2015-08-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, Daffodil Day pins have been placed on each desk to highlight tomorrow’s Daffodil Day campaign for the Cancer Council. The daffodil is the symbol of the Cancer Council and of hope. Every day two Territorians will receive news that they have cancer, and this campaign works towards supporting those people and researching treatment to eliminate this disease across the country.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Wagaman Primary School accompanied by Narissa Agudo and Lois Ramsay. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Firstly, I sincerely welcome students from Wagaman Primary School, my school, and say good morning to them all. I deal with them regularly, and it is really great they get to see their local member talking about important legislation.
I am pleased to bring this amendment to the Agents Licensing Act before the parliament and to clarify and rectify an injustice. The industry representative on the Agents Licensing Board wrote to the Attorney-General seeking to have the age discriminatory provisions of the Agents Licensing Act removed.
Currently, appointees to the Agents Licensing Board have to be less than 65 years of age before and during the course of their appointments. This discrimination on the basis of age clearly has no place in our society, and has the potential to deprive the Territory of access to the skills and experience of a highly valued group in our society. In fact, this is the only remaining act in my portfolio that has such an archaic discriminatory provision.
I am keen to ensure that statutory boards, committees and tribunals have the best possible membership and that age is not used as a discriminatory factor when appointing members to these bodies. Accordingly, this bill is designed to remove the age discriminatory provisions from the act.
This bill will ensure that the Agents Licensing Board operates without any impediment and that in the future we will have access to the broadest possible range of skilled Territorians to serve on our boards and committees.
I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Labor opposition and Territory workers in relation to this bill. I thank the minister’s office for facilitating the briefing I had with NT WorkSafe. I also sought briefings, views and opinions from the Law Society of the Northern Territory. I met with representatives of Unions NT, and I met specifically with the United Voice union given they have the largest union membership base of any union in the Northern Territory. I also note the vast majority of their members are also people in lower-paid, unskilled jobs.
It is disappointing that our unions as a whole are not valued or represented directly in these negotiations, insofar as the cynical move by the CLP government upon coming to power to remove union representation from boards, including NT WorkSafe. It speaks volumes about this government’s approach to workers and the value they place on their representative peak bodies, like the various unions in the Northern Territory.
I want to express my disappointment that, whilst I was made aware committee stage amendments would come before the House in relation to a couple of elements of this bill, I was not afforded the courtesy of having the amendments delivered to me yesterday afternoon or evening. I had to wait until I arrived in the Chamber this morning to find they had been placed on people’s desks. I remind the government, in its new spirit of wanting to cooperate as a minority government with all members of this House, that it might give consideration to those of us on this side of the House, the Labor opposition or Independent members of this House, to have adequate time to digest those amendments and understand their implications.
I also make the point about some of the outrageous things that have been said about free trade agreements with China by the minister who brought this bill before the House. His blatant and misguided attack on Territory workers and, again, their representative peak bodies in the various unions in the Northern Territory, is nothing more than scurrilous and represents a scare campaign. It went to new heights yesterday when the Chief Minister, also as Tourism minister, stated we would scare away Chinese tourists as a result of some issues Territory and Australian workers have with free trade agreements with China.
These are scurrilous, ill-founded attacks and symptomatic of a desperate government trying to get runs on the board. Basically, people have stopped listening to them and three years into their term of government, with one year to go, it is difficult to see how they can turn their fortunes around.
In relation to the Return to Work Act and the bill with the amendments here today, the Labor opposition cannot support this bill as it is an extension of an inherently unfair piece of legislation passed in this House in March this year. There are some elements worthy of support in this bill, but overall it remains a flawed scheme which leaves workers worse-off than they were before the changes brought in in March.
The Labor opposition asks again, where is the evidence to support or suggest that the previous Workers Compensation Scheme was not working? Why have we seen the implementation of these reforms across two bills? Why have we had two tranches of reforms? Why not wrap them up in one bill and deliver it to this parliament?
I have my suspicions about why that might be the case. When this bill had its passage through the parliament on 25 March, the stand-out element of the bill was to do with the government finally being dragged kicking and screaming to implement a long overdue reform with amendments to support the firefighters with cancer legislation. They were forced to recognise that in the course of firefighters’ work they are exposed more than any other profession to various cancers. Those amendments and that win only occurred at the eleventh hour, the day before the debate was scheduled.
The positive aspect of that part of the bill in March is what grabbed attention and headlines, and everything else about the bill which took workers’ rights and compensation backwards, did not quite get the air time. You cannot help but think that was strategically planned by the government. Then we have this bill before us today which brings a second tranche of amendments, some of which I have already acknowledged are worthy of support, but others we will not be supporting.
It is important in considering this bill to revisit the Return to Work Act, the first part of this bill that came into this parliament and was passed on 25 March. It was not supported by the Labor opposition. I am interested to hear the views of the Independents today on this bill. In the March bill the member for Nelson abstained from voting, so I am very interested to see what his position on this second bill is today.
Essentially, in the first part of the reforms in March the legislation got rid of the no fault remedial workers compensation scheme we have had since 1987. This legislation had no regard for the fact that Territorians who have suffered a workplace injury as a result of negligence or otherwise in the workplace had no ability to sue an employer under common law rights available to workers in other jurisdictions. This CLP government legislation established an historic shift from the insurance agencies to the public health and hospital system. Essentially this is what this legislation does. It is a cost-shifting exercise.
Placing a limit on compensation of 260 weeks means any ongoing chronic injury requiring medical intervention or rehabilitation services will be shifted to the already very stretched health and disability sector. The most draconian aspect of the legislation was the 15% whole-of-body impairment test, which limits a worker’s ability to qualify for permanent impairment. Talking about the first bill, the Law Society made some very salient points about this. Indeed, in a letter to the minister dated 24 March 2015, the day before the first bill came before the House, it raised a number of concerns and put in a submission, as had other organisations, to the review. It flagged broadly:
The Law Society then went on to highlight a couple of points which were placed on the record in the earlier debate, but it is important to reiterate them:
That is from the letter the Law Society of the Northern Territory sent to minister Styles on 24 March 2015. The NT Law Society pointed out the following injuries would not amount to a 15% impairment: a loss of movement in a limb or elbow; loss of fingers or toes; fractures to a leg or bones requiring surgery; a loss of a mammary gland for a woman of child-bearing age; or the complete loss of smell and taste.
Aligning the definition of a worker with that of the tax office speaks volumes about what is driving the changes to this legislation. Let us be honest here, it is about profits and the bottom line. The new definition of worker has created uncertainty as to how it applies to contractors and sub-contractors. In our unique jurisdiction the construction sector is a large part of the economic activity. Much of it being delivered now was set up under the previous Labor government. At the Unions NT meeting concerns were raised with me about where this legislation leaves contractors and sub-contractors.
I spoke in the last debate about firefighters and cancer legislation. Whilst it went some way to recognise the situation the Territory’s firefighters are in, it still does not go far enough. One of the big wins was the government finally listened; they recognised they had to change their proposed legislation to be able to pre-date those firefighters who had contracted cancer in the course of their duty before the last election date. This government was dragged kicking and screaming to make that amendment after they rejected two private member’s bills introduced by the member for Fannie Bay to try to address concerns.
The opposition has made an election commitment to establish a presumptive cancer legislation for those Territory firefighters who develop certain types of cancer and could have access to the former Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. But, minister, as you know only too well it still does not go far enough with only 12 out of 16 cancers the firefighters hope to have classified as work-related being adopted into the legislation. This is something we have committed to. This act was passed and is excellent for insurers but, let us face it, it is terrible for public services such as health and disability. It is not good for Territory workers. This act is a complete cost shift in the long-term for people with ongoing health issues and disability as a result of a workplace incident or an acquired condition.
Turning now to the bill before us today, the second raft of reforms, I thank NT WorkSafe for the briefing on this legislation. There were I think four or five people seated at that meeting answering the many questions we had about this legislation. Some more positive aspects of this bill include NT WorkSafe now having the authority to issue a prohibition notice to an uninsured employer to cease. That is a very important and positive step forward. We acknowledge there will now be recognition of accredited vocational rehabilitation providers from other jurisdictions. That is also a positive step forward. The fact that formal notice will now be required with a clear communication process to be provided to workers of a pending step down in payments or ceasing of payments is a fair approach when we are dealing with such sensitive matters with people who are dealing with workplace injuries.
There is an inclusion of an offence for an employer who dismisses a worker during a period of six months following the date of injury if they are still injured. This will afford greater security to workers who are injured in the workplace. The bill inserts compensation for medical, surgical rehabilitation and other reasonable costs associated with injuries, and this includes family counselling. Workers compensation claims are, in themselves, a very stressful process which can often compound issues. Reasonable costs for counselling, including for family members, is a positive step in assisting people to recover and return to work.
An employer must take reasonable steps to provide suitable employment and to retrain a worker, including producing a return to work plan, and non-compliance of this will result in an offence. I spent a number of years working in the mining sector, in the HR department. Whilst it was not part of my direct responsibilities to deal with employees who had been, for whatever reason, injured in their workplace, I witnessed their difficulties trying to find alternative work in that sector. It is true for anyone that the impact of going through a workers compensation claim on somebody’s mental health and wellbeing as they come to terms with retraining and returning to work is serious. We are very mindful of that.
It is reasonable that a work plan be developed within 28 days of a person’s return to work, but I query whether a minimum standard will be applied to all employers or whether employers will be given guidance on what a return to work plan should look like. How will we know the return to work plans are adequate to truly address what needs to be done in assisting a worker to genuinely retrain or return to work? If an employer defers liability to obtain further information then the employer will meet the reasonable cost of medical and rehabilitation treatment during that period. This excludes, however, hospital inpatient and interstate evacuations.
I want to highlight that on a surface level it may appear reasonable to be enshrined in legislation. We do not want workers to be disadvantaged in this process, but it begs the question where a worker has a serious back injury and needs neurosurgery, high-level intense and costly surgery, what guarantee is there that they will be reimbursed for those costs? If an employer fails to make a decision within the specified time, it will be taken that the employer has accepted the claim. The opposition sees that as quite reasonable.
We note that mediators can decide that legal representation would be helpful and the employer pays reasonable costs. We had discussion with the Law Society Northern Territory about mediators who feature under section 103BA in the bill. We asked what qualifications they require. Must they demonstrate some kind of accreditation? What if the mediator acts inappropriately or takes sides with the employer’s insurer and not with the employee? Are there any regulations to cover mediators?
In the interests of reasonableness, I note that in the discussion I had with United Voice, in their dealings to date where they have been involved with mediators, they said they thought the mediators in the Northern Territory they had worked with in workers compensation claims were reasonable individuals who were doing a good job. But there is potential exposure in that bill as to qualifications, minimum standards and accreditation that might be required through the designated mediator. I am sure the minister will be able to address that.
We note that insurers need to be approved by the authority and provide the authority with the ability to impose conditions on the insurer, including for renewal of approval and that employers must possess an adequate policy of insurance or indemnity. They should, and that is a very sensible inclusion in this bill.
I will now move to the aspects of the bill that we struggle to support, but overall stakeholder feedback is that this second tranche of reforms – this second bill – is less punitive than the first part which has been enacted. In spite of this, some aspects of this bill are a continuation of the dilution of workers’ rights to a no-fault remedial compensation scheme. There remain some threshold issues the opposition cannot support, which would prevent the opposition from supporting the bill in total.
Primarily, this relates to the exclusion of journey claims. This amendment precludes people who go to work by any means other than a car. This is covered by the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme, or MAC, under which you can make a claim for injuries incurred. There are also penalties inserted for fraudulent behaviour.
The reality is that in our jurisdiction, and our Territory lifestyle, there are people who journey to work other than in a motorcar. Many people cycle or walk to work. In Alice Springs I note the number of people riding bicycles; why would you not in the beautiful weather in Alice Springs, and in a township that is relatively flat? The same happens in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and even in my own community. In a day and age where we encourage people to find means of transport other than their motorcars or not clog up our CBD with vehicles, where does this leave people who, given the costs of parking in the CBD, park their car at a friend’s place or somewhere just outside the CBD? They are not clogging up the city or racking up parking fees. They park their motor vehicle and then walk the last few blocks to their workplace.
I ask the minister to address this when he is wrapping up the debate. Where does this business of journey claims leave people who are covered under MAC for driving but not under other means of transport? I know there are exceptions for people in their line of duty, including police. We note there are some exceptions which recognise that in the course of the work day people driving in a vehicle under the instruction of the boss may have to go from office A to office B, but it stands out as an element of this bill which lacks clarity.
We are also interested to know what the basis for this change is. How many claims in the history of the Northern Territory under the former scheme were journey-to-work claims? I was advised in one briefing that somebody claimed who was injured whilst riding a bike to work. The extent of the injuries meant this individual became a paraplegic. Where is the evidence to show this amendment has been brought forward on this bill? I do not think that it is right and we cannot support any further watering down of existing workers’ rights.
Members on this side of the House are aware of conservative governments introducing these changes in other jurisdictions. With a change of government and a return to Labor, either the element of the journey claims in these laws has been repealed or is in the process of being repealed.
There are also concerns about the formalising of structured settlements in the legislation. The advice from the Law Society of the Northern Territory is that as the legislation currently stands every box of new section 78A needs to be ticked when going through the process of a structured settlement for it to be successful. The way the legislation is drafted, if all aspects are not fulfilled then a structured settlement cannot be reached either before or at the 104-week mark. To be honest, a wily employer could utilise this process to defer and then deny liability, and this would be a terrible outcome for a worker.
In relation to the legislative definition of managerial action as drafted, it precludes managerial actions that fall outside that scope. This goes to the heart of the first committee stage amendment we will be talking about in the Committee of a Whole. This poses uncertainty in the legislation and requires some thought about how to manage any ambiguity.
There is a recommendation that deemed diseases are reviewed in Schedule 1 and placed into regulation. I am disappointed that the opposition has not received any regulations to date for review. I ask the minister to table those today. It is difficult to provide support or express a view or opinion on something you have not seen.
As the legislation currently stands, as I said at the outset, the opposition will not support it. We are not being difficult or tricky, but honest in our appraisal of this bill. Importantly, we are representing Territory workers who we believe would be worse off under this legislation. We cannot change the fact that this legislation continues to water down existing workers’ rights and entitlements enshrined in legislation. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other members of this House, and the Independents. I will have a few questions in the committee stage.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I will be very quick in my remarks in regard to this piece of legislation. While I do support it going through there is a small issue I would like to raise. The member for Nhulunbuy has spoken a lot about employees and union involvement. One of the things I want to raise is with self-employed people. I have experience with workers compensation in this area because I made a claim on myself, which was an interesting process. That did cause me some concern. I want some assurance from the minister that it will not be impacted at all or made any more complex than what it was then.
The accident I had was a very simple one. I was pulling a trailer onto a vehicle and fell onto my shoulder, which then created a few problems. I did not plan on claiming any workers compensation or anything at that stage however, our insurance broker said, ‘Gary, that is not a good idea. You really need to do that in case that turns into a very large medical claim.’ So I did. But I got a phone call and it was TIO. They said, ‘We need to speak to you as you are the employee’. They asked me what the employer was like. I had to comment about myself. That was pretty interesting. Then they rang me back and said, ‘We now need to speak to you as the employer and get your opinions about the employee’. I was very complimentary of myself in both directions.
It made it very complicated for me in the sense that what you get paid while you are not at work is based on your salary. I had some very clear instructions given to me that I should not work. But if you are self-employed how do you not work? You will be in the office doing stuff. If you then do that, what is the impact of that on your claim? The response I got back from the insurers was that I could claim my salary. But as most people know, self-employed people do not pay themselves very much. I was probably paying myself about $12 000 a year. That meant I could not really pay anyone to do it. So it is a very complex position you get yourself into.
Next they wanted me to go on a return to work program. How do you have a partial return to work when you are running a business? At the time we had the caravan park and bistro going and we were also picking mangoes. I had a far bit of work to do. Eventually, after I had multiple cortisone injections, the doctor decided I needed an operation, but I refused. I was then forced to sign off that workers compensation. That meant that if anything happened in the future, I could not make a claim.
I completely understand this legislation. There has been a lot of talk about employees and discussing things with unions, but I have yet to hear about us discussing things with people who are self-employed. I am interested to hear some answers to make sure it is not making it any more complicated than what it was before. I would like to see it simplified in some way.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the Territory opposition opposes this bill because the changes the government is proposing break a contract with Northern Territory workers to first and foremost put their health, safety and welfare as a priority if they are injured in the course of their employment. The main beneficiaries of these amendments will be the insurance companies, which will increase profits at the expense of long-term injured workers.
Those points were made by me in the previous debate about changes to workers’ rights in the Northern Territory by the CLP government. It is interesting to note we now have a CLP government which had 16 members but now has 12. There are only 12 members left in a government free-falling into political oblivion. Would it not be interesting if we were debating the first tranche of these amendments about changing the dynamics of workers’ rights in the Northern Territory with a 12 person CLP government?
We were told the amendments had been passed and others would be forthcoming. Today we are debating the second round of the amendments that were forthcoming with a 12 person government not a 16 person government. I am wondering how the vote will go today. I wonder how much work has been done by this new minority government with the Independent members on this legislation. If we turn back the clock there was a serious relationship between the sale of an important Territory asset called the Territory Insurance Office and changes to workers’ rights and compensation within the Northern Territory. I said then there was a direct link, and I still say that.
Back then a government with a majority was able to stamp its authority and, consequently, the Territory Insurance Office was sold. The concerns of Territorians were loud and clear. The government has not changed one thing about its MO, and that is they do not listen. There were very clear signals sent by Territorians that it was our TIO, a public asset, and it should not be sold. Coincidentally it was sold, and at the same time there were major changes to workers’ rights and compensation and return to work schemes that benefited a global insurance company over Territory workers. We argued it then, and we argue it today as a Territory Labor opposition.
It just did not come from the Territory opposition, it came from high-level stakeholders. Our research was conducted with high-level stakeholders, an example being the Law Society of the Northern Territory. The Law Society said the amendments brought in by the CLP government went way beyond the report and the review. They suggested the changes made were not necessarily the right changes and the levels not necessarily correct. We did not oppose everything. As an opposition we supported some elements of that bill. We are pragmatic and supportive where support is deserved. We give credit where credit is due.
We debated long and hard over fair and just compensation to our firefighters. We dragged the majority government kicking and screaming into this House to make sure firefighters were properly and appropriately compensated for their work on the front line defending Territory lives and property. We debated the level of changes implemented by the CLP government. We did not agree and we formed policy on that to take to a NT general election saying, ‘We will go a little further in the protection of your rights and the support for your families’. We hold that position. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are doing in this House.
Once again, the spokesperson in this area for the Territory Labor opposition, the member for Nhulunbuy, has outlined our case to the Caucus, worked with stakeholders, contacted community members, formed a position, brought it to our Caucus, debated it with members and we now come to this House with a fair and honest position, as always. This represents a political divide, and why not? We will continue to debate with the government wherever and whenever on behalf of Territorians for a fair and just outcome. Now we are debating a minority government with a block of Independents.
In my presentations each time I stand in this House I will be turning left and focusing my contribution to the Independents. I will encourage them to listen, act and participate in the legislative process. I will call up issues from the past; this issue today represents the second phase of amendments to important legislation supporting injured Territory workers and their families.
The sale of TIO cannot be separated from this debate. However, we are not quite sure how that process transpired. I can only guess the Cabinet processes of this government. Last night the member for Casuarina gave a quick synopsis of three years of the CLP and the revolving door of ministers, the wannabe Chief Ministers, the coups, the attempted coups and the infighting. It was a quick and clever synopsis, but something that has played out in the public domain, which the Territory has been observing and discussing.
When you talk critical legislation like this and the changes that were already rammed through by a majority government, one has to wonder what sort of Cabinet processes took place to deliver those changes. But here we go again, we are back in this House and looking at another round.
For the last two days the CLP minority government has been using cheap political tactics to ridicule Labor members on this side. Even as recently as last night they called us racist over the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The member for Nhulunbuy raised some concerns once again about union representation being denied on important advisory boards, including NT WorkSafe in the case of this legislation. That is a government priority and policy. It is a government cheap trick to bash unionists and ridicule anybody who aligns with the trade union movement, the body that has historically protected and supported workers’ rights.
That is okay because you guys put it in the public domain, which is fine by me. That shows a clear political divide. Let the Territory decide on the tactics you have used over the last two days.
Let the Chinese embassy decide in Canberra. Let the Chinese community decide when I go home to Tennant Creek and tell the story about what happened in this House, as I represented the people of the Barkly. Let democracy decide.
We, on this side of the House, believe to get true stakeholder representation, the best decisions and the best legislative instruments for the Northern Territory, the trade union movement should be represented. It should have its say and should be listened to. It should be a fair debate.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said, on behalf of the Labor opposition, we cannot support this bill. We support elements of this bill, but there are elements of great concern. There is a difference between the two sides. We are still critical of the first round of amendments and the amendments you are seeking passage for today because they seem to take from workers and give to insurers. It takes from the workers their right to just compensation and favours the global insurers.
The member for Port Darwin, in the last debate, talked very wisely about setting boundaries. We think you have it wrong. We think there can be more balance. Most importantly, we have policy that will set our position for Territorians to judge. That is the most important and appropriate part of democracy in this place.
The CLP minister and Cabinet at that time defied listening to Territorians about the sale of TIO. They also did not listen to the opposition or stakeholders. I can remember presenting in detail the advice from the Northern Territory Law Society that seemed to be completely ignored by a then majority government which was stamped with arrogance. However, I wonder now what the policy and Cabinet procedures of a minority CLP government are? Will they listen to stakeholders? Will they be more consultative? The Chief Minister said he has a secret plan that will be unveiled at some stage. The rule of confidentiality in the Barkly is you only tell your six most trusted friends. I am not sure how many members we have here listening at the moment. My tip is that the secret plan is called a general election, and we say bring it on! And as far as I am concerned, as soon as possible, because Territorians are not only asking for it, they are demanding it. I wonder how consultative the CLP government is these days? Is it listening now? Will it listen? Is it willing to put its money where its mouth is?
The Law Society was concerned that the first tranche of amendments went way beyond the recommendations of the final report. What we are seeing today, in a composite of amendments, is more legislation that favours the insurers over the workers. The spokesperson for the Territory Labor opposition, the member for Nhulunbuy, made some very good points in regard to supporting injured workers. These are Territorians and their families. These amendments resonate that return to work, supporting injured workers and supporting their families is a real problem. We, on this side of the House, see it as legislation important in supporting and recognizing this problem. There is nothing easy about this. We are not saying this is easy, but our boundaries seem to be very far removed from the Liberal boundaries. That is why we are in this House debating.
It was interesting when the member for Nhulunbuy discussed with Cabinet at length about the changes in this tranche of the legislation around the journey claims. It seems there is uncertainty, that the power has been handed to the insurance companies regarding how people travelling to and from their workplace will be compensated. It seems it will remain clear if you drive to work in a motor vehicle. However, if you do not choose a motor vehicle, then we are not quite sure. The minister will be able to define that for Territorians in this House. I will be able to take that transcript home and give a clear indication about that coverage.
In this stage of uncertainty through the second reading of this legislation we are concerned about a principle that is set. If we look at the global context, there is serious encouragement and investment to reduce congestion on our roads and improve the fitness of our citizens. One example of that is the walk to school campaign. People are encouraged to increase the use of bicycles and use public transport to reduce carbon emissions.
Not only is this a global trend, this is smart politics. It is interesting that the minister who is orchestrating the passage of this legislation through the House was a previous Transport minister no doubt heavily involved in promoting those new principals around our global village. Let us use fewer cars, look at initiatives in public transport, develop cycle paths and increase the fitness of our citizen, because his colleague the Health minister will tell him that if we have a fitter society it will reduce the government’s cost to look after its citizens. That seems to be at the top of the Health minister’s agenda.
That is why the opposition questions a government bringing legislation forward that may not be in the spirit of those global initiatives. It is not just about the Territory, it is about Australia and the rest of the world. It is also important to factor in lower socioeconomic groups in our community that cannot afford a car, where maybe a pushbike is the only form of transport to keep a job, make a start in society and have the opportunity to climb the ladder and improve your life’s lot. Where does this fit in terms of fair and just legislation? I am sure the minister will be able to define that with the support of advisers and the great resources at hand for a Cabinet minister.
I am sure the minister will be wised up and able to alleviate any concerns from the opposition and the constituency that these amendments are skewed; that the journey to work claims will be skewed and this legislation is not in the interests of the global moves to public transport, better fitness levels, and alternative modes of transport. The minister can alleviate any concerns that this government is seriously backing good measures to improve our society as opposed to discriminating against it with limited economic rationalist agendas.
We have some clear signals in this policy. The Labor opposition has put its case. We always welcome debate in this House. We look forward to the minister’s reply and the replies of the other members. We look forward to the outcome in a more bipartisan style – working with a minority government, Independents and a Labor opposition. It is a new working environment in this place. I drove to work this morning. I have a registered car. I am covered under MAC insurance but I would really like to be able to ride a bicycle one of these days. I am sure the minister will explain to me that it will be all okay and I will still be covered.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, that was singularly the most articulate, well-considered and constructed speech I have ever heard from the member for Barkly.
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish. You should have been here last night.
Mr ELFERINK: I am struggling to see why you are struggling to take a compliment because you have accurately described the issues before the House and the problems as you see them. If I say you delivered a good speech, it was genuine because it considered all the issues. You identified the issues you were concerned about, and it does this place well when members take the time out to do the research you have done as the quality of debate in this House improves.
If you take offence to a compliment of that nature, I am surprised. I am sorry you do. I am somewhat dismayed by it, but I am sorry you feel that way.
The legislation before the House deals with a number of issues. The member for Barkly quite correctly described some of those issues, one of which is an ideological issue, or certainly a principle issue as to where you apportion risk. That is really what this debate is about. Any debate in the insurance domain is about the apportionment of risk, and that is particularly the argument about the journey to and from work which this bill touches on and I will return to later.
This bill does something else that is really important and is captured in the title of the bill itself – the return to work legislation. The underlying philosophy of the idea of getting a person, despite the fact they are injured, back into the workplace is good because if I was ever injured and removed from the workplace because of that injury my personal world view is, ‘How do I get back into the workplace as quickly as possible?’
I have seen a number of Territorians pursue that philosophy to the nth degree. Two Territorians spring to mind. One was Phil Kerr, who has recently retired. Phil Kerr snapped his neck in a motorcycle accident I think at the old Bagot Park Speedway years ago. As a full quadriplegic with the most limited movement in his upper body to move his arms he continued to run a business. Not only did he run that business, he was my local mechanic until the time he retired. Not only did he run that business well, but he went on to employ five or six mechanics.
I would regularly see him because he was the person who would keep the elf-mobile alive way beyond probably its expiry date as a useful vehicle. He would sticky tape to the back of his hand a pen which enabled him to type out invoices. I know full well that Phil Kerr would have much preferred to be an ambulant person for the rest of his life, but what Phil Kerr did for years and years is say, ‘I’m not going to give up the ghost. I will get involved in life and make the most of a bad situation. I could not imagine how hard it would be to step over those hurdles, but that is what he did.
The second person who springs to mind who had similar injuries is a bloke by the name of Joel Fleming from Alice Springs. I am sure people would have run into him. He continued to also run his business which, surprisingly, was in part a four-wheel drive training enterprise.
This legislation is trying to create structures where people are encouraged to go back to work because work, I think to a large degree, tends to define us. I do not think members opposite would find that a confronting concept, but work gives us purpose. Work is part of who we are, and we use it to identify ourselves. If we meet a person for the first time there are two questions we ask. Question one, ‘What is your name?’ Question two, ‘What do you do?’ The answer to the second question defines us as much as the answer to the first question.
Indeed, history is full of people taking on their occupations as their identity. At some point in history Bob the carpenter became Bob Carpenter. At some point in history, Margaret the thatcher became Margaret Thatcher – Butcher, Baker, Smith, Goldsmith, I reckon I could probably keep going. Cooper is another one. I could keep going for hours. Why? Because their job was so important to them historically. They took their occupation on as their name. That is how important work is for us as human beings; it is how we identify ourselves. Our status in the community and in our own mind is defined by the work we do
To create insurance schemes that encourage people to go back into the workplace, even if they are reluctant, frightened is worthwhile legislation. Life is difficult. Life will throw up challenges again and again. All sorts of challenges will be visited upon us: ill-health, deaths in families, unemployment and re-employment. The microcosm that is life is a frightening ride, upon which we are all thrust and some people do it better than others, but being able to create confidence in people is an important step. I congratulate the minister for bringing this element of the bill to the House because it is so important.
The older I get the more I believe it is important. It is the heart of the philosophy behind the Sentenced to a Job program. It is the heart of the philosophy I have in my own personal life.
At the risk of reflecting on debate, this morning the minister introduced other legislation removing age limits for agents in a licensing environment. How good is that? Enabling people to continue working. I think Rupert Murdoch is in his 80s now and he still runs a business empire. My pinup boy is a bloke by the name of George Hampel. He helped me with some legislation. He is from Victoria. He started defending people as a lawyer when they were still on trial for their lives. He is 82 and continues to work.
If you look around there are so many people who continue to work well into their life because it is what they do. They are my pinup people. I fully intend to work as long as I can. I see retirement as the gap between when I cannot work and when I pass into the next world. Work will be an identifying feature of my life going forward.
I met an old cop friend of mine the other day and I said, ‘Pete, how are you going?’ He said, ‘I cannot wait to retire.’ He said he has 301 days to go. He will be 54; he is on the ComSuper scheme and has a life organised for him. That is what he wants to do; that is up to him. I said to him, ‘What are you going to do?’ He said, ‘Hitch up my car and go for a drive around the country and find a place where I can settle down’. I said, ‘What will you do then?’ He did not have an answer for me.
I thought to myself that maybe he will be happy that way, but most people I know who retire often end up busier in retirement than when they were working. Those are just some observations about work as a general principle but they reflect on this important component of the legislation before the House.
Employers now have to develop a return to work plan for a worker where the incapacity period is more than 28 days. That is, there has to be a plan to get that worker out of their sick bed, their home and back into the work environment. That is a positive thing. It is entirely aimed at producing better work outcomes, and insurers will insist employers adopt it as needed because it is to the insurer’s advantage to get people back into the workplace as well. I would rather see people contributing to society because, in doing so, they contribute to themselves. The proposal may be an actual plan for return to work on pre-injury duties or other suitable duties.
If there is an injury that takes a person offline for one task they have because it requires them to stand and, for argument’s sake, they are a paraplegic – which would be tragic – but you found another job they could do which would enable them to come back to work in a wheelchair, that would be a good thing.
The employer cannot terminate employment without strong reasons unrelated to the claim. In other words, you cannot dispose of a worker when they are injured. Get them back into the workplace as quickly as you can and do not think you can terminate them. That is a fair and just approach.
There are other elements to this legislation that are important, such as improving the definition of management action to ensure mental injury claims cannot be made where an employer is simply managing performance in an appropriate fashion. This is one of the great challenges.
We see this claim of bullying levelled quite regularly, particularly in bureaucracies. From time to time, when you dig into those claims the matter is not so much bullying as an employer trying to get an employee to do their job. Sometimes that is misunderstood, or for other reasons perhaps even maliciously represented, as some sort of bullying claim. Asking a person to do their job is not bullying. Asking a person to do their job is what you employ them to do. It is not an outrage to ask a person to do their job. But from time to time you will find, throughout organisations within the public and private sectors, this idea that being asked to do your job or being accountable for it is an affront.
Accountability is a normal function of life. We do it in our community every day. We have laws that make us accountable, or an employer who makes us accountable, and the employer pays us money. Part of the contract with the employer is that we do what the employer expects us to, so long as that is lawful and reasonable. If you have a problem with the work you are being asked to do, then it is important that you simply find another source of employment. There are some employees who do not like the work they are being asked to do. If that is the case, then move on.
If it is lawful and you do not like it then move on and live the rest of your life. But be comfortable with the idea that if you are employed by a government, or alternatively by the private sector somewhere, you keep up your part of the bargain and you cannot or should not claim mental injury when you are asked to do so.
Binding settlements can now be negotiated after 104 weeks. In extraordinary cases the settlement can be before 104 weeks, which is obviously two years. However, that settlement will be subject to a six-month cooling-off period. All settlements must include independent legal advice for the injured worker, paid for by the employer. Furthermore, any settlement must also include paid financial advice if the worker requests it.
We have ourselves a situation where an employee is injured and a conversation begins between the employer and the employee. That conversation says the employee cannot come back to work. The employer says, ‘I cannot have you back at work for whatever lawful reason’, then ultimately you find yourself in a place where you have to close off the problem. You have to be able to settle the problem in one fashion or another. This then maps a pathway forward. It says it will take you two years to settle this. Those exceptional circumstances would require agreement by both parties in negotiation. You may settle that earlier for the sake of expediency. That would be the abnormal situation.
After two years, employer and employee sit down and say, ‘What are we going to do about this to close off this thing? We cannot have this thing dangling in the ether.’ So the employer says to the employee, ‘All right let us find a way through this’, and an agreement is reached. To attend to the obvious disparity between negotiating strengths, certain safeguards have now been built into the system, which include legal representation. That is, an employee cannot legally sign a document saying they will come to some type of binding settlement unless a lawyer has overseen the process. That is important because it gets rid of that inequity or disparity between negotiating strengths.
The other component, of course, is that you can then clearly argue, as the employer, that the employee must have understood exactly what they were signing up to, because a settlement of this nature, whilst it is not a contract, has some of the flavours and natures of a contract. One of the key elements of any form of contract is a meeting of the minds, that is, both sides understand completely what the arrangement is. This could create fear and uncertainty, because if somebody is badly injured, and they need to look after themselves for the rest of their lives, they may also want to seek some sort of financial advice. If they ask, the employers are obliged to provide it. The reason for that is so that person going forward, if they find they cannot work at all, needs to have security for the rest of their lives. That is not a bad thing. Finding that entrenched in the legislation here is important, because the legislation creates the necessary pathways to really get people back into the workplace or, on those unfortunate occasions where they cannot, provide security for that person going forward.
The legislation also creates a new benefit, which enables counselling. This is a time of incredible uncertainty. Let us say I have injured myself as a result of a workplace incident. I am a paraplegic and now uncertain for the future, because I am a boilermaker. I have no other skill sets. Fear often tends to lock people down – especially a fear of the future. God knows I get frightened of the future every day, but legislation that creates a new benefit that says counselling and family counselling for a worker and a worker’s family should be in place is important. It will help people to plan for the future.
If there is a mediation process, workers can now have assistance and legal advice if they deem it necessary. Previously, the worker had to represent themselves and had no legal guidance, regardless of their ability or capacity to argue their point with an insurer, or the complexity of the claim, or the issue that was requiring mediation. That is the parity/disparity matter I referred to earlier. In fact, contracts have historically been thrown out when the parity/disparity arrangement was so profound that the court was prepared to apply a form of stopple based on the fact that relationships were so uneven between the contracting parties. The seminal case from memory was Amadio.
A bank and an old Italian couple signed a contract in relation to a mortgage over their home. But the disparity between the two parties meant the people who signed over the mortgage to their son, to back a business venture that went south, were protected by the court because of that enormity of disparity. That was an equitable solution. The law of contract was quite clear. The bank should have been able to reclaim the house, but under the decision of the court, an equitable principle was applied and the bank was prevented from leading evidence of the contract. So the Amadio’s home was protected.
The law has recognised the notion of disparity between negotiating partners for a number of years. If my memory serves me correctly, the Amadio case goes back to about the 1970s.
Of course, also, this legislation has expanded powers for the regulator to ensure businesses and workers are participating properly and fairly in the scheme and in any claims. Worksafe can now issue a stop work notice on an uninsured employer, or issue an infringement notice for certain offences.
We have a regulatory environment, and we need that to be policed. The police force, in this instance, is Worksafe, and too bloody right they should be empowered to stop an uninsured employer. If an employer is not carrying insurances on behalf of their workers as the law demands, then that employer is, under the law, not doing the right thing and is exposing people to a lifetime of poverty if something goes wrong in the workplace. I could suggest quite reasonably that an employer in the workplace who is not carrying the proper insurance for their workers will not be the type of employer to be too careful about other components in the workplace, so the risk is amplified with employers like that very quickly.
NT WorkSafe should be able to have some leverage against employers, and that is enhanced by making them capable of issuing infringement notices for particular types of offences.
