first two parliamentary buildings was mainly the issuing of keys to members and staff, members’ travel entitlements under the RTD and looking after the public gallery. The only real security incident occurred when the grounds of the Assembly on the site were stormed by disgruntled public servants protesting over changes to the public service legislation. I can remember that occasion. The police came and had the situation under control but it was quite serious with people trying to climb over the fence from the Esplanade side and trying to get through the wrought iron locked gates on the Mitchell Street frontage. If I recall, Steve Hatton was the Chief Minister. However, with the new Parliament House security took on a whole new meaning. Helen was responsible for programming and maintaining the electronic security system and issuing electronic passes as well as door keys for the whole building.
Part of the job of the Serjeant-of-Arms was ceremonial and Helen has been involved with many ceremonial occasions from openings of parliament, the opening of the new Parliament House and the Swearing-in of Administrators Conn, Anictomatis, and Pauling. In these roles, Helen met Governors-General of Australia - Bill Hayden, Sir William Dean, Major General Michael Jeffery and, of course, Quentin Bryce, recently - and also met the President of the Philippines, Mr Ramos, when he visited Parliament House and addressed the Legislative Assembly, and Jose Ramos-Horta, the President of Timor Leste.
Helen has also been involved in many presentations of the official Address-in Reply at Government House from when the Commodore Eric Johnston was the Administrator, and to Hon James Muirhead, Hon Austin Ashe, Dr Neil Conn, John Anictomatis and, of course, Tom Pauling. In August 1994, Helen was fortunate to attend the House of Commons for the inaugural Commonwealth Serjeant-at-Arms conference. Of the 22 Serjeants at the conference, Helen was the only woman. This caused the official photographer much concern. The first photo taken was a group photo of the Serjeants and the accompanying wives. The ladies were then told to go on a sightseeing tour of London. An announcement was made that the ladies should proceed to the main entrance to get on the bus. Helen did not move. The photographer came over and said very slowly and gently, ‘The ladies are going on the bus now, dear, you best go’. She said, ‘Yes, they are very lucky’. He looked at her again and said even more slowly, ‘The bus is leaving’. Helen was saved from having to explain by the arrival of the House of Commons Serjeant who said that since she was the only woman at the conference she should have a front row seat in the official photograph. The photographer looked startled and proceeded to check his camera for film. Serjeants at that conference were from Australia – the Commonwealth and New South Wales - Canada, the South Pacific, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea. Since that time, Helen has attended similar conferences and renewed the friendships she made at the first conference and, of course, made new friends.
One of the roles of the Serjeant-of-Arms is to maintain order in the Chamber at the direction of the Speaker. Even with the number of times members have been asked to leave the Chamber, Helen, when she was Serjeant-at-Arms and in the Chamber, did not have to actually escort a member out. A former member for Macdonnell, Neil Bell, was regularly asked to leave the Chamber and, one day, he was heard to remark that he always left before Helen was called upon because, ‘She is pretty scary and I would not want to test her’. However, Helen did have to often clear the public galleries of rowdy teachers - which I find very unusual member for Nhulunbuy; teachers are not rowdy - and the occasional individual who wanted to join the debate.
Helen’s role with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as the Serjeant-at-Arms was largely ceremonial but her main duties were as Editor of Debates. Her grounding in the Chamber drafting minutes of proceedings was invaluable in understanding parliamentary processes and the application of the Standing Orders which need to be applied to accurately report on the parliamentary debates.
Helen left on 12 October to take up a position in the Parliament of Tasmania as the Editor of Debates. Her time in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly was some 27 years, and I know all members will join with me in wishing Helen well in her new ventures in Tasmania with the Tasmanian parliament. I, for one, believe that the loss for the Northern Territory is definitely Tasmania’s gain. I pass on to her my thanks for all the times she has helped me at this job and helped me understand the role of Hansard and the parliament.
I also put on the record, to pass through to her, the best wishes of my mother, Noel Padgham, who started when Helen started. They used to sit together somewhere in these seats, and when things got a little quiet or boring in debates they used to exchange notes and have a good old chat about things. I pass on to Helen my mother Noel Padgham’s best wishes, and I wish her and her family all the very best in her new venture.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I continue with some information arising out of Question Time that should be placed on the Parliamentary Record. I do make mistakes sometimes, and one of the mistakes I made today was trying to squeeze too much information into an answer I had prepared during Question Time about the state of the Department of Mines and Energy when I took over as the new minister.