For all of those reasons this is good legislation that protects the worker. However, I am interested or surprised by the conclusions the members opposite have reached. They have concluded that the journey to work, which is already protected largely by other insurances, particularly the MAC – you have to remember the MAC extends beyond the realm of the mere driver of the car. If a pedestrian is struck by a person driving a motor vehicle, or a person riding a bicycle is struck by the person driving a car, then that person is covered as well, and many injuries to pedestrians or cyclists involve other vehicles. The MAC, which is also a no-fault compensation scheme, covers a pretty wide sphere.
However, the members opposite make the observation that a person might be injured in circumstances where a motor vehicle is not involved and therefore they would not be insured. Yes, that is a consequence of this legislation. It is clearly described by the members opposite. You then have to ask yourself; ‘What is the boundary?’
The boundary argument, of course, is focused entirely on the notion of risk. Insurance companies have been excellent measurers of risk historically, and in fact insurance premiums are a product of risk matrices being developed by various insurance companies. The question we should ask ourselves, and the question put to this House today, is does the risk a person is exposed to when travelling to work properly belong to the employer? That is a difficult philosophical question because the members opposite would say, ‘Yes, it does’. That is the disappointing. If I look at the workers’ rights in this legislation compared to employer’s rights, the legislation heavily favours the workers. It centres on the right for that worker to return to the workplace, to find a solution if they cannot return to the workplace and his or her right to be protected by financial advice, family counselling and legal assistance. These are substantial improvements, and I congratulate the minister in pursuing those balanced against the issue of the journey and whether or not the employer should be liable for it.
I will make a couple of observations. Observation one is that I travel to work like everybody else every day. I suspect not all but a substantial majority of the people who travel to work in the Darwin CBD find their way to the workplace by use of a motor vehicle. I do, and I suspect every other person in this Chamber does. However, the buses I drive amongst in traffic are also vehicles people go to work in. People are covered if they are going to work. I have, however, on occasion, ridden my bicycle into work. During that time, I have noticed a number of people ride their bicycles into work and they, if they have an injury, would not be covered by this legislation.
Is it reasonable to ask an employer to carry that responsibility and duty towards a person travelling into work by way of a bicycle? The answer, overall, particularly considering the other advantages being constructed in this legislation, in the opinion of this government, is no. That is a risk we carry in life doing all sorts of things. We all have risks. I have a risk when I ride my motorcycle to work every day. There have been two deaths in the last two weeks on Darwin roads from people taking the same risk and choice. That is the nature of life; life is about risk.
I look at the overall balance in this bill and I think it heavily favours the worker. What is gained for the worker compared to what is lost – from a risk perspective this advantages the worker. I suspect the members opposite understand that.
The minister has just shoved an interesting note in front of me. He has done the numbers. He says in terms of advantages to workers, as opposed to advantages to employers, there are 18 positive elements to this in regard to the workers, as compared to 13 positive advantages with regard to employers.
Ms Walker: Yes, but they need to be weighted for what they are.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is what this debate is about. For that reason I am surprised by the position taken by the members opposite, because the vast majority of people who travel to work will already be insured by different means. The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, the MACA – if they are travelling on a public bus they are covered by the MACA. If they are travelling on a bicycle or crossing a road they are still covered by the MACA.
I personally have taken the very important step of protecting my family in another way; I have personal life insurance. If I fall off my motorcycle and kill myself, I will make absolutely sure my wife and children have sufficient means to see my children through the end of their schooling years, including university and probably my wife through the rest of her life.
I take that on as a very important duty as a father and husband. Equally my wife, who does not work at the moment, nevertheless has a life insurance policy so when she does the odd amount of relief work, or if any other risk in life occurs and her life ends – god forbid – then the means I will need to look after my children up to the end of their schooling will be available to me through those insurances.
I encourage people to also take out income protection insurance. Income protection insurance is not expensive and is available to anybody who earns an income. If you take out that insurance, which is reasonably inexpensive, if you fall off your bicycle or whatever else you have adopted the risk for yourself. The risk element is not removed.
You can do a great deal to mitigate risk in your life every day by engaging in practices that are safer. You have to balance that off against things which are fun, and a lot of fun things are less safe, that is the nature of the world. If you do that, or if you engage in behaviour where you are deeply concerned about the changes of this legislation occurring, I encourage you to get some form of income insurance or other insurance so if anything happens you are able to cover your debts and your bills whilst you are off work.
Income insurance is offered commercially and you can find any number of providers. You can spread your risk that way. On balance, and considering the things that giveth and the things that taketh away in this bill, the things that giveth are substantial. I am disappointed that the Labor party will bypass this opportunity to protect workers, because they weight the journey to work and the risk that presents far more heavily than I think is warranted. That is, at essence, an issue in this debate.
Far be it from me to suggest they are trying to find a point of difference with government for legislation they would have otherwise supported because they want to test the numbers in the House. I would not go to that cynical degree. I will accept on face value that they made the choice they did because they believe the journey to work component is so important.
Having made those observations, I can only come to the conclusion that I do not agree with the conclusions of the members of the Labor Party in relation to this debate. I express my disappointment that they have not moved to protect the worker in the way they could have in this debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know it sounds terrible but I have enjoyed listening to the debate …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, this is a House of debate and this is a very important debate. I take notice of what both sides of parliament have been saying. I sometimes wonder how life has shifted since the last sittings and the sittings today. I hope people understand that what I say comes from reading what has been put forward and making a judgment on what is best for both the worker and the employer.
The member for Port Darwin raised an interesting issue about the weighting of this. Whilst I was listening to the debate I thought I would circle the areas in the second reading which mentioned what the employer now has to do. I have worked for an employer, I have been an employer, and to some extent I know the responsibilities on both sides have to be met by both parties.
For many years we had a system where many workers were downtrodden. That is why unions came into existence in the first place. I am a supporter of unionism. I believe workers have the right to bargain collectively. Unfortunately, there are unions which use methods that are unreasonable. There was the rumour that once upon a time on the Darwin wharf a piece of paper used to be put on the ground and if a certain number of spots of rain landed on that, it was knock off time. I hope I have not said something that is untrue but that was the rumour. We used to sometimes say that if there were not enough raisins in the fruit cake you would go on strike at smoko time.
There were abuses of rights that workers had gained simply because they had the power to do it. They may have been in an industry where they could hold an employer to ransom. That is not my idea of what unionism is about. Unionism is about making sure workers work in safe environments, get proper pay for the hours they work and they have time, because the old famous eight hours work, eight hours play and eight hours rest still has some legitimacy even in today’s work, which is ...
Mr Styles: Not here though.
Mr WOOD: Not in here, you are right there. I understand that. You say, ‘You were brought up in a Catholic school’, but would you believe it was a Pope in 1891 who issued an encyclical Rerum novarum which was about the rights of workers and the goodness of work. In other words work is an honourable thing. That was about making sure employers did not abuse their employees.
I studied the Industrial Revolution when I went to school. Life was pretty crook. The days when transportation occurred, people might have been working in industry in cities and they struggled out of poverty because they were paid very little for their work. We have moved on from that, but then again, look at the Royal Commission, regardless of what you think of the commissioner, you can see aspects of unionism which are not what we call reasonable unionism. People are bullied. That is a sad part of what unionism is about. Unionism, as a principle, is an important part of protecting a worker’s rights.
But just as much as being in a union is a way of protecting my rights if I am an employee, I therefore have to be reasonable and fair to my employer. I have to provide them with a fair day’s work. It is not a matter of pretending I am sick when I am not. That is not reasonable. It is not a matter of knocking off a bit early without asking permission from the boss, when you really should be doing a little more work. It is doing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
There are responsibilities on both sides of the equation. I will read out sections from this second reading. It says here ‘a new requirement for the employer to produce a return to work plan for any injury that involves incapacity of not more than 28 days’. I raised in the briefing – and thank you, minister, for the briefing – that I was not sure about small businesses. I am a gardener. I employ one person to do the mowing and I do all the whipper snipping, pruning and the books. I do not have a lot of time to be putting out a work plan because we have jobs to do. I am not saying you should not do it, but it is an area that in some cases you might take up time for someone. Perhaps that is where assistance has to be given, especially with small businesses. I am talking about people who do not have HR managers to help.
It says:
Further, it says:
The worker’s recovery is the important bit. It says:
This relates especially to psychological issues. It says:
You have to remember, this is the key to this legislation, getting people back to work. We are talking about some other issues. I understand that, but we are talking about return to work. Further down it says:
They are required to do that.
That relates to working out a lump sum payment while you are waiting for a dispute to be worked out. It says here also:
I will highlight that because at the end of this second reading it says:
Just forgetting the journey to work section, you would have to say this bill requires employers to do more to get people back to work. These things are not necessarily being imposed on them just to make it harder for employers to do things. There is an outcome if these things are done. That is good.
The government says, ‘We are getting rid of red tape. We will make sure this does not make more red tape’, but a worker’s health is probably more important than red tape. You have to find that balance. You do not want to find efficiencies or cut the way you do things and the employer lose some of their rights as well.
I see a note about the list of diseases to be moved to the regulations. I know why that is. When will that review be completed? This is a very important part of what this legislation is about. I understand it is probably better to have this list in regulations rather than in the act. That way if you want to add things to it, you do not have to come back to parliament.
One issue is in relation to the structured settlements raised in a briefing, I think with the Law Society. I will read the second reading again to get it right:
I hope the minister will correct me, but the employer can give the person a lump sum payment while they are waiting for this dispute to be sorted out. If the decision goes against the person who received the money but that person has already spent it, is there any way the employer can get the money back? That was raised by the Law Society. I hope I am in the right section. They may be wrong and I may be wrong in the interpretation, but I said I would raise it to see if that was the case.
The other point was about a prisoner involved in Sentenced to a Job. Are they covered on their way to work? Are they coming from a place of work to a place of work? How do they fit into this legislation? They are held by the government in a place which really is not their home and are going to work. When they are at work, are they covered by this legislation? It might be a simple answer, but it is worth mentioning.
The other issue is the journey to work. I have looked through other legislation – Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland. I might be wrong but my understanding is that is exactly what they have. What we have today is basically what those other states have.
I understand the issue, but I cannot understand the difference between me getting on my pushbike and going to the shop. What is the difference between me going to the school and dropping my kids off on pushbikes? What is the difference between that and going to work or walking? I am not covered if I ride my pushbike to the shop. What is the difference between me riding my bike to the shop to get the milk or going to work? Does it make any difference if I go to the shop or to work in regard to what I am covered for?
My understanding is that if you are hit by a car you are covered by MAC, but if I fall off my bike and hit my head on the ground, I am not covered, unless the council had put a rock in the road and I did not see it.
You have to remember bikes are not covered by MAC because they do not pay anything. Many people asked me whether bikes should be registered, or have a little number plate on the back indicating that it is registered and money has have paid for insurance. That is an issue we need to look at. I am not sure it is even practical because many people have bikes all over the place.
You only have to go to a second-hand goods place and you will see a stack of bikes. But people who ride a bike, no matter where it is, must realise they are not covered if they fall off their bike. If I cross the road and trip over the gutter, like I did a couple of weeks ago, and land on some really hard bitumen with lots of stones on it, it is my fault for not watching where I was going, unless somebody put something there that is not normally there.
What is the difference between that action and going to work? Is it the same as when the kids go to school? It is not the school’s responsibility after they step outside the gate. I do not know whether that is the same thing. Who is responsible for whom?
Who is responsible for when I leave work? Who is responsible when my children leave school? Where does the responsibility of the school lie? Where does the responsibility of the employer lie? It is an area which you could argue the toss about, but we have to take responsibility for ourselves. We are on public land – roads – and we are travelling. We have to take responsibility for that part of our journey ourselves, and we do that by paying for our insurance for our motor car, whether it is comprehensive or third party.
If you do not have any insurance on your motor vehicle, why is it not fair to say, ‘If you are worried about falling off your bike or tripping when you are walking, take out some form of insurance’? I do not know whether it necessarily has to be life insurance. It is worth discussing and saying to people, ‘Do you know what happens to you if you fall off your bike on a public road?’ You could be out of work for a long time. Are you covered?’
It not only relates to this debate about whether you go to work. As I said, it can relate if you go to the shop to get the milk, or if you fall off your bike you might not be able to work anymore. There is an issue here, but I do not think it is enough of an issue that distinguishes going to work from any other part of my life, otherwise I see that as discriminatory.
If we look at this issue, we need to look at the wider context of who is responsible for what, either when I travel by bike, by foot or by vehicle anywhere. It is obvious we are covered when in a vehicle. If you believe the responsibility of the employer starts when you get to the gate and go in, I do not see any difference between that trip and perhaps going to the shop, or the school. Governments and insurance companies need to publicise the fact that if you fall off your bike and cannot prove that the council’s footpath was faulty, you have a risk of losing your job because you cannot work anymore.
I, too, looked at the balance of issues here. I also looked at the common sense behind what was being put forward regarding this journey. When I weigh up what is being put forward, I see this as a good change. I am interested in another look at this issue of how to protect people if they are not travelling by vehicle, but I do not think it should be just focused on this aspect of life in general.
I received the amendments. We get amended acts and explanatory notes. If something could be attached to this to tell us why, it would be good. I do not need to go to committee stages for everything. The opposition will be going to committee stage. But it would be nice. I tried to find clause 4(2). I presumed it was in the amended act, so I pulled out the Return To Work Legislation Amendment Bill in which I thought clause 4 was going to be adjusted. I tried to get to clause 4. It might have been section 4. That confused me. Reading amendments to amendments to amendments of another act means there is a clause up on the left corner followed by another clause and sometimes the amended clauses have another series of clauses. You want to know whether you could involve Santa Claus, he might be able to help you. There are an awful lot of clauses here.
I tried to find the definition of ‘management action’, because I presumed it was a definition. I struggled to find it. You may be able to tell us when you are giving the summing up, minister, what page it is on and where it fits. I gave up.
I understand the other sections. The briefing mentioned more clarification about the week and what that referred to. I do not have a problem necessarily with that, but when you speak minister, if you could explain the page and spot where I have to omit the word ‘includes’ and insert ‘means any action taken by the employer and the management of the worker’s employment or behaviour at the workplace’. We had a discussion about that in the briefing.
One of the other issues not covered here is sometimes the employer can be the one who suffers. If he gets a bullying complaint and does not think he was bullying, that can be extremely stressful. Bullying can be a serious complaint. It is not a criminal offence, of course, but you have to front up to someone and ask what is going on.
As I said in the beginning, this is an issue about the responsibilities of the employer and the employee, but it is to one another as well. If someone makes an accusation, that can have a detrimental effect on someone who may not have thought they were doing that. That is not to say we should not be stamping out bullying in the workplace. Sometimes, of course, it can be employees bullying one another. It can be very stressful on people in the workplace. I used to work in the workplace too, but where I worked it probably did not have the protection we have now. We put up with it in those days but it does not make for a happy workplace.
I appreciate the government bringing this forward. I have given it careful consideration. I understand what Labor is saying but I have tried to look at it in a more holistic way. As one who rides a bike occasionally and runs and walks every morning, except when parliament is on, I take that risk. I might not get hit by a car; I might go straight into a power pole because at 5.30 am I cannot see a lot. I take a risk and that is something I should take a bit more note of. I am not sure you need a life insurance policy, but perhaps even the insurance industry should be saying to people, ‘Be careful when you are on a bike’. You will not always be hit by a car – not that I want to be hit by a car or a truck – but you might have an accident which has nothing to do with a vehicle. Are you covered? Do you know the risks you are taking on a public road? It may be worth looking at as well. I will be supporting this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 12 Legal Studies students from Kormilda College accompanied by Claire Townley. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I sum up I would like to address quite a number of issues the opposition raised in relation to this bill.
The opening salvo from the member for Nhulunbuy was on the China Free Trade Agreement. I do not quite know what it had to do with this, but they obviously wanted to get that bit out. The claim was made that I was blatantly, misleading and misguided in relation to what is happening with their campaign to put fear into Territorians, and a fear by members opposite and the Labor Party both in the Northern Territory and Australia. I refer to some documents released by the Labor Party.
One says:
I do not know what part they do not understand. I tried to explain this to the member for Casuarina last night in this House during adjournments, but they still do not seem to get it.
I will look at this issue again. I will quote from the Free Trade Agreement:
This happens right across the board. I gave the following example – and I will give it again for the benefit of the member for Nhulunbuy – in relation to the abattoir in Murray Bridge in South Australia. There are over 1400 workers and, I am led to believe, over 1000 of them are on 457 visas because there are no suitable workers, and no one in Australia is prepared to go to Murray Bridge to take up the offer of employment.
I asked questions of the opposition. I am not surprised they do not understand this because there is not a great deal of business experience on that side of the House. They do not fully understand how business operates. To make a profit, that is, a return on investment you need people producing things.
If you have a very big factory with a need for many people, and out of a work force of over 1400 you can only get 400 workers from Australia to work there, that means – if you do the mathematics – that is 1000 people short.
What is a business supposed to do? If it goes out of business it does not have the ability to make money to pay all the fixed costs, including labour costs, establishment costs or fixed costs in business. They go broke. Then 400 Australian workers lose their job.
I do not know what part of that the opposition does not understand. What do you say when you can only get people in that abattoir on 457 visas since you cannot get workers from Australia to work there or there are no people with those sorts of qualifications. If we apply the same principle to what they are doing now and the campaign they are running in relation to the Free Trade Agreement, what do we do with all the infrastructure currently being built overseas for the INPEX project? Do we go to the INPEX site and have pickets out, saying, ‘You are robbing Australian jobs. We need these jobs. This should be built here’?
These are the facts they do not seem to take into consideration. They cherry pick an issue and then sadly do not understand the consequences of their actions.
I will move on to the debate we had in this House yesterday and something the member for Barkly raised. It was in relation to the legislation on the company directors’ liabilities and the issues in relation to penalties for company directors.
When you study some of that – I encourage members opposite to do that. Look at what company directors are required to do. Given that this country was built on direct foreign investment, joint ventures and overseas capital, if you are an overseas company and you are looking at investing in Darwin. For instance, it would be nice to be welcomed and not face angry crowds, like we saw here last Sunday with the member for Karama proudly out the front leading and inciting people to say things like, ‘Fighting for our kids’ future is a worthy cause’. I do not disagree with that. I totally disagree with what they are doing in relation to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, trying to wedge local workers with people with Chinese origins.
The directors of these overseas companies would have to look at the CFMEU rallies in Sydney. Just imagine them coming down the street. What a disgrace to take that line when they know, if they read the documents, that no one can get a job. In this documentation and the requirements of the free trade agreement there are obligations under the designated area migration agreements for the Northern Territory. There are requirements to get 457 visas. It is pretty strict for obvious reasons. Nobody wants to open the floodgates, as the unions are saying. No one is going to do that; that is ludicrous. For these people to be peddling that is a disgrace.
If directors of foreign companies are going to invest millions of dollars, or invest any dollars, they want to ensure they do their due diligence. Looking at the legislation we passed in this House yesterday about company directors and what they are liable for, due diligence is one of those things you have to do very carefully. Directors are also required to look at return on investment. So if you are going to invest, say $150m or more, you want to ensure your investment is safe. You want to ensure that if you spend $150m on something in Australia, or just in the Northern Territory, if you cannot get workers to complete your project or to work on it, somewhere in the agreement it says you can bring in skilled workers. They may not have sufficient Chinese skilled workers and might want to bring in Irish or Greek workers.
Recently the opposition was totally opposed to us bringing Greek workers in. They seem to be opposed to everything. But business requires people to work and to produce, because if you do not produce anything you are on the wrong side of the balance sheet and you go broke, and then everybody misses out. Return on investment is something directors have to look at.
Sovereign risk is something they have to look at. Some people believe sovereign risk is simply people coming in and nationalising particular businesses. Sovereign risk is also about regulatory regimes and what governments will and will not do.
The federal Labor Party – and the local Labor Party is joining with them – is saying, ‘We are not going to do this’ and want to tear up any free trade agreement. It appears to me that this is their task; they want to tear it all up.
Jobs and trade will be created. When you do economics – I do not know if anyone across the Chamber has. I have only done basic economics and I know trade is the way to lift people’s standards of living. It lifts ours and everyone else’s. You need trade. People need to come here. But if they are going to invest in the Northern Territory, they want to know they are welcome, that their people will not be marched on by angry crowds led by the member for Karama. They want to know they will not have pictures shoved in their face of the President of China and the Prime Minister of Australia and this propaganda put out by Labor that the China free trade deal will kill jobs in the Territory. This is what they are peddling, which is wrong. They should be discussing it and making sure they understand what the free trade agreement is about.
Directors are also required to facilitate risk management. If I was a director of an Australian company investing in Indonesia and I took goods over there and was going to bring in Australian workers if I could not get local workers and then angry mobs of Indonesians came storming down the road, I do not know whether I would feel very comfortable. It would send a message to me that I am not welcome there. If my family was coming over to visit me when I was on holidays they would not be very welcome either. I would be getting my family out of there. If my family said they wanted to go to a particular place, I would not be sending any of them there.
The member for Barkly asked a question in this debate earlier: ‘What do you think the Chinese Embassy would say about what I am saying?’ What Labor is doing, with their angry mobs marching down the street chanting they do not want this to occur when they have it wrong, is a disgrace. I reckon the Chinese Embassy will be putting out travel alerts saying, ‘Do not come to Australia, be careful’.
Mr Vowles: Seriously!
Mr STYLES: This is the problem we have. I pick up on the interjection. They say, ‘Seriously!’ Put yourself in the shoes of those people. I went out this morning and spoke with some ethnic people and ran this past them. We ran the pub test this morning before we started here. We gave them the real facts and they said they are disappointed over what Labor is peddling.
In this House last night people said, ‘Oh we have been out there and all these people support our view’. I do not believe that sadly. I went out this morning and spoke to some ethnic people and asked how they felt about this and they gave me some pretty negative feedback about what Labor is doing. I suggest you talk to a different group of people. I asked this earlier. We have people from Ireland who are the lollipop people as part of our traffic control. What is Labor and the unions going to do about that? Are you going to protest about Irish people coming over here and operating lollipops? What are you going to do about that because are they not taking Territory jobs? I will be surprised if you can come up with a decent answer to that.
I am not surprised because when you look at what Arthur Caldwell said and his great statement – if the Labor Party and some of the members do not know one of their side, then go and read your history.
The member for Nhulunbuy asked why it was done in two stages. It was done in two stages after much consultation. We listened to firefighters, United Voice, and union representatives for firefighters and they said, ‘We want this stuff to go through as soon as possible’. That is what happened. We got the whole department working and waited for the report to come. We got this stuff out as early as we could at the request of fire-fighters and the United Voice union.
That is why it has been done in two tranches. We had to wait for the report to be done. That did not come out until July so we have done what people wanted. You say you want us to listen to people. We are listening to people and we have done that.
The member for Barkly said we were dragged kicking and screaming into the parliament to enact the legislation that passed in the first tranche of this bill on the amendment. They say we should be listening to people. You listen to people and then they criticise you because you did it in two lots. I do not think the member for Barkly quite understands what that is about.
I am the one who introduced this legislation so I find it offensive when he says I was dragged in here kicking and screaming. For the member for Barkly’s information I agree with the things in that report. There were 47 recommendations. We agree with them and are implementing them all.
I have a son who is a firefighter. I do not want him to be exposed to any of this stuff. I am a former police officer. I have worked next door, side by side with firefighters. I have been a volunteer firefighter. I understand this consultative process and I agree with them. I was not dragged kicking and screaming. We had an extensive review done in conjunction with unions.
The opposition and the member for Barkly said, ‘unions need to have a voice’. Of the two names on the front of the report, one of them is Mark Crossin, a senior union official in the Northern Territory for many years, the husband of former senator, Trish Crossin and a Labor senator. You would expect he would have a very strong interest as an union official in this debate.
Mark Crossin is a highly respected person in this community. He is a highly respected union official not just by Labor but also by us. I hold him in very high esteem, apart from the fact he is very good at what he does and has a good sense of justice. He is a very nice person and I can probably count him as a friend, more than an acquaintance. I have spent a lot of time over the years talking to Mark about many issues. He is a good bloke. He, and Mr George Roussos, a well-known and respected solicitor in town, have organised all the consultation.
The opposition will say they raced in a bill and that we wanted to do it. You cannot just rush a bill in because that is what you think. You have to consult, and that is what we have done. We have consulted widely and we now have that report to work on. We wanted to wait for that report which came out in July. This is well before the first tranche of this bill and this issue.
In relation to a couple of issues the member for Nhulunbuy asked about, we are trying to work our way through these so she can have the answers. In relation to journey claims, all but Queensland and the ACT have excluded journey claims. We are simply moving to contemporary practice throughout Australia. My understanding is those other two jurisdictions, which will be the last, are looking at what is going on around the rest of the country.
In answer to the question from the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to how many journey claims and their value, in the last five years in the Northern Territory there have been 1771 journey claims for a value of $6.7m, and these are all non-vehicle claims. That answers some of those questions.
I move on to the member for Barkly’s comments. He raised the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. I refer again to the directors’ liability issue. Directors of companies are required to – and TIO was a company, albeit the shareholder was the Northern Territory government and the Treasurer – do due diligence, risk assessments and, as a result of that, advise their shareholders about their valued judgment in relation to what you should and should not do.
I remind those opposite that when the directors looked across the books of the Territory Insurance Office, they looked at the risk assessment and said to us, ‘You have a problem’. The next major cyclone to come through Darwin may cost TIO up to about $30bn. If it was one like Tracy it would cost $30bn. Then they said, ‘We have reinsurance for about $770m’. That is $30bn and $770m. That is a shortfall of over $29bn. Those opposite may not be concerned about that much money, but if a catastrophic event cost us $29bn imagine what that would do to self-government in the Northern Territory. Sadly, if it happened on our watch we would go to the Prime Minister of Australia and say, ‘Mr Prime Minister, we were really stupid. We were told about the risk and did nothing about it. I am after a cheque for $29bn.’
Once you shift that risk onto the international market, as we have done with the sale of TIO, the international market now carries that $30bn risk. Territory taxpayers no longer carry it. bBecause Territory taxpayers guarantee the payment through the shareholder, and the Territory government is the single shareholder, we would be required to stump up the $29bn shortfall in the next disaster. We do not have that sort of money, nor do we have the borrowing capacity for that, so we would be required to go the federal government cap in hand and say, ‘Can you give this to us, please?’
That is not a very good position to be in when the Prime Minister would say, ‘This is a joke; you could have shifted that into the world market.’ That is when you start having inquiries. When you start talking about $29bn, you have to say, ‘What is going to happen here? Let us have an inquiry.’
Then the inquiry says, ‘Okay, you are Cabinet; you are part of the board that runs the Northern Territory.’ The board of TIO comes in and says, ‘You have a problem, there is a shortfall. We cannot take any more business outside the Territory because that is our charter. That is what we are formed on.’
We have to be able to break those ties and operate in a global village. If I am sitting in as a Cabinet member, I am sure an inquiry would say, ‘Listen, Mr Styles, you knew about this, what did you do about it?’ Looking at Type 3 of those penalties in yesterday’s legislation, you will find that I would be seriously liable.
Looking at members across the other side I am wonder if you make the correlation between the responsibilities under Type 3 of the directors’ liabilities and Cabinet? An inquiry would say, ‘You just cost the Territory tax payer $29bn’. That is about as serious as it gets – a wasted $29bn because we were not smart enough to follow the advice of the due diligence of those directors.
When the member for Barkly says, ‘You sold TIO and you did this and that’, I would ask him to do some homework and read what is required by boards and Cabinet. I thought he would have known that, given he is a previous Cabinet minister.
He said, ‘I am not quite sure how the process went in relation to TIO’. I hope I have explained a little about what has happened in the sale of TIO. We, as a responsible group of people, had to make a decision. I believe we made the right decision. It was not a hard decision to make when you look at the facts, what you are required to do as a Cabinet minister, and what company directors are required to do. The board of TIO did exactly what it is supposed to do.
The member Barkly raised the point of trade unions needing to be heard. I refer back to the co-author of the report, Mark Crossin. I would also like the member for Barkly to realise that for over 30 years of my working life, I have been a member of unions. I do not hide that. I am very proud of the fact I was a member of a union, but I firmly sit on this side of the philosophical divide because my view was that unions did things for workers by looking after them. I did not have a problem with that. I have a problem when they start marching the streets and scaring foreign investment.
I will move along a bit. The member for Barkly challenged us to bring on an election. I remind him that he was part of the government after the 2008 election that set election dates at four years on the last Saturday in August. Maybe that is a fact he has forgotten, but we cannot simply call an election. We have four-year terms. I thought the member for Barkly would have recalled that.
I want to address a matter raised by the member for Daly, my good colleague over there, in relation to sole traders and self-employed people. If you are a Pay As You Go worker for your company or another company, then you need workers compensation insurance cover. If you are a sole trader, you are not covered, and you would need personal insurance. That is one of those things. If you own the company, or if it is a partnership and you are paying yourself out of that and are a Pay As You Go person, then you are covered. That hopefully answers that question. I am happy to answer any other questions in the committee stage of the bill.
I hope I have answered many of the questions the member for Nhulunbuy had. There may have been a few more but I am sure they will come up in the committee stage of the bill.
I will now move on to the summing up in relation to the bill. First, it was an interesting debate. Obviously, this is a House of debate and I welcome debate. I welcome the opportunity to answer the questions from the opposition and the Independents and I thank them for their contribution.
The Return to Work Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernising the Territory workers compensation scheme. This commitment was informed by an extensive review and considerable public and stakeholder consultation. The review was focused on ensuring fair and balanced outcomes. The legislation contains a number of improvements to ensure better outcomes for injured workers.
The first part of this legislation was passed in this House in March 2015. The bill before the House is the second and final part of the legislation. Together they ensure the scheme continues to provide no-fault cover for eligible workers who are injured at work. Benefits of the scheme include weekly payments, medical treatment, rehabilitation costs in some cases and payment for permanent impairment. The scheme is focused on rehabilitation and return to work with a potential for more seriously injured workers to be paid income maintenance until pension age and for medical expenses for life. The Northern Territory has a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia.
I point out some of the key features of this bill. The Return to Work Legislation Bill contains the following main elements:
a new requirement for an employer to produce a return-to-work plan for an injury that involves incapacity of more than 28 days;
a restriction on the ability of an employer to dismiss a worker for a period of six months while the worker is totally or partially incapacitated
the new ability to negotiate settlements for workers compensation claims with the condition that workers must access legal advice at the employer’s expense
a new benefit allowing for family counselling for the worker or the worker’s family
clarification of the circumstances in which a defence is available to an employer for a mental injury claim based on reasonable management action
the amendment provides a detailed explanation of what comprises management action that will make the situation much clearer for employers and workers
a change to journey claims to clarify when an employer is liable for injuries that occur when a worker is travelling to or from work. This excludes most journey claims except when acting at the request of the employer
more powers have been made available to the Work Health Authority to ensure compliance with compulsory insurance provisions under legislation including …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I seek an extension of time of 10 minutes for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I will repeat that last bit:
more powers have been made available to the Work Health Authority to ensure compliance with compulsory insurance provisions under the legislation, including the ability to stop work if an employer does not have a workers’ compensation policy.
The history and development of this bill: members may recall the ministerial statement delivered by the member for Port Darwin in the House on 26 November 2014 in which he outlined government’s intention to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act following an extensive review of the act.
The last comprehensive review was undertaken in 1984. While there have been some reviews on specific issues, the Northern Territory compensation scheme was out of step with other jurisdictions. This had been a concern to both the insurance industry and the business community which has been seeking a comprehensive review for some time. Northern Territory insurers have flagged that pressures in the scheme will result in increased premiums for employers. The average premium rate in the Northern Territory is already one of the highest in Australia.
I will address some of the consultation support. I am happy to advise the House that the bill addresses legislative changes to our workers compensation scheme that were recommended to the government after extensive stakeholder consultations and receiving 72 public submissions. Members may recall 68 recommendations were made following this review.
What is the implementation and communication plan? The Department of Business is working on developing a fact sheet to cover the changes of this scheme. Information has been placed on the Department of Business’ website for workers, employers, insurers and their agents and service providers.
We talk about red tape reduction on this side to try to bring down the costs and my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, raised the issue of the NT Civil Administrative Tribunal where one gets far more legal action and access to legal services for cheaper prices. You may pay $1800 to take something to the Supreme Court, $47 to take it to the Civil Administrative Tribunal. This is a major saving for people from all walks of life in the Northern Territory. Some service providers will no longer need to seek cross border recognition as it will now be provided automatically.
I have covered most aspects of my summing up. I commend this bill to the House and ask members from both sides for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.1.
Ms WALKER: I have questions on this area of the bill. This is very early on in the bill and it goes to management action. When I had the briefing with NT WorkSafe, it was flagged with me that there would be a committee stage amendment to this section of the bill. Management action is a potentially really sensitive area in negotiation as to what do we mean by management action. I understand the challenges in drafting this legislation. There is a whole list of what constitutes management action from (a) through to (m) and its appraisal, counselling, disciplinary action and transfer of a worker’s employment.
How does this cover the actions that occur in the lead up to this? I am sorry if this is a bit lengthy, minister, but your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, said asking a person to do their job is quite reasonable. If you have problems with it, you can just move on. I understand there are actions here, but it is how we have arrived at those actions. I am talking about things like bullying and harassment where someone feels those actions have been unreasonable.
I am asking if you can provide some comment on that because these actions essentially go to conduct and how those actions are delivered. The end result, in some situations, may be a claim for bullying and harassment.
Mr STYLES: My view is not dissimilar to that of the member for Port Darwin. When you look at if there is an issue and mediation is required – if there is a difference of opinion as to what management action would be, NT WorkSafe has a role to ensure all the processes to resolve that issue are fair.
It is not up to the insurer and people to step back. NT WorkSafe will be part of ensuring these things are adhered to.
One would have to look at every case on its merits because to define what bullying is to some people – I can see you probably accept that as a premise before you start. If people are bullying and harassing people then NT WorkSafe has the ability to intervene and make sure the intent of the legislation is enforced. They will not be pulling away from it; they will be inserting themselves into it. Does that go some way to clarify?
Ms WALKER: It goes some way, but I am just flagging it with you on behalf of the opposition because it is an issue that has been raised with me by stakeholders I have met with. The concern is about the sensitivity of conduct and how these management actions are undertaken in a process in the lead-up to all these items listed under the heading: Management action from (a) through to (m).
There may have been management actions in the workplace before we have reached mediation where, with the best of intentions yet misguided, an employee begins to suffer stress and mental anguish as a result of the way they feel they have been dealt with as the receiver of management action.
You can take that as a comment, but it is an area people have flagged as sensitive and open to challenge.
That management action list at the end of list (n) states, after listing all of those actions:
How is that communication delivered? Does it have to be in writing?
Mr STYLES: My understanding is it has to be in writing and it has to be sufficient. The test on all of this is on reasonable grounds. If you are going to do anything, what is reasonable? If it goes to the point where someone is looking for a legal definition, a lot of these matters are subjective and, as such, would require someone to determine them. If you cannot determine it in mediation, you need to go somewhere else to get a determination on what is seen to be reasonable.
In relation to your question on communications, my understanding is it has to be written and that is what I would expect.
Ms WALKER: It is your understanding or the communication must be in writing?
Mr STYLES: It must be in writing. That is only fair, and everything we are trying to do here is based on the principle of fairness.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. I wanted to ask about the mediator in that section – I might hold that over because that comes up in section 103B(a) dispute process, so I will come to that when we reach that point as we progress through the bill.
I have a question about section 3A; there are no amendments to section 3A, but I have a question around injury in clause 2, where it states:
Can you explain to me how that clause fits with the earlier discussion we had about management action, and where mental injury fits or does not fit into a compensation claim?
Mr STYLES: There is a broad answer to that. You cannot claim a mental injury that you received by appropriate management action.
Again, this is a subjective test. If you are trying to manage someone and say to them, ‘We work between 9 am and 5 pm here and that is the way that it is; that is what you signed up to’, and they get stressed because of that, they cannot claim that as a mental illness.
It is all based on what is reasonable. If there is a disagreement between employers and employees, you must look at what is reasonable. Reasonable grounds and reasonable manner must be about management of the worker’s work, not worker’s claims. If we go back to the beginning and ask if it was based on some reaction to what the employer has done, if the employer has not been a very nice person then I am with you. I think you have to say the way they have gone about this is totally unreasonable and, therefore, it is a claimable injury. But if it is done in a matter of course – and most people in the world are reasonable people – and if an employer is a totally unreasonable person then I would be lining up with everyone else to say that is not right and not fair. That is where you have to apply the test of what is reasonable.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 10A:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.2.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 10A agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clauses 12A and 12B:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.3.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 12A and 12B agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Sorry, I have questions in relation to clause 12B, the amendment to section 65.