The theatrics of Question Time aside, it is important to get this information onto the public record. It does give an insight into the priorities of the former Labor government in the Northern Territory. It will be on the Parliamentary Record so we can look at that as a starting point for the way forward for the Department of Mines and Energy, and Primary Industry and Fisheries for that matter, in the years ahead.
I started by saying that I thought the good work the previous minister had done was little short of just a veneer, and I believe that to be the case. I thought the former minister, throughout my four years in opposition, was doing a fairly reasonable job and I complimented him on record and in public many times for doing a good job.
However, I have discovered through now having access to the records of the department, where things were really sitting. I know that since 2001, and let us use that as the time frame, exploration activity in minerals and petroleum has increased significantly. That is great. That is really good news for the Territory, there is no doubt about that. What concerns me is the lack of resourcing the former government applied to the department. I will talk a little about some of those specific statistics.
I mentioned earlier that while full-time equivalents across the Northern Territory government from 2005-12 rose by 25%, the Department of Mines and Energy’s FTEs fell by 14%. Over the same period their real funding also fell. Even though you can point to the budget papers and say yes, the dollar figures rose over time, those figures were eroded by the CPI and enterprise agreements, which means the same staff had to be paid more. The resourcing of the department was a real disappointment to me, and now I find I am in the position of having to work through those types of issues.
The Labor government previously has been, according to all reports, fairly strong on the environment and you could argue that in some ways they have been. But when you look at how they viewed environmental regulation in the Department of Mines and Energy over the period they were in, there were some significant shortfalls. I managed to get out in the question today that the environmental regulation of mining was unfunded under the previous government to the tune of $0.45m within the Minerals Division. That meant an increased workload had to be taken care of by fewer staff.
The onshore petroleum industry was much the same. Some members in the House will know, some will not, that at the beginning of the year the Commonwealth government ceased funding onshore petroleum activity regulation and monitoring in the Northern Territory. We were left with a $0.68m black hole and that money had to be found from resources from within the normal budget allocation for the Mines and Energy division.
In the same vein as the environmental regulation around mines and energy, petroleum regulation was left in a position where you had more and more work coming in. I showed that map and the former minister nodded and said, ‘Isn’t it great’, and it is great we have all that activity happening. However, we need to remind the former minister that the Labor government did not put these resources in the ground, they were already there. These maps indicate the increase in the amount of petroleum activity, yet we found ourselves in the position of a shortfall of over $680 000 to fund regulation around that onshore petroleum industry.
I also found there were a number of other unfunded items within Mines and Energy including, as I mentioned, the former minister’s flagship program which he constantly talked about, the Bringing Forward Discovery program. This program was designed to encourage explorers to come to the Northern Territory; there were investment incentives for them. Yet, once again, funding for that program came out of the general budget appropriation for that division and was not funded appropriately. We were left in a position of finding another unfunded program as we came to government.
I do not want to make this overly critical or political. I do not want to attract the ire of the other side, but it concerns me that we find ourselves in the position of having a shrinking department. Mines and Energy is one, the department of Primary Industries is another.
When I was the shadow minister for Tourism I discovered the state that was in as well. My examination of the budget paper around estimates this year showed me that even though the funding for the department of Tourism had stayed relatively stable over the last six, seven or eight years, the reality was it fell to half of what it had been receiving in that same period of time compared to the size of the total appropriation of the Northern Territory. Tourism, for example, attracted 1.8% of the Territory’s total appropriation six, seven or eight years ago, yet in the budget released in May this year by the Labor government it had fallen to 0.9% so, in fact, it had halved.
It comes back to - and I mentioned this the other day - some philosophical differences between the Labor paradigm, the way they think and the way they operate, versus the conservatives, and the way we operate. We focus on building economies around industry and letting industry get on and create the wealth within the Northern Territory, allowing that wealth to grow the economy through real jobs, and building infrastructure and growing communities out of that. Whereas the former minister for Tourism, Malarndirri McCarthy said - she made no apologies - the cut in the tourism budget was being applied to address social issues. Therein lies the difference.
I want to point out to the House - I will not go back to Primary Industry, I covered that pretty well - the future for the Northern Territory under a Country Liberal’s government will be that we place far more emphasis on those three hubs we talked about during the election campaign and since. There will be better resourcing of those departments, there must be. If we are to provide an environment where industry feels comfortable investing in the Northern Territory, then we need to back that up with the departmental assistance to provide the right sort of environment. When I say environment, I also mean the environment out there, making sure we cover the regulatory side because, even though I said before the Northern Territory is open for business, we will not do it at the expense of the environment.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to growing the economy through expanding the capacity of my departments over time.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I complete the story of the Attorney-General and the minister for Corrections not providing correctly for Territory taxpayers and Territorians regarding what the Minister for Correctional Services refers to as the ‘new prison’. I will tell Territory taxpayers exactly what the project is about.
It is about the construction of a new Darwin corrections precinct. The precinct will include an 800-bed Doug Owston Correctional Centre, the Territory’s first secure mental health facility of 30 beds, and a 48-bed supported accommodation treatment centre. The public private partnership with consortium SeNTinel delivers best value for Territorians in a 30-year partnership to design, build, and maintain the facility. It is important Territorians understand this public/private partnership designs the precinct, builds the precinct, and maintains the facility for the period of the partnership, which is a 30-year partnership.
It has been assessed by the Auditor-General as well and truly the way to go in the Territory, as opposed to what the Country Liberal Party were putting up as a renovation of Berrimah gaol which was built in the 1970s to the 1960s design and is outdated and beyond repair.
In a Lands and Planning outcome, the new Darwin corrections precinct has brought power and water into the area of Holtze Road. As we know now, that brings the headwork infrastructure to support good outcomes in opening up new areas and new land. There is an additional outcome for Territory taxpayers with what has occurred through the previous government’s public private partnership to deliver the Darwin corrections precinct.
The other area the Minister for Correctional Services was very critical about was that under my stewardship as the previous minister for Corrections there were no developments in the new era. First, I talk about the incredible partnership between Northern Territory correctional services and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in developing the employability skills of inmates in the construction industry. The work there has been phenomenal. One project we were very proud of was where the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education engaged to construct five alcohol and other drugs treatment beds at the Venndale rehabilitation facility in Katherine, with the assistance of 10 inmates from the Darwin Correctional Centre as trainees to assist with the construction whilst undertaking Construction Certificates I, II and III and Certificate II in Civil Construction, Resources, and Infrastructure.
The minister for Corrections touched on the Barkly Work Camp. For Territory taxpayers, the Barkly Work Camp was officially opened on 8 September 2011. It opened initially with 50 beds and has since been expanded to 74 beds. The camp houses inmates who are getting close to release back into the community and, at the end of a custodial sentence, it provides them with an opportunity to affirm family ties and undertake community work providing reparation and preparing for return to a law-abiding life. The Barkly Work Camp is celebrated by the community of Tennant Creek and the wider Barkly area and, under the previous government, was very much the test case to prove a model in a new era of correctional services that can be rolled out across the Territory into other regional areas.
I also put on record for the Territory taxpayer some of the other initiatives that relate to the new era in corrections. This comes from Budget 2012. Once again, if you want to see the real figures then go to the budget papers. Budget 2012 delivers $20.4m under the $120m package for a new era in corrections and break the cycle of reoffending through improving prisoner rehabilitation options, and targeting education and training in skills shortage areas to get prisoners into jobs after release. In my brief time in that portfolio I was proud to witness 15 inmates who left the Darwin Correctional Centre, the existing one at Berrimah, to be given jobs in the construction industry.
I look forward to the minister briefing the House on the progress of what the previous government put in place one of the fundamental planks in the new era of corrections, and that is the new court orders to get offenders into education and rehabilitation. Prisoners at the Barkly Work Camp are pioneering this concept and are working in community work projects. They are linking prisoner rehabilitation to jobs and are breaking the cycle of crime.
Budget 2012 also provided for the headworks for the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre, the secure mental health behavioural management facility in Holtze, and the purpose-built 24-bed treatment centre. The purpose-built facilities in the corrections precinct will enable the delivery of rehabilitation, education and training programs needed to reduce reoffending rates and provide appropriate accommodation for prisoners with mental health issues.