Mr CHAIR: We just inserted that into the bill but you can still ask a question. Is it the wish of the Assembly? Minister, will you allow a question?
Mr STYLES: I am happy to take any questions.
Ms WALKER: This is section 65A about compensation not payable to a prisoner. We talked about the status of prisoners at the briefing, but it came up again when I met with unions and the NT Law Society. Under ‘compensation not payable to a prisoner’ that includes those who are employed under the Sentenced to a Job Scheme. Is that correct?
Mr STYLES: The issue with prisoners is that when they go out, they are covered by workers compensation which is something the employer has to organise. If there are medical requirements, ongoing treatment or whatever, that is all covered. The only part they do not get is the weekly wage component …
Ms WALKER: Yes, I understand.
Mr STYLES: If they are back in prison and they are being managed, that is the part they do not get. But they get everything else and that is ongoing, exactly the same as everyone else.
If, for instance, they come out of prison and they are still being managed, then they go back to getting the weekly allowance so they can support their family.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thank you. Under that section who is defined as the employer of the prisoner who is on Sentenced to a Job? Is it corrections or is it the employer, for instance, Nhulunbuy Bakery?
Mr STYLES: Nhulunbuy Bakery or wherever, it is the person out there. If the person comes out of prison then the insurance companies and the employers are required to have payments to that worker if they cannot go back to work immediately on exiting prison. You have to look after people, you have to allow them to feed their families. So the day they come out, if they are still being managed then the requirements are they be paid as per anyone else who is out there normally.
Ms WALKER: So that employer – for instance Nhulunbuy Bakery, or it could be a business in Tennant Creek – is also under the obligations of this act, required to do all the return-to-work plans as well? Is that correct?
Mr STYLES: Absolutely. The only things that prisoners do not get if they are still in prison when they injure themselves and are in some back-to-work plan is the weekly earnings. For everything else, the employer who has been using the services of the Sentenced to a Job person is required to do everything else as per the act.
Ms WALKER: That is fine, thanks.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, are you asking questions in relation to clauses 12A and 12B?
Mr WOOD: In relation to the prison. I am checking with the minister whether that includes prisoners going from the prison to their job? Journey claims are covered by the prison or by what?
Mr STYLES: Generally, these people are picked up at the gate. In fact, in some instances, some of them have a work vehicle in the car park. If they trip over on the way to the work vehicle, Correctional Services will be responsible for that because they will be in their care as such. Generally, they are picked up at the prison. My understanding is they do not catch buses. They are picked up and collected; they are taken, and dropped back. The point of entry into the work for the day is the prison and the point of exit is at the prison.
If they ride a bike and go down and get the milk and bread, they are probably in breach of some sort of an order.
Clauses 13 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I next have a question in relation to 78A. Given that is the last amendment, if I can now raise a question.
Mr CHAIR: Yes, certainly, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I am not convinced that you addressed this during your wrapping of debate, but I did raise it during my contribution. It is to do with Division 4A, settlement by agreement of entitlement to compensation, 78A with clauses 1 through to 6.
I raised an issue that had been raised with me during stakeholder briefings. Every box needed to be ticked in section 78A when going through the process of a structured settlement for it to be successful. It was raised that the way the legislation is drafted that if all aspects are not fulfilled, then a structured settlement will not be reached either before or at the 104 week mark. Is this an exposure that a wily employer could utilise and expose the process to defer and then deny liability?
I know that is a big question. If you could just convince me that is not the case and why is that risk not there?
Mr STYLES: My advice is that the people who wrote the report have spoken with the people in the industry. They understand it, are happy with it and it works. It is quite a technical issue. I would have to spend some time getting some technical information in relation to that. I am reliably informed that when they went through this they worked it out with industry and the industry is very happy with it. I do not think I am qualified to give you a detailed answer on that issue given the legal complexity of it. It is part of the report and has been addressed in the report. I do not know whether that gives you some comfort, but I am not qualified to go into the legalities of that issue.
Ms WALKER: Minister, when you say industry is comfortable with it, are we talking about employer groups or is that inclusive of employees and their representative bodies like unions?
Mr STYLES: It is the legal fraternity who have to put this before the Work Health Court. It is the legal fraternity and the industry people who have to work this. My information is that the legal fraternity are happy with that aspect and how it works. They believe it works for them, albeit that some of us may not fully understand it. They are happy with it apparently.
This is one of the reasons why, right through this act, employers and insurers are required to make legal advice available to employees so it is seen to be fair. It is fair, and people get a fair go at getting all the technical information they are entitled to and should get.
Ms WALKER: I understand that in drafting this legislation there are complexities and legal technicalities that have to be addressed, but it was raised with me as a potential exposure through the Law Society of the Northern Territory, which represents members who work in the legal sector, representing industry and employers as well as employees. I guess it is one of those things, as with any new legislation, where things will be tested as they come before the court to be negotiated.
Those are all the questions I have on that.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the settlement by agreement, minister, I raised that question before. I did not hear if you gave an answer. I have in my notes that there is a risk to the employer. My understanding is it was something to do with an agreement to pay some money up front. If before the 104 weeks have been completed, the employee pulls out of the arrangement, he has already spent the money and the employer cannot get the money back. Is that possible?
Mr STYLES: If there is a settlement the employer cannot get the money back from someone if it has been paid. The only way an employer can get any money back is if fraud is proven. It would be up to someone to prove that fraudulent behaviour has occurred to get that money, but if there is a settlement and the money has been paid and it is all legitimate then an employer cannot claim money back.
Ms WALKER: My next question is on clause 103BA, which is the internal dispute resolution process, which includes mediation.
I raised in my contribution to this debate the existence of any guidelines around the mediators and the qualifications required for people to be taking that role regarding the potential for a mediator who perhaps may not be acting in the best interest of the parties they are negotiating between.
Mr STYLES: Firstly, mediators have national accreditation which, as required, has a component that they have appropriate training. In appointing a mediator, they must have industry and mediation experience. You cannot put in someone who has no idea of what the industry is about.
Mediators are required by law to be impartial. If there was any impartiality – if that was a question then I am sure either side has the ability to raise that as an issue and go to NT WorkSafe to make sure it is done in a fair manner.
Mediations are managed by NT WorkSafe not either side or someone else. It is in the insurer’s and everyone else’s interest to make sure it is fair. You do not want these things going on because that causes more stress and harm. The idea of this is to get people back to work so they do not sit at home and spiral into depression. That is one of the great themes. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that works. If I knew a mediator was biased, I would not want that person in the room because that will only lead to further problems down the track.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. It sounds fair enough to me. In that section as well, this probably already exists, but in 103BA(2) states:
Mr STYLES: Once this legislation has passed they come into existence. They are there, but we are waiting until the bill passes, then those guidelines which are appropriate to this piece of legislation will come into existence.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, after consultation with the chairs of the relevant committees, I seek leave for Government Business Notices No 13 and 16 relating to the Standing Orders and Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committees to be withdrawn, pursuant to Standing Order 128.
Leave granted.
Continued from 22 October 2014.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank the many members for their contributions to this ministerial statement about conservation of the Territory’s unique native flora and fauna. To all members, your comments were appreciated.
It is pleasing the protection of our native plants and animals and the hard work conducted by my staff from the Department of Land Resource Management is valued; however, to the member for Nhulunbuy I say your use of this opportunity to talk about your misguided and ill-informed opinions about water allocations in the Northern Territory was another cheap shot. I cannot let that go by. It is a watery old chestnut, but we march on.
This is a time to talk about protection and careful management of the Territory’s natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Before I close, I want to provide information on the several initiatives that will further serve to protect the native flora and fauna of the Northern Territory.
In late 2014, the Australian government announced new six-year funding for the National Environmental Science Program, or NESP. My Department of Land Resource Management will be a partner in two of the NES hubs, the Northern Australian Hub, hosted by Charles Darwin University, and the Threatened Species Recovery Hub, hosted by Queensland University. This will be an important opportunity for scientists from my department to continue to work with other researchers and land managers to develop effective methods to manage feral cats, and in doing so halt the decline of many threatened native mammal species in Northern Australia.
My department will work closely with Kakadu National Park to implement the first threatened species strategy for this key conservation reserve. Work will include facilitating the reintroduction of Northern quolls that were translocated to remote northeast Arnhem Land highlands during the island ark program, and the seed banking of extremely rare plant species often known to occur only in a single location.
In November 2014 scientists from my department undertook a helicopter survey for dolphins around the eastern half of the Territory coastline, flying nearly 6000 km of transects over 21 days. They made 843 sightings of four species of dolphin, including recording dwarf spinner dolphins in the Territory waters for the first time. Over 100 sightings of marine turtles and dugongs were also made.
This is the first stage of an environmental offset project arising from INPEX’s Ichthys project and it will greatly increase our knowledge of marine megafauna around the coastline of the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and once again thank members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 18 February 2015.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wanted to give a report on land resource management, but I will switch it over to the other side of that which is the minister’s statement on land release across the Territory. What an opportune time to talk about such a subject.
The trouble is this statement was made on 18 February. One gets the impression that ministers make statements, then quickly adjourn and hope we forget about them. But this is a very important debate. No doubt it will continue for some time.
It is important, naturally, for governments to release land. It is important to ensure we have adequate land to keep up with supply. It is also important that we do not flood the market. I remember years ago when Labor was in power there was an argument about releasing more land, and the government said if they released too much land it would drop the value of the properties and people would complain.
That is where we are heading at the moment. I am getting complaints about a plateauing out of land prices. There is concern as to whether large numbers of units and the release of larger amounts of land has an effect on land prices.
I noticed the member for Katherine looked at me there and I did not quite have time to look up the real estate ads in the Katherine Times. It is interesting when it comes to people saying how much it costs to develop land. I have asked before why they can sell a block of land in Katherine for about $100 000 cheaper than a block of land in Palmerston? It is the same size land, still requires sewerage, water, a bitumen road and lighting. How come? Are the people in Katherine giving their land away for free? I do not think so. You have to ask whether there is an inordinate amount of profit being made in Darwin on the sale of land, or, as I said, maybe St Vincent de Paul is handing it out in Palmerston for cost price. I do not think so.
I have seen the ads in the Katherine Times. It is obviously well-serviced land. I am not sure how well it is selling, but I must admit if I had to pick another town in the Northern Territory to live I would pick Katherine. I have always liked Katherine. It was a place I used to …
Ms Fyles: Watch out, Willem!
Mr WOOD: Well, I had my honeymoon in Katherine and Tennant Creek. I will always say that. Not many other people can brag about that. That shows you how broke I was. That is the trouble with being in love; finances were not an issue.
Katherine is a nice town. I have umpired football in Katherine for many years. I have always believed it is a lovely town. When I went to Canada I went to the capital city of Nunavut. It is called a capital city. It has a population of 7200 so Katherine is on the way, perhaps it could become a city one day. It is a very important part of our community.
I digress. I have raised the question as to why the same land in Katherine is so much cheaper there than in Darwin. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. Is there an inordinate amount of profit being made from that land?
I did have a question for parliament this week. I did not get a chance to ask it. It was in relation to Berrimah because Berrimah has come up as a so-called jewel in the crown for the government when it starts to talk about infill. I was talking to someone the other day and this is a question I have also raised myself. I am interested to know whether the government has assessed the long-term needs of the port. I am not talking about 10 years. I am talking about 50 to 100 years. We are not selling our port, that is what we are told. We are leasing it to a private company.
Mr Elferink: Leasing, not selling.
Mr WOOD: That is right but I have been to a few ports lately and I know that leasing it for 100 years is not much different than selling it. You give certainty to the owners.
But if you sell Berrimah Farm, which has industrial land on both sides, are you short-sighted in your approach to turning that into residential land? Did the government do a proper process of diligence when it decided to turn this land into residential land?
It is like the other day when we were having the debate about the peri-urban areas of Litchfield. Has the government a long-term strategy for the protection of land in the rural area for the live cattle trade? That sort of development needs to be not in a city but relatively close to a city so it has close links to highways, railways and the port. We can make grand statements about how we are releasing all this land and that sounds good to people who may want to buy a cheap block of land, which is fine. The government should have to look broader than that to see if the industries we need to sustain our population will be threatened by changes to where we put people to live.
I have always had concerns about Berrimah. I know I have probably lost the argument, and I do not want to get the Turf Club too upset, but there was a good place to move the Fannie Bay race track along with the Winnellie greyhounds and the show grounds. You could have put all the animal industries there and used that land vacated by those groups. You could have sold that as residential land. But no, we will have a high density development on the highway and medium density towards Hidden Valley which is a noisy place at the best of times. I will be interested to see what complaints we get when we start to build there.
I say to the government; can you show us the documents? Can you present to this parliament documents that show that land at Berrimah will not be land that should be left for future development of the East Arm Port? You only have to go to the East Arm Port area now and you see that it is filling up. Most of that industrial land is full. Some areas still need to be developed. I hope the minister will think twice before he destroys all the area that Z Special Force was on. There is more than just a railway line there. There are the foundations of buildings where those people lived. I hope the minister will get out of his car and take a walk and ask the navy in their development why they cannot retain some of that heritage land.
If he believes that every square inch of land is important at East Arm, why not make sure you have some more land available if needed in the future. I am concerned that we will infill on that open space when in the future it might be land we need to service the port. We do not want our port industries having to go way out somewhere because we have made the mistake of planning ahead of ourselves.
There are a number of other questions I would like to ask. The minister, in his statement, spoke about Holtze. This is where one really worries about the word ‘consultation’ and why I believe it is a con. This was introduced on 18 February this year. The greater Darwin plan has only just been released yet the minister makes the statement:
We do not have a plan for Holtze. We have a draft plan. The Chairman of the Planning Commission said, in relation to the member for Goyder’s comments, urban development is basically inevitable. You are dead right. The minister said on 18 February that Holtze will have 1000 dwellings. There was no consultation until recent times about that and that has not been concluded yet. If the government says it will consult with the people of the rural area, you would say the government is considering – and would not put a figure – developing the area for residential development and then go to the community and have a discussion about it. They have set the parameters without consultation. That is why I think consultation has always been a farce and these decisions were predetermined. You only have to get the documents from the department which show you the area around Holtze will have 1800 dwellings.
People make these statements then we are told they will consult but you find nothing has changed. It was only recently, when the residents of Wallaby Holtze Road got the Planning Commission or its representatives to talk to people, that there was some change. The minister read a media release based on my media release – the people who wrote it asked me if they could use it – because it congratulated the Planning Commission for the changes, but at the same time it said more consultation was required.
If the government wants to release land it needs to take the people along with it. That is not to say some suburban development might not be suitable around the hospital. That is not the same as 1000 dwellings. That is about 4000 people in their back yard all of a sudden.
A lot of this pressure, of course, has come from the fact the government does not want to build Weddell.
This document is from the Weddell Design Forum from November 2010, five years ago, and it has sat still. The government has not done anything about it, yet this is a very valuable document. This document proposed eight possible ways of developing Weddell. It had groups of people get together, some community people, departmental people and experts in the area, who came up with eight models for Weddell. They are all in here.
It is not as though these plans just happened on the spot. It dealt with the key issues: sustainability; local government; the green industry and the airfield. It talked about when it should be built, how big should it be, where to start, infrastructure services, biting insects, inland lakes, river interface, existing vegetation, public transport, jobs, the ferry and urban agriculture.
This is a document we should have been looking at over the last five years, yet we have let it get dust on it because we have somebody saying there are private developers who can do the same thing in Litchfield. In terms of land release, this government is five years behind developing a city that it should have developed. I will read from part of this document …
Mr Elferink: I understand the point.
Mr WOOD: I take the point from the member for Port Darwin. It is five years since this document came out and the government has been in power for three years. I will leave two years of the previous government, which was still doing work on it, by the way. I know it was because the departmental people were out there doing the soil and vegetation analysis. All that work was put together because the plans of how it could be developed had to be checked as to whether they could be done in reality. I take the point.
The government has had this sitting on their desk for three years. They probably cannot find it. I got it off the website. It says here:
That was an assumption if ever there was one.
That is Zuccoli.
That is a document which set out some parameters to build a new city. What are we doing now? It is called infill; it is really a nice way of saying, ‘Weddell is too hard; let us look at bits and pieces all over the place.’ It is like a dog’s breakfast form of planning. ‘We have a vacant block over there, we will fill that one in, and there is some land down near Noonamah way, that will be all right. The people at Wallaby-Holtze Road do not mind if we put 9500 blocks near their place down to Howard Springs Road. They will not notice that’.
It is like saying we have some land, and we have people who want to do it, so we will do it here, there and everywhere. It is 1960s-style planning. You can carve that block up. Why are we not looking at the long-term vision that was given for Darwin? Weddell, Erindale was the other city – somehow it has been taken off the existing plan – and Cox Peninsula.
There is something in the paper today about looking to the future. I think you are looking backwards. I am concerned you do not care about rural people; that you think they are a strange mob out there who whinge and complain about not having enough buses or something. Sometimes people in here have no understanding of rural people.
It is not a small place. There are 20 000 to 25 000 people. Those people are important. But one feels they are being treated as though they are irrelevant.
None of this needs to happen if the government would go back and start working on this document. We could probably even convince the government if we changed the name of the city to Tollner. That would be a start. It has a nice ring about it. Seriously though, that is where the government has to turn its attention – away from a bit here, a bit there and a bit there. A good part of the work has been done. Obviously there has to be much more work than this. But this was not an overnight thought, this was a proper plan. That is my complaint about where we are going at the moment.
I say again that nothing is inevitable. To stop that so-called inevitability, people need to say what they want.
The minister has also said development was ahead of planning. Excuse me! We have a plan; it is just that some people want more money out of their land than they can get now. The simple fact is you can subdivide land across the rural area right now. You have a classic example with Churcher and Chin subdividing land. They are all subdividing land according to the zone …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No one is complaining about them. and that is exactly my point. No one is missing out, but there are some people who want more than what is allowed. In other words, they do not want to abide by the rules. They want the government to change the rules so they can make more profit out of their land than they would if they subdivide it as it is. That is why this is happening.
The government gives in, which is why people are feeling insecure in the rural area. They see the government making ad hoc decisions. There is no ad hoc planning if the government does not approve it. But it has. It approved the Humpty Doo planning, the block of land on the corner of the Arnhem and Stuart Highways, rezoning on Elizabeth Valley and Redcliffe Road and is on the verge of trying to approve a change to the Lowther Road, Bees Creek subdivision ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! For the member of Nelson, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Quickly, there are a couple of issues. One is the height of buildings in the CBD. I am on the record saying I do not have a problem with heights.
What I have a problem with is not making people who want to build tall buildings build open spaces beneath them. If you want to build a tall building, you are building a vertical suburb. If you were to build a suburb, you would be required to have some open space. Go to the Gold Coast and look at the buildings there. They are not wall-to-wall buildings; they are buildings with gardens, interconnected with cafs and places where people can meet on the ground. Woods Street is the classic example. It is a great wall of apartments. Where are the open spaces, the breezeways between buildings? If you want to go 50 storeys, then have a formula which says if you want to go that high you must have an equivalent amount of open space beneath it. Otherwise in a tropical city, we are going to end up looking like Chicago. We are tropical. We are not cold. We need to develop our city so that it reflects our tropical culture.
The Gold Coast gets knocked on the head, but they have very tall buildings with space around them. We have gone away from that. We are building tall storeys in a country town. Whilst I said I am not opposed to people building high, then you have to balance that with open spaces below.
My other concern is how little things have changed. The previous minister approved the idea of turning granny flats into independent dwellings. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but it has no controls except you have to be on the same power and water. If your septic tank cannot take both dwellings, you have to get approval. The problem I have with it is that it is nearly equivalent to a subdivision. Did Power and Water estimate what happens if you double the number of dwellings on a block of land in the rural area? What is the effect on the infrastructure?
I am not saying it should not happen. I just want to know before something was approved like this, if there was any study of the effects on existing infrastructure, because a lot of that infrastructure was …
Mr Tollner: Now we know why you did not want the rising main, it could have led to subdivisions.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I take up the interjection. Way back before you were in government, this was raised. The word from the person pushing it was about densification. So you are right. The only thing is you are not right now because I have been following the discussion about the sewerage and most of it will be around Howard Springs.
I refer back to the Kezia Purick/Gerry Wood version of the world, where we did not say that Howard Springs should not develop. We think there should be some limitations on it. That sewerage will allow that development to occur. We are not knocking that. The original reason I was against what you proposed in the budget, was because you called it the Howard Springs Activity Centre. Most people thought that was the forestry land, since we live in the Howard Springs village. That was a matter of mistaken identity.
I would not mind asking the minister for Lands and Planning if he has any say in public infrastructure on Aboriginal land? I have always been interested to know what the government pays in rent for schools, police stations and hospitals. I am not one who believes we should be paying a peppercorn rental, but it is one of those things that worries me. It is going up with the CPI. We are being asked increasingly to put more government infrastructure on Aboriginal land. We are paying all that money and employing many people and then being asked to pay for it. If that is your area as minister for Lands, what is that costing the Territory? Do you believe that money would be better invested back into infrastructure on Aboriginal land? You are not building Kentucky Fried Chicken. You are building hospitals, schools or police stations for the community, things that people have asked for.
I have difficulty believing we should be paying any more than peppercorn rental. We should have a lease which reflects that the development is on Aboriginal land and there are benefits for the people. Yet we seem to have a funny way of saying things. Here is a school, a police station, and the people benefiting come up and say here is the bill. That is a funny way of doing things.
There were plenty of other things I would have liked to talk about, but as I was generously given extra time I will not. I will leave it at that. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for returning to what is now a fairly old statement, but the issues seem very current and, considering the events we have seen earlier this week in the House, very appropriate.
Land release is, of course, a very important subject. The CLP inherited a good land release plan from Labor. In our final term in office we called it the Real Housing for Growth Plan, and we feel all the CLP has done is change the name.
We fast-tracked land release, the fastest release ever, to meet the demand generated by our rising population in the Territory. We created suburbs in Darwin, at Bellamack, Mitchell, Zuccoli and Johnston in the Palmerston area; at Lyons and Muirhead in the northern suburbs; as well as land release in Central Australia. We did the planning for Weddell, which would have created 10 000 new homes and become the Territory’s newest city, a viable blueprint for the future, housing and economic opportunities.
At this point we should stop to reflect on the opportunity in the Top End. Darwin was established a long time ago, but I can still remember Palmerston when it was just the water tower. You now have a city where people can live, work and seek entertainment. There are hotels and restaurants, and people do not need to leave the Palmerston area. It has some really well-designed spaces and liveable communities. Good planning is all about giving people a lifestyle and amenity that is comfortable to live in and suits our tropical north.
With Weddell we have the opportunity to create the third city of the Top End and provide opportunity for people to live, work and play in their city designed to suit the tropics. Instead, we have a backward government. It has scrapped Weddell and is relying on a policy of infill. It wants to urbanise the rural area. Through debate earlier this week in this House we have seen members leave the government over it.
It is really important with planning that we respect planners. It is a science. It is not just pop this there, pop that there and hope it works out. That is when you end up with a dog’s breakfast in planning. Well-thought out, well-planned communities are what we need, something the CLP seems to have forgotten.
Labor had set aside 15% of all new releases for affordable housing to help Territorians get into their own home. It is a real Australian dream to be able to purchase your own home, to feel it is yours and slowly work on it to do what you like with it. It is your space.
Labor had put runs on the board with major releases of industrial land to underpin our economic growth and create jobs in the future. In contrast, with great fanfare and media hype, it was announced by the CLP that 6500 houses will be constructed over the next decade, most of which would occur in the four years after the election.
There are great differences between the approaches of Labor and the CLP. We had plans for Weddell; the CLP seems to have a plan of urbanising our rural area. Labor values community consultation. Proper engagement is an essential part of good government and planning. We have not seen that from the CLP government.
People want to be consulted, they want to be engaged in decisions that affect them. We have not seen that consultation. It is particularly vital in policy development and decision-making in lands, planning and the environment. The community wants to be consulted about what urban, rural and remote areas look like now and in the future. They value the amenity of their suburbs and want to protect environmental and heritage values. They really want to be consulted and be a part of their suburbs planning and future shaping.
It is a delicate balancing act between protecting the environment, providing housing opportunities and having an amenity of lifestyle. That is where Labor supports sustainable development. We need public and private housing, and infrastructure for our communities.
We need to provide opportunities that support business people who are helping to build our future. The key point is consultation and something completely lacking from this government. We have seen the recent debacles in the rural area and the government lose its majority government status with the member for Goyder moving to the cross benches. We have seen a complete lack of consultation and almost disrespect for the community around the proposed Nightcliff island concept. We did not know anything about it until there was a small ad in the newspaper. Even that ad was not to advise the community there was an island proposed for Darwin Harbour and a 98 ha lease had been issued. That was to advise people there would be drilling taking place. That really sums up this government’s lack of consultation and thought for Territorians.
That debate around Nightcliff island is continuing. Although we had the government indicate that it will not go ahead, there still remains a lease in place for close to 100 ha of our harbour. That is something I will be pursuing as a local member and asking for that lease to be removed so we can have confidence that island will not go ahead.
The government’s arrogance was highlighted only a few months ago in this Chamber when I brought a motion to the House on a General Business Day about the Nightcliff island proposal. The minister for Lands and Planning spent about 20 minutes to half an hour giving an entertaining speech about Peter Pan, Tinker Bell and fairies. This just showed his complete arrogance and lack of respect for our community.
We have people who were strongly concerned about this project. A lease had been issued. It was not some type of fantasy which the minister pretended to make it out to be. That arrogance and the lack of respect for our community around planning and consultation is highlighted by the rural area decisions. It was highlighted for my community with the proposed Nightcliff island where they secretly approved a five-year lease for 98 ha to underpin that island development adjacent to our community. It was also seen when the Palmerston community had legitimate concerns ignored about dwelling density in their suburb – a development on Angel Road. People want their concerns addressed, yet this government seems to ignore people. You need to get that message sooner or later. People are sick and tired of being ignored and not having their concerns listened to. You can keep your head in the sand, minister for Planning, and pretend it is all okay but you will find out sooner or later.
We have seen recent developments with the spot rezoning in Blake Street where people were quite upset. Many hundreds of people were upset about the government’s lack of consultation, their lack of plans for our city and its amenity. The member for Nelson touched on density and height with the lack of space around the bottom of plans. That is something that frustrates residents time and time again. They do not mind the fact that some of our buildings are 30 or 40 years old. We are 40 years on from Cyclone Tracy.
Buildings are often given a lifespan of approximately 30 to 40 years. In our tropical conditions, which are particularly harsh, it is not surprising that some of our buildings need to be knocked down and rebuilt. But there are nice tropical houses on big blocks being knocked over and four or five storey unit towers going up and changing that street from one with family homes to one with blocks of 20 units. That is impacting on our communities. When this government can accept and listen to that frustration, our planning will be much better off.
The spot rezoning issue is a huge one. Communities are sick and tired of fighting rezoning application after rezoning applications. The application will go up and sometimes a community gets together. As a local member I take informing my community about spot rezonings very seriously. It may get knocked back but in a couple of years’ time that same request may go through. People want to have some certainty around their suburbs.
We are seeing spot rezoning in our northern suburbs. Tropical homes are being knocked down and unit towers are going up. People say to me they understand there needs to be renewal but they do not want to see these towers of units that have vehicles which impact on local residents’ safety. You are putting more and more people into the suburbs, which impacts on services and schools. They are okay if there is a house and it is house rebuilt or you might have a duplex put in place, but it is this ad-hoc attitude of this government towards planning and rezoning that is most confusing.
Planning is a science. I touched on it earlier. It is not decisions based on cash for access. The minister has publicly commented how he feels it is quite appropriate that if a lot of people need to see him and they have money, it opens doors. The previous minister commented, hand on heart, that there may be decisions he would not have made. That kind of response gives community members concern about those in charge of our planning. We want well-considered and well-consulted plans. It is something we have not seen of late.
It has taken a change of this parliament, with the loss of the majority government pushing the CLP into minority government, that has made them come kicking and screaming to listen to these issues. Although it is disappointing that it took that, finally we seem to have them listening. There is an awful lot the minister for Planning could listen to.
We did not see consultation with the residents of Holtze. We saw a notice of intent issued which said the establishment of urban areas to the north of the Stuart Highway will represent a significant alteration of land use away from a predominantly rural lifestyle community living, and existing residents may voluntarily move away from the area.
There is little wonder that it took you guys losing your majority in government for you to finally listen when they are the type of comments that have been made.
The rural planning debacle is a case study which highlights poor policy-making and how this government is not listening to people. We saw the government abandon the plans for Weddell, which I spoke about earlier. Weddell would have provided housing for the future growth of the north. It was a well-considered master plan with a tropical harbour surrounded by cities.
This parliament has the opportunity to stick to plans that have been considered for our Top End. We can have Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell continuing around the harbour, or we can let this government short change Territorians, throw all that good planning away and push ahead with plans of scrapping Weddell and urbanising the rural area with pockets of infill. That is not well considered. It will not provide for a good lifestyle, particularly in the tropics. A number of people raised concerns with me that when you have density, you need to ensure there are features that encourage tropical living and provide for our climate.
We need to highlight that consultation is vital for policy development and decision making in the area of lands and planning. The community wants to be consulted on what our urban, rural and remote communities look like now, and what they may look like in the future regarding dwelling density, amenity of the suburbs and protecting our environmental and heritage values. This will often involve delicate balancing acts, but the government must listen. It must get it right.
We need to support sustainable development. We need housing and public and private infrastructure for our communities. We need an economic environment that encourages growth and supports private investment. We need our Territory government to consult with everyday Territorians about what they want for the future development of their suburbs. We do not want to be in a situation where we are now, where the government has not listened to what people want. We have seen community backlash.
I spoke about some of the people in those locations who have felt frustration with planning lately. The preliminary Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was released for consultation during the Christmas holidays. You acted shocked when the community demanded more? You have to give people time to consider plans for the development of their region. You need to be genuine about your consultation, not put it out over January when everyone is away so it can go under the radar. You have ignored legitimate concerns of local residents across areas.
It has taken this dysfunctional government losing its majority for us to stop and have a proper debate about this issue, and for you to realise the genuine concerns of the community.
Labor has a good track record in land release and planning for Weddell. We believe the CLP needs to put Weddell back on the map. Scrapping Weddell is a major mistake. It is not just about the next few years. What we do will really shape the Top End forever. I urge this government to stop and reconsider planning and treat it with respect so we can have a Top End with cities surrounded by rural area. We need to be able to give people all types of opportunities of how and where to live. It is timely that this statement, after so long, has come back into the Chamber today.
We saw quite a detailed debate on Tuesday. I, as a shadow minister and local member at every opportunity will be raising concerns and encouraging consultation. Planning is an issue that I speak to someone in my community every day about. We are fortunate to have big older style blocks that are quite large. We really need a master plan in our suburbs.
We are at capacity with our schools generally. Our infrastructure and roads are struggling with the infill we have seen. There are other issues, like power and water. People talk about their water pressure with me. The power is not too bad in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek because it has been undergrounded, which indicates it has recently been upgraded. In Coconut Grove power surging and power grid fails are issues raised.
Planning affects everybody every day. I encourage the government with their new-found need to listen – whether they like it or not it is the new way forward – to really listen to the community. The minister needs to treat this portfolio with respect and get out there and listen to the community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to be able to talk about land release across the Northern Territory. The CLP statement has taken so long to pass through this House. I wonder how many blocks of land have been serviced and released in the time this statement has taken to get through the House.
I love the CLP crowing about the fastest land release program ever in the history of the Northern Territory. This is plagiarised from what I used to say. It was written for me and I did not like it but I was doing a serious apprenticeship. I used to toe the company line, as I still do. I used to use it. The bellowing and roaring and crowing from the other side was deafening. I can remember the ridicule every time I talked about this rapid land release program that was due to budget appropriation. But when you went out and kicked the dirt and you experienced the time, cost and incredible work with releasing a serviced lot of land in the Northern Territory then the reality check was real.
I love it when the CLP now crow about their fastest land release program ever in the Northern Territory. We have had a couple of them on that side get the gig. It has been different people, same mantra. I give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the CLP for continuing the land use program that was well under way when they took government in 2012. It had been carefully planned and had considerable budget appropriations that followed sequentially. It really was a gift.
I could talk about Lyons and then Muirhead. I could also talk about Bellamack. They were my learning curves. They were the land release programs I studied very intricately to learn about how the business is conducted. Then I was very privileged to be given Johnston with an appropriation of $20m to start Stage 1A and Stage 1B. That immediately rolled out into another Labor budget appropriation of $20m for Zuccoli, a master planned suburb. It has been fantastic to see that master plan continued. The CLP government has continued that work and it is rolling out. You can claim every bit of it because, at the end of the day, it is about the fastest-growing urban area in the country. It was, and I am sure still would be, up there with those across the nation.
It is good to talk about land release. It is good to tell the true story, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it is good to share that. As I say to the member for Port Darwin, people in this House crowing about giving birth to rising sewer mains is a story for your grandkids. It will be an innovative story. It will be a barbecue stopper when we are in our 70s and 80s.
Normally the member for Port Darwin’s rhetoric refers to bodily functions. I have just tried to attach another metaphor about the rising sewer main to complement the member for Port Darwin’s legendry references to our bodily functions. The Hansard record will be used for a PhD. Somebody will be able to look at doing a PhD on those references.
It is really important work. It is an incredible part of the land release program. I share the opportunity with members in this House.
I will move to what was, in association with Labor’s land release program, a good policy of 15% that was quarantined for public and affordable housing. I struggled in the first four years of my term as the member for Barkly to deliver public and affordable housing to Tennant Creek. There were two replacement dwellings and that was about the extent of it. We worked very hard on the repairs and maintenance program and on the land release program.
We saw the first land release in Tennant Creek in 30 years, but I had a plan in the second term of government to really focus on public and affordable housing. In the subdivision in Tennant Creek I had immediately eight lots to work with and I had a plan to look at innovative built form, so not your traditional core-filled concrete block Territory Housing house. I wanted to look at innovative designs. I wanted to look at densifying, using innovative built forms and alternative building materials. Unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to initiate that plan.
However, I have a plan to have a comeback. If we are judged worthy and fortunate to have a comeback then I want to revisit that plan, but at the moment the current government has the opportunity to look at that and put it in place. If it is put in place in a budget appropriation and department policy, it will gather momentum and can be picked up by any government, by the CLP should they be judged worthy and get a second term. It is an important policy.
In the Tennant Creek subdivision in Peko Road, I will give the government credit that it picked the ball up and released some more lots. It is great to see them under construction. I enjoy riding my pushbike whenever I get the chance on my dog-free track and go past that construction site. It is a great to see all the new families that have moved into the subdivision. Now there is the opportunity for more.
There are eight lots still vacant in the original subdivision that was set aside for social and affordable housing. That policy initiative really complements land release which aims at the lower socioeconomic sector of our community. It is the good principle of modern urbanism, the salt and pepper approach of getting really dynamic suburbs, people all mixed up together, people that will motivate and celebrate together, people that will certainly influence each other and develop their community.
I hope that gets some kudos with the minister. I am interested in hearing if there are any plans around innovations in public and affordable housing as there are great opportunities there.
I have a big concern around Kilgariff. There are a couple of issues with Kilgariff. Kilgariff, as a master planned suburb and the Enquiry by Design process, as the member for Nelson reminds this House, was a very important process used for Weddell. The work conducted in collaboration, in consultation with the community, high-level stakeholders, and government, is still in the department. Wedell is literally on the drawing board and it got the tick from high-level stakeholders right through to Territory families.
We did the same thing in Alice Springs with Kilgarriff. There was one very important point about Kilgariff because of the nature of the land and its sensitivity to drainage. There was a very innovative proposal to provide storm water and it was based on swales.
After that land was released and it was serviced with power and water and a rising sewer main, four houses were built. I became concerned that this government had not adhered to the Enquiry by Design process. It has not adhered to that very sensitive storm water management plan. It went in with a heavy handed, boots and all approach, and carved it up to get houses out. This is directly pointed at the Chief Minister because he has some serious expectations to fill from the Alice Springs community.