Budget 2012 also delivers 189 new prisoner beds including:
$3.5m for the provision of additional 95 prisoner beds at the Darwin Correctional Centre to be established in existing buildings
$1.55m for the provision of an additional 24 beds at the Barkly Prisoner Work Camp near Tennant Creek boosting capacity to 74 beds
What the Territory taxpayer should be asking the new minister for Corrections is what is happening to keep the low level recidivist out of prison and hard at work in the community, addressing directly their offending behaviour, paying back their debt to society and, most importantly, learning about making positive choices and not going back to prison.
I could go on and talk for hours on what the new era represents. The minister is using a political strategy to try to claw back some sort of public perception that the new government has no other choice but to hike up prices and deliver a major increase in the cost of living for Territorians because everything is so bad. He should not use Correctional Services because there are significant resources there to address what will be major savings, not just economic savings, but real savings in human lives in the community where people will start to turn around their offending behaviour and we will start to see a reduction in what is an unacceptable recidivism rate in the Northern Territory.
It would be good to hear from the new Minister for Correctional Services about what is happening with a major positive in correctional services, to hear about the things Territorians are interested in. Most importantly, I place on record my acknowledgement and sincere appreciation to the women and men who not only work on the front line of Correctional Services but the administrative and support staff who sustain those staff and deliver foundational services that form the backbone of the Northern Territory correctional services department in delivering what was started and should continue and will deliver a new era in corrections to turn around the unacceptable behaviour in our community and address the unacceptable recidivism rate. All Territorians have a stake in these developments. What price does the new minister for Corrections put on a human life?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about a wonderful event that occurred at the Darwin Entertainment Centre on 16 and 17 November. It was a ballet called Coppelia, which was produced by the Palmerston Association for Dancing and was a wonderful occasion. Last year I went to watch the same association put on the Nutcracker ballet and people loved it. I do not come from a ballet background but I have learnt that to see ballet live is really something special. Not only is it beautiful to watch, but it is very athletic and if you see the effort the ballerinas, male and female - I do not know if there is a difference in the terms one should use - but they have to be extremely fit. It is not something that blokes like me, a little overweight, would try, especially doing pirouettes or leaping into the air and landing on one foot. But, that is exactly what I saw.
What was so special about this performance is that the Palmerston Association for Dancing brought in three very fine people: Jin Yao, who is the principal artist at the Hong Kong Ballet; Adam Thurlow from the Australian Ballet and Paris Opera Ballet - he also performed last year in the Nutcracker - and Adrian Dimitrievitch, who is a former ballet master of the Berlin Ballet. I will mention a little bit more about the last two soon. As well as that, there were some wonderful people like Jan Hedenig, who is our local artistic director and has worked for many years with the dance association. She is one of those who thrives on getting the best out of young people. If you saw the number of local children dressed up in their tutus or finery you would have seen what a wonderful occasion it was.
I asked Adam Thurlow if he often performs with lots of little kids running around his feet and he said, ‘Only once a year’, which meant when he came to Darwin. What is so great is that these young people, young women and children – I believe some are about three years old; there is a range of ages - have an opportunity to see the very best and they did see the very best. I will give you an idea of the wonderful people who came out to help with this performance.
Jin Yao was born in Jilin, China. Jin Yao graduated from the Beijing Dance Academy in 1997 and joined the National Ballet of China in the same year. She was promoted to principal dancer in 2003, and was later ranked a top grade China national dancer. Jin Yao won the bronze prize of the Shanghai International Ballet Competition in 2001 and a gold medal at the Nevada International Ballet Competition in 2002. Yin joined the Hong Kong Ballet as the senior soloist in August 2004 and was promoted to principal dancer in 2005.
She was awarded the Dancers’ Dancer of the Season, Ballet Master’s Award and the Dancers’ Award held by Friends of Hong Kong Ballet. In 2007 she was awarded the Hong Kong Dance Award by the Hong Kong Dance Alliance for her superb performance in Giselle and Balanchine’s Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux; I hope my French is okay. She received the award of Best Artist of the Year dance category from the Hong Kong Arts Development Awards 2010. She has performed in numerous ballet such as Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, Giselle, Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet and Cinderella.
Adam Thurlow performed in The Nutcracker last year. Adam Thurlow is a principal dancer with the Melbourne Ballet Company. Adam was born in Melbourne and trained with his twin brother under the direction of Lorraine Blackburn OAM. At the age of 14, he was accepted into the Australian Ballet School from which he graduated with honours as the dux of his year.
Adam’s professional career began with the Australian Ballet under the direction of Ross Stretton where he performed many solo and principal roles. He was promoted to the rank of soloist after only two years. In 2000, Adam joined the English National Ballet as a soloist. In 2003, Adam became the first and only Australian to join the Opera National de Paris where he worked with many of the world’s top choreographers. In August 2006, Adam returned to the Australian Ballet before leaving for a freelance career in 2008.
Adrian Dimitrievitch is a dancer, choreographer and artistic director. He trained in the Russian and French styles of dance studying ballet under the direction of George Balanchine, Alexander Minz, Alexander Godunov, Vakhtang Chabukiani and Yura and Roberto Dimitrievitch.
Adrian has performed in the role of principal dancer in Argentina, where he was born, as well as throughout Europe and Australia. He was guest ballet master at the Berlin Ballet as well as ballet master and assistant director to Meryl Tankard in Canberra and the Meryl Tankard Australian Dance Theatre in Adelaide. Adrian has worked in performing arts for 44 years and has been teaching ballet for 22 years. He has taught for the Australian Ballet, the Sydney Dance Company, the International Ballet Tokyo, the Australian Dance Theatre, the National Institute of Circus Arts and the Australian Institute of Sport to name a few, and he has been the artistic director of several dance companies in his successful career.
Three of the top people in the world were in this performance in Darwin. Not only did you see a great performance because you had these great people in it, you also had the opportunity to see the best of our young children. We have some people in our local community who will be able to copy our guest artists because their performances were outstanding. The thing I loved about it was everyone enjoyed themselves. It was not just about dancing; people thoroughly enjoyed what they were doing.
My wife went to the performance on the Friday night. She has never been to the ballet before and she is a bit finicky when it comes to what she likes and what she does not. I asked her when I got home from the concert and she said it was wonderful. She thought it was a magnificent and very beautiful performance.
What is wonderful about living in Darwin is we have the ability to have a variety of dance and theatre that is good for our community. We are able to have other kinds of art, not just acting - hip hop, folk music or chorales, we also have ballet. It is a wonderful thing for Darwin and Palmerston - it comes from Palmerston - that we have such a wonderful group of people involved in making this a part of our life.
I will mention a few people. Jan Hedenig is the artistic director and choreographer. Martin Jarvis was the musical director. We had a live orchestra, many people playing many instruments; that is what makes theatre so great, a live orchestra. The producer was the Palmerston Association for Dancing; production manager, Chris Osborne; lighting designer, Chris Osborne; sound production, Darwin Entertainment Centre; makeup design, Jane Marshall; wardrobe management, Juliet Feige; costume construction, Beautiful Costumes. The effort that went into the costumes is unbelievable. That is part of what makes it such a beautiful performance. Maxine Way, local lady, the captain of the local fire brigade at Howard Springs; Pam McLeod; Janome; headpieces by Lara Kershaw; set production, Darren Williams; photographer/media, Garry Haslett; backdrop artist, Stacey Albano; program, Julia Martin; resident musician, Doug Loft; and marketing, Darwin Entertainment Centre.
Some other members of the cast: Dawn was performed by Aurora Feige-Falconer; Prayer was Emily Corpus; Swanhilde’s friends were Michelle Buse and Michelle Wilson, a local lady from Howards Springs; Harlequin was Samantha Gleeson; Monkey was Karina Osborne; the automated doll was Crystal Loft; the priest was Gerry Wood; Lord of the Manor was Adam Falconer; Lady of the Manor was Sheree Illious; Mayor was Morris Pitt; and Mayoress was Kate Mornane.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Palmerston Association for Dancing for putting this performance on. I thank everyone who performed in it; it is a wonderful thing for Darwin. I cannot name all – there must have been 50 children there, and all the mothers who organised them. Can you imagine organising these kids for rehearsals? These kids were organised perfectly for rehearsals. The Palmerston Association for Dancing does a wonderful job, making this such a successful event in Darwin. I congratulate everyone who was involved and hope next year something is presented, because everyone should go to the ballet in Darwin.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016