He built off the back of Labor’s hard work in releasing the land, getting the intersection done and putting the spine road in there. The drainage – which I believe has not been accepted by the Alice Springs Town Council – could pose a real problem. This could pose a problem not only for residents but also for the future of that land release, which, combined with the Northern Territory Airports Corporation, has a capacity of 3000 lots.
I am very concerned about that. I am very disappointed in many respects. Some very innovative policy and hard work done throughout the Northern Territory was thrown out. That can be a very destructive by government to completely dismiss something as important as two Enquiry by Design processes. One was to deliver land release in a very sensitive and beautiful part of Alice Springs and the other one was to deliver the city of Wedell. I am concerned. I will watch that development closely and I would be interested if the minister has any comments to alleviate my concerns.
Next, I turn to land release. The objective of land release is for Territory homes and we have had some good debate this week around – we have had more questions than debate, let us face it. I thank the member for Araluen for bringing the issue. I had it on my pad as well and it is about the changes to the First Home Owner Grant scheme. In regional areas like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine there is a very active market of young families that want to get into their first home but cannot afford the new build, therefore, cannot access the First Home Owner scheme opportunities which this government has limited.
Looking at the budget appropriation, in 2014-15, the Country Liberal Party government has saved $30m on First Home Owner Grants. So, $30m gives us a benchmark as to the agenda; it was a budget saving measure. It delivered $30m in savings, but if you flip that it is $30m worth of Territory families that have not got into their first home. That means young families are not buying their first homes in places like Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, families who would otherwise be engaging the business community such as plumbers, electricians, builders, carpenters, ground maintenance and garden maintenance people and fencers. They are not putting renewable energy into their first homes. They are not shopping at the hardware shops. They are not putting their stamp on their first home which would have generated significant tax receipts in those communities, as well as stabilising those communities and providing future growth for those regional centres.
There is a clear policy divide here. We can acknowledge the $30m in savings, and that is just in 2014-15. The member for Araluen has asked for some specific information from the minister about that.
I am asking what we could have created to get Territory families into existing homes, which would have generated tax receipts associated with young families buying their first home.
It is a serious issue when young families in Tennant Creek do not get access. When they see blockages they tend to leave. They do not leave to the next suburb or the next town. They pack up and go back south.
It has a macro effect on community development across the Northern Territory and we lose good people. We have to release land but we also must have affordable housing.
My compliments to the ANZ Bank; as a local member I recently worked hand in hand with our local real estate company Lin Andrews Real Estate when the ANZ Bank changed its policy and declared Tennant Creek a high-risk loan town in its category as a mining town.
Suddenly the major housing market lender in town started to require a 40% minimum deposit. So at the same time when young families could not get access to first home owners support, the ANZ Bank ramped up its minimum deposit to 40%.
Many families in Tennant Creek are supporting their kids to own their home; it is an intergenerational commitment. We are a close-knit community like Alice Springs and Katherine, and this became an important issue.
In working with the local real estate business and researching with constituents, we took this to the ANZ Bank. I congratulate the ANZ Bank because while it has not changed the policy entirely, because that decision has to come out of Adelaide, it has agreed to assess each loan application individually.
The ANZ Bank has also agreed to accept that at the moment Tennant Creek is not legitimately classified as a mining town, and that our economic base is quite different at this stage.
Do not worry though, we have great hopes of coming back and being able to maximise the opportunity as the breadbasket of minerals, resources and energy in the Northern Territory.
My thanks to the ANZ Bank for that. This feeds back into this debate about the change in the First Home Owners Grant and the possibility for this government to put that right and consider young families in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. I will be keen to support the member for Araluen’s motion when we come back to this House and debate it.
Land release is always an exciting area to talk about. I am keen to see the outcome of the industrial lots in Tennant Creek. That was on the pad when I was the minister, and the department is fantastic to work with, as you ministers are aware.
The land release at the time was very appropriate because we were seeing quite an economic stimulus in the Tennant and Barkly regions. We were seeing a lot of investment in the Barkly. There was record infrastructure spending in the Barkly that we have not seen since the Labor government.
We have a very good industrial land release shaping up now, but I am concerned there are many existing industrial lots up for sale in our traditional area to the west of town. It will be interesting to see how that goes and I wish the government the best of luck with that.
I am promoting it and anybody interested in coming to Tennant Creek to pick up some prime industrial land is very welcome, as well as the additional 20-odd lots in the residential subdivision.
The industrial land release is of concern at this time but we will wait and see because governments do not want to deliver serviced land to see weeds growing on it. We want that land taken up immediately, maximised and generating great outcomes for our towns and communities.
My thanks to the minister for bringing this statement back on. Good luck with the way ahead and we look forward to growing the Territory together in this new bipartisan parliament we have entered into this week.
I look forward to the announcement of the Chief Minister’s secret plans because one thing I do not like it is a secret. It is important that we have that discussion with the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, especially with kids, it is not a good idea to promote that concept of secrets. Anybody who has been in education or child protection or worked with children would understand that. The Chief Minister has said this week he has a big secret. I hope he just tells it to the Territory and lets everybody know. We can all have honest and accountable dialogue.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member for Barkly, who does not like secrets. He was a member of Cabinet for a while. The whole principle of Cabinet is that you retain information within the Cabinet, but clearly the member for Barkly has an issue with that. He has an issue with secrets he says. He does not like secrets. He thinks parents should be informing their little children of all sorts of wicked things in this world because we do not keep secrets in his family. Good on him. There is a time and a place for everything.
I thank everybody for their contributions to this statement.
Firstly, can I say how offended I am by the puerile comments from the other side of the Chamber, in particular the members for Nightcliff and Goyder, and others who talk about money opening my door. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are selectively quoting from an interview. People asked what donors can expect. I said the only thing that a donor can expect is to gain access, but that is something that everybody gets anyhow. It is all great to leave the last bit off, it all sounds good, plays into a political narrative that the opposition, the member for Goyder and others want to make. I find the comments puerile and childish and they do nothing to increase people’s confidence in the parliament. It is disgusting to throw that sort of mud. You only cover yourself with it. It is quite sad but unfortunately, immaturity seems to run rife through the opposition and some Independents.
In relation to some comments the member for Nelson made about tall buildings in the city. I remind him there is currently a review of the Building Code. I want to see allowances for more tropical style housing. A review is currently being conducted by Mr Phil Harris, of Troppo architects, now living in Adelaide. He has a long association with the Territory, but somewhat independent. Most people in this place would know they almost had to leave town because of failures in the code that allowed the construction and design of tropical style houses.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of infrastructure on Aboriginal land and the cost government pays to land councils for providing services to remote communities. I totally agree with the member for Nelson. It is nothing but extortion by land councils. They are the first ones to scream about lack of services and yet when you try to provide them with those, they start wanting to charge you. It is wrong. The member for Nelson said no one is talking about KFC, these are essential services – health, police, education. What is it that the land councils have against commercial organisations operating on Aboriginal land? Why can they not have KFC, for instance, or a McDonalds; a hairdresser; a beauty salon; privately-owned butcher shops or bakeries on Aboriginal land like we expect in every other part of this great nation? It seems rather short-sighted that land councils constantly try to hamper that type of development.
In relation to the member for Barkly suggesting this government has scrapped Weddell, I remind the member for Barkly that it was the Country Liberals who created Weddell. Weddell was planned long before Labor came to government. Weddell remains on the plans long after Labor has left government. Weddell will be built at some stage in the future. Will we start on it tomorrow? That is unlikely, but it seems the Holy Grail for everybody opposite now is somehow or other we have to start Weddell and if we do not we fail as a government. The fact is we have a lot more work to do in Darwin, Palmerston, and the surrounding areas. There are huge opportunities in Darwin for cheaper and more economical options of creating infill and creating a better tropical city before we need to march out to Weddell.
In relation to the member for Barkly’s concern about the First Home Owner Grant, if he was paying attention after Question Time he would have noticed I tabled a response in relation to the First Home Owner Grant and the question asked by the member for Araluen yesterday. Fundamentally, the First Home Owner Grant has worked a treat. The changes we made have seen those inflationary pressures the First Home Owners Grant was creating in the existing house market removed. We have finally seen a levelling off of house and unit prices as well as rents in the Northern Territory as a result of that. At the same time, we are probably in the lowest interest rate environment I can remember.
There is no better time to purchase your first home. First homes have never been more affordable in the Northern Territory than they are right now. Low interest rates are easing property prices. All those people who want to get into the market can. The reality shows the number of first owners in the Northern Territory has not decreased at all. They are joining the market, are purchasing houses and purchasing existing houses without that grant. It seems I am again hearing the old Labor way of not doing anything unless you are subsidising it. It is the socialist mantra where government interferes in everybody’s lives all the time.
I thank everybody who contributed. I listened to all points of view. Similarly to the Planning Commission, I listen. The Planning Commission has gone to extraordinary efforts to consult.
I was heartened earlier this week, just before walking into this place when I was ambushed by the opposition and the Independents about planning matters and received that media release from the Holtze residents group. I would like to leave members with this to sum up. This is their media release and I will read it onto the record again because Holtze is an area the members for Nelson and others find extraordinarily controversial. It says:
I ask all members in this place to note that the Planning Commission is consulting and is working hard to make sure we get the best plans to carry the Territory forward into the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table four travel reports from the members for Nightcliff, Casuarina and Johnston pursuant to clause 4.1 of the RTD.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
On Wednesday 1 July 2015, Sydney Lee retired from the Department of Health after more than 22 years of continuous service. For most of his career Mr Lee worked as a mechanical fitter with the Alice Springs Hospital Technical Services Maintenance Department where he was a highly respected tradesman who was always willing to make himself available for any kind of emergency. He also gained a reputation for maintaining a safe workplace.
From time to time throughout his career in the public service, Mr Lee worked in higher duties and mechanical services as a supervisor and building supervisor. In 2011, he moved to the Seating Equipment Assessment and Technical Service clinic as a technical officer. There he developed a wonderful reputation for innovation in modifying wheelchairs to suit individual needs of clients with complex requirements that could not be met by commercial products. Mr Lee became highly respected by staff, clients, carers and families for not only his technical skill, but his excellent rapport and relationships with those utilising seating equipment and assessment and technical services.
In June 2013, Mr Lee joined the Allied health team, where again his technical skills in the manufacture and rehabilitation therapy tools was much appreciated. He was known for his respect for his patients and his valuable ability to encourage patient participation in therapy.
I also rise tonight to share with the parliament some of the heartening news of one of our Royal Darwin Hospital doctors whose great accomplishments have now been recognised by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, otherwise known as the RACP. At a college ceremony on 24 May, the Royal Darwin Hospital Co-Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health and Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Charles Kilburn, was duly awarded the RACP medal for clinical service in remote and rural areas for 2015. I am heartened, as the Minister for Health, to have such skilled, altruistic and hard-working people represent the Territory in this way.
The RACP Medal for Clinical Services And Rural and Remote Areas is a prestigious medal which recognises the significant contribution Dr Kilburn has made in providing outstanding clinical service in rural and remote areas of Australia. I congratulate Dr Kilburn on his great achievement.
I will take a moment to tell you about Dr Kilburn. As he is known by many of his patients as Dr Charles, I will take the liberty of using this term of endearment.
Dr Charles graduated from the University of Sydney in 1978 and completed his paediatric training through the Sydney Children’s Hospital before moving to the Northern Territory as a Registrar. From 1985 to 1987, Dr Charles lived and worked with East Arnhem families on Groote Eylandt, addressing the epidemiology of Machado-Joseph Disease, which was then known as Groote Eylandt Syndrome. Machado-Joseph Disease, or MJD, is a rare neurodegenerative condition that is sadly prevalent amongst Aboriginal people in parts of the Northern Territory. I will not delve too deeply into this area, but suffice to say it takes goodwill, resilience and a great deal of love and compassion to care for anyone who is ill, particularly with this debilitating disease. This dedication to Aboriginal health points to some of the many qualities Dr Charles possesses.
In 1988 Dr Charles was appointed as a staff specialist at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, where he has monitored and supervised many paediatricians who now deliver remote health services throughout Australia. The sharing of knowledge has been tremendously beneficial to the delivery of health in Australia.
As the Top End’s paediatric cardiology expert, his teaching and sharing of knowledge has been invaluable. His contribution to the care of children with congenital and rheumatic heart disease has been enormous.
In 2002 Charles was appointed as the Medical Director of Newborn Services which is now known as the Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. His introduction of new technologies and ventilation strategies were consistent with the best available in Australia.
From 2007 Dr Charles has been the Co-Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health. His focus on high quality healthcare for women and children is admirable and Territory families are well placed to have a skilled and dedicated director working in the public health sector.
Dr Kilburn is now the seventh Territorian to receive the medal since it was first awarded in 1998. He joins the esteemed company of Dr David Lo, Dr John Erlich, Dr Ross Diplock, Dr Howard Flavell, Dr Di Howard and Dr Paul Bauert.
I am proud to say all of these great clinicians have at various points in their career been Department of Health employees working for the greater good.
Once again, I commend Dr Kilburn for the great service he has provided to the Territory over the years and for the wisdom and skill he has imparted to our many doctors and nurses who have had the opportunity to work with him and learn from him. I congratulate the good doctor.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight on behalf of the NT government I recognise the significant contribution of small- and medium-sized businesses and the crucial role they play in ensuring a prosperous Northern Territory economy.
The key objective of this government is to grow existing businesses through continuous operational and strategic improvement. Businesses have access to a range of programs through the Department of Business.
This includes the Indigenous Business Development Program, which commenced in 2005-06 and is a $1m per annum grant funding program to assist Indigenous people to start businesses or expand existing businesses.
Two initiatives, the Business Growth and the Indigenous Business Growth Programs are home grown Northern Territory government initiatives, offering information, funding and developmental services to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration.
The Business Growth Program is proudly presented through the Department of Business and provides financial assistance to Northern Territory businesses and not-for-profit enterprises to engage suitably qualified consultants to deliver these programs.
Northern Territory businesses and not-for-profit enterprises can choose from a range of business growth programs to improve individual performance and at the same time play a vital role in advancing regional economic development, employment and wealth creation capabilities.
As the Minister for Business, I congratulate the 15 NT businesses that have recently been successful in receiving grant funding. These businesses span a range of industries such as tourism, health, retail, construction, transport and logistics, information and technology, automotive, aviation and professional services.
Two businesses received funding under the Indigenous Business Development program, totally $60 000. One of the businesses delivers a health and education awareness initiative through the provision of musical-based road shows and media productions.
One business received funding under the Indigenous Business Growth Program totalling $4000 to undertake a business solutions tender management program to assist them in winning major tenders with both government and large mining companies.
Thirteen businesses received funding under the business growth program, totalling $79 000. This funding was provided for a range of programs, including undertaking business reviews to commence planning for future growth, development of websites to improve business profiles and review and improvement of internal HR practices.
Other businesses received funding for information technology solutions programs to improve IT management and business accounting practices, development of marketing strategies and formal business diagnostic and business planning.
As I said earlier, the key objective of this government is to grow existing businesses and these programs are an essential tool to assist NT businesses remain competitive in their industries and provide essential services to the wider Territory community.
There is a story I tell fairly often these days. It is about a lady who lives just outside of Alice Springs by the name of Kathleen Buzzacott. She is a lady I met early this year. She lives 18 km out on the Hermannsburg Road, Larapinta Drive just near Simpsons Gap. If you go there you will see a little sign on the road on the right hand side directing you to a small community of 10 or 12 homes. It is a little outstation with a gallery. The lady paints and makes Aboriginal jewellery.
I was very fortunate to go out there after the Department of Business had given Kathleen two grants, one for $30 000 and another for $6000. It is a fantastic success story of a lady who started life as a young Aboriginal woman in Alice Springs. She obtained an apprenticeship in a hairdressing salon and spent about 22 years as a hairdresser but her dream was to be able to make Aboriginal jewellery out of the bush products her family and aunties had shown her.
She also wanted to paint. She is a wonderful. She has great talent but to realise her dream she needed a helping hand. She did not want a hand out, she wanted a hand up. When I went out there and saw what she had achieved with the grants the Department of Business had given her, I was stunned. I turned up with some of my staff and saw a medium size car garage. It had sliding doors and was air-conditioned. When you went inside, it was spotless. It had a tiled floor, was painted, and well appointed. This was her studio. It was also her gallery. She sold products to high-end tourism operators who visited with small groups. It was not enormous. I asked her how it was all going. She told me as a young apprentice she was taught about cleanliness. This place was spotless. You could have eaten your meals off the floor.
She was taught about hygiene. She told me a story about using the crochet needles to get the hair out of the creases in the seats in the hairdressing salon. She said she had applied the same principles there and that the people she got were from the very high end niche markets who had a lot of money. Even Princess Kate from the British royal family has some of her jewellery in their royal family collection. It was quite an achievement.
I was able to buy a piece of artwork and that now hangs in my ministerial office up on the fifth floor of Parliament House. Her achievement is something she dreamt of. We were able to help her to bring those dreams to reality but, more importantly, she was very pleased she had created jobs in her little community. She now runs the business. One of her sons does all the website development. That was what the $6000 was for – to bring him up to speed with web design and internet capacity. From that office they market Kathleen’s products and paintings to the world.
The other son is in charge of packaging, making sure all these things get delivered to the post office or the couriers. He also makes sure the grass is always green, the place is kept clean and tidy so it is welcoming to these high-end niche market tour operators. The great success story out of this is that one, she has realised her dream. The second is that she has created four jobs. One is for herself, two for her children, who now work full-time with her and there is a new apprentice hairdresser in Alice Springs.
I am very proud to be part of a government that continues not only to support this but to increase the participation by Aboriginal people in rural, regional and remote Northern Territory so these people can get on with generating wealth within their communities. It was interesting because she said the others in her community are now very interested in doing something similar. The Department of Business is looking at various ways to help some of these people in the community to get businesses of their own started. It is a fabulous scheme, and I hope anyone who reads this or is listening to this encourages people they know to get businesses going.
A few moments ago the member for Fong Lim mentioned getting bakeries, butcher shops, hairdressers and various services into Aboriginal communities. It is a fantastic idea. Aboriginal people can make that a reality, as Kathleen did, by contacting the Department of Business. Kathleen’s story is one of a hugely successful young lady who is now kicking goals all over the place. She is a proud Aboriginal woman from Central Australia who is a role model to the many people. I sincerely congratulate her on all the effort she has made. When I told her she was a role model she was a little shy to accept that, but we need more Kathleen Buzzacotts. We need her to tell her story to as many people as she can in Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory so they can live in this fabulous place.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the men from the Tangentyere Council’s 4 Corners Men’s Council who are taking strong action to make their communities a safer place by working to reduce domestic and family violence.
Men from Alice Springs town camps were justifiably proud to graduate recently after undergoing training in identifying family violence and its associated risks. These men, Chris Forbes, Rodney Cook, Phillip Miller, Ashley Malbunka, Issaha Forbes, Charlie Brown, Joe Campbell and Steven Clyne, will be using their new skills to support men to say no to domestic and family violence. The men have learnt to recognise the signs of domestic and family violence, the different forms it takes, and what they can do to support people affected by violence. They are speaking up about violence and want to get the message out that not all Aboriginal men are violent and town camps are not defined as violent places. They are places where generations of families live and work, and where people and organisations like Tangentyere are working hard to make them better and safer places to live.
It is important to note that this training is not aimed at men who use violence as is more usually the case with these sorts of courses. It is a proactive program that gives men the skills to get out in their communities and promote messages of non-violence and lead by example.
The men had hands-on training sessions and also completed a training block delivered by the Australian Childhood Foundation. They have also designed resources to help get the message out to others about not tolerating domestic and family violence. The men’s training is similar to what the Tangentyere Family Violence Prevention Program has been doing with women this year.
Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, last week spent some time with the Tangentyere Women’s Council and the people who have undertaken the family violence training, and was visibly affected by their stories. I am sure Ms Batty will be a strong advocate for the work the Alice Springs town camp men and women are doing to stand up and combat issues of violence.
Again, congratulations to the men and women of the Tangentyere Family Violence Prevention Program and manager Maree Corbo, and to the Tangentyere Council for encouraging and supporting such an important training program that is giving people the confidence and skills to say a loud ‘No’ to violence.
I would also like to put another call out to the Chief Minister for some support for youth services in Tennant Creek. During the week representing the Barkly electorate in parliament I have had a number of contacts from constituents and a business owner who are very concerned about inappropriate youth behaviour and property crime in Tennant Creek.
There have been requests for appointments when I get home which I will undertake early next week. The Chief Minister is aware of Tennant Creek. He has visited a number of occasions. I acknowledge the Chief Minister’s media release to the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly when he talked about an additional $4.2m to support youth services across the Territory. As part of that funding there was $525 000 allocated to Tennant Creek. This was not only a result of the government but also of the Minister for Young Territorians and Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. It is a good outcome.
So far with the announcement for Tennant Creek, out of the $525 000 there has been $40 000 to pilot a small program within the Tennant Creek youth community. We acknowledge that and give credit where it is due.
I encourage you, Chief Minister, to take an interest in what is happening now. It is an issue we need to grasp quickly. There are very creative individuals and organisations in Tennant Creek that can deliver important interventions into the youth community. There is money there. There is a regional coordination committee that has been set up by the government in Tennant Creek and I urge the Chief Minister to apply some urgency in allocating those funds for youth services.
I have also done some research into Alice Springs and there are also concerns there. The Alice Springs community was also promised significant funding, receiving $1.225m. They joined with me in a shout out to the Chief Minister to say we need to get a move on and look at some innovative youth activities, programs and interventions that will make a difference. It is an area to invest in. We want to make sure our youth are focused and safe. We do not want to go down the road of the juvenile justice arena.
Chief Minister once again, just a shout-out. I have only asked for two things this week. One is that you please embark upon the next campaign looking at petrol prices and downward pressure in the regional areas. We have the opportunity when the ACCC releases its report after its studies into Darwin, considered as a regional area nationally. There are many constituents in the regions and in Central Australia who would like your intervention. Also, the youth services issue. That is from the Barkly and Tennant Creek. Chief Minister, we would really appreciate you applying your considerable might in these areas.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start on my adjournment this evening, I would like to echo the thoughts of the member for Barkly.
The youth services funding is an ongoing issue and as the member for Barkly said, there have been some announcements about the money allocated in February this year. But there is still a lot of detail the community is awaiting. Some of that relates to the Barkly. Some of that also relates to the night services promised in Alice Springs. It has been very quiet on that front, particularly over the last few months. It would be great to get an update from the Chief Minister about where those night services are up to, particularly given we are fast approaching the very warm season in Alice Springs.
Tonight I speak about some of the wonderful activities that have taken place in my electorate. Last Saturday I was very lucky to go to the Alawa Primary School car boot sale. It is an annual car boot sale. This year it had to be moved to the oval next to the school farm because demand was so high to have a spot to hold stalls. This was a really fantastic thing for the school and a warm reception for what is becoming a welcome part of the community and a wonderful event.
It was great to see students involved in the activities that day. They were running events and tours of the farm, and spray-painting visitors’ hair in school colours and glitter. It was all for a gold coin donation, with proceeds going to the school.
There is some wonderful produce that is ready for harvest in the Alawa school farm at the moment. The zucchinis were looking fantastic. My team and I were pleased to run the sausage sizzle stand all morning. We were even more pleased to have access to a slicing machine for the many bags of onions that were required for all the people who came to the sausage sizzle stand.
There was face-painting and the school was selling fresh farm produce, including rosella cordial, which was beautiful. I encourage you if you get to go to Alawa, minister, try the rosella cordial. It is beautiful.
There was a big water fight. Many members of the school community were selling treasures and there was fantastic energy all morning. Lots of families and residents came to enjoy what was on offer.
I say thank you and well done to Sandy and the Alawa Primary School staff, and Jeanette and the other committed parents on the school council, who have put in so many hours.
They often put hours into the school council, but they put in many additional hours to make sure this exceptional event came together in the way it did. Some members of the school council were there for set-up at 6.30 am on Saturday and did not leave until well after lunch time. Those efforts really paid off.
Last week was also National Science Week and I was pleased to mark it with two events in my electorate. I joined the Dripstone Children’s Centre where two local science teachers brought joy to the children and staff by making ice-cream with liquid nitrogen. That was a fun day out of the office.
I was pleased to support and attend the event, and of course I had to sample the ice-cream. We also froze flowers, and they were quickly smashed into smithereens by a lot of smiling little faces. It was a wonderful afternoon and a fun, hands-on way to learn about science. It was also a great time spent with Laura and her staff at the centre.
The other National Science Week event of note took place on Sunday at the Charles Darwin University Open Day. I am sure lots of people have heard about this one. It featured the dissection of a 4.3 m crocodile involving Crocodylus Park. I have never seen anything quite like it.
It was a popular event at the Open Day. The Mal Nairn Auditorium at the University, which is huge, was so full that people were sitting in the lobby. They could not get into the auditorium, and they were watching the dissection on TV screens outside.
I was a lot more squeamish than most other people and I left pretty early. They started messing around with eyeballs, and I was gone. Sick bags were handed out to the audience at the beginning of that event, which was very telling of what was anticipated.
It was an engaging activity for families and the whole open day was fantastic. It was wonderful to participate with my colleague, the member for Nightcliff. It was a great opportunity for prospective students to learn about the courses and trades on offer at Charles Darwin University. They could also participate in the many events and activities that were happening for families.
I loved the opportunity to catch up with student ambassadors at CDU, as I always do. They volunteer their time on top of their study to promote the university. They share their knowledge and enthusiasm for their study, their courses and the university’s facilities. They are exceptionally helpful and should get a big shout-out for their role in promoting the university.
As I am reflecting, I realise I have had a lot of fun in the last few weeks.
Thank you to Ms Fisher at Dripstone Middle School for inviting me to visit her science class at the conclusion of their two-day Shell Questacon Science Circus. The students were incredibly knowledgeable and happy to share what they had learnt from their hands-on session.
The workshop concluded with a launch of rockets that had been gradually improved over the two-day workshop. They had names like Justice, Freedom and my personal favourite, Democracy. They were impressive rockets.
I offer a special thank you to student Frank who was a gracious host and took us around all the experiments on the day.
Finally, I would like to mention how wonderful it is to see partnerships and collective work being done amongst businesses and services in Casuarina, particularly in relation to some of the issues we had been experiencing around the precincts. There was a time when volatile substance misuse amongst young people seemed particularly bad. It was raised with me and local police. I saw the evidence of it around my office, particularly over weekends.
I thank the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program staff and Amity Community Services which ran a workshop in my community room. It was attended by a range of local businesses, retail and security stakeholders. It was a fantastic and informative session on what we can all do collectively to address these issues in a better way and what organisations can do. They do great work on a regular basis with retailers about the placement of substances in their stores and making sure we are reporting incidents to police so we can target those responses. I was very pleased to see positive partnerships come out of the workshop as well as good connections with police, for retailers and managements. I look forward to seeing those partnerships grow.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am extremely proud to be the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, the Territory’s tri-service known locally as NTPFES. Our troops across the tri-service work hard every day to ensure the safety of all Territorians. The police on the front line do an outstanding job in very challenging circumstances dealing with a vast array of very unique situations that can bring out the very best and worst in people.
Our very highly trained men and women at the fire and rescue service respond to and manage the trauma on our roads, educate the community in fire safety, respond to blazing grass fires and urban structural fires, and investigate arson with professionalism and diligence.
The hard working staff and volunteers, a small team of 19 employees and over 300 volunteers make the Northern Territory emergency services the effective service that it is; providing first class emergency response, recovery assistance and support within each region across the Territory.
I will share with you one piece of correspondence that hit my in-box yesterday. It is an e-mail from a very well-respected member of the business community who took it upon himself to take the time out of his very busy schedule to write to me applauding the outstanding work of our tri-service personnel. In his e-mail the author described a collision in the rural area between a motor vehicle and a cyclist. The cyclist had sustained some injuries and was lying on the road. He and his wife were first on the scene and made the call to 000. If I may quote from the e-mail; ‘Response time is worthy of comment. Within a short time frame two police vehicles attended followed by two fire emergency vehicles and, soon after, an ambulance. The professionalism of all who attended needs to be acknowledged. The calm efficiency of the police officers, the cooperative and obliging assistance provided by the fire service personnel in both assisting the police and also the ambulance staff and the professional but also caring approach of the ambulance staff themselves was very impressive.’
The author went on to conclude the e-mail with, ‘I would certainly appreciate it if you were able to pass on the message to the relevant parties.’
And I will. I will pass on the message as I have passed on the message to all of you in the House tonight.
It is extremely pleasing to receive such positive feedback about our hard-working tri-service personnel. The Country Liberal government is committed to supporting the tri-service. This government has initiated a suite of measures to keep Territorians safe at home, at work and around the community. Territorians can trust the Country Liberals to take law and order and the safety of all Territorians seriously. Our policies are about delivering, driving down crime and cutting alcohol consumption.
We are resourcing our fire and rescue services appropriately and establishing a new emergency management training unit, the EMTU, within Northern Territory emergency services in a bid to better prepare this community in times of natural or other disasters – an initiative Labor failed to consider during its time in government.
Our suite of alcohol management programs has resulted in alcohol-related assaults dropping by 15% across the Territory over the past year. They are down 19% in Alice Springs and I am certain the member for Braitling would appreciate that. They are down by 18% in Katherine and a whopping 55% in Tennant Creek. I am sure the member for Barkly would no doubt have seen the difference in his own town over the time the TBLs have been in place.
The Country Liberal government abolished the Banned Drinker Register. We introduced a ground-breaking alcohol mandatory treatment program, alcohol protection orders, paperless arrests and temporary beat locations. TBLs remain an important tool police use to respond to public order issues. TBLs are an effective tool that have proven to be successful in reducing violent crime. The bottom line is TBLs work in driving down crime and cutting alcohol consumption. I know a lot has been said about TBLs recently, even by the Police Association, but when I speak to police officers they tell me they would much rather be standing there than dealing with some of the horrible things they would no doubt be dealing with later in the evening. This is proactive policing.
Territorians can trust our government to resource the Northern Territory Police Force properly and be accountable about the resourcing. Under Labor, police numbers were calculated using a head count. This crude practice overinflated police numbers and led to a misrepresentation of real resources serving the public. How unlike the Country Liberal side.
The commissioner has now changed the counting methodology to full-time equivalents or FTEs. We now count one police officer as one full-time operational police officer. In the past, part-time and inoperative members were caught up in the counting. We want Territorians to know how many police there are and the new system will achieve just that.
In addition to improving our counting system is our commitment to increasing the number of FTE sworn police officers by 120 this term of government. This is a serious and rock-solid commitment and we are well and truly on track. With $8.7m committed to help achieve this significant commitment the Northern Territory Police Force will have at least 120 additional FTE sworn police officers by August 2016 guaranteed.
In addition, the Country Liberal government has committed to maintaining all Commonwealth-funded positions as part of the immigration detention centre program. I have heard of no such commitment from Labor, only quibbling over numbers and buckets of funding. Let me be crystal clear: Northern Territory police officers are Northern Territory police officers. Whether they are funded today, tomorrow or next year from one bucket of funding or another, they are ours and we will count them and support them. We recruit them and we train them, so we count them now and after any temporary Commonwealth funding ends.
This Country Liberals government is also committed to investing in the capability and resourcing of the Northern Territory Police Force to ensure police officers and the people of the Northern Territory are kept safe.
In light of operational requirements and the increased national alert level of high, this government has kitted out our troops with new protective equipment for frontline officers, including 835 load-bearing vests. We have also ramped up the capability of our elite Territory Response Group by providing 35 Remington R5 rifles and eight Sig Sauer 718 semi-automatic rifles to enhance tactical capability and versatility. This investment will contribute to ensuring both the safety of our community and the police officers who protect us.
Our CCTV capability is flourishing with the establishment of additional CCTV cameras in Palmerston up for tender shortly. These additional cameras, along with the new mobile units, allow police to be directed to crimes and other incidents as they occur in real time, have a significant impact on improving crime detection and prevention, and will assist with the prosecution of offenders.
Cutting-edge facial recognition technology launched today will make it harder for criminals to escape the law. This new facial recognition software has already helped police identify or eliminate suspects. The introduction of this new crime fighting technology is proof that the Country Liberals are committed to keeping Territorians safe at home, at work and around the community.
As Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I am happy to advise that the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services has today welcomed an additional 12 firefighters into operational duty with the graduation of Recruit Squad 01-2015 tonight.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service is an indispensable part of the Territory’s community. I am sure you will all agree with the author of the e-mail I shared earlier, who claims our firies are a cooperative, obliging and very impressive service. Tonight’s graduation will see five new firefighters posted to Alice Springs and seven to Darwin. I applaud the fine members of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service and wish our newly graduated firefighters, and the additional 12 recruits still in training, all the very best for a long, safe and successful career with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service.
Let us not forget the hard work of our Northern Territory Emergency Service personnel as well. This government is committed to establishing the Emergency Management Training Unit, EMTU, within the Northern Territory Emergency Services. This will revolutionise the capacity of the Emergency Management Training Unit to provide coordinated and contemporary emergency management training to a range of government personnel and emergency response groups across the Territory.
The EMTU will be responsible for delivering a range of training to personnel in government and other organisations engaged in response and recovery operations within the emergency management field. Labor dropped the ball on this one. The Country Liberals can again prove a commitment to keeping the community safe by contributing to the safety of Territorians during times of emergency response and recovery.
As the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I am proud of the commitment this government has made to resource and support the tri-service, allowing these professional and highly-trained men and women to continue their hard work in ensuring a safe, resilient Northern Territory. Well done Northern Territory Fire, Police, Fire and Emergency Services. We applaud you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Daffodil Day
Daffodil Day
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, Daffodil Day pins have been placed on each desk to highlight tomorrow’s Daffodil Day campaign for the Cancer Council. The daffodil is the symbol of the Cancer Council and of hope. Every day two Territorians will receive news that they have cancer, and this campaign works towards supporting those people and researching treatment to eliminate this disease across the country.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Wagaman Primary School accompanied by Narissa Agudo and Lois Ramsay. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
AGENTS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 134)
(Serial 134)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Firstly, I sincerely welcome students from Wagaman Primary School, my school, and say good morning to them all. I deal with them regularly, and it is really great they get to see their local member talking about important legislation.
I am pleased to bring this amendment to the Agents Licensing Act before the parliament and to clarify and rectify an injustice. The industry representative on the Agents Licensing Board wrote to the Attorney-General seeking to have the age discriminatory provisions of the Agents Licensing Act removed.
Currently, appointees to the Agents Licensing Board have to be less than 65 years of age before and during the course of their appointments. This discrimination on the basis of age clearly has no place in our society, and has the potential to deprive the Territory of access to the skills and experience of a highly valued group in our society. In fact, this is the only remaining act in my portfolio that has such an archaic discriminatory provision.
I am keen to ensure that statutory boards, committees and tribunals have the best possible membership and that age is not used as a discriminatory factor when appointing members to these bodies. Accordingly, this bill is designed to remove the age discriminatory provisions from the act.
This bill will ensure that the Agents Licensing Board operates without any impediment and that in the future we will have access to the broadest possible range of skilled Territorians to serve on our boards and committees.
I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
RETURN TO WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 127)
(Serial 127)
Continued from 18 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Labor opposition and Territory workers in relation to this bill. I thank the minister’s office for facilitating the briefing I had with NT WorkSafe. I also sought briefings, views and opinions from the Law Society of the Northern Territory. I met with representatives of Unions NT, and I met specifically with the United Voice union given they have the largest union membership base of any union in the Northern Territory. I also note the vast majority of their members are also people in lower-paid, unskilled jobs.
It is disappointing that our unions as a whole are not valued or represented directly in these negotiations, insofar as the cynical move by the CLP government upon coming to power to remove union representation from boards, including NT WorkSafe. It speaks volumes about this government’s approach to workers and the value they place on their representative peak bodies, like the various unions in the Northern Territory.
I want to express my disappointment that, whilst I was made aware committee stage amendments would come before the House in relation to a couple of elements of this bill, I was not afforded the courtesy of having the amendments delivered to me yesterday afternoon or evening. I had to wait until I arrived in the Chamber this morning to find they had been placed on people’s desks. I remind the government, in its new spirit of wanting to cooperate as a minority government with all members of this House, that it might give consideration to those of us on this side of the House, the Labor opposition or Independent members of this House, to have adequate time to digest those amendments and understand their implications.
I also make the point about some of the outrageous things that have been said about free trade agreements with China by the minister who brought this bill before the House. His blatant and misguided attack on Territory workers and, again, their representative peak bodies in the various unions in the Northern Territory, is nothing more than scurrilous and represents a scare campaign. It went to new heights yesterday when the Chief Minister, also as Tourism minister, stated we would scare away Chinese tourists as a result of some issues Territory and Australian workers have with free trade agreements with China.
These are scurrilous, ill-founded attacks and symptomatic of a desperate government trying to get runs on the board. Basically, people have stopped listening to them and three years into their term of government, with one year to go, it is difficult to see how they can turn their fortunes around.
In relation to the Return to Work Act and the bill with the amendments here today, the Labor opposition cannot support this bill as it is an extension of an inherently unfair piece of legislation passed in this House in March this year. There are some elements worthy of support in this bill, but overall it remains a flawed scheme which leaves workers worse-off than they were before the changes brought in in March.
The Labor opposition asks again, where is the evidence to support or suggest that the previous Workers Compensation Scheme was not working? Why have we seen the implementation of these reforms across two bills? Why have we had two tranches of reforms? Why not wrap them up in one bill and deliver it to this parliament?
I have my suspicions about why that might be the case. When this bill had its passage through the parliament on 25 March, the stand-out element of the bill was to do with the government finally being dragged kicking and screaming to implement a long overdue reform with amendments to support the firefighters with cancer legislation. They were forced to recognise that in the course of firefighters’ work they are exposed more than any other profession to various cancers. Those amendments and that win only occurred at the eleventh hour, the day before the debate was scheduled.
The positive aspect of that part of the bill in March is what grabbed attention and headlines, and everything else about the bill which took workers’ rights and compensation backwards, did not quite get the air time. You cannot help but think that was strategically planned by the government. Then we have this bill before us today which brings a second tranche of amendments, some of which I have already acknowledged are worthy of support, but others we will not be supporting.
It is important in considering this bill to revisit the Return to Work Act, the first part of this bill that came into this parliament and was passed on 25 March. It was not supported by the Labor opposition. I am interested to hear the views of the Independents today on this bill. In the March bill the member for Nelson abstained from voting, so I am very interested to see what his position on this second bill is today.
Essentially, in the first part of the reforms in March the legislation got rid of the no fault remedial workers compensation scheme we have had since 1987. This legislation had no regard for the fact that Territorians who have suffered a workplace injury as a result of negligence or otherwise in the workplace had no ability to sue an employer under common law rights available to workers in other jurisdictions. This CLP government legislation established an historic shift from the insurance agencies to the public health and hospital system. Essentially this is what this legislation does. It is a cost-shifting exercise.
Placing a limit on compensation of 260 weeks means any ongoing chronic injury requiring medical intervention or rehabilitation services will be shifted to the already very stretched health and disability sector. The most draconian aspect of the legislation was the 15% whole-of-body impairment test, which limits a worker’s ability to qualify for permanent impairment. Talking about the first bill, the Law Society made some very salient points about this. Indeed, in a letter to the minister dated 24 March 2015, the day before the first bill came before the House, it raised a number of concerns and put in a submission, as had other organisations, to the review. It flagged broadly:
- The society is concerned that the amendments to the act in the bill go well beyond the recommendations in the final report of the review. We are further concerned that the amendments to the workers compensation scheme in the bill are not in the public interest and in line with community expectations.
The Law Society then went on to highlight a couple of points which were placed on the record in the earlier debate, but it is important to reiterate them:
- The underlying philosophy of the act is that it is a remedial, no-fault scheme providing for the rehabilitation and compensation for injured workers. That has been the case in the Northern Territory since 1987 when workers’ common law rights were abolished in favour of a complete no-fault scheme which is interpreted and applied beneficially.
The workers compensation scheme is funded on this basis. In consideration of the development of the scheme the limit placed on benefits in the new section 61A arbitrarily curtail the rights of workers who remain unable to pursue common law remedies, i.e. the limit of payments of compensation to 260 weeks means that, in some cases, workers who are in need of ongoing compensation beyond this period of time will be left unable to access that compensation and unable to pursue other legal remedies.
This will have the effect of moving those workers from accessing compensation under the no-fault scheme and into the public health system.
This will result in a cost-shift to the public, and away from insurers, under the specifically targeted and funded scheme, a cost-shift that is likely to affect not only Medicare and the public health system, but also to the Territory government through the National Insurance Injury Scheme.
The society is unaware of any evidence that the scheme as currently funded is not sustainable and understands that premiums have remained stable giving certainty to employers.
That is from the letter the Law Society of the Northern Territory sent to minister Styles on 24 March 2015. The NT Law Society pointed out the following injuries would not amount to a 15% impairment: a loss of movement in a limb or elbow; loss of fingers or toes; fractures to a leg or bones requiring surgery; a loss of a mammary gland for a woman of child-bearing age; or the complete loss of smell and taste.
Aligning the definition of a worker with that of the tax office speaks volumes about what is driving the changes to this legislation. Let us be honest here, it is about profits and the bottom line. The new definition of worker has created uncertainty as to how it applies to contractors and sub-contractors. In our unique jurisdiction the construction sector is a large part of the economic activity. Much of it being delivered now was set up under the previous Labor government. At the Unions NT meeting concerns were raised with me about where this legislation leaves contractors and sub-contractors.
I spoke in the last debate about firefighters and cancer legislation. Whilst it went some way to recognise the situation the Territory’s firefighters are in, it still does not go far enough. One of the big wins was the government finally listened; they recognised they had to change their proposed legislation to be able to pre-date those firefighters who had contracted cancer in the course of their duty before the last election date. This government was dragged kicking and screaming to make that amendment after they rejected two private member’s bills introduced by the member for Fannie Bay to try to address concerns.
The opposition has made an election commitment to establish a presumptive cancer legislation for those Territory firefighters who develop certain types of cancer and could have access to the former Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. But, minister, as you know only too well it still does not go far enough with only 12 out of 16 cancers the firefighters hope to have classified as work-related being adopted into the legislation. This is something we have committed to. This act was passed and is excellent for insurers but, let us face it, it is terrible for public services such as health and disability. It is not good for Territory workers. This act is a complete cost shift in the long-term for people with ongoing health issues and disability as a result of a workplace incident or an acquired condition.
Turning now to the bill before us today, the second raft of reforms, I thank NT WorkSafe for the briefing on this legislation. There were I think four or five people seated at that meeting answering the many questions we had about this legislation. Some more positive aspects of this bill include NT WorkSafe now having the authority to issue a prohibition notice to an uninsured employer to cease. That is a very important and positive step forward. We acknowledge there will now be recognition of accredited vocational rehabilitation providers from other jurisdictions. That is also a positive step forward. The fact that formal notice will now be required with a clear communication process to be provided to workers of a pending step down in payments or ceasing of payments is a fair approach when we are dealing with such sensitive matters with people who are dealing with workplace injuries.
There is an inclusion of an offence for an employer who dismisses a worker during a period of six months following the date of injury if they are still injured. This will afford greater security to workers who are injured in the workplace. The bill inserts compensation for medical, surgical rehabilitation and other reasonable costs associated with injuries, and this includes family counselling. Workers compensation claims are, in themselves, a very stressful process which can often compound issues. Reasonable costs for counselling, including for family members, is a positive step in assisting people to recover and return to work.
An employer must take reasonable steps to provide suitable employment and to retrain a worker, including producing a return to work plan, and non-compliance of this will result in an offence. I spent a number of years working in the mining sector, in the HR department. Whilst it was not part of my direct responsibilities to deal with employees who had been, for whatever reason, injured in their workplace, I witnessed their difficulties trying to find alternative work in that sector. It is true for anyone that the impact of going through a workers compensation claim on somebody’s mental health and wellbeing as they come to terms with retraining and returning to work is serious. We are very mindful of that.
It is reasonable that a work plan be developed within 28 days of a person’s return to work, but I query whether a minimum standard will be applied to all employers or whether employers will be given guidance on what a return to work plan should look like. How will we know the return to work plans are adequate to truly address what needs to be done in assisting a worker to genuinely retrain or return to work? If an employer defers liability to obtain further information then the employer will meet the reasonable cost of medical and rehabilitation treatment during that period. This excludes, however, hospital inpatient and interstate evacuations.
I want to highlight that on a surface level it may appear reasonable to be enshrined in legislation. We do not want workers to be disadvantaged in this process, but it begs the question where a worker has a serious back injury and needs neurosurgery, high-level intense and costly surgery, what guarantee is there that they will be reimbursed for those costs? If an employer fails to make a decision within the specified time, it will be taken that the employer has accepted the claim. The opposition sees that as quite reasonable.
We note that mediators can decide that legal representation would be helpful and the employer pays reasonable costs. We had discussion with the Law Society Northern Territory about mediators who feature under section 103BA in the bill. We asked what qualifications they require. Must they demonstrate some kind of accreditation? What if the mediator acts inappropriately or takes sides with the employer’s insurer and not with the employee? Are there any regulations to cover mediators?
In the interests of reasonableness, I note that in the discussion I had with United Voice, in their dealings to date where they have been involved with mediators, they said they thought the mediators in the Northern Territory they had worked with in workers compensation claims were reasonable individuals who were doing a good job. But there is potential exposure in that bill as to qualifications, minimum standards and accreditation that might be required through the designated mediator. I am sure the minister will be able to address that.
We note that insurers need to be approved by the authority and provide the authority with the ability to impose conditions on the insurer, including for renewal of approval and that employers must possess an adequate policy of insurance or indemnity. They should, and that is a very sensible inclusion in this bill.
I will now move to the aspects of the bill that we struggle to support, but overall stakeholder feedback is that this second tranche of reforms – this second bill – is less punitive than the first part which has been enacted. In spite of this, some aspects of this bill are a continuation of the dilution of workers’ rights to a no-fault remedial compensation scheme. There remain some threshold issues the opposition cannot support, which would prevent the opposition from supporting the bill in total.
Primarily, this relates to the exclusion of journey claims. This amendment precludes people who go to work by any means other than a car. This is covered by the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme, or MAC, under which you can make a claim for injuries incurred. There are also penalties inserted for fraudulent behaviour.
The reality is that in our jurisdiction, and our Territory lifestyle, there are people who journey to work other than in a motorcar. Many people cycle or walk to work. In Alice Springs I note the number of people riding bicycles; why would you not in the beautiful weather in Alice Springs, and in a township that is relatively flat? The same happens in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and even in my own community. In a day and age where we encourage people to find means of transport other than their motorcars or not clog up our CBD with vehicles, where does this leave people who, given the costs of parking in the CBD, park their car at a friend’s place or somewhere just outside the CBD? They are not clogging up the city or racking up parking fees. They park their motor vehicle and then walk the last few blocks to their workplace.
I ask the minister to address this when he is wrapping up the debate. Where does this business of journey claims leave people who are covered under MAC for driving but not under other means of transport? I know there are exceptions for people in their line of duty, including police. We note there are some exceptions which recognise that in the course of the work day people driving in a vehicle under the instruction of the boss may have to go from office A to office B, but it stands out as an element of this bill which lacks clarity.
We are also interested to know what the basis for this change is. How many claims in the history of the Northern Territory under the former scheme were journey-to-work claims? I was advised in one briefing that somebody claimed who was injured whilst riding a bike to work. The extent of the injuries meant this individual became a paraplegic. Where is the evidence to show this amendment has been brought forward on this bill? I do not think that it is right and we cannot support any further watering down of existing workers’ rights.
Members on this side of the House are aware of conservative governments introducing these changes in other jurisdictions. With a change of government and a return to Labor, either the element of the journey claims in these laws has been repealed or is in the process of being repealed.
There are also concerns about the formalising of structured settlements in the legislation. The advice from the Law Society of the Northern Territory is that as the legislation currently stands every box of new section 78A needs to be ticked when going through the process of a structured settlement for it to be successful. The way the legislation is drafted, if all aspects are not fulfilled then a structured settlement cannot be reached either before or at the 104-week mark. To be honest, a wily employer could utilise this process to defer and then deny liability, and this would be a terrible outcome for a worker.
In relation to the legislative definition of managerial action as drafted, it precludes managerial actions that fall outside that scope. This goes to the heart of the first committee stage amendment we will be talking about in the Committee of a Whole. This poses uncertainty in the legislation and requires some thought about how to manage any ambiguity.
There is a recommendation that deemed diseases are reviewed in Schedule 1 and placed into regulation. I am disappointed that the opposition has not received any regulations to date for review. I ask the minister to table those today. It is difficult to provide support or express a view or opinion on something you have not seen.
As the legislation currently stands, as I said at the outset, the opposition will not support it. We are not being difficult or tricky, but honest in our appraisal of this bill. Importantly, we are representing Territory workers who we believe would be worse off under this legislation. We cannot change the fact that this legislation continues to water down existing workers’ rights and entitlements enshrined in legislation. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other members of this House, and the Independents. I will have a few questions in the committee stage.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I will be very quick in my remarks in regard to this piece of legislation. While I do support it going through there is a small issue I would like to raise. The member for Nhulunbuy has spoken a lot about employees and union involvement. One of the things I want to raise is with self-employed people. I have experience with workers compensation in this area because I made a claim on myself, which was an interesting process. That did cause me some concern. I want some assurance from the minister that it will not be impacted at all or made any more complex than what it was then.
The accident I had was a very simple one. I was pulling a trailer onto a vehicle and fell onto my shoulder, which then created a few problems. I did not plan on claiming any workers compensation or anything at that stage however, our insurance broker said, ‘Gary, that is not a good idea. You really need to do that in case that turns into a very large medical claim.’ So I did. But I got a phone call and it was TIO. They said, ‘We need to speak to you as you are the employee’. They asked me what the employer was like. I had to comment about myself. That was pretty interesting. Then they rang me back and said, ‘We now need to speak to you as the employer and get your opinions about the employee’. I was very complimentary of myself in both directions.
It made it very complicated for me in the sense that what you get paid while you are not at work is based on your salary. I had some very clear instructions given to me that I should not work. But if you are self-employed how do you not work? You will be in the office doing stuff. If you then do that, what is the impact of that on your claim? The response I got back from the insurers was that I could claim my salary. But as most people know, self-employed people do not pay themselves very much. I was probably paying myself about $12 000 a year. That meant I could not really pay anyone to do it. So it is a very complex position you get yourself into.
Next they wanted me to go on a return to work program. How do you have a partial return to work when you are running a business? At the time we had the caravan park and bistro going and we were also picking mangoes. I had a far bit of work to do. Eventually, after I had multiple cortisone injections, the doctor decided I needed an operation, but I refused. I was then forced to sign off that workers compensation. That meant that if anything happened in the future, I could not make a claim.
I completely understand this legislation. There has been a lot of talk about employees and discussing things with unions, but I have yet to hear about us discussing things with people who are self-employed. I am interested to hear some answers to make sure it is not making it any more complicated than what it was before. I would like to see it simplified in some way.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, the Territory opposition opposes this bill because the changes the government is proposing break a contract with Northern Territory workers to first and foremost put their health, safety and welfare as a priority if they are injured in the course of their employment. The main beneficiaries of these amendments will be the insurance companies, which will increase profits at the expense of long-term injured workers.
Those points were made by me in the previous debate about changes to workers’ rights in the Northern Territory by the CLP government. It is interesting to note we now have a CLP government which had 16 members but now has 12. There are only 12 members left in a government free-falling into political oblivion. Would it not be interesting if we were debating the first tranche of these amendments about changing the dynamics of workers’ rights in the Northern Territory with a 12 person CLP government?
We were told the amendments had been passed and others would be forthcoming. Today we are debating the second round of the amendments that were forthcoming with a 12 person government not a 16 person government. I am wondering how the vote will go today. I wonder how much work has been done by this new minority government with the Independent members on this legislation. If we turn back the clock there was a serious relationship between the sale of an important Territory asset called the Territory Insurance Office and changes to workers’ rights and compensation within the Northern Territory. I said then there was a direct link, and I still say that.
Back then a government with a majority was able to stamp its authority and, consequently, the Territory Insurance Office was sold. The concerns of Territorians were loud and clear. The government has not changed one thing about its MO, and that is they do not listen. There were very clear signals sent by Territorians that it was our TIO, a public asset, and it should not be sold. Coincidentally it was sold, and at the same time there were major changes to workers’ rights and compensation and return to work schemes that benefited a global insurance company over Territory workers. We argued it then, and we argue it today as a Territory Labor opposition.
It just did not come from the Territory opposition, it came from high-level stakeholders. Our research was conducted with high-level stakeholders, an example being the Law Society of the Northern Territory. The Law Society said the amendments brought in by the CLP government went way beyond the report and the review. They suggested the changes made were not necessarily the right changes and the levels not necessarily correct. We did not oppose everything. As an opposition we supported some elements of that bill. We are pragmatic and supportive where support is deserved. We give credit where credit is due.
We debated long and hard over fair and just compensation to our firefighters. We dragged the majority government kicking and screaming into this House to make sure firefighters were properly and appropriately compensated for their work on the front line defending Territory lives and property. We debated the level of changes implemented by the CLP government. We did not agree and we formed policy on that to take to a NT general election saying, ‘We will go a little further in the protection of your rights and the support for your families’. We hold that position. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are doing in this House.
Once again, the spokesperson in this area for the Territory Labor opposition, the member for Nhulunbuy, has outlined our case to the Caucus, worked with stakeholders, contacted community members, formed a position, brought it to our Caucus, debated it with members and we now come to this House with a fair and honest position, as always. This represents a political divide, and why not? We will continue to debate with the government wherever and whenever on behalf of Territorians for a fair and just outcome. Now we are debating a minority government with a block of Independents.
In my presentations each time I stand in this House I will be turning left and focusing my contribution to the Independents. I will encourage them to listen, act and participate in the legislative process. I will call up issues from the past; this issue today represents the second phase of amendments to important legislation supporting injured Territory workers and their families.
The sale of TIO cannot be separated from this debate. However, we are not quite sure how that process transpired. I can only guess the Cabinet processes of this government. Last night the member for Casuarina gave a quick synopsis of three years of the CLP and the revolving door of ministers, the wannabe Chief Ministers, the coups, the attempted coups and the infighting. It was a quick and clever synopsis, but something that has played out in the public domain, which the Territory has been observing and discussing.
When you talk critical legislation like this and the changes that were already rammed through by a majority government, one has to wonder what sort of Cabinet processes took place to deliver those changes. But here we go again, we are back in this House and looking at another round.
For the last two days the CLP minority government has been using cheap political tactics to ridicule Labor members on this side. Even as recently as last night they called us racist over the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The member for Nhulunbuy raised some concerns once again about union representation being denied on important advisory boards, including NT WorkSafe in the case of this legislation. That is a government priority and policy. It is a government cheap trick to bash unionists and ridicule anybody who aligns with the trade union movement, the body that has historically protected and supported workers’ rights.
That is okay because you guys put it in the public domain, which is fine by me. That shows a clear political divide. Let the Territory decide on the tactics you have used over the last two days.
Let the Chinese embassy decide in Canberra. Let the Chinese community decide when I go home to Tennant Creek and tell the story about what happened in this House, as I represented the people of the Barkly. Let democracy decide.
We, on this side of the House, believe to get true stakeholder representation, the best decisions and the best legislative instruments for the Northern Territory, the trade union movement should be represented. It should have its say and should be listened to. It should be a fair debate.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said, on behalf of the Labor opposition, we cannot support this bill. We support elements of this bill, but there are elements of great concern. There is a difference between the two sides. We are still critical of the first round of amendments and the amendments you are seeking passage for today because they seem to take from workers and give to insurers. It takes from the workers their right to just compensation and favours the global insurers.
The member for Port Darwin, in the last debate, talked very wisely about setting boundaries. We think you have it wrong. We think there can be more balance. Most importantly, we have policy that will set our position for Territorians to judge. That is the most important and appropriate part of democracy in this place.
The CLP minister and Cabinet at that time defied listening to Territorians about the sale of TIO. They also did not listen to the opposition or stakeholders. I can remember presenting in detail the advice from the Northern Territory Law Society that seemed to be completely ignored by a then majority government which was stamped with arrogance. However, I wonder now what the policy and Cabinet procedures of a minority CLP government are? Will they listen to stakeholders? Will they be more consultative? The Chief Minister said he has a secret plan that will be unveiled at some stage. The rule of confidentiality in the Barkly is you only tell your six most trusted friends. I am not sure how many members we have here listening at the moment. My tip is that the secret plan is called a general election, and we say bring it on! And as far as I am concerned, as soon as possible, because Territorians are not only asking for it, they are demanding it. I wonder how consultative the CLP government is these days? Is it listening now? Will it listen? Is it willing to put its money where its mouth is?
The Law Society was concerned that the first tranche of amendments went way beyond the recommendations of the final report. What we are seeing today, in a composite of amendments, is more legislation that favours the insurers over the workers. The spokesperson for the Territory Labor opposition, the member for Nhulunbuy, made some very good points in regard to supporting injured workers. These are Territorians and their families. These amendments resonate that return to work, supporting injured workers and supporting their families is a real problem. We, on this side of the House, see it as legislation important in supporting and recognizing this problem. There is nothing easy about this. We are not saying this is easy, but our boundaries seem to be very far removed from the Liberal boundaries. That is why we are in this House debating.
It was interesting when the member for Nhulunbuy discussed with Cabinet at length about the changes in this tranche of the legislation around the journey claims. It seems there is uncertainty, that the power has been handed to the insurance companies regarding how people travelling to and from their workplace will be compensated. It seems it will remain clear if you drive to work in a motor vehicle. However, if you do not choose a motor vehicle, then we are not quite sure. The minister will be able to define that for Territorians in this House. I will be able to take that transcript home and give a clear indication about that coverage.
In this stage of uncertainty through the second reading of this legislation we are concerned about a principle that is set. If we look at the global context, there is serious encouragement and investment to reduce congestion on our roads and improve the fitness of our citizens. One example of that is the walk to school campaign. People are encouraged to increase the use of bicycles and use public transport to reduce carbon emissions.
Not only is this a global trend, this is smart politics. It is interesting that the minister who is orchestrating the passage of this legislation through the House was a previous Transport minister no doubt heavily involved in promoting those new principals around our global village. Let us use fewer cars, look at initiatives in public transport, develop cycle paths and increase the fitness of our citizen, because his colleague the Health minister will tell him that if we have a fitter society it will reduce the government’s cost to look after its citizens. That seems to be at the top of the Health minister’s agenda.
That is why the opposition questions a government bringing legislation forward that may not be in the spirit of those global initiatives. It is not just about the Territory, it is about Australia and the rest of the world. It is also important to factor in lower socioeconomic groups in our community that cannot afford a car, where maybe a pushbike is the only form of transport to keep a job, make a start in society and have the opportunity to climb the ladder and improve your life’s lot. Where does this fit in terms of fair and just legislation? I am sure the minister will be able to define that with the support of advisers and the great resources at hand for a Cabinet minister.
I am sure the minister will be wised up and able to alleviate any concerns from the opposition and the constituency that these amendments are skewed; that the journey to work claims will be skewed and this legislation is not in the interests of the global moves to public transport, better fitness levels, and alternative modes of transport. The minister can alleviate any concerns that this government is seriously backing good measures to improve our society as opposed to discriminating against it with limited economic rationalist agendas.
We have some clear signals in this policy. The Labor opposition has put its case. We always welcome debate in this House. We look forward to the minister’s reply and the replies of the other members. We look forward to the outcome in a more bipartisan style – working with a minority government, Independents and a Labor opposition. It is a new working environment in this place. I drove to work this morning. I have a registered car. I am covered under MAC insurance but I would really like to be able to ride a bicycle one of these days. I am sure the minister will explain to me that it will be all okay and I will still be covered.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, that was singularly the most articulate, well-considered and constructed speech I have ever heard from the member for Barkly.
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish. You should have been here last night.
Mr ELFERINK: I am struggling to see why you are struggling to take a compliment because you have accurately described the issues before the House and the problems as you see them. If I say you delivered a good speech, it was genuine because it considered all the issues. You identified the issues you were concerned about, and it does this place well when members take the time out to do the research you have done as the quality of debate in this House improves.
If you take offence to a compliment of that nature, I am surprised. I am sorry you do. I am somewhat dismayed by it, but I am sorry you feel that way.
The legislation before the House deals with a number of issues. The member for Barkly quite correctly described some of those issues, one of which is an ideological issue, or certainly a principle issue as to where you apportion risk. That is really what this debate is about. Any debate in the insurance domain is about the apportionment of risk, and that is particularly the argument about the journey to and from work which this bill touches on and I will return to later.
This bill does something else that is really important and is captured in the title of the bill itself – the return to work legislation. The underlying philosophy of the idea of getting a person, despite the fact they are injured, back into the workplace is good because if I was ever injured and removed from the workplace because of that injury my personal world view is, ‘How do I get back into the workplace as quickly as possible?’
I have seen a number of Territorians pursue that philosophy to the nth degree. Two Territorians spring to mind. One was Phil Kerr, who has recently retired. Phil Kerr snapped his neck in a motorcycle accident I think at the old Bagot Park Speedway years ago. As a full quadriplegic with the most limited movement in his upper body to move his arms he continued to run a business. Not only did he run that business, he was my local mechanic until the time he retired. Not only did he run that business well, but he went on to employ five or six mechanics.
I would regularly see him because he was the person who would keep the elf-mobile alive way beyond probably its expiry date as a useful vehicle. He would sticky tape to the back of his hand a pen which enabled him to type out invoices. I know full well that Phil Kerr would have much preferred to be an ambulant person for the rest of his life, but what Phil Kerr did for years and years is say, ‘I’m not going to give up the ghost. I will get involved in life and make the most of a bad situation. I could not imagine how hard it would be to step over those hurdles, but that is what he did.
The second person who springs to mind who had similar injuries is a bloke by the name of Joel Fleming from Alice Springs. I am sure people would have run into him. He continued to also run his business which, surprisingly, was in part a four-wheel drive training enterprise.
This legislation is trying to create structures where people are encouraged to go back to work because work, I think to a large degree, tends to define us. I do not think members opposite would find that a confronting concept, but work gives us purpose. Work is part of who we are, and we use it to identify ourselves. If we meet a person for the first time there are two questions we ask. Question one, ‘What is your name?’ Question two, ‘What do you do?’ The answer to the second question defines us as much as the answer to the first question.
Indeed, history is full of people taking on their occupations as their identity. At some point in history Bob the carpenter became Bob Carpenter. At some point in history, Margaret the thatcher became Margaret Thatcher – Butcher, Baker, Smith, Goldsmith, I reckon I could probably keep going. Cooper is another one. I could keep going for hours. Why? Because their job was so important to them historically. They took their occupation on as their name. That is how important work is for us as human beings; it is how we identify ourselves. Our status in the community and in our own mind is defined by the work we do
To create insurance schemes that encourage people to go back into the workplace, even if they are reluctant, frightened is worthwhile legislation. Life is difficult. Life will throw up challenges again and again. All sorts of challenges will be visited upon us: ill-health, deaths in families, unemployment and re-employment. The microcosm that is life is a frightening ride, upon which we are all thrust and some people do it better than others, but being able to create confidence in people is an important step. I congratulate the minister for bringing this element of the bill to the House because it is so important.
The older I get the more I believe it is important. It is the heart of the philosophy behind the Sentenced to a Job program. It is the heart of the philosophy I have in my own personal life.
At the risk of reflecting on debate, this morning the minister introduced other legislation removing age limits for agents in a licensing environment. How good is that? Enabling people to continue working. I think Rupert Murdoch is in his 80s now and he still runs a business empire. My pinup boy is a bloke by the name of George Hampel. He helped me with some legislation. He is from Victoria. He started defending people as a lawyer when they were still on trial for their lives. He is 82 and continues to work.
If you look around there are so many people who continue to work well into their life because it is what they do. They are my pinup people. I fully intend to work as long as I can. I see retirement as the gap between when I cannot work and when I pass into the next world. Work will be an identifying feature of my life going forward.
I met an old cop friend of mine the other day and I said, ‘Pete, how are you going?’ He said, ‘I cannot wait to retire.’ He said he has 301 days to go. He will be 54; he is on the ComSuper scheme and has a life organised for him. That is what he wants to do; that is up to him. I said to him, ‘What are you going to do?’ He said, ‘Hitch up my car and go for a drive around the country and find a place where I can settle down’. I said, ‘What will you do then?’ He did not have an answer for me.
I thought to myself that maybe he will be happy that way, but most people I know who retire often end up busier in retirement than when they were working. Those are just some observations about work as a general principle but they reflect on this important component of the legislation before the House.
Employers now have to develop a return to work plan for a worker where the incapacity period is more than 28 days. That is, there has to be a plan to get that worker out of their sick bed, their home and back into the work environment. That is a positive thing. It is entirely aimed at producing better work outcomes, and insurers will insist employers adopt it as needed because it is to the insurer’s advantage to get people back into the workplace as well. I would rather see people contributing to society because, in doing so, they contribute to themselves. The proposal may be an actual plan for return to work on pre-injury duties or other suitable duties.
If there is an injury that takes a person offline for one task they have because it requires them to stand and, for argument’s sake, they are a paraplegic – which would be tragic – but you found another job they could do which would enable them to come back to work in a wheelchair, that would be a good thing.
The employer cannot terminate employment without strong reasons unrelated to the claim. In other words, you cannot dispose of a worker when they are injured. Get them back into the workplace as quickly as you can and do not think you can terminate them. That is a fair and just approach.
There are other elements to this legislation that are important, such as improving the definition of management action to ensure mental injury claims cannot be made where an employer is simply managing performance in an appropriate fashion. This is one of the great challenges.
We see this claim of bullying levelled quite regularly, particularly in bureaucracies. From time to time, when you dig into those claims the matter is not so much bullying as an employer trying to get an employee to do their job. Sometimes that is misunderstood, or for other reasons perhaps even maliciously represented, as some sort of bullying claim. Asking a person to do their job is not bullying. Asking a person to do their job is what you employ them to do. It is not an outrage to ask a person to do their job. But from time to time you will find, throughout organisations within the public and private sectors, this idea that being asked to do your job or being accountable for it is an affront.
Accountability is a normal function of life. We do it in our community every day. We have laws that make us accountable, or an employer who makes us accountable, and the employer pays us money. Part of the contract with the employer is that we do what the employer expects us to, so long as that is lawful and reasonable. If you have a problem with the work you are being asked to do, then it is important that you simply find another source of employment. There are some employees who do not like the work they are being asked to do. If that is the case, then move on.
If it is lawful and you do not like it then move on and live the rest of your life. But be comfortable with the idea that if you are employed by a government, or alternatively by the private sector somewhere, you keep up your part of the bargain and you cannot or should not claim mental injury when you are asked to do so.
Binding settlements can now be negotiated after 104 weeks. In extraordinary cases the settlement can be before 104 weeks, which is obviously two years. However, that settlement will be subject to a six-month cooling-off period. All settlements must include independent legal advice for the injured worker, paid for by the employer. Furthermore, any settlement must also include paid financial advice if the worker requests it.
We have ourselves a situation where an employee is injured and a conversation begins between the employer and the employee. That conversation says the employee cannot come back to work. The employer says, ‘I cannot have you back at work for whatever lawful reason’, then ultimately you find yourself in a place where you have to close off the problem. You have to be able to settle the problem in one fashion or another. This then maps a pathway forward. It says it will take you two years to settle this. Those exceptional circumstances would require agreement by both parties in negotiation. You may settle that earlier for the sake of expediency. That would be the abnormal situation.
After two years, employer and employee sit down and say, ‘What are we going to do about this to close off this thing? We cannot have this thing dangling in the ether.’ So the employer says to the employee, ‘All right let us find a way through this’, and an agreement is reached. To attend to the obvious disparity between negotiating strengths, certain safeguards have now been built into the system, which include legal representation. That is, an employee cannot legally sign a document saying they will come to some type of binding settlement unless a lawyer has overseen the process. That is important because it gets rid of that inequity or disparity between negotiating strengths.
The other component, of course, is that you can then clearly argue, as the employer, that the employee must have understood exactly what they were signing up to, because a settlement of this nature, whilst it is not a contract, has some of the flavours and natures of a contract. One of the key elements of any form of contract is a meeting of the minds, that is, both sides understand completely what the arrangement is. This could create fear and uncertainty, because if somebody is badly injured, and they need to look after themselves for the rest of their lives, they may also want to seek some sort of financial advice. If they ask, the employers are obliged to provide it. The reason for that is so that person going forward, if they find they cannot work at all, needs to have security for the rest of their lives. That is not a bad thing. Finding that entrenched in the legislation here is important, because the legislation creates the necessary pathways to really get people back into the workplace or, on those unfortunate occasions where they cannot, provide security for that person going forward.
The legislation also creates a new benefit, which enables counselling. This is a time of incredible uncertainty. Let us say I have injured myself as a result of a workplace incident. I am a paraplegic and now uncertain for the future, because I am a boilermaker. I have no other skill sets. Fear often tends to lock people down – especially a fear of the future. God knows I get frightened of the future every day, but legislation that creates a new benefit that says counselling and family counselling for a worker and a worker’s family should be in place is important. It will help people to plan for the future.
If there is a mediation process, workers can now have assistance and legal advice if they deem it necessary. Previously, the worker had to represent themselves and had no legal guidance, regardless of their ability or capacity to argue their point with an insurer, or the complexity of the claim, or the issue that was requiring mediation. That is the parity/disparity matter I referred to earlier. In fact, contracts have historically been thrown out when the parity/disparity arrangement was so profound that the court was prepared to apply a form of stopple based on the fact that relationships were so uneven between the contracting parties. The seminal case from memory was Amadio.
A bank and an old Italian couple signed a contract in relation to a mortgage over their home. But the disparity between the two parties meant the people who signed over the mortgage to their son, to back a business venture that went south, were protected by the court because of that enormity of disparity. That was an equitable solution. The law of contract was quite clear. The bank should have been able to reclaim the house, but under the decision of the court, an equitable principle was applied and the bank was prevented from leading evidence of the contract. So the Amadio’s home was protected.
The law has recognised the notion of disparity between negotiating partners for a number of years. If my memory serves me correctly, the Amadio case goes back to about the 1970s.
Of course, also, this legislation has expanded powers for the regulator to ensure businesses and workers are participating properly and fairly in the scheme and in any claims. Worksafe can now issue a stop work notice on an uninsured employer, or issue an infringement notice for certain offences.
We have a regulatory environment, and we need that to be policed. The police force, in this instance, is Worksafe, and too bloody right they should be empowered to stop an uninsured employer. If an employer is not carrying insurances on behalf of their workers as the law demands, then that employer is, under the law, not doing the right thing and is exposing people to a lifetime of poverty if something goes wrong in the workplace. I could suggest quite reasonably that an employer in the workplace who is not carrying the proper insurance for their workers will not be the type of employer to be too careful about other components in the workplace, so the risk is amplified with employers like that very quickly.
NT WorkSafe should be able to have some leverage against employers, and that is enhanced by making them capable of issuing infringement notices for particular types of offences.
For all of those reasons this is good legislation that protects the worker. However, I am interested or surprised by the conclusions the members opposite have reached. They have concluded that the journey to work, which is already protected largely by other insurances, particularly the MAC – you have to remember the MAC extends beyond the realm of the mere driver of the car. If a pedestrian is struck by a person driving a motor vehicle, or a person riding a bicycle is struck by the person driving a car, then that person is covered as well, and many injuries to pedestrians or cyclists involve other vehicles. The MAC, which is also a no-fault compensation scheme, covers a pretty wide sphere.
However, the members opposite make the observation that a person might be injured in circumstances where a motor vehicle is not involved and therefore they would not be insured. Yes, that is a consequence of this legislation. It is clearly described by the members opposite. You then have to ask yourself; ‘What is the boundary?’
The boundary argument, of course, is focused entirely on the notion of risk. Insurance companies have been excellent measurers of risk historically, and in fact insurance premiums are a product of risk matrices being developed by various insurance companies. The question we should ask ourselves, and the question put to this House today, is does the risk a person is exposed to when travelling to work properly belong to the employer? That is a difficult philosophical question because the members opposite would say, ‘Yes, it does’. That is the disappointing. If I look at the workers’ rights in this legislation compared to employer’s rights, the legislation heavily favours the workers. It centres on the right for that worker to return to the workplace, to find a solution if they cannot return to the workplace and his or her right to be protected by financial advice, family counselling and legal assistance. These are substantial improvements, and I congratulate the minister in pursuing those balanced against the issue of the journey and whether or not the employer should be liable for it.
I will make a couple of observations. Observation one is that I travel to work like everybody else every day. I suspect not all but a substantial majority of the people who travel to work in the Darwin CBD find their way to the workplace by use of a motor vehicle. I do, and I suspect every other person in this Chamber does. However, the buses I drive amongst in traffic are also vehicles people go to work in. People are covered if they are going to work. I have, however, on occasion, ridden my bicycle into work. During that time, I have noticed a number of people ride their bicycles into work and they, if they have an injury, would not be covered by this legislation.
Is it reasonable to ask an employer to carry that responsibility and duty towards a person travelling into work by way of a bicycle? The answer, overall, particularly considering the other advantages being constructed in this legislation, in the opinion of this government, is no. That is a risk we carry in life doing all sorts of things. We all have risks. I have a risk when I ride my motorcycle to work every day. There have been two deaths in the last two weeks on Darwin roads from people taking the same risk and choice. That is the nature of life; life is about risk.
I look at the overall balance in this bill and I think it heavily favours the worker. What is gained for the worker compared to what is lost – from a risk perspective this advantages the worker. I suspect the members opposite understand that.
The minister has just shoved an interesting note in front of me. He has done the numbers. He says in terms of advantages to workers, as opposed to advantages to employers, there are 18 positive elements to this in regard to the workers, as compared to 13 positive advantages with regard to employers.
Ms Walker: Yes, but they need to be weighted for what they are.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is what this debate is about. For that reason I am surprised by the position taken by the members opposite, because the vast majority of people who travel to work will already be insured by different means. The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, the MACA – if they are travelling on a public bus they are covered by the MACA. If they are travelling on a bicycle or crossing a road they are still covered by the MACA.
I personally have taken the very important step of protecting my family in another way; I have personal life insurance. If I fall off my motorcycle and kill myself, I will make absolutely sure my wife and children have sufficient means to see my children through the end of their schooling years, including university and probably my wife through the rest of her life.
I take that on as a very important duty as a father and husband. Equally my wife, who does not work at the moment, nevertheless has a life insurance policy so when she does the odd amount of relief work, or if any other risk in life occurs and her life ends – god forbid – then the means I will need to look after my children up to the end of their schooling will be available to me through those insurances.
I encourage people to also take out income protection insurance. Income protection insurance is not expensive and is available to anybody who earns an income. If you take out that insurance, which is reasonably inexpensive, if you fall off your bicycle or whatever else you have adopted the risk for yourself. The risk element is not removed.
You can do a great deal to mitigate risk in your life every day by engaging in practices that are safer. You have to balance that off against things which are fun, and a lot of fun things are less safe, that is the nature of the world. If you do that, or if you engage in behaviour where you are deeply concerned about the changes of this legislation occurring, I encourage you to get some form of income insurance or other insurance so if anything happens you are able to cover your debts and your bills whilst you are off work.
Income insurance is offered commercially and you can find any number of providers. You can spread your risk that way. On balance, and considering the things that giveth and the things that taketh away in this bill, the things that giveth are substantial. I am disappointed that the Labor party will bypass this opportunity to protect workers, because they weight the journey to work and the risk that presents far more heavily than I think is warranted. That is, at essence, an issue in this debate.
Far be it from me to suggest they are trying to find a point of difference with government for legislation they would have otherwise supported because they want to test the numbers in the House. I would not go to that cynical degree. I will accept on face value that they made the choice they did because they believe the journey to work component is so important.
Having made those observations, I can only come to the conclusion that I do not agree with the conclusions of the members of the Labor Party in relation to this debate. I express my disappointment that they have not moved to protect the worker in the way they could have in this debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know it sounds terrible but I have enjoyed listening to the debate …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, this is a House of debate and this is a very important debate. I take notice of what both sides of parliament have been saying. I sometimes wonder how life has shifted since the last sittings and the sittings today. I hope people understand that what I say comes from reading what has been put forward and making a judgment on what is best for both the worker and the employer.
The member for Port Darwin raised an interesting issue about the weighting of this. Whilst I was listening to the debate I thought I would circle the areas in the second reading which mentioned what the employer now has to do. I have worked for an employer, I have been an employer, and to some extent I know the responsibilities on both sides have to be met by both parties.
For many years we had a system where many workers were downtrodden. That is why unions came into existence in the first place. I am a supporter of unionism. I believe workers have the right to bargain collectively. Unfortunately, there are unions which use methods that are unreasonable. There was the rumour that once upon a time on the Darwin wharf a piece of paper used to be put on the ground and if a certain number of spots of rain landed on that, it was knock off time. I hope I have not said something that is untrue but that was the rumour. We used to sometimes say that if there were not enough raisins in the fruit cake you would go on strike at smoko time.
There were abuses of rights that workers had gained simply because they had the power to do it. They may have been in an industry where they could hold an employer to ransom. That is not my idea of what unionism is about. Unionism is about making sure workers work in safe environments, get proper pay for the hours they work and they have time, because the old famous eight hours work, eight hours play and eight hours rest still has some legitimacy even in today’s work, which is ...
Mr Styles: Not here though.
Mr WOOD: Not in here, you are right there. I understand that. You say, ‘You were brought up in a Catholic school’, but would you believe it was a Pope in 1891 who issued an encyclical Rerum novarum which was about the rights of workers and the goodness of work. In other words work is an honourable thing. That was about making sure employers did not abuse their employees.
I studied the Industrial Revolution when I went to school. Life was pretty crook. The days when transportation occurred, people might have been working in industry in cities and they struggled out of poverty because they were paid very little for their work. We have moved on from that, but then again, look at the Royal Commission, regardless of what you think of the commissioner, you can see aspects of unionism which are not what we call reasonable unionism. People are bullied. That is a sad part of what unionism is about. Unionism, as a principle, is an important part of protecting a worker’s rights.
But just as much as being in a union is a way of protecting my rights if I am an employee, I therefore have to be reasonable and fair to my employer. I have to provide them with a fair day’s work. It is not a matter of pretending I am sick when I am not. That is not reasonable. It is not a matter of knocking off a bit early without asking permission from the boss, when you really should be doing a little more work. It is doing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
There are responsibilities on both sides of the equation. I will read out sections from this second reading. It says here ‘a new requirement for the employer to produce a return to work plan for any injury that involves incapacity of not more than 28 days’. I raised in the briefing – and thank you, minister, for the briefing – that I was not sure about small businesses. I am a gardener. I employ one person to do the mowing and I do all the whipper snipping, pruning and the books. I do not have a lot of time to be putting out a work plan because we have jobs to do. I am not saying you should not do it, but it is an area that in some cases you might take up time for someone. Perhaps that is where assistance has to be given, especially with small businesses. I am talking about people who do not have HR managers to help.
It says:
- … there will be a restriction on the ability of an employer to terminate the employment of a worker for a period of six months while the worker is totally or partially incapacitated.
…
Another change to improve return to work outcomes is that employers will be required to pay for medical treatment during a deferral of a decision on a claim.
Further, it says:
- There will now be a requirement of the employer to pay for medical treatment and rehabilitation during deferral.
That will ensure that a worker’s recovery is not compromised by lack of treatment or rehabilitation during the deferral period.
The worker’s recovery is the important bit. It says:
- A new benefit has also been introduced to allow for family counselling for the worker or the worker’s family.
This relates especially to psychological issues. It says:
- Access to this support may make a difference in the wellbeing of the worker and their family and … contribute to a faster return to work.
You have to remember, this is the key to this legislation, getting people back to work. We are talking about some other issues. I understand that, but we are talking about return to work. Further down it says:
- Another important change is that insurers will be required to give workers advance notice of any legislative reductions or cessation of benefits.
They are required to do that.
- The bill therefore provides a benefit for a worker to have access to legal advice paid for by the insurer …
…
Another important change in the bill is the ability to negotiate settlements for workers compensation claims … For employers and insurers it removes uncertainty over the cost of the claim.
…
To allow … flexibility, settlements within 104 weeks will contain a six month cooling off period.
That relates to working out a lump sum payment while you are waiting for a dispute to be worked out. It says here also:
… it will be mandatory that all settlements must include independent legal advice for the injured worker, paid for by the employer.
I will highlight that because at the end of this second reading it says:
- This bill will contribute to achieving improved return to work outcomes and improve claims … for injured workers, as well as achieving consistency with other jurisdictions.
Just forgetting the journey to work section, you would have to say this bill requires employers to do more to get people back to work. These things are not necessarily being imposed on them just to make it harder for employers to do things. There is an outcome if these things are done. That is good.
The government says, ‘We are getting rid of red tape. We will make sure this does not make more red tape’, but a worker’s health is probably more important than red tape. You have to find that balance. You do not want to find efficiencies or cut the way you do things and the employer lose some of their rights as well.
I see a note about the list of diseases to be moved to the regulations. I know why that is. When will that review be completed? This is a very important part of what this legislation is about. I understand it is probably better to have this list in regulations rather than in the act. That way if you want to add things to it, you do not have to come back to parliament.
One issue is in relation to the structured settlements raised in a briefing, I think with the Law Society. I will read the second reading again to get it right:
- While government supports this change we do not want to see the parties lose focus on achieving positive return-to-work outcomes. Therefore, settlements will usually not be possible until 104 weeks after the injury. However, sometimes exceptions need to apply, such as in the case of a claim where a liability is in dispute. To allow for this flexibility, settlements within 104 weeks will contain a six-month cooling-off period. During this period, the injured worker will have the option to reconsider, renegotiate or withdraw from the settlement. It is important to understand that settlement cannot be forced on either party.
I hope the minister will correct me, but the employer can give the person a lump sum payment while they are waiting for this dispute to be sorted out. If the decision goes against the person who received the money but that person has already spent it, is there any way the employer can get the money back? That was raised by the Law Society. I hope I am in the right section. They may be wrong and I may be wrong in the interpretation, but I said I would raise it to see if that was the case.
The other point was about a prisoner involved in Sentenced to a Job. Are they covered on their way to work? Are they coming from a place of work to a place of work? How do they fit into this legislation? They are held by the government in a place which really is not their home and are going to work. When they are at work, are they covered by this legislation? It might be a simple answer, but it is worth mentioning.
The other issue is the journey to work. I have looked through other legislation – Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland. I might be wrong but my understanding is that is exactly what they have. What we have today is basically what those other states have.
I understand the issue, but I cannot understand the difference between me getting on my pushbike and going to the shop. What is the difference between me going to the school and dropping my kids off on pushbikes? What is the difference between that and going to work or walking? I am not covered if I ride my pushbike to the shop. What is the difference between me riding my bike to the shop to get the milk or going to work? Does it make any difference if I go to the shop or to work in regard to what I am covered for?
My understanding is that if you are hit by a car you are covered by MAC, but if I fall off my bike and hit my head on the ground, I am not covered, unless the council had put a rock in the road and I did not see it.
You have to remember bikes are not covered by MAC because they do not pay anything. Many people asked me whether bikes should be registered, or have a little number plate on the back indicating that it is registered and money has have paid for insurance. That is an issue we need to look at. I am not sure it is even practical because many people have bikes all over the place.
You only have to go to a second-hand goods place and you will see a stack of bikes. But people who ride a bike, no matter where it is, must realise they are not covered if they fall off their bike. If I cross the road and trip over the gutter, like I did a couple of weeks ago, and land on some really hard bitumen with lots of stones on it, it is my fault for not watching where I was going, unless somebody put something there that is not normally there.
What is the difference between that action and going to work? Is it the same as when the kids go to school? It is not the school’s responsibility after they step outside the gate. I do not know whether that is the same thing. Who is responsible for whom?
Who is responsible for when I leave work? Who is responsible when my children leave school? Where does the responsibility of the school lie? Where does the responsibility of the employer lie? It is an area which you could argue the toss about, but we have to take responsibility for ourselves. We are on public land – roads – and we are travelling. We have to take responsibility for that part of our journey ourselves, and we do that by paying for our insurance for our motor car, whether it is comprehensive or third party.
If you do not have any insurance on your motor vehicle, why is it not fair to say, ‘If you are worried about falling off your bike or tripping when you are walking, take out some form of insurance’? I do not know whether it necessarily has to be life insurance. It is worth discussing and saying to people, ‘Do you know what happens to you if you fall off your bike on a public road?’ You could be out of work for a long time. Are you covered?’
It not only relates to this debate about whether you go to work. As I said, it can relate if you go to the shop to get the milk, or if you fall off your bike you might not be able to work anymore. There is an issue here, but I do not think it is enough of an issue that distinguishes going to work from any other part of my life, otherwise I see that as discriminatory.
If we look at this issue, we need to look at the wider context of who is responsible for what, either when I travel by bike, by foot or by vehicle anywhere. It is obvious we are covered when in a vehicle. If you believe the responsibility of the employer starts when you get to the gate and go in, I do not see any difference between that trip and perhaps going to the shop, or the school. Governments and insurance companies need to publicise the fact that if you fall off your bike and cannot prove that the council’s footpath was faulty, you have a risk of losing your job because you cannot work anymore.
I, too, looked at the balance of issues here. I also looked at the common sense behind what was being put forward regarding this journey. When I weigh up what is being put forward, I see this as a good change. I am interested in another look at this issue of how to protect people if they are not travelling by vehicle, but I do not think it should be just focused on this aspect of life in general.
I received the amendments. We get amended acts and explanatory notes. If something could be attached to this to tell us why, it would be good. I do not need to go to committee stages for everything. The opposition will be going to committee stage. But it would be nice. I tried to find clause 4(2). I presumed it was in the amended act, so I pulled out the Return To Work Legislation Amendment Bill in which I thought clause 4 was going to be adjusted. I tried to get to clause 4. It might have been section 4. That confused me. Reading amendments to amendments to amendments of another act means there is a clause up on the left corner followed by another clause and sometimes the amended clauses have another series of clauses. You want to know whether you could involve Santa Claus, he might be able to help you. There are an awful lot of clauses here.
I tried to find the definition of ‘management action’, because I presumed it was a definition. I struggled to find it. You may be able to tell us when you are giving the summing up, minister, what page it is on and where it fits. I gave up.
I understand the other sections. The briefing mentioned more clarification about the week and what that referred to. I do not have a problem necessarily with that, but when you speak minister, if you could explain the page and spot where I have to omit the word ‘includes’ and insert ‘means any action taken by the employer and the management of the worker’s employment or behaviour at the workplace’. We had a discussion about that in the briefing.
One of the other issues not covered here is sometimes the employer can be the one who suffers. If he gets a bullying complaint and does not think he was bullying, that can be extremely stressful. Bullying can be a serious complaint. It is not a criminal offence, of course, but you have to front up to someone and ask what is going on.
As I said in the beginning, this is an issue about the responsibilities of the employer and the employee, but it is to one another as well. If someone makes an accusation, that can have a detrimental effect on someone who may not have thought they were doing that. That is not to say we should not be stamping out bullying in the workplace. Sometimes, of course, it can be employees bullying one another. It can be very stressful on people in the workplace. I used to work in the workplace too, but where I worked it probably did not have the protection we have now. We put up with it in those days but it does not make for a happy workplace.
I appreciate the government bringing this forward. I have given it careful consideration. I understand what Labor is saying but I have tried to look at it in a more holistic way. As one who rides a bike occasionally and runs and walks every morning, except when parliament is on, I take that risk. I might not get hit by a car; I might go straight into a power pole because at 5.30 am I cannot see a lot. I take a risk and that is something I should take a bit more note of. I am not sure you need a life insurance policy, but perhaps even the insurance industry should be saying to people, ‘Be careful when you are on a bike’. You will not always be hit by a car – not that I want to be hit by a car or a truck – but you might have an accident which has nothing to do with a vehicle. Are you covered? Do you know the risks you are taking on a public road? It may be worth looking at as well. I will be supporting this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 12 Legal Studies students from Kormilda College accompanied by Claire Townley. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
RETURN TO WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 127)
(Serial 127)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I sum up I would like to address quite a number of issues the opposition raised in relation to this bill.
The opening salvo from the member for Nhulunbuy was on the China Free Trade Agreement. I do not quite know what it had to do with this, but they obviously wanted to get that bit out. The claim was made that I was blatantly, misleading and misguided in relation to what is happening with their campaign to put fear into Territorians, and a fear by members opposite and the Labor Party both in the Northern Territory and Australia. I refer to some documents released by the Labor Party.
One says:
- The China free trade deal will kill jobs in the Territory.
I do not know what part they do not understand. I tried to explain this to the member for Casuarina last night in this House during adjournments, but they still do not seem to get it.
I will look at this issue again. I will quote from the Free Trade Agreement:
- Chinese companies making significant investments in Australia (more than $150 million in specific types of infrastructure development projects) will have increased access to skilled overseas workers when suitable local workers cannot be found.
This happens right across the board. I gave the following example – and I will give it again for the benefit of the member for Nhulunbuy – in relation to the abattoir in Murray Bridge in South Australia. There are over 1400 workers and, I am led to believe, over 1000 of them are on 457 visas because there are no suitable workers, and no one in Australia is prepared to go to Murray Bridge to take up the offer of employment.
I asked questions of the opposition. I am not surprised they do not understand this because there is not a great deal of business experience on that side of the House. They do not fully understand how business operates. To make a profit, that is, a return on investment you need people producing things.
If you have a very big factory with a need for many people, and out of a work force of over 1400 you can only get 400 workers from Australia to work there, that means – if you do the mathematics – that is 1000 people short.
What is a business supposed to do? If it goes out of business it does not have the ability to make money to pay all the fixed costs, including labour costs, establishment costs or fixed costs in business. They go broke. Then 400 Australian workers lose their job.
I do not know what part of that the opposition does not understand. What do you say when you can only get people in that abattoir on 457 visas since you cannot get workers from Australia to work there or there are no people with those sorts of qualifications. If we apply the same principle to what they are doing now and the campaign they are running in relation to the Free Trade Agreement, what do we do with all the infrastructure currently being built overseas for the INPEX project? Do we go to the INPEX site and have pickets out, saying, ‘You are robbing Australian jobs. We need these jobs. This should be built here’?
These are the facts they do not seem to take into consideration. They cherry pick an issue and then sadly do not understand the consequences of their actions.
I will move on to the debate we had in this House yesterday and something the member for Barkly raised. It was in relation to the legislation on the company directors’ liabilities and the issues in relation to penalties for company directors.
When you study some of that – I encourage members opposite to do that. Look at what company directors are required to do. Given that this country was built on direct foreign investment, joint ventures and overseas capital, if you are an overseas company and you are looking at investing in Darwin. For instance, it would be nice to be welcomed and not face angry crowds, like we saw here last Sunday with the member for Karama proudly out the front leading and inciting people to say things like, ‘Fighting for our kids’ future is a worthy cause’. I do not disagree with that. I totally disagree with what they are doing in relation to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, trying to wedge local workers with people with Chinese origins.
The directors of these overseas companies would have to look at the CFMEU rallies in Sydney. Just imagine them coming down the street. What a disgrace to take that line when they know, if they read the documents, that no one can get a job. In this documentation and the requirements of the free trade agreement there are obligations under the designated area migration agreements for the Northern Territory. There are requirements to get 457 visas. It is pretty strict for obvious reasons. Nobody wants to open the floodgates, as the unions are saying. No one is going to do that; that is ludicrous. For these people to be peddling that is a disgrace.
If directors of foreign companies are going to invest millions of dollars, or invest any dollars, they want to ensure they do their due diligence. Looking at the legislation we passed in this House yesterday about company directors and what they are liable for, due diligence is one of those things you have to do very carefully. Directors are also required to look at return on investment. So if you are going to invest, say $150m or more, you want to ensure your investment is safe. You want to ensure that if you spend $150m on something in Australia, or just in the Northern Territory, if you cannot get workers to complete your project or to work on it, somewhere in the agreement it says you can bring in skilled workers. They may not have sufficient Chinese skilled workers and might want to bring in Irish or Greek workers.
Recently the opposition was totally opposed to us bringing Greek workers in. They seem to be opposed to everything. But business requires people to work and to produce, because if you do not produce anything you are on the wrong side of the balance sheet and you go broke, and then everybody misses out. Return on investment is something directors have to look at.
Sovereign risk is something they have to look at. Some people believe sovereign risk is simply people coming in and nationalising particular businesses. Sovereign risk is also about regulatory regimes and what governments will and will not do.
The federal Labor Party – and the local Labor Party is joining with them – is saying, ‘We are not going to do this’ and want to tear up any free trade agreement. It appears to me that this is their task; they want to tear it all up.
Jobs and trade will be created. When you do economics – I do not know if anyone across the Chamber has. I have only done basic economics and I know trade is the way to lift people’s standards of living. It lifts ours and everyone else’s. You need trade. People need to come here. But if they are going to invest in the Northern Territory, they want to know they are welcome, that their people will not be marched on by angry crowds led by the member for Karama. They want to know they will not have pictures shoved in their face of the President of China and the Prime Minister of Australia and this propaganda put out by Labor that the China free trade deal will kill jobs in the Territory. This is what they are peddling, which is wrong. They should be discussing it and making sure they understand what the free trade agreement is about.
Directors are also required to facilitate risk management. If I was a director of an Australian company investing in Indonesia and I took goods over there and was going to bring in Australian workers if I could not get local workers and then angry mobs of Indonesians came storming down the road, I do not know whether I would feel very comfortable. It would send a message to me that I am not welcome there. If my family was coming over to visit me when I was on holidays they would not be very welcome either. I would be getting my family out of there. If my family said they wanted to go to a particular place, I would not be sending any of them there.
The member for Barkly asked a question in this debate earlier: ‘What do you think the Chinese Embassy would say about what I am saying?’ What Labor is doing, with their angry mobs marching down the street chanting they do not want this to occur when they have it wrong, is a disgrace. I reckon the Chinese Embassy will be putting out travel alerts saying, ‘Do not come to Australia, be careful’.
Mr Vowles: Seriously!
Mr STYLES: This is the problem we have. I pick up on the interjection. They say, ‘Seriously!’ Put yourself in the shoes of those people. I went out this morning and spoke with some ethnic people and ran this past them. We ran the pub test this morning before we started here. We gave them the real facts and they said they are disappointed over what Labor is peddling.
In this House last night people said, ‘Oh we have been out there and all these people support our view’. I do not believe that sadly. I went out this morning and spoke to some ethnic people and asked how they felt about this and they gave me some pretty negative feedback about what Labor is doing. I suggest you talk to a different group of people. I asked this earlier. We have people from Ireland who are the lollipop people as part of our traffic control. What is Labor and the unions going to do about that? Are you going to protest about Irish people coming over here and operating lollipops? What are you going to do about that because are they not taking Territory jobs? I will be surprised if you can come up with a decent answer to that.
I am not surprised because when you look at what Arthur Caldwell said and his great statement – if the Labor Party and some of the members do not know one of their side, then go and read your history.
The member for Nhulunbuy asked why it was done in two stages. It was done in two stages after much consultation. We listened to firefighters, United Voice, and union representatives for firefighters and they said, ‘We want this stuff to go through as soon as possible’. That is what happened. We got the whole department working and waited for the report to come. We got this stuff out as early as we could at the request of fire-fighters and the United Voice union.
That is why it has been done in two tranches. We had to wait for the report to be done. That did not come out until July so we have done what people wanted. You say you want us to listen to people. We are listening to people and we have done that.
The member for Barkly said we were dragged kicking and screaming into the parliament to enact the legislation that passed in the first tranche of this bill on the amendment. They say we should be listening to people. You listen to people and then they criticise you because you did it in two lots. I do not think the member for Barkly quite understands what that is about.
I am the one who introduced this legislation so I find it offensive when he says I was dragged in here kicking and screaming. For the member for Barkly’s information I agree with the things in that report. There were 47 recommendations. We agree with them and are implementing them all.
I have a son who is a firefighter. I do not want him to be exposed to any of this stuff. I am a former police officer. I have worked next door, side by side with firefighters. I have been a volunteer firefighter. I understand this consultative process and I agree with them. I was not dragged kicking and screaming. We had an extensive review done in conjunction with unions.
The opposition and the member for Barkly said, ‘unions need to have a voice’. Of the two names on the front of the report, one of them is Mark Crossin, a senior union official in the Northern Territory for many years, the husband of former senator, Trish Crossin and a Labor senator. You would expect he would have a very strong interest as an union official in this debate.
Mark Crossin is a highly respected person in this community. He is a highly respected union official not just by Labor but also by us. I hold him in very high esteem, apart from the fact he is very good at what he does and has a good sense of justice. He is a very nice person and I can probably count him as a friend, more than an acquaintance. I have spent a lot of time over the years talking to Mark about many issues. He is a good bloke. He, and Mr George Roussos, a well-known and respected solicitor in town, have organised all the consultation.
The opposition will say they raced in a bill and that we wanted to do it. You cannot just rush a bill in because that is what you think. You have to consult, and that is what we have done. We have consulted widely and we now have that report to work on. We wanted to wait for that report which came out in July. This is well before the first tranche of this bill and this issue.
In relation to a couple of issues the member for Nhulunbuy asked about, we are trying to work our way through these so she can have the answers. In relation to journey claims, all but Queensland and the ACT have excluded journey claims. We are simply moving to contemporary practice throughout Australia. My understanding is those other two jurisdictions, which will be the last, are looking at what is going on around the rest of the country.
In answer to the question from the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to how many journey claims and their value, in the last five years in the Northern Territory there have been 1771 journey claims for a value of $6.7m, and these are all non-vehicle claims. That answers some of those questions.
I move on to the member for Barkly’s comments. He raised the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. I refer again to the directors’ liability issue. Directors of companies are required to – and TIO was a company, albeit the shareholder was the Northern Territory government and the Treasurer – do due diligence, risk assessments and, as a result of that, advise their shareholders about their valued judgment in relation to what you should and should not do.
I remind those opposite that when the directors looked across the books of the Territory Insurance Office, they looked at the risk assessment and said to us, ‘You have a problem’. The next major cyclone to come through Darwin may cost TIO up to about $30bn. If it was one like Tracy it would cost $30bn. Then they said, ‘We have reinsurance for about $770m’. That is $30bn and $770m. That is a shortfall of over $29bn. Those opposite may not be concerned about that much money, but if a catastrophic event cost us $29bn imagine what that would do to self-government in the Northern Territory. Sadly, if it happened on our watch we would go to the Prime Minister of Australia and say, ‘Mr Prime Minister, we were really stupid. We were told about the risk and did nothing about it. I am after a cheque for $29bn.’
Once you shift that risk onto the international market, as we have done with the sale of TIO, the international market now carries that $30bn risk. Territory taxpayers no longer carry it. bBecause Territory taxpayers guarantee the payment through the shareholder, and the Territory government is the single shareholder, we would be required to stump up the $29bn shortfall in the next disaster. We do not have that sort of money, nor do we have the borrowing capacity for that, so we would be required to go the federal government cap in hand and say, ‘Can you give this to us, please?’
That is not a very good position to be in when the Prime Minister would say, ‘This is a joke; you could have shifted that into the world market.’ That is when you start having inquiries. When you start talking about $29bn, you have to say, ‘What is going to happen here? Let us have an inquiry.’
Then the inquiry says, ‘Okay, you are Cabinet; you are part of the board that runs the Northern Territory.’ The board of TIO comes in and says, ‘You have a problem, there is a shortfall. We cannot take any more business outside the Territory because that is our charter. That is what we are formed on.’
We have to be able to break those ties and operate in a global village. If I am sitting in as a Cabinet member, I am sure an inquiry would say, ‘Listen, Mr Styles, you knew about this, what did you do about it?’ Looking at Type 3 of those penalties in yesterday’s legislation, you will find that I would be seriously liable.
Looking at members across the other side I am wonder if you make the correlation between the responsibilities under Type 3 of the directors’ liabilities and Cabinet? An inquiry would say, ‘You just cost the Territory tax payer $29bn’. That is about as serious as it gets – a wasted $29bn because we were not smart enough to follow the advice of the due diligence of those directors.
When the member for Barkly says, ‘You sold TIO and you did this and that’, I would ask him to do some homework and read what is required by boards and Cabinet. I thought he would have known that, given he is a previous Cabinet minister.
He said, ‘I am not quite sure how the process went in relation to TIO’. I hope I have explained a little about what has happened in the sale of TIO. We, as a responsible group of people, had to make a decision. I believe we made the right decision. It was not a hard decision to make when you look at the facts, what you are required to do as a Cabinet minister, and what company directors are required to do. The board of TIO did exactly what it is supposed to do.
The member Barkly raised the point of trade unions needing to be heard. I refer back to the co-author of the report, Mark Crossin. I would also like the member for Barkly to realise that for over 30 years of my working life, I have been a member of unions. I do not hide that. I am very proud of the fact I was a member of a union, but I firmly sit on this side of the philosophical divide because my view was that unions did things for workers by looking after them. I did not have a problem with that. I have a problem when they start marching the streets and scaring foreign investment.
I will move along a bit. The member for Barkly challenged us to bring on an election. I remind him that he was part of the government after the 2008 election that set election dates at four years on the last Saturday in August. Maybe that is a fact he has forgotten, but we cannot simply call an election. We have four-year terms. I thought the member for Barkly would have recalled that.
I want to address a matter raised by the member for Daly, my good colleague over there, in relation to sole traders and self-employed people. If you are a Pay As You Go worker for your company or another company, then you need workers compensation insurance cover. If you are a sole trader, you are not covered, and you would need personal insurance. That is one of those things. If you own the company, or if it is a partnership and you are paying yourself out of that and are a Pay As You Go person, then you are covered. That hopefully answers that question. I am happy to answer any other questions in the committee stage of the bill.
I hope I have answered many of the questions the member for Nhulunbuy had. There may have been a few more but I am sure they will come up in the committee stage of the bill.
I will now move on to the summing up in relation to the bill. First, it was an interesting debate. Obviously, this is a House of debate and I welcome debate. I welcome the opportunity to answer the questions from the opposition and the Independents and I thank them for their contribution.
The Return to Work Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to modernising the Territory workers compensation scheme. This commitment was informed by an extensive review and considerable public and stakeholder consultation. The review was focused on ensuring fair and balanced outcomes. The legislation contains a number of improvements to ensure better outcomes for injured workers.
The first part of this legislation was passed in this House in March 2015. The bill before the House is the second and final part of the legislation. Together they ensure the scheme continues to provide no-fault cover for eligible workers who are injured at work. Benefits of the scheme include weekly payments, medical treatment, rehabilitation costs in some cases and payment for permanent impairment. The scheme is focused on rehabilitation and return to work with a potential for more seriously injured workers to be paid income maintenance until pension age and for medical expenses for life. The Northern Territory has a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia.
I point out some of the key features of this bill. The Return to Work Legislation Bill contains the following main elements:
a new requirement for an employer to produce a return-to-work plan for an injury that involves incapacity of more than 28 days;
a restriction on the ability of an employer to dismiss a worker for a period of six months while the worker is totally or partially incapacitated
the new ability to negotiate settlements for workers compensation claims with the condition that workers must access legal advice at the employer’s expense
a new benefit allowing for family counselling for the worker or the worker’s family
clarification of the circumstances in which a defence is available to an employer for a mental injury claim based on reasonable management action
the amendment provides a detailed explanation of what comprises management action that will make the situation much clearer for employers and workers
a change to journey claims to clarify when an employer is liable for injuries that occur when a worker is travelling to or from work. This excludes most journey claims except when acting at the request of the employer
more powers have been made available to the Work Health Authority to ensure compliance with compulsory insurance provisions under legislation including …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I seek an extension of time of 10 minutes for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I will repeat that last bit:
more powers have been made available to the Work Health Authority to ensure compliance with compulsory insurance provisions under the legislation, including the ability to stop work if an employer does not have a workers’ compensation policy.
The history and development of this bill: members may recall the ministerial statement delivered by the member for Port Darwin in the House on 26 November 2014 in which he outlined government’s intention to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act following an extensive review of the act.
The last comprehensive review was undertaken in 1984. While there have been some reviews on specific issues, the Northern Territory compensation scheme was out of step with other jurisdictions. This had been a concern to both the insurance industry and the business community which has been seeking a comprehensive review for some time. Northern Territory insurers have flagged that pressures in the scheme will result in increased premiums for employers. The average premium rate in the Northern Territory is already one of the highest in Australia.
I will address some of the consultation support. I am happy to advise the House that the bill addresses legislative changes to our workers compensation scheme that were recommended to the government after extensive stakeholder consultations and receiving 72 public submissions. Members may recall 68 recommendations were made following this review.
What is the implementation and communication plan? The Department of Business is working on developing a fact sheet to cover the changes of this scheme. Information has been placed on the Department of Business’ website for workers, employers, insurers and their agents and service providers.
We talk about red tape reduction on this side to try to bring down the costs and my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, raised the issue of the NT Civil Administrative Tribunal where one gets far more legal action and access to legal services for cheaper prices. You may pay $1800 to take something to the Supreme Court, $47 to take it to the Civil Administrative Tribunal. This is a major saving for people from all walks of life in the Northern Territory. Some service providers will no longer need to seek cross border recognition as it will now be provided automatically.
I have covered most aspects of my summing up. I commend this bill to the House and ask members from both sides for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.1.
Ms WALKER: I have questions on this area of the bill. This is very early on in the bill and it goes to management action. When I had the briefing with NT WorkSafe, it was flagged with me that there would be a committee stage amendment to this section of the bill. Management action is a potentially really sensitive area in negotiation as to what do we mean by management action. I understand the challenges in drafting this legislation. There is a whole list of what constitutes management action from (a) through to (m) and its appraisal, counselling, disciplinary action and transfer of a worker’s employment.
How does this cover the actions that occur in the lead up to this? I am sorry if this is a bit lengthy, minister, but your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, said asking a person to do their job is quite reasonable. If you have problems with it, you can just move on. I understand there are actions here, but it is how we have arrived at those actions. I am talking about things like bullying and harassment where someone feels those actions have been unreasonable.
I am asking if you can provide some comment on that because these actions essentially go to conduct and how those actions are delivered. The end result, in some situations, may be a claim for bullying and harassment.
Mr STYLES: My view is not dissimilar to that of the member for Port Darwin. When you look at if there is an issue and mediation is required – if there is a difference of opinion as to what management action would be, NT WorkSafe has a role to ensure all the processes to resolve that issue are fair.
It is not up to the insurer and people to step back. NT WorkSafe will be part of ensuring these things are adhered to.
One would have to look at every case on its merits because to define what bullying is to some people – I can see you probably accept that as a premise before you start. If people are bullying and harassing people then NT WorkSafe has the ability to intervene and make sure the intent of the legislation is enforced. They will not be pulling away from it; they will be inserting themselves into it. Does that go some way to clarify?
Ms WALKER: It goes some way, but I am just flagging it with you on behalf of the opposition because it is an issue that has been raised with me by stakeholders I have met with. The concern is about the sensitivity of conduct and how these management actions are undertaken in a process in the lead-up to all these items listed under the heading: Management action from (a) through to (m).
There may have been management actions in the workplace before we have reached mediation where, with the best of intentions yet misguided, an employee begins to suffer stress and mental anguish as a result of the way they feel they have been dealt with as the receiver of management action.
You can take that as a comment, but it is an area people have flagged as sensitive and open to challenge.
That management action list at the end of list (n) states, after listing all of those actions:
- … with an action mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (m).
How is that communication delivered? Does it have to be in writing?
Mr STYLES: My understanding is it has to be in writing and it has to be sufficient. The test on all of this is on reasonable grounds. If you are going to do anything, what is reasonable? If it goes to the point where someone is looking for a legal definition, a lot of these matters are subjective and, as such, would require someone to determine them. If you cannot determine it in mediation, you need to go somewhere else to get a determination on what is seen to be reasonable.
In relation to your question on communications, my understanding is it has to be written and that is what I would expect.
Ms WALKER: It is your understanding or the communication must be in writing?
Mr STYLES: It must be in writing. That is only fair, and everything we are trying to do here is based on the principle of fairness.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. I wanted to ask about the mediator in that section – I might hold that over because that comes up in section 103B(a) dispute process, so I will come to that when we reach that point as we progress through the bill.
I have a question about section 3A; there are no amendments to section 3A, but I have a question around injury in clause 2, where it states:
Despite any other provision of this Act, a mental injury is not considered to be an injury for this Act if it is caused wholly or primarily by one or more of the following:
(a) management action taken on reasonable grounds and in a reasonable manner by or on behalf of the worker's employer;
(b) a decision of the worker's employer, on reasonable grounds, to take, or not to take, any management action;
(c) any expectation by the worker that any management action would, or would not, be taken or any decision made to take, or not to take, any management action.
Can you explain to me how that clause fits with the earlier discussion we had about management action, and where mental injury fits or does not fit into a compensation claim?
Mr STYLES: There is a broad answer to that. You cannot claim a mental injury that you received by appropriate management action.
Again, this is a subjective test. If you are trying to manage someone and say to them, ‘We work between 9 am and 5 pm here and that is the way that it is; that is what you signed up to’, and they get stressed because of that, they cannot claim that as a mental illness.
It is all based on what is reasonable. If there is a disagreement between employers and employees, you must look at what is reasonable. Reasonable grounds and reasonable manner must be about management of the worker’s work, not worker’s claims. If we go back to the beginning and ask if it was based on some reaction to what the employer has done, if the employer has not been a very nice person then I am with you. I think you have to say the way they have gone about this is totally unreasonable and, therefore, it is a claimable injury. But if it is done in a matter of course – and most people in the world are reasonable people – and if an employer is a totally unreasonable person then I would be lining up with everyone else to say that is not right and not fair. That is where you have to apply the test of what is reasonable.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 10A:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.2.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 10A agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clauses 12A and 12B:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.3.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 12A and 12B agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Sorry, I have questions in relation to clause 12B, the amendment to section 65.
Mr CHAIR: We just inserted that into the bill but you can still ask a question. Is it the wish of the Assembly? Minister, will you allow a question?
Mr STYLES: I am happy to take any questions.
Ms WALKER: This is section 65A about compensation not payable to a prisoner. We talked about the status of prisoners at the briefing, but it came up again when I met with unions and the NT Law Society. Under ‘compensation not payable to a prisoner’ that includes those who are employed under the Sentenced to a Job Scheme. Is that correct?
Mr STYLES: The issue with prisoners is that when they go out, they are covered by workers compensation which is something the employer has to organise. If there are medical requirements, ongoing treatment or whatever, that is all covered. The only part they do not get is the weekly wage component …
Ms WALKER: Yes, I understand.
Mr STYLES: If they are back in prison and they are being managed, that is the part they do not get. But they get everything else and that is ongoing, exactly the same as everyone else.
If, for instance, they come out of prison and they are still being managed, then they go back to getting the weekly allowance so they can support their family.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thank you. Under that section who is defined as the employer of the prisoner who is on Sentenced to a Job? Is it corrections or is it the employer, for instance, Nhulunbuy Bakery?
Mr STYLES: Nhulunbuy Bakery or wherever, it is the person out there. If the person comes out of prison then the insurance companies and the employers are required to have payments to that worker if they cannot go back to work immediately on exiting prison. You have to look after people, you have to allow them to feed their families. So the day they come out, if they are still being managed then the requirements are they be paid as per anyone else who is out there normally.
Ms WALKER: So that employer – for instance Nhulunbuy Bakery, or it could be a business in Tennant Creek – is also under the obligations of this act, required to do all the return-to-work plans as well? Is that correct?
Mr STYLES: Absolutely. The only things that prisoners do not get if they are still in prison when they injure themselves and are in some back-to-work plan is the weekly earnings. For everything else, the employer who has been using the services of the Sentenced to a Job person is required to do everything else as per the act.
Ms WALKER: That is fine, thanks.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, are you asking questions in relation to clauses 12A and 12B?
Mr WOOD: In relation to the prison. I am checking with the minister whether that includes prisoners going from the prison to their job? Journey claims are covered by the prison or by what?
Mr STYLES: Generally, these people are picked up at the gate. In fact, in some instances, some of them have a work vehicle in the car park. If they trip over on the way to the work vehicle, Correctional Services will be responsible for that because they will be in their care as such. Generally, they are picked up at the prison. My understanding is they do not catch buses. They are picked up and collected; they are taken, and dropped back. The point of entry into the work for the day is the prison and the point of exit is at the prison.
If they ride a bike and go down and get the milk and bread, they are probably in breach of some sort of an order.
Clauses 13 to 16, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, I move amendment 36.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I next have a question in relation to 78A. Given that is the last amendment, if I can now raise a question.
Mr CHAIR: Yes, certainly, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I am not convinced that you addressed this during your wrapping of debate, but I did raise it during my contribution. It is to do with Division 4A, settlement by agreement of entitlement to compensation, 78A with clauses 1 through to 6.
I raised an issue that had been raised with me during stakeholder briefings. Every box needed to be ticked in section 78A when going through the process of a structured settlement for it to be successful. It was raised that the way the legislation is drafted that if all aspects are not fulfilled, then a structured settlement will not be reached either before or at the 104 week mark. Is this an exposure that a wily employer could utilise and expose the process to defer and then deny liability?
I know that is a big question. If you could just convince me that is not the case and why is that risk not there?
Mr STYLES: My advice is that the people who wrote the report have spoken with the people in the industry. They understand it, are happy with it and it works. It is quite a technical issue. I would have to spend some time getting some technical information in relation to that. I am reliably informed that when they went through this they worked it out with industry and the industry is very happy with it. I do not think I am qualified to give you a detailed answer on that issue given the legal complexity of it. It is part of the report and has been addressed in the report. I do not know whether that gives you some comfort, but I am not qualified to go into the legalities of that issue.
Ms WALKER: Minister, when you say industry is comfortable with it, are we talking about employer groups or is that inclusive of employees and their representative bodies like unions?
Mr STYLES: It is the legal fraternity who have to put this before the Work Health Court. It is the legal fraternity and the industry people who have to work this. My information is that the legal fraternity are happy with that aspect and how it works. They believe it works for them, albeit that some of us may not fully understand it. They are happy with it apparently.
This is one of the reasons why, right through this act, employers and insurers are required to make legal advice available to employees so it is seen to be fair. It is fair, and people get a fair go at getting all the technical information they are entitled to and should get.
Ms WALKER: I understand that in drafting this legislation there are complexities and legal technicalities that have to be addressed, but it was raised with me as a potential exposure through the Law Society of the Northern Territory, which represents members who work in the legal sector, representing industry and employers as well as employees. I guess it is one of those things, as with any new legislation, where things will be tested as they come before the court to be negotiated.
Those are all the questions I have on that.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the settlement by agreement, minister, I raised that question before. I did not hear if you gave an answer. I have in my notes that there is a risk to the employer. My understanding is it was something to do with an agreement to pay some money up front. If before the 104 weeks have been completed, the employee pulls out of the arrangement, he has already spent the money and the employer cannot get the money back. Is that possible?
Mr STYLES: If there is a settlement the employer cannot get the money back from someone if it has been paid. The only way an employer can get any money back is if fraud is proven. It would be up to someone to prove that fraudulent behaviour has occurred to get that money, but if there is a settlement and the money has been paid and it is all legitimate then an employer cannot claim money back.
Ms WALKER: My next question is on clause 103BA, which is the internal dispute resolution process, which includes mediation.
I raised in my contribution to this debate the existence of any guidelines around the mediators and the qualifications required for people to be taking that role regarding the potential for a mediator who perhaps may not be acting in the best interest of the parties they are negotiating between.
Mr STYLES: Firstly, mediators have national accreditation which, as required, has a component that they have appropriate training. In appointing a mediator, they must have industry and mediation experience. You cannot put in someone who has no idea of what the industry is about.
Mediators are required by law to be impartial. If there was any impartiality – if that was a question then I am sure either side has the ability to raise that as an issue and go to NT WorkSafe to make sure it is done in a fair manner.
Mediations are managed by NT WorkSafe not either side or someone else. It is in the insurer’s and everyone else’s interest to make sure it is fair. You do not want these things going on because that causes more stress and harm. The idea of this is to get people back to work so they do not sit at home and spiral into depression. That is one of the great themes. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that works. If I knew a mediator was biased, I would not want that person in the room because that will only lead to further problems down the track.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. It sounds fair enough to me. In that section as well, this probably already exists, but in 103BA(2) states:
- The internal dispute resolution process must comply with any relevant guidelines published by the authority …
Mr STYLES: Once this legislation has passed they come into existence. They are there, but we are waiting until the bill passes, then those guidelines which are appropriate to this piece of legislation will come into existence.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Withdrawal of Items from Notice Paper
Withdrawal of Items from Notice Paper
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, after consultation with the chairs of the relevant committees, I seek leave for Government Business Notices No 13 and 16 relating to the Standing Orders and Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committees to be withdrawn, pursuant to Standing Order 128.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Conservation of the Territory’s Unique Native Flora and Fauna
Note Statement – Conservation of the Territory’s Unique Native Flora and Fauna
Continued from 22 October 2014.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank the many members for their contributions to this ministerial statement about conservation of the Territory’s unique native flora and fauna. To all members, your comments were appreciated.
It is pleasing the protection of our native plants and animals and the hard work conducted by my staff from the Department of Land Resource Management is valued; however, to the member for Nhulunbuy I say your use of this opportunity to talk about your misguided and ill-informed opinions about water allocations in the Northern Territory was another cheap shot. I cannot let that go by. It is a watery old chestnut, but we march on.
This is a time to talk about protection and careful management of the Territory’s natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Before I close, I want to provide information on the several initiatives that will further serve to protect the native flora and fauna of the Northern Territory.
In late 2014, the Australian government announced new six-year funding for the National Environmental Science Program, or NESP. My Department of Land Resource Management will be a partner in two of the NES hubs, the Northern Australian Hub, hosted by Charles Darwin University, and the Threatened Species Recovery Hub, hosted by Queensland University. This will be an important opportunity for scientists from my department to continue to work with other researchers and land managers to develop effective methods to manage feral cats, and in doing so halt the decline of many threatened native mammal species in Northern Australia.
My department will work closely with Kakadu National Park to implement the first threatened species strategy for this key conservation reserve. Work will include facilitating the reintroduction of Northern quolls that were translocated to remote northeast Arnhem Land highlands during the island ark program, and the seed banking of extremely rare plant species often known to occur only in a single location.
In November 2014 scientists from my department undertook a helicopter survey for dolphins around the eastern half of the Territory coastline, flying nearly 6000 km of transects over 21 days. They made 843 sightings of four species of dolphin, including recording dwarf spinner dolphins in the Territory waters for the first time. Over 100 sightings of marine turtles and dugongs were also made.
This is the first stage of an environmental offset project arising from INPEX’s Ichthys project and it will greatly increase our knowledge of marine megafauna around the coastline of the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and once again thank members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Land Release across the Territory
Note Statement – Land Release across the Territory
Continued from 18 February 2015.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wanted to give a report on land resource management, but I will switch it over to the other side of that which is the minister’s statement on land release across the Territory. What an opportune time to talk about such a subject.
The trouble is this statement was made on 18 February. One gets the impression that ministers make statements, then quickly adjourn and hope we forget about them. But this is a very important debate. No doubt it will continue for some time.
It is important, naturally, for governments to release land. It is important to ensure we have adequate land to keep up with supply. It is also important that we do not flood the market. I remember years ago when Labor was in power there was an argument about releasing more land, and the government said if they released too much land it would drop the value of the properties and people would complain.
That is where we are heading at the moment. I am getting complaints about a plateauing out of land prices. There is concern as to whether large numbers of units and the release of larger amounts of land has an effect on land prices.
I noticed the member for Katherine looked at me there and I did not quite have time to look up the real estate ads in the Katherine Times. It is interesting when it comes to people saying how much it costs to develop land. I have asked before why they can sell a block of land in Katherine for about $100 000 cheaper than a block of land in Palmerston? It is the same size land, still requires sewerage, water, a bitumen road and lighting. How come? Are the people in Katherine giving their land away for free? I do not think so. You have to ask whether there is an inordinate amount of profit being made in Darwin on the sale of land, or, as I said, maybe St Vincent de Paul is handing it out in Palmerston for cost price. I do not think so.
I have seen the ads in the Katherine Times. It is obviously well-serviced land. I am not sure how well it is selling, but I must admit if I had to pick another town in the Northern Territory to live I would pick Katherine. I have always liked Katherine. It was a place I used to …
Ms Fyles: Watch out, Willem!
Mr WOOD: Well, I had my honeymoon in Katherine and Tennant Creek. I will always say that. Not many other people can brag about that. That shows you how broke I was. That is the trouble with being in love; finances were not an issue.
Katherine is a nice town. I have umpired football in Katherine for many years. I have always believed it is a lovely town. When I went to Canada I went to the capital city of Nunavut. It is called a capital city. It has a population of 7200 so Katherine is on the way, perhaps it could become a city one day. It is a very important part of our community.
I digress. I have raised the question as to why the same land in Katherine is so much cheaper there than in Darwin. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. Is there an inordinate amount of profit being made from that land?
I did have a question for parliament this week. I did not get a chance to ask it. It was in relation to Berrimah because Berrimah has come up as a so-called jewel in the crown for the government when it starts to talk about infill. I was talking to someone the other day and this is a question I have also raised myself. I am interested to know whether the government has assessed the long-term needs of the port. I am not talking about 10 years. I am talking about 50 to 100 years. We are not selling our port, that is what we are told. We are leasing it to a private company.
Mr Elferink: Leasing, not selling.
Mr WOOD: That is right but I have been to a few ports lately and I know that leasing it for 100 years is not much different than selling it. You give certainty to the owners.
But if you sell Berrimah Farm, which has industrial land on both sides, are you short-sighted in your approach to turning that into residential land? Did the government do a proper process of diligence when it decided to turn this land into residential land?
It is like the other day when we were having the debate about the peri-urban areas of Litchfield. Has the government a long-term strategy for the protection of land in the rural area for the live cattle trade? That sort of development needs to be not in a city but relatively close to a city so it has close links to highways, railways and the port. We can make grand statements about how we are releasing all this land and that sounds good to people who may want to buy a cheap block of land, which is fine. The government should have to look broader than that to see if the industries we need to sustain our population will be threatened by changes to where we put people to live.
I have always had concerns about Berrimah. I know I have probably lost the argument, and I do not want to get the Turf Club too upset, but there was a good place to move the Fannie Bay race track along with the Winnellie greyhounds and the show grounds. You could have put all the animal industries there and used that land vacated by those groups. You could have sold that as residential land. But no, we will have a high density development on the highway and medium density towards Hidden Valley which is a noisy place at the best of times. I will be interested to see what complaints we get when we start to build there.
I say to the government; can you show us the documents? Can you present to this parliament documents that show that land at Berrimah will not be land that should be left for future development of the East Arm Port? You only have to go to the East Arm Port area now and you see that it is filling up. Most of that industrial land is full. Some areas still need to be developed. I hope the minister will think twice before he destroys all the area that Z Special Force was on. There is more than just a railway line there. There are the foundations of buildings where those people lived. I hope the minister will get out of his car and take a walk and ask the navy in their development why they cannot retain some of that heritage land.
If he believes that every square inch of land is important at East Arm, why not make sure you have some more land available if needed in the future. I am concerned that we will infill on that open space when in the future it might be land we need to service the port. We do not want our port industries having to go way out somewhere because we have made the mistake of planning ahead of ourselves.
There are a number of other questions I would like to ask. The minister, in his statement, spoke about Holtze. This is where one really worries about the word ‘consultation’ and why I believe it is a con. This was introduced on 18 February this year. The greater Darwin plan has only just been released yet the minister makes the statement:
- The initial stages of Holtze will be released during 2015 and will provide for approximately 1000 new dwellings.
We do not have a plan for Holtze. We have a draft plan. The Chairman of the Planning Commission said, in relation to the member for Goyder’s comments, urban development is basically inevitable. You are dead right. The minister said on 18 February that Holtze will have 1000 dwellings. There was no consultation until recent times about that and that has not been concluded yet. If the government says it will consult with the people of the rural area, you would say the government is considering – and would not put a figure – developing the area for residential development and then go to the community and have a discussion about it. They have set the parameters without consultation. That is why I think consultation has always been a farce and these decisions were predetermined. You only have to get the documents from the department which show you the area around Holtze will have 1800 dwellings.
People make these statements then we are told they will consult but you find nothing has changed. It was only recently, when the residents of Wallaby Holtze Road got the Planning Commission or its representatives to talk to people, that there was some change. The minister read a media release based on my media release – the people who wrote it asked me if they could use it – because it congratulated the Planning Commission for the changes, but at the same time it said more consultation was required.
If the government wants to release land it needs to take the people along with it. That is not to say some suburban development might not be suitable around the hospital. That is not the same as 1000 dwellings. That is about 4000 people in their back yard all of a sudden.
A lot of this pressure, of course, has come from the fact the government does not want to build Weddell.
This document is from the Weddell Design Forum from November 2010, five years ago, and it has sat still. The government has not done anything about it, yet this is a very valuable document. This document proposed eight possible ways of developing Weddell. It had groups of people get together, some community people, departmental people and experts in the area, who came up with eight models for Weddell. They are all in here.
It is not as though these plans just happened on the spot. It dealt with the key issues: sustainability; local government; the green industry and the airfield. It talked about when it should be built, how big should it be, where to start, infrastructure services, biting insects, inland lakes, river interface, existing vegetation, public transport, jobs, the ferry and urban agriculture.
This is a document we should have been looking at over the last five years, yet we have let it get dust on it because we have somebody saying there are private developers who can do the same thing in Litchfield. In terms of land release, this government is five years behind developing a city that it should have developed. I will read from part of this document …
Mr Elferink: I understand the point.
Mr WOOD: I take the point from the member for Port Darwin. It is five years since this document came out and the government has been in power for three years. I will leave two years of the previous government, which was still doing work on it, by the way. I know it was because the departmental people were out there doing the soil and vegetation analysis. All that work was put together because the plans of how it could be developed had to be checked as to whether they could be done in reality. I take the point.
The government has had this sitting on their desk for three years. They probably cannot find it. I got it off the website. It says here:
- A range of indicative growth rates forecast for Weddell has been prepared to the year 2021. Assuming development commences around 2014.
That was an assumption if ever there was one.
- These estimates indicate that the size of Weddell in 2021 could range from around a high of 4160 dwellings, that is, 10 500 population to a low of 1270 dwellings, 3200 population. In part this depends on whether Darwin’s growth is focused towards completing Palmerston east …
That is Zuccoli.
- … first, or whether Palmerston east and Weddell grow concurrently.
- Growth estimates from 2021 onwards range from an additional 950 dwellings per annum under a high-growth scenario to 530 dwellings per annum under a low-growth scenario. Under a high-growth scenario Weddell could reach a population of 40 000 to 50 000 people in 25 years, that is 2035. By contrast, under a low-growth scenario, it may only be around 20 000 to 25 000 people by 2035. This wide range in potential growth rates and size forecast for Weddell presents significant challenges for design and financing, and highlights the needs to provide the highly robust and adaptable urban structure for the future city.
That is a document which set out some parameters to build a new city. What are we doing now? It is called infill; it is really a nice way of saying, ‘Weddell is too hard; let us look at bits and pieces all over the place.’ It is like a dog’s breakfast form of planning. ‘We have a vacant block over there, we will fill that one in, and there is some land down near Noonamah way, that will be all right. The people at Wallaby-Holtze Road do not mind if we put 9500 blocks near their place down to Howard Springs Road. They will not notice that’.
It is like saying we have some land, and we have people who want to do it, so we will do it here, there and everywhere. It is 1960s-style planning. You can carve that block up. Why are we not looking at the long-term vision that was given for Darwin? Weddell, Erindale was the other city – somehow it has been taken off the existing plan – and Cox Peninsula.
There is something in the paper today about looking to the future. I think you are looking backwards. I am concerned you do not care about rural people; that you think they are a strange mob out there who whinge and complain about not having enough buses or something. Sometimes people in here have no understanding of rural people.
It is not a small place. There are 20 000 to 25 000 people. Those people are important. But one feels they are being treated as though they are irrelevant.
None of this needs to happen if the government would go back and start working on this document. We could probably even convince the government if we changed the name of the city to Tollner. That would be a start. It has a nice ring about it. Seriously though, that is where the government has to turn its attention – away from a bit here, a bit there and a bit there. A good part of the work has been done. Obviously there has to be much more work than this. But this was not an overnight thought, this was a proper plan. That is my complaint about where we are going at the moment.
I say again that nothing is inevitable. To stop that so-called inevitability, people need to say what they want.
The minister has also said development was ahead of planning. Excuse me! We have a plan; it is just that some people want more money out of their land than they can get now. The simple fact is you can subdivide land across the rural area right now. You have a classic example with Churcher and Chin subdividing land. They are all subdividing land according to the zone …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No one is complaining about them. and that is exactly my point. No one is missing out, but there are some people who want more than what is allowed. In other words, they do not want to abide by the rules. They want the government to change the rules so they can make more profit out of their land than they would if they subdivide it as it is. That is why this is happening.
The government gives in, which is why people are feeling insecure in the rural area. They see the government making ad hoc decisions. There is no ad hoc planning if the government does not approve it. But it has. It approved the Humpty Doo planning, the block of land on the corner of the Arnhem and Stuart Highways, rezoning on Elizabeth Valley and Redcliffe Road and is on the verge of trying to approve a change to the Lowther Road, Bees Creek subdivision ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! For the member of Nelson, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Quickly, there are a couple of issues. One is the height of buildings in the CBD. I am on the record saying I do not have a problem with heights.
What I have a problem with is not making people who want to build tall buildings build open spaces beneath them. If you want to build a tall building, you are building a vertical suburb. If you were to build a suburb, you would be required to have some open space. Go to the Gold Coast and look at the buildings there. They are not wall-to-wall buildings; they are buildings with gardens, interconnected with cafs and places where people can meet on the ground. Woods Street is the classic example. It is a great wall of apartments. Where are the open spaces, the breezeways between buildings? If you want to go 50 storeys, then have a formula which says if you want to go that high you must have an equivalent amount of open space beneath it. Otherwise in a tropical city, we are going to end up looking like Chicago. We are tropical. We are not cold. We need to develop our city so that it reflects our tropical culture.
The Gold Coast gets knocked on the head, but they have very tall buildings with space around them. We have gone away from that. We are building tall storeys in a country town. Whilst I said I am not opposed to people building high, then you have to balance that with open spaces below.
My other concern is how little things have changed. The previous minister approved the idea of turning granny flats into independent dwellings. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but it has no controls except you have to be on the same power and water. If your septic tank cannot take both dwellings, you have to get approval. The problem I have with it is that it is nearly equivalent to a subdivision. Did Power and Water estimate what happens if you double the number of dwellings on a block of land in the rural area? What is the effect on the infrastructure?
I am not saying it should not happen. I just want to know before something was approved like this, if there was any study of the effects on existing infrastructure, because a lot of that infrastructure was …
Mr Tollner: Now we know why you did not want the rising main, it could have led to subdivisions.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I take up the interjection. Way back before you were in government, this was raised. The word from the person pushing it was about densification. So you are right. The only thing is you are not right now because I have been following the discussion about the sewerage and most of it will be around Howard Springs.
I refer back to the Kezia Purick/Gerry Wood version of the world, where we did not say that Howard Springs should not develop. We think there should be some limitations on it. That sewerage will allow that development to occur. We are not knocking that. The original reason I was against what you proposed in the budget, was because you called it the Howard Springs Activity Centre. Most people thought that was the forestry land, since we live in the Howard Springs village. That was a matter of mistaken identity.
I would not mind asking the minister for Lands and Planning if he has any say in public infrastructure on Aboriginal land? I have always been interested to know what the government pays in rent for schools, police stations and hospitals. I am not one who believes we should be paying a peppercorn rental, but it is one of those things that worries me. It is going up with the CPI. We are being asked increasingly to put more government infrastructure on Aboriginal land. We are paying all that money and employing many people and then being asked to pay for it. If that is your area as minister for Lands, what is that costing the Territory? Do you believe that money would be better invested back into infrastructure on Aboriginal land? You are not building Kentucky Fried Chicken. You are building hospitals, schools or police stations for the community, things that people have asked for.
I have difficulty believing we should be paying any more than peppercorn rental. We should have a lease which reflects that the development is on Aboriginal land and there are benefits for the people. Yet we seem to have a funny way of saying things. Here is a school, a police station, and the people benefiting come up and say here is the bill. That is a funny way of doing things.
There were plenty of other things I would have liked to talk about, but as I was generously given extra time I will not. I will leave it at that. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for returning to what is now a fairly old statement, but the issues seem very current and, considering the events we have seen earlier this week in the House, very appropriate.
Land release is, of course, a very important subject. The CLP inherited a good land release plan from Labor. In our final term in office we called it the Real Housing for Growth Plan, and we feel all the CLP has done is change the name.
We fast-tracked land release, the fastest release ever, to meet the demand generated by our rising population in the Territory. We created suburbs in Darwin, at Bellamack, Mitchell, Zuccoli and Johnston in the Palmerston area; at Lyons and Muirhead in the northern suburbs; as well as land release in Central Australia. We did the planning for Weddell, which would have created 10 000 new homes and become the Territory’s newest city, a viable blueprint for the future, housing and economic opportunities.
At this point we should stop to reflect on the opportunity in the Top End. Darwin was established a long time ago, but I can still remember Palmerston when it was just the water tower. You now have a city where people can live, work and seek entertainment. There are hotels and restaurants, and people do not need to leave the Palmerston area. It has some really well-designed spaces and liveable communities. Good planning is all about giving people a lifestyle and amenity that is comfortable to live in and suits our tropical north.
With Weddell we have the opportunity to create the third city of the Top End and provide opportunity for people to live, work and play in their city designed to suit the tropics. Instead, we have a backward government. It has scrapped Weddell and is relying on a policy of infill. It wants to urbanise the rural area. Through debate earlier this week in this House we have seen members leave the government over it.
It is really important with planning that we respect planners. It is a science. It is not just pop this there, pop that there and hope it works out. That is when you end up with a dog’s breakfast in planning. Well-thought out, well-planned communities are what we need, something the CLP seems to have forgotten.
Labor had set aside 15% of all new releases for affordable housing to help Territorians get into their own home. It is a real Australian dream to be able to purchase your own home, to feel it is yours and slowly work on it to do what you like with it. It is your space.
Labor had put runs on the board with major releases of industrial land to underpin our economic growth and create jobs in the future. In contrast, with great fanfare and media hype, it was announced by the CLP that 6500 houses will be constructed over the next decade, most of which would occur in the four years after the election.
There are great differences between the approaches of Labor and the CLP. We had plans for Weddell; the CLP seems to have a plan of urbanising our rural area. Labor values community consultation. Proper engagement is an essential part of good government and planning. We have not seen that from the CLP government.
People want to be consulted, they want to be engaged in decisions that affect them. We have not seen that consultation. It is particularly vital in policy development and decision-making in lands, planning and the environment. The community wants to be consulted about what urban, rural and remote areas look like now and in the future. They value the amenity of their suburbs and want to protect environmental and heritage values. They really want to be consulted and be a part of their suburbs planning and future shaping.
It is a delicate balancing act between protecting the environment, providing housing opportunities and having an amenity of lifestyle. That is where Labor supports sustainable development. We need public and private housing, and infrastructure for our communities.
We need to provide opportunities that support business people who are helping to build our future. The key point is consultation and something completely lacking from this government. We have seen the recent debacles in the rural area and the government lose its majority government status with the member for Goyder moving to the cross benches. We have seen a complete lack of consultation and almost disrespect for the community around the proposed Nightcliff island concept. We did not know anything about it until there was a small ad in the newspaper. Even that ad was not to advise the community there was an island proposed for Darwin Harbour and a 98 ha lease had been issued. That was to advise people there would be drilling taking place. That really sums up this government’s lack of consultation and thought for Territorians.
That debate around Nightcliff island is continuing. Although we had the government indicate that it will not go ahead, there still remains a lease in place for close to 100 ha of our harbour. That is something I will be pursuing as a local member and asking for that lease to be removed so we can have confidence that island will not go ahead.
The government’s arrogance was highlighted only a few months ago in this Chamber when I brought a motion to the House on a General Business Day about the Nightcliff island proposal. The minister for Lands and Planning spent about 20 minutes to half an hour giving an entertaining speech about Peter Pan, Tinker Bell and fairies. This just showed his complete arrogance and lack of respect for our community.
We have people who were strongly concerned about this project. A lease had been issued. It was not some type of fantasy which the minister pretended to make it out to be. That arrogance and the lack of respect for our community around planning and consultation is highlighted by the rural area decisions. It was highlighted for my community with the proposed Nightcliff island where they secretly approved a five-year lease for 98 ha to underpin that island development adjacent to our community. It was also seen when the Palmerston community had legitimate concerns ignored about dwelling density in their suburb – a development on Angel Road. People want their concerns addressed, yet this government seems to ignore people. You need to get that message sooner or later. People are sick and tired of being ignored and not having their concerns listened to. You can keep your head in the sand, minister for Planning, and pretend it is all okay but you will find out sooner or later.
We have seen recent developments with the spot rezoning in Blake Street where people were quite upset. Many hundreds of people were upset about the government’s lack of consultation, their lack of plans for our city and its amenity. The member for Nelson touched on density and height with the lack of space around the bottom of plans. That is something that frustrates residents time and time again. They do not mind the fact that some of our buildings are 30 or 40 years old. We are 40 years on from Cyclone Tracy.
Buildings are often given a lifespan of approximately 30 to 40 years. In our tropical conditions, which are particularly harsh, it is not surprising that some of our buildings need to be knocked down and rebuilt. But there are nice tropical houses on big blocks being knocked over and four or five storey unit towers going up and changing that street from one with family homes to one with blocks of 20 units. That is impacting on our communities. When this government can accept and listen to that frustration, our planning will be much better off.
The spot rezoning issue is a huge one. Communities are sick and tired of fighting rezoning application after rezoning applications. The application will go up and sometimes a community gets together. As a local member I take informing my community about spot rezonings very seriously. It may get knocked back but in a couple of years’ time that same request may go through. People want to have some certainty around their suburbs.
We are seeing spot rezoning in our northern suburbs. Tropical homes are being knocked down and unit towers are going up. People say to me they understand there needs to be renewal but they do not want to see these towers of units that have vehicles which impact on local residents’ safety. You are putting more and more people into the suburbs, which impacts on services and schools. They are okay if there is a house and it is house rebuilt or you might have a duplex put in place, but it is this ad-hoc attitude of this government towards planning and rezoning that is most confusing.
Planning is a science. I touched on it earlier. It is not decisions based on cash for access. The minister has publicly commented how he feels it is quite appropriate that if a lot of people need to see him and they have money, it opens doors. The previous minister commented, hand on heart, that there may be decisions he would not have made. That kind of response gives community members concern about those in charge of our planning. We want well-considered and well-consulted plans. It is something we have not seen of late.
It has taken a change of this parliament, with the loss of the majority government pushing the CLP into minority government, that has made them come kicking and screaming to listen to these issues. Although it is disappointing that it took that, finally we seem to have them listening. There is an awful lot the minister for Planning could listen to.
We did not see consultation with the residents of Holtze. We saw a notice of intent issued which said the establishment of urban areas to the north of the Stuart Highway will represent a significant alteration of land use away from a predominantly rural lifestyle community living, and existing residents may voluntarily move away from the area.
There is little wonder that it took you guys losing your majority in government for you to finally listen when they are the type of comments that have been made.
The rural planning debacle is a case study which highlights poor policy-making and how this government is not listening to people. We saw the government abandon the plans for Weddell, which I spoke about earlier. Weddell would have provided housing for the future growth of the north. It was a well-considered master plan with a tropical harbour surrounded by cities.
This parliament has the opportunity to stick to plans that have been considered for our Top End. We can have Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell continuing around the harbour, or we can let this government short change Territorians, throw all that good planning away and push ahead with plans of scrapping Weddell and urbanising the rural area with pockets of infill. That is not well considered. It will not provide for a good lifestyle, particularly in the tropics. A number of people raised concerns with me that when you have density, you need to ensure there are features that encourage tropical living and provide for our climate.
We need to highlight that consultation is vital for policy development and decision making in the area of lands and planning. The community wants to be consulted on what our urban, rural and remote communities look like now, and what they may look like in the future regarding dwelling density, amenity of the suburbs and protecting our environmental and heritage values. This will often involve delicate balancing acts, but the government must listen. It must get it right.
We need to support sustainable development. We need housing and public and private infrastructure for our communities. We need an economic environment that encourages growth and supports private investment. We need our Territory government to consult with everyday Territorians about what they want for the future development of their suburbs. We do not want to be in a situation where we are now, where the government has not listened to what people want. We have seen community backlash.
I spoke about some of the people in those locations who have felt frustration with planning lately. The preliminary Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was released for consultation during the Christmas holidays. You acted shocked when the community demanded more? You have to give people time to consider plans for the development of their region. You need to be genuine about your consultation, not put it out over January when everyone is away so it can go under the radar. You have ignored legitimate concerns of local residents across areas.
It has taken this dysfunctional government losing its majority for us to stop and have a proper debate about this issue, and for you to realise the genuine concerns of the community.
Labor has a good track record in land release and planning for Weddell. We believe the CLP needs to put Weddell back on the map. Scrapping Weddell is a major mistake. It is not just about the next few years. What we do will really shape the Top End forever. I urge this government to stop and reconsider planning and treat it with respect so we can have a Top End with cities surrounded by rural area. We need to be able to give people all types of opportunities of how and where to live. It is timely that this statement, after so long, has come back into the Chamber today.
We saw quite a detailed debate on Tuesday. I, as a shadow minister and local member at every opportunity will be raising concerns and encouraging consultation. Planning is an issue that I speak to someone in my community every day about. We are fortunate to have big older style blocks that are quite large. We really need a master plan in our suburbs.
We are at capacity with our schools generally. Our infrastructure and roads are struggling with the infill we have seen. There are other issues, like power and water. People talk about their water pressure with me. The power is not too bad in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek because it has been undergrounded, which indicates it has recently been upgraded. In Coconut Grove power surging and power grid fails are issues raised.
Planning affects everybody every day. I encourage the government with their new-found need to listen – whether they like it or not it is the new way forward – to really listen to the community. The minister needs to treat this portfolio with respect and get out there and listen to the community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to be able to talk about land release across the Northern Territory. The CLP statement has taken so long to pass through this House. I wonder how many blocks of land have been serviced and released in the time this statement has taken to get through the House.
I love the CLP crowing about the fastest land release program ever in the history of the Northern Territory. This is plagiarised from what I used to say. It was written for me and I did not like it but I was doing a serious apprenticeship. I used to toe the company line, as I still do. I used to use it. The bellowing and roaring and crowing from the other side was deafening. I can remember the ridicule every time I talked about this rapid land release program that was due to budget appropriation. But when you went out and kicked the dirt and you experienced the time, cost and incredible work with releasing a serviced lot of land in the Northern Territory then the reality check was real.
I love it when the CLP now crow about their fastest land release program ever in the Northern Territory. We have had a couple of them on that side get the gig. It has been different people, same mantra. I give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the CLP for continuing the land use program that was well under way when they took government in 2012. It had been carefully planned and had considerable budget appropriations that followed sequentially. It really was a gift.
I could talk about Lyons and then Muirhead. I could also talk about Bellamack. They were my learning curves. They were the land release programs I studied very intricately to learn about how the business is conducted. Then I was very privileged to be given Johnston with an appropriation of $20m to start Stage 1A and Stage 1B. That immediately rolled out into another Labor budget appropriation of $20m for Zuccoli, a master planned suburb. It has been fantastic to see that master plan continued. The CLP government has continued that work and it is rolling out. You can claim every bit of it because, at the end of the day, it is about the fastest-growing urban area in the country. It was, and I am sure still would be, up there with those across the nation.
It is good to talk about land release. It is good to tell the true story, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it is good to share that. As I say to the member for Port Darwin, people in this House crowing about giving birth to rising sewer mains is a story for your grandkids. It will be an innovative story. It will be a barbecue stopper when we are in our 70s and 80s.
Normally the member for Port Darwin’s rhetoric refers to bodily functions. I have just tried to attach another metaphor about the rising sewer main to complement the member for Port Darwin’s legendry references to our bodily functions. The Hansard record will be used for a PhD. Somebody will be able to look at doing a PhD on those references.
It is really important work. It is an incredible part of the land release program. I share the opportunity with members in this House.
I will move to what was, in association with Labor’s land release program, a good policy of 15% that was quarantined for public and affordable housing. I struggled in the first four years of my term as the member for Barkly to deliver public and affordable housing to Tennant Creek. There were two replacement dwellings and that was about the extent of it. We worked very hard on the repairs and maintenance program and on the land release program.
We saw the first land release in Tennant Creek in 30 years, but I had a plan in the second term of government to really focus on public and affordable housing. In the subdivision in Tennant Creek I had immediately eight lots to work with and I had a plan to look at innovative built form, so not your traditional core-filled concrete block Territory Housing house. I wanted to look at innovative designs. I wanted to look at densifying, using innovative built forms and alternative building materials. Unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to initiate that plan.
However, I have a plan to have a comeback. If we are judged worthy and fortunate to have a comeback then I want to revisit that plan, but at the moment the current government has the opportunity to look at that and put it in place. If it is put in place in a budget appropriation and department policy, it will gather momentum and can be picked up by any government, by the CLP should they be judged worthy and get a second term. It is an important policy.
In the Tennant Creek subdivision in Peko Road, I will give the government credit that it picked the ball up and released some more lots. It is great to see them under construction. I enjoy riding my pushbike whenever I get the chance on my dog-free track and go past that construction site. It is a great to see all the new families that have moved into the subdivision. Now there is the opportunity for more.
There are eight lots still vacant in the original subdivision that was set aside for social and affordable housing. That policy initiative really complements land release which aims at the lower socioeconomic sector of our community. It is the good principle of modern urbanism, the salt and pepper approach of getting really dynamic suburbs, people all mixed up together, people that will motivate and celebrate together, people that will certainly influence each other and develop their community.
I hope that gets some kudos with the minister. I am interested in hearing if there are any plans around innovations in public and affordable housing as there are great opportunities there.
I have a big concern around Kilgariff. There are a couple of issues with Kilgariff. Kilgariff, as a master planned suburb and the Enquiry by Design process, as the member for Nelson reminds this House, was a very important process used for Weddell. The work conducted in collaboration, in consultation with the community, high-level stakeholders, and government, is still in the department. Wedell is literally on the drawing board and it got the tick from high-level stakeholders right through to Territory families.
We did the same thing in Alice Springs with Kilgarriff. There was one very important point about Kilgariff because of the nature of the land and its sensitivity to drainage. There was a very innovative proposal to provide storm water and it was based on swales.
After that land was released and it was serviced with power and water and a rising sewer main, four houses were built. I became concerned that this government had not adhered to the Enquiry by Design process. It has not adhered to that very sensitive storm water management plan. It went in with a heavy handed, boots and all approach, and carved it up to get houses out. This is directly pointed at the Chief Minister because he has some serious expectations to fill from the Alice Springs community.
He built off the back of Labor’s hard work in releasing the land, getting the intersection done and putting the spine road in there. The drainage – which I believe has not been accepted by the Alice Springs Town Council – could pose a real problem. This could pose a problem not only for residents but also for the future of that land release, which, combined with the Northern Territory Airports Corporation, has a capacity of 3000 lots.
I am very concerned about that. I am very disappointed in many respects. Some very innovative policy and hard work done throughout the Northern Territory was thrown out. That can be a very destructive by government to completely dismiss something as important as two Enquiry by Design processes. One was to deliver land release in a very sensitive and beautiful part of Alice Springs and the other one was to deliver the city of Wedell. I am concerned. I will watch that development closely and I would be interested if the minister has any comments to alleviate my concerns.
Next, I turn to land release. The objective of land release is for Territory homes and we have had some good debate this week around – we have had more questions than debate, let us face it. I thank the member for Araluen for bringing the issue. I had it on my pad as well and it is about the changes to the First Home Owner Grant scheme. In regional areas like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine there is a very active market of young families that want to get into their first home but cannot afford the new build, therefore, cannot access the First Home Owner scheme opportunities which this government has limited.
Looking at the budget appropriation, in 2014-15, the Country Liberal Party government has saved $30m on First Home Owner Grants. So, $30m gives us a benchmark as to the agenda; it was a budget saving measure. It delivered $30m in savings, but if you flip that it is $30m worth of Territory families that have not got into their first home. That means young families are not buying their first homes in places like Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, families who would otherwise be engaging the business community such as plumbers, electricians, builders, carpenters, ground maintenance and garden maintenance people and fencers. They are not putting renewable energy into their first homes. They are not shopping at the hardware shops. They are not putting their stamp on their first home which would have generated significant tax receipts in those communities, as well as stabilising those communities and providing future growth for those regional centres.
There is a clear policy divide here. We can acknowledge the $30m in savings, and that is just in 2014-15. The member for Araluen has asked for some specific information from the minister about that.
I am asking what we could have created to get Territory families into existing homes, which would have generated tax receipts associated with young families buying their first home.
It is a serious issue when young families in Tennant Creek do not get access. When they see blockages they tend to leave. They do not leave to the next suburb or the next town. They pack up and go back south.
It has a macro effect on community development across the Northern Territory and we lose good people. We have to release land but we also must have affordable housing.
My compliments to the ANZ Bank; as a local member I recently worked hand in hand with our local real estate company Lin Andrews Real Estate when the ANZ Bank changed its policy and declared Tennant Creek a high-risk loan town in its category as a mining town.
Suddenly the major housing market lender in town started to require a 40% minimum deposit. So at the same time when young families could not get access to first home owners support, the ANZ Bank ramped up its minimum deposit to 40%.
Many families in Tennant Creek are supporting their kids to own their home; it is an intergenerational commitment. We are a close-knit community like Alice Springs and Katherine, and this became an important issue.
In working with the local real estate business and researching with constituents, we took this to the ANZ Bank. I congratulate the ANZ Bank because while it has not changed the policy entirely, because that decision has to come out of Adelaide, it has agreed to assess each loan application individually.
The ANZ Bank has also agreed to accept that at the moment Tennant Creek is not legitimately classified as a mining town, and that our economic base is quite different at this stage.
Do not worry though, we have great hopes of coming back and being able to maximise the opportunity as the breadbasket of minerals, resources and energy in the Northern Territory.
My thanks to the ANZ Bank for that. This feeds back into this debate about the change in the First Home Owners Grant and the possibility for this government to put that right and consider young families in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. I will be keen to support the member for Araluen’s motion when we come back to this House and debate it.
Land release is always an exciting area to talk about. I am keen to see the outcome of the industrial lots in Tennant Creek. That was on the pad when I was the minister, and the department is fantastic to work with, as you ministers are aware.
The land release at the time was very appropriate because we were seeing quite an economic stimulus in the Tennant and Barkly regions. We were seeing a lot of investment in the Barkly. There was record infrastructure spending in the Barkly that we have not seen since the Labor government.
We have a very good industrial land release shaping up now, but I am concerned there are many existing industrial lots up for sale in our traditional area to the west of town. It will be interesting to see how that goes and I wish the government the best of luck with that.
I am promoting it and anybody interested in coming to Tennant Creek to pick up some prime industrial land is very welcome, as well as the additional 20-odd lots in the residential subdivision.
The industrial land release is of concern at this time but we will wait and see because governments do not want to deliver serviced land to see weeds growing on it. We want that land taken up immediately, maximised and generating great outcomes for our towns and communities.
My thanks to the minister for bringing this statement back on. Good luck with the way ahead and we look forward to growing the Territory together in this new bipartisan parliament we have entered into this week.
I look forward to the announcement of the Chief Minister’s secret plans because one thing I do not like it is a secret. It is important that we have that discussion with the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, especially with kids, it is not a good idea to promote that concept of secrets. Anybody who has been in education or child protection or worked with children would understand that. The Chief Minister has said this week he has a big secret. I hope he just tells it to the Territory and lets everybody know. We can all have honest and accountable dialogue.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member for Barkly, who does not like secrets. He was a member of Cabinet for a while. The whole principle of Cabinet is that you retain information within the Cabinet, but clearly the member for Barkly has an issue with that. He has an issue with secrets he says. He does not like secrets. He thinks parents should be informing their little children of all sorts of wicked things in this world because we do not keep secrets in his family. Good on him. There is a time and a place for everything.
I thank everybody for their contributions to this statement.
Firstly, can I say how offended I am by the puerile comments from the other side of the Chamber, in particular the members for Nightcliff and Goyder, and others who talk about money opening my door. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are selectively quoting from an interview. People asked what donors can expect. I said the only thing that a donor can expect is to gain access, but that is something that everybody gets anyhow. It is all great to leave the last bit off, it all sounds good, plays into a political narrative that the opposition, the member for Goyder and others want to make. I find the comments puerile and childish and they do nothing to increase people’s confidence in the parliament. It is disgusting to throw that sort of mud. You only cover yourself with it. It is quite sad but unfortunately, immaturity seems to run rife through the opposition and some Independents.
In relation to some comments the member for Nelson made about tall buildings in the city. I remind him there is currently a review of the Building Code. I want to see allowances for more tropical style housing. A review is currently being conducted by Mr Phil Harris, of Troppo architects, now living in Adelaide. He has a long association with the Territory, but somewhat independent. Most people in this place would know they almost had to leave town because of failures in the code that allowed the construction and design of tropical style houses.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of infrastructure on Aboriginal land and the cost government pays to land councils for providing services to remote communities. I totally agree with the member for Nelson. It is nothing but extortion by land councils. They are the first ones to scream about lack of services and yet when you try to provide them with those, they start wanting to charge you. It is wrong. The member for Nelson said no one is talking about KFC, these are essential services – health, police, education. What is it that the land councils have against commercial organisations operating on Aboriginal land? Why can they not have KFC, for instance, or a McDonalds; a hairdresser; a beauty salon; privately-owned butcher shops or bakeries on Aboriginal land like we expect in every other part of this great nation? It seems rather short-sighted that land councils constantly try to hamper that type of development.
In relation to the member for Barkly suggesting this government has scrapped Weddell, I remind the member for Barkly that it was the Country Liberals who created Weddell. Weddell was planned long before Labor came to government. Weddell remains on the plans long after Labor has left government. Weddell will be built at some stage in the future. Will we start on it tomorrow? That is unlikely, but it seems the Holy Grail for everybody opposite now is somehow or other we have to start Weddell and if we do not we fail as a government. The fact is we have a lot more work to do in Darwin, Palmerston, and the surrounding areas. There are huge opportunities in Darwin for cheaper and more economical options of creating infill and creating a better tropical city before we need to march out to Weddell.
In relation to the member for Barkly’s concern about the First Home Owner Grant, if he was paying attention after Question Time he would have noticed I tabled a response in relation to the First Home Owner Grant and the question asked by the member for Araluen yesterday. Fundamentally, the First Home Owner Grant has worked a treat. The changes we made have seen those inflationary pressures the First Home Owners Grant was creating in the existing house market removed. We have finally seen a levelling off of house and unit prices as well as rents in the Northern Territory as a result of that. At the same time, we are probably in the lowest interest rate environment I can remember.
There is no better time to purchase your first home. First homes have never been more affordable in the Northern Territory than they are right now. Low interest rates are easing property prices. All those people who want to get into the market can. The reality shows the number of first owners in the Northern Territory has not decreased at all. They are joining the market, are purchasing houses and purchasing existing houses without that grant. It seems I am again hearing the old Labor way of not doing anything unless you are subsidising it. It is the socialist mantra where government interferes in everybody’s lives all the time.
I thank everybody who contributed. I listened to all points of view. Similarly to the Planning Commission, I listen. The Planning Commission has gone to extraordinary efforts to consult.
I was heartened earlier this week, just before walking into this place when I was ambushed by the opposition and the Independents about planning matters and received that media release from the Holtze residents group. I would like to leave members with this to sum up. This is their media release and I will read it onto the record again because Holtze is an area the members for Nelson and others find extraordinarily controversial. It says:
- The Holtze residents group, the neighbouring rural community of the Palmerston Hospital development, welcome the latest plans for Holtze as released by the NT Planning Commission last week. Whilst this is only one stage in the process the residents were appreciative of not only the consultation of the NT Planning Commission but also how this translated into real outcomes. These proposed amendments have recognised the importance of maintaining the residents’ investments in their rural Territory lifestyle. The proposed amendments also acknowledged the general support of these residents to the nearby Palmerston Hospital with properly considered planning principles.
- The residents are hopeful that the Planning Minister, the Hon Dave Tollner, will be supporting the amended plan and are looking forward to seeing the next stage, particularly as it relates to environmental issues and also proposed sizes of residential lots.
I ask all members in this place to note that the Planning Commission is consulting and is working hard to make sure we get the best plans to carry the Territory forward into the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for the Members for Nightcliff, Casuarina and Johnston
Travel Reports for the Members for Nightcliff, Casuarina and Johnston
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table four travel reports from the members for Nightcliff, Casuarina and Johnston pursuant to clause 4.1 of the RTD.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
On Wednesday 1 July 2015, Sydney Lee retired from the Department of Health after more than 22 years of continuous service. For most of his career Mr Lee worked as a mechanical fitter with the Alice Springs Hospital Technical Services Maintenance Department where he was a highly respected tradesman who was always willing to make himself available for any kind of emergency. He also gained a reputation for maintaining a safe workplace.
From time to time throughout his career in the public service, Mr Lee worked in higher duties and mechanical services as a supervisor and building supervisor. In 2011, he moved to the Seating Equipment Assessment and Technical Service clinic as a technical officer. There he developed a wonderful reputation for innovation in modifying wheelchairs to suit individual needs of clients with complex requirements that could not be met by commercial products. Mr Lee became highly respected by staff, clients, carers and families for not only his technical skill, but his excellent rapport and relationships with those utilising seating equipment and assessment and technical services.
In June 2013, Mr Lee joined the Allied health team, where again his technical skills in the manufacture and rehabilitation therapy tools was much appreciated. He was known for his respect for his patients and his valuable ability to encourage patient participation in therapy.
I also rise tonight to share with the parliament some of the heartening news of one of our Royal Darwin Hospital doctors whose great accomplishments have now been recognised by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, otherwise known as the RACP. At a college ceremony on 24 May, the Royal Darwin Hospital Co-Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health and Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Charles Kilburn, was duly awarded the RACP medal for clinical service in remote and rural areas for 2015. I am heartened, as the Minister for Health, to have such skilled, altruistic and hard-working people represent the Territory in this way.
The RACP Medal for Clinical Services And Rural and Remote Areas is a prestigious medal which recognises the significant contribution Dr Kilburn has made in providing outstanding clinical service in rural and remote areas of Australia. I congratulate Dr Kilburn on his great achievement.
I will take a moment to tell you about Dr Kilburn. As he is known by many of his patients as Dr Charles, I will take the liberty of using this term of endearment.
Dr Charles graduated from the University of Sydney in 1978 and completed his paediatric training through the Sydney Children’s Hospital before moving to the Northern Territory as a Registrar. From 1985 to 1987, Dr Charles lived and worked with East Arnhem families on Groote Eylandt, addressing the epidemiology of Machado-Joseph Disease, which was then known as Groote Eylandt Syndrome. Machado-Joseph Disease, or MJD, is a rare neurodegenerative condition that is sadly prevalent amongst Aboriginal people in parts of the Northern Territory. I will not delve too deeply into this area, but suffice to say it takes goodwill, resilience and a great deal of love and compassion to care for anyone who is ill, particularly with this debilitating disease. This dedication to Aboriginal health points to some of the many qualities Dr Charles possesses.
In 1988 Dr Charles was appointed as a staff specialist at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, where he has monitored and supervised many paediatricians who now deliver remote health services throughout Australia. The sharing of knowledge has been tremendously beneficial to the delivery of health in Australia.
As the Top End’s paediatric cardiology expert, his teaching and sharing of knowledge has been invaluable. His contribution to the care of children with congenital and rheumatic heart disease has been enormous.
In 2002 Charles was appointed as the Medical Director of Newborn Services which is now known as the Director of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. His introduction of new technologies and ventilation strategies were consistent with the best available in Australia.
From 2007 Dr Charles has been the Co-Director of the Division of Maternal and Child Health. His focus on high quality healthcare for women and children is admirable and Territory families are well placed to have a skilled and dedicated director working in the public health sector.
Dr Kilburn is now the seventh Territorian to receive the medal since it was first awarded in 1998. He joins the esteemed company of Dr David Lo, Dr John Erlich, Dr Ross Diplock, Dr Howard Flavell, Dr Di Howard and Dr Paul Bauert.
I am proud to say all of these great clinicians have at various points in their career been Department of Health employees working for the greater good.
Once again, I commend Dr Kilburn for the great service he has provided to the Territory over the years and for the wisdom and skill he has imparted to our many doctors and nurses who have had the opportunity to work with him and learn from him. I congratulate the good doctor.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight on behalf of the NT government I recognise the significant contribution of small- and medium-sized businesses and the crucial role they play in ensuring a prosperous Northern Territory economy.
The key objective of this government is to grow existing businesses through continuous operational and strategic improvement. Businesses have access to a range of programs through the Department of Business.
This includes the Indigenous Business Development Program, which commenced in 2005-06 and is a $1m per annum grant funding program to assist Indigenous people to start businesses or expand existing businesses.
Two initiatives, the Business Growth and the Indigenous Business Growth Programs are home grown Northern Territory government initiatives, offering information, funding and developmental services to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration.
The Business Growth Program is proudly presented through the Department of Business and provides financial assistance to Northern Territory businesses and not-for-profit enterprises to engage suitably qualified consultants to deliver these programs.
Northern Territory businesses and not-for-profit enterprises can choose from a range of business growth programs to improve individual performance and at the same time play a vital role in advancing regional economic development, employment and wealth creation capabilities.
As the Minister for Business, I congratulate the 15 NT businesses that have recently been successful in receiving grant funding. These businesses span a range of industries such as tourism, health, retail, construction, transport and logistics, information and technology, automotive, aviation and professional services.
Two businesses received funding under the Indigenous Business Development program, totally $60 000. One of the businesses delivers a health and education awareness initiative through the provision of musical-based road shows and media productions.
One business received funding under the Indigenous Business Growth Program totalling $4000 to undertake a business solutions tender management program to assist them in winning major tenders with both government and large mining companies.
Thirteen businesses received funding under the business growth program, totalling $79 000. This funding was provided for a range of programs, including undertaking business reviews to commence planning for future growth, development of websites to improve business profiles and review and improvement of internal HR practices.
Other businesses received funding for information technology solutions programs to improve IT management and business accounting practices, development of marketing strategies and formal business diagnostic and business planning.
As I said earlier, the key objective of this government is to grow existing businesses and these programs are an essential tool to assist NT businesses remain competitive in their industries and provide essential services to the wider Territory community.
There is a story I tell fairly often these days. It is about a lady who lives just outside of Alice Springs by the name of Kathleen Buzzacott. She is a lady I met early this year. She lives 18 km out on the Hermannsburg Road, Larapinta Drive just near Simpsons Gap. If you go there you will see a little sign on the road on the right hand side directing you to a small community of 10 or 12 homes. It is a little outstation with a gallery. The lady paints and makes Aboriginal jewellery.
I was very fortunate to go out there after the Department of Business had given Kathleen two grants, one for $30 000 and another for $6000. It is a fantastic success story of a lady who started life as a young Aboriginal woman in Alice Springs. She obtained an apprenticeship in a hairdressing salon and spent about 22 years as a hairdresser but her dream was to be able to make Aboriginal jewellery out of the bush products her family and aunties had shown her.
She also wanted to paint. She is a wonderful. She has great talent but to realise her dream she needed a helping hand. She did not want a hand out, she wanted a hand up. When I went out there and saw what she had achieved with the grants the Department of Business had given her, I was stunned. I turned up with some of my staff and saw a medium size car garage. It had sliding doors and was air-conditioned. When you went inside, it was spotless. It had a tiled floor, was painted, and well appointed. This was her studio. It was also her gallery. She sold products to high-end tourism operators who visited with small groups. It was not enormous. I asked her how it was all going. She told me as a young apprentice she was taught about cleanliness. This place was spotless. You could have eaten your meals off the floor.
She was taught about hygiene. She told me a story about using the crochet needles to get the hair out of the creases in the seats in the hairdressing salon. She said she had applied the same principles there and that the people she got were from the very high end niche markets who had a lot of money. Even Princess Kate from the British royal family has some of her jewellery in their royal family collection. It was quite an achievement.
I was able to buy a piece of artwork and that now hangs in my ministerial office up on the fifth floor of Parliament House. Her achievement is something she dreamt of. We were able to help her to bring those dreams to reality but, more importantly, she was very pleased she had created jobs in her little community. She now runs the business. One of her sons does all the website development. That was what the $6000 was for – to bring him up to speed with web design and internet capacity. From that office they market Kathleen’s products and paintings to the world.
The other son is in charge of packaging, making sure all these things get delivered to the post office or the couriers. He also makes sure the grass is always green, the place is kept clean and tidy so it is welcoming to these high-end niche market tour operators. The great success story out of this is that one, she has realised her dream. The second is that she has created four jobs. One is for herself, two for her children, who now work full-time with her and there is a new apprentice hairdresser in Alice Springs.
I am very proud to be part of a government that continues not only to support this but to increase the participation by Aboriginal people in rural, regional and remote Northern Territory so these people can get on with generating wealth within their communities. It was interesting because she said the others in her community are now very interested in doing something similar. The Department of Business is looking at various ways to help some of these people in the community to get businesses of their own started. It is a fabulous scheme, and I hope anyone who reads this or is listening to this encourages people they know to get businesses going.
A few moments ago the member for Fong Lim mentioned getting bakeries, butcher shops, hairdressers and various services into Aboriginal communities. It is a fantastic idea. Aboriginal people can make that a reality, as Kathleen did, by contacting the Department of Business. Kathleen’s story is one of a hugely successful young lady who is now kicking goals all over the place. She is a proud Aboriginal woman from Central Australia who is a role model to the many people. I sincerely congratulate her on all the effort she has made. When I told her she was a role model she was a little shy to accept that, but we need more Kathleen Buzzacotts. We need her to tell her story to as many people as she can in Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory so they can live in this fabulous place.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the men from the Tangentyere Council’s 4 Corners Men’s Council who are taking strong action to make their communities a safer place by working to reduce domestic and family violence.
Men from Alice Springs town camps were justifiably proud to graduate recently after undergoing training in identifying family violence and its associated risks. These men, Chris Forbes, Rodney Cook, Phillip Miller, Ashley Malbunka, Issaha Forbes, Charlie Brown, Joe Campbell and Steven Clyne, will be using their new skills to support men to say no to domestic and family violence. The men have learnt to recognise the signs of domestic and family violence, the different forms it takes, and what they can do to support people affected by violence. They are speaking up about violence and want to get the message out that not all Aboriginal men are violent and town camps are not defined as violent places. They are places where generations of families live and work, and where people and organisations like Tangentyere are working hard to make them better and safer places to live.
It is important to note that this training is not aimed at men who use violence as is more usually the case with these sorts of courses. It is a proactive program that gives men the skills to get out in their communities and promote messages of non-violence and lead by example.
The men had hands-on training sessions and also completed a training block delivered by the Australian Childhood Foundation. They have also designed resources to help get the message out to others about not tolerating domestic and family violence. The men’s training is similar to what the Tangentyere Family Violence Prevention Program has been doing with women this year.
Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, last week spent some time with the Tangentyere Women’s Council and the people who have undertaken the family violence training, and was visibly affected by their stories. I am sure Ms Batty will be a strong advocate for the work the Alice Springs town camp men and women are doing to stand up and combat issues of violence.
Again, congratulations to the men and women of the Tangentyere Family Violence Prevention Program and manager Maree Corbo, and to the Tangentyere Council for encouraging and supporting such an important training program that is giving people the confidence and skills to say a loud ‘No’ to violence.
I would also like to put another call out to the Chief Minister for some support for youth services in Tennant Creek. During the week representing the Barkly electorate in parliament I have had a number of contacts from constituents and a business owner who are very concerned about inappropriate youth behaviour and property crime in Tennant Creek.
There have been requests for appointments when I get home which I will undertake early next week. The Chief Minister is aware of Tennant Creek. He has visited a number of occasions. I acknowledge the Chief Minister’s media release to the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly when he talked about an additional $4.2m to support youth services across the Territory. As part of that funding there was $525 000 allocated to Tennant Creek. This was not only a result of the government but also of the Minister for Young Territorians and Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. It is a good outcome.
So far with the announcement for Tennant Creek, out of the $525 000 there has been $40 000 to pilot a small program within the Tennant Creek youth community. We acknowledge that and give credit where it is due.
I encourage you, Chief Minister, to take an interest in what is happening now. It is an issue we need to grasp quickly. There are very creative individuals and organisations in Tennant Creek that can deliver important interventions into the youth community. There is money there. There is a regional coordination committee that has been set up by the government in Tennant Creek and I urge the Chief Minister to apply some urgency in allocating those funds for youth services.
I have also done some research into Alice Springs and there are also concerns there. The Alice Springs community was also promised significant funding, receiving $1.225m. They joined with me in a shout out to the Chief Minister to say we need to get a move on and look at some innovative youth activities, programs and interventions that will make a difference. It is an area to invest in. We want to make sure our youth are focused and safe. We do not want to go down the road of the juvenile justice arena.
Chief Minister once again, just a shout-out. I have only asked for two things this week. One is that you please embark upon the next campaign looking at petrol prices and downward pressure in the regional areas. We have the opportunity when the ACCC releases its report after its studies into Darwin, considered as a regional area nationally. There are many constituents in the regions and in Central Australia who would like your intervention. Also, the youth services issue. That is from the Barkly and Tennant Creek. Chief Minister, we would really appreciate you applying your considerable might in these areas.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start on my adjournment this evening, I would like to echo the thoughts of the member for Barkly.
The youth services funding is an ongoing issue and as the member for Barkly said, there have been some announcements about the money allocated in February this year. But there is still a lot of detail the community is awaiting. Some of that relates to the Barkly. Some of that also relates to the night services promised in Alice Springs. It has been very quiet on that front, particularly over the last few months. It would be great to get an update from the Chief Minister about where those night services are up to, particularly given we are fast approaching the very warm season in Alice Springs.
Tonight I speak about some of the wonderful activities that have taken place in my electorate. Last Saturday I was very lucky to go to the Alawa Primary School car boot sale. It is an annual car boot sale. This year it had to be moved to the oval next to the school farm because demand was so high to have a spot to hold stalls. This was a really fantastic thing for the school and a warm reception for what is becoming a welcome part of the community and a wonderful event.
It was great to see students involved in the activities that day. They were running events and tours of the farm, and spray-painting visitors’ hair in school colours and glitter. It was all for a gold coin donation, with proceeds going to the school.
There is some wonderful produce that is ready for harvest in the Alawa school farm at the moment. The zucchinis were looking fantastic. My team and I were pleased to run the sausage sizzle stand all morning. We were even more pleased to have access to a slicing machine for the many bags of onions that were required for all the people who came to the sausage sizzle stand.
There was face-painting and the school was selling fresh farm produce, including rosella cordial, which was beautiful. I encourage you if you get to go to Alawa, minister, try the rosella cordial. It is beautiful.
There was a big water fight. Many members of the school community were selling treasures and there was fantastic energy all morning. Lots of families and residents came to enjoy what was on offer.
I say thank you and well done to Sandy and the Alawa Primary School staff, and Jeanette and the other committed parents on the school council, who have put in so many hours.
They often put hours into the school council, but they put in many additional hours to make sure this exceptional event came together in the way it did. Some members of the school council were there for set-up at 6.30 am on Saturday and did not leave until well after lunch time. Those efforts really paid off.
Last week was also National Science Week and I was pleased to mark it with two events in my electorate. I joined the Dripstone Children’s Centre where two local science teachers brought joy to the children and staff by making ice-cream with liquid nitrogen. That was a fun day out of the office.
I was pleased to support and attend the event, and of course I had to sample the ice-cream. We also froze flowers, and they were quickly smashed into smithereens by a lot of smiling little faces. It was a wonderful afternoon and a fun, hands-on way to learn about science. It was also a great time spent with Laura and her staff at the centre.
The other National Science Week event of note took place on Sunday at the Charles Darwin University Open Day. I am sure lots of people have heard about this one. It featured the dissection of a 4.3 m crocodile involving Crocodylus Park. I have never seen anything quite like it.
It was a popular event at the Open Day. The Mal Nairn Auditorium at the University, which is huge, was so full that people were sitting in the lobby. They could not get into the auditorium, and they were watching the dissection on TV screens outside.
I was a lot more squeamish than most other people and I left pretty early. They started messing around with eyeballs, and I was gone. Sick bags were handed out to the audience at the beginning of that event, which was very telling of what was anticipated.
It was an engaging activity for families and the whole open day was fantastic. It was wonderful to participate with my colleague, the member for Nightcliff. It was a great opportunity for prospective students to learn about the courses and trades on offer at Charles Darwin University. They could also participate in the many events and activities that were happening for families.
I loved the opportunity to catch up with student ambassadors at CDU, as I always do. They volunteer their time on top of their study to promote the university. They share their knowledge and enthusiasm for their study, their courses and the university’s facilities. They are exceptionally helpful and should get a big shout-out for their role in promoting the university.
As I am reflecting, I realise I have had a lot of fun in the last few weeks.
Thank you to Ms Fisher at Dripstone Middle School for inviting me to visit her science class at the conclusion of their two-day Shell Questacon Science Circus. The students were incredibly knowledgeable and happy to share what they had learnt from their hands-on session.
The workshop concluded with a launch of rockets that had been gradually improved over the two-day workshop. They had names like Justice, Freedom and my personal favourite, Democracy. They were impressive rockets.
I offer a special thank you to student Frank who was a gracious host and took us around all the experiments on the day.
Finally, I would like to mention how wonderful it is to see partnerships and collective work being done amongst businesses and services in Casuarina, particularly in relation to some of the issues we had been experiencing around the precincts. There was a time when volatile substance misuse amongst young people seemed particularly bad. It was raised with me and local police. I saw the evidence of it around my office, particularly over weekends.
I thank the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program staff and Amity Community Services which ran a workshop in my community room. It was attended by a range of local businesses, retail and security stakeholders. It was a fantastic and informative session on what we can all do collectively to address these issues in a better way and what organisations can do. They do great work on a regular basis with retailers about the placement of substances in their stores and making sure we are reporting incidents to police so we can target those responses. I was very pleased to see positive partnerships come out of the workshop as well as good connections with police, for retailers and managements. I look forward to seeing those partnerships grow.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am extremely proud to be the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, the Territory’s tri-service known locally as NTPFES. Our troops across the tri-service work hard every day to ensure the safety of all Territorians. The police on the front line do an outstanding job in very challenging circumstances dealing with a vast array of very unique situations that can bring out the very best and worst in people.
Our very highly trained men and women at the fire and rescue service respond to and manage the trauma on our roads, educate the community in fire safety, respond to blazing grass fires and urban structural fires, and investigate arson with professionalism and diligence.
The hard working staff and volunteers, a small team of 19 employees and over 300 volunteers make the Northern Territory emergency services the effective service that it is; providing first class emergency response, recovery assistance and support within each region across the Territory.
I will share with you one piece of correspondence that hit my in-box yesterday. It is an e-mail from a very well-respected member of the business community who took it upon himself to take the time out of his very busy schedule to write to me applauding the outstanding work of our tri-service personnel. In his e-mail the author described a collision in the rural area between a motor vehicle and a cyclist. The cyclist had sustained some injuries and was lying on the road. He and his wife were first on the scene and made the call to 000. If I may quote from the e-mail; ‘Response time is worthy of comment. Within a short time frame two police vehicles attended followed by two fire emergency vehicles and, soon after, an ambulance. The professionalism of all who attended needs to be acknowledged. The calm efficiency of the police officers, the cooperative and obliging assistance provided by the fire service personnel in both assisting the police and also the ambulance staff and the professional but also caring approach of the ambulance staff themselves was very impressive.’
The author went on to conclude the e-mail with, ‘I would certainly appreciate it if you were able to pass on the message to the relevant parties.’
And I will. I will pass on the message as I have passed on the message to all of you in the House tonight.
It is extremely pleasing to receive such positive feedback about our hard-working tri-service personnel. The Country Liberal government is committed to supporting the tri-service. This government has initiated a suite of measures to keep Territorians safe at home, at work and around the community. Territorians can trust the Country Liberals to take law and order and the safety of all Territorians seriously. Our policies are about delivering, driving down crime and cutting alcohol consumption.
We are resourcing our fire and rescue services appropriately and establishing a new emergency management training unit, the EMTU, within Northern Territory emergency services in a bid to better prepare this community in times of natural or other disasters – an initiative Labor failed to consider during its time in government.
Our suite of alcohol management programs has resulted in alcohol-related assaults dropping by 15% across the Territory over the past year. They are down 19% in Alice Springs and I am certain the member for Braitling would appreciate that. They are down by 18% in Katherine and a whopping 55% in Tennant Creek. I am sure the member for Barkly would no doubt have seen the difference in his own town over the time the TBLs have been in place.
The Country Liberal government abolished the Banned Drinker Register. We introduced a ground-breaking alcohol mandatory treatment program, alcohol protection orders, paperless arrests and temporary beat locations. TBLs remain an important tool police use to respond to public order issues. TBLs are an effective tool that have proven to be successful in reducing violent crime. The bottom line is TBLs work in driving down crime and cutting alcohol consumption. I know a lot has been said about TBLs recently, even by the Police Association, but when I speak to police officers they tell me they would much rather be standing there than dealing with some of the horrible things they would no doubt be dealing with later in the evening. This is proactive policing.
Territorians can trust our government to resource the Northern Territory Police Force properly and be accountable about the resourcing. Under Labor, police numbers were calculated using a head count. This crude practice overinflated police numbers and led to a misrepresentation of real resources serving the public. How unlike the Country Liberal side.
The commissioner has now changed the counting methodology to full-time equivalents or FTEs. We now count one police officer as one full-time operational police officer. In the past, part-time and inoperative members were caught up in the counting. We want Territorians to know how many police there are and the new system will achieve just that.
In addition to improving our counting system is our commitment to increasing the number of FTE sworn police officers by 120 this term of government. This is a serious and rock-solid commitment and we are well and truly on track. With $8.7m committed to help achieve this significant commitment the Northern Territory Police Force will have at least 120 additional FTE sworn police officers by August 2016 guaranteed.
In addition, the Country Liberal government has committed to maintaining all Commonwealth-funded positions as part of the immigration detention centre program. I have heard of no such commitment from Labor, only quibbling over numbers and buckets of funding. Let me be crystal clear: Northern Territory police officers are Northern Territory police officers. Whether they are funded today, tomorrow or next year from one bucket of funding or another, they are ours and we will count them and support them. We recruit them and we train them, so we count them now and after any temporary Commonwealth funding ends.
This Country Liberals government is also committed to investing in the capability and resourcing of the Northern Territory Police Force to ensure police officers and the people of the Northern Territory are kept safe.
In light of operational requirements and the increased national alert level of high, this government has kitted out our troops with new protective equipment for frontline officers, including 835 load-bearing vests. We have also ramped up the capability of our elite Territory Response Group by providing 35 Remington R5 rifles and eight Sig Sauer 718 semi-automatic rifles to enhance tactical capability and versatility. This investment will contribute to ensuring both the safety of our community and the police officers who protect us.
Our CCTV capability is flourishing with the establishment of additional CCTV cameras in Palmerston up for tender shortly. These additional cameras, along with the new mobile units, allow police to be directed to crimes and other incidents as they occur in real time, have a significant impact on improving crime detection and prevention, and will assist with the prosecution of offenders.
Cutting-edge facial recognition technology launched today will make it harder for criminals to escape the law. This new facial recognition software has already helped police identify or eliminate suspects. The introduction of this new crime fighting technology is proof that the Country Liberals are committed to keeping Territorians safe at home, at work and around the community.
As Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I am happy to advise that the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services has today welcomed an additional 12 firefighters into operational duty with the graduation of Recruit Squad 01-2015 tonight.
The Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service is an indispensable part of the Territory’s community. I am sure you will all agree with the author of the e-mail I shared earlier, who claims our firies are a cooperative, obliging and very impressive service. Tonight’s graduation will see five new firefighters posted to Alice Springs and seven to Darwin. I applaud the fine members of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service and wish our newly graduated firefighters, and the additional 12 recruits still in training, all the very best for a long, safe and successful career with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service.
Let us not forget the hard work of our Northern Territory Emergency Service personnel as well. This government is committed to establishing the Emergency Management Training Unit, EMTU, within the Northern Territory Emergency Services. This will revolutionise the capacity of the Emergency Management Training Unit to provide coordinated and contemporary emergency management training to a range of government personnel and emergency response groups across the Territory.
The EMTU will be responsible for delivering a range of training to personnel in government and other organisations engaged in response and recovery operations within the emergency management field. Labor dropped the ball on this one. The Country Liberals can again prove a commitment to keeping the community safe by contributing to the safety of Territorians during times of emergency response and recovery.
As the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I am proud of the commitment this government has made to resource and support the tri-service, allowing these professional and highly-trained men and women to continue their hard work in ensuring a safe, resilient Northern Territory. Well done Northern Territory Fire, Police, Fire and Emergency Services. We applaud you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